Re: Nonlocality, EPR, "Spooky" Action at a Distance Explained by Moving Dimensions Theory
- From: "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:28:34 GMT
"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns969366AEA851WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "p6" <atomicp6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1121297174.491067.13600
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I know you would say that. My argument is that as the wave
> > function collapse, my electron correlates with your electron
> > at non_local or possibly superluminal speed. This is why when
> > I got spin up, you got spin down. When I got spin down, you got
> > spin up. Before measurement our electron doesn't have any
> > properties. It is when one of us look at it or measure it
> > that the non-local correlations occur. EPR is incorrect precisely
> > because reality is non-local as Aspect and other experiments
> > show.
> >
>
> I take a jewelers saw and cut a coin so that I end up with two half coins,
> one has heads/blank the other tails/blank.
> I mail each coin to a friend in a different location, along with a note,
> explaining what I did.
>
> As soon as one friend opens the envelope, the immediately know what the
> other friend has received.
>
> FTM (faster than mail) communications without any collapse of a wave
> function.
>
> I don't know which coin went where until one envelope is opened.
> Same with the entangled photons. One was sent each direction, We don't
know
> which went where until we detect one, but the detection doesn't change
> anything except our state of ignorance.
Without wishing to indulge the misconceptions of P6 the above unfortunately
is not a complete analogy to QM. Classical objects obey local realism.
What Bells inequality showed is that QM and local realism are incompatible -
with experiment coming down on the side of QM. However in some
interpretations of QM (eg consistent histories) the above analogy more
carefully explained is valid. Which is why I strongly urge P6 and anyone
else who is interested in the issues to get Griffith's book - Consistent
Quantum Theory
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index1.html
Thanks
Bill
>
>
>
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- Prev by Date: Re: GR ?
- Next by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Previous by thread: Re: Nonlocality, EPR, "Spooky" Action at a Distance Explained by Moving Dimensions Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Orthokinetic Aggregation and Cosmology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
