Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- From: "beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:52:06 -0700
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) ha scritto:
Dear beda pietanza:
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174654625.420283.288110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tell me if the analogy holds:
Twins are generated by black eye fathers and green
eyed mothers (they can be monozycotes or eterozycotes).
Let it be the "green eye" or the "black eye" our
observable variable.
The twins A and B come out and are sealed, each one,
in a closed box, we have to predict the color of the
eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look
at the color of the twin A eyes: we don't know anything
about the genetic laws and about the color of the eyes
of the parents.
By statistically taking track of the outcomes we see
a strong correlation between the color of the eye of
twin A and twin B.
Of course the correlation is preesistent at our
opening the twin box A nevertheless the prediction is
only possible after we open the twin A box not
before.
This is a clear case of hidden variable: the genetic
and the parent eyes.
please comment and help me to swallow a indigest bite.
You invoke a population to obtain your "strong correllation".
You ignore the implication of homo- versus hetero-zygous when you
assume "strong correllation". It will be strong for homozygous,
less so for heterozygous.
Prediction is possible by observing the parents, and no longer
requires opening the box.
As I made it clear the genetic laws and the color of the eyes of
parents are ignored by the experimenters, who are entitle (for each
couple of twins) to only open the twin box A and try to predict the
outcome of twin box B.
know that green eyed and black eyed twins are even 50% each.From the statistic of the generic twins population, the experimenters
(Twins can be identical (eyes correlation 100%) or different (eyes
correlation none))
If there were no entanglement between the twins there would be no
possibility to predict the outcome of B simply by looking at A.
Instead the experimenters are able to predict with a efficacy of 75%
that twin B will have the same color of twin A, this kind of collapse
of variability of the outcome of B is the analogy I am trying to make.
(The prediction would be 100% correct if we exclude the twins not
identical) still of this tampering the experimenters must know
nothing.
In this case the explanation lay on the hidden variables (the genetic
laws and the parents eyes color) that the experimenters ignore.
Is not the opening of box A that makes the "collapse" of the outcome
of box B but the correlation was there pre-existent from the begining.
on this you are asked to comment.
You set up slits, you will get diffraction. You set up a
photoelectric arrangement, you get particle behavior.
seems out of issue to me
Maybe the bite requires *you* to change to draw nourishment from
it.
Change what ??
thanks,
best regards
beda pietanza
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- From: It's a Miracle
- Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- References:
- twins versus quanta collapse
- From: beda pietanza
- Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- twins versus quanta collapse
- Prev by Date: Re: Simultaneous moments within SR
- Next by Date: Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- Previous by thread: Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- Next by thread: Re: twins versus quanta collapse
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|