Re: twins versus quanta collapse

Dear beda pietanza:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174690326.511708.97250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

From the statistic of the generic twins population,
the experimenters know that green eyed and black
eyed twins are even 50% each.

How can they know this "even 50% each"? You also disallow hazel
eyes, a blending of the two.

(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.

To arrive at your "75%", you are assuming something about the
relative numbers of homo- and heterozygous twins, and something
about the number of parents with different eye colors.

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.

Do you then believe that some photons are waves and some are
particles?

You set up slits, you will get diffraction. You set up a
photoelectric arrangement, you get particle behavior.

seems out of issue to me

Do you change eye color by observation? Your simile is broken.

Maybe the bite requires *you* to change to draw
nourishment from it.

Change what ??

Change whatever is bothering you about photons (and all other
quantum objects) having both wave and particle natures.

We have two tools, and hammer and a tuning fork. We tend to want
to make everything either nails (discrete) or music (continuous).
Quantum objects will play it either way, and which tool we pick
up determines the nature we reveal. But we don't know what the
quantum objects "really are", so much as how they respond to our
tools.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: twins versus quanta collapse
    ... eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look ... at the color of the twin A eyes: ... Prediction is possible by observing the parents, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twins versus quanta collapse
    ... eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look ... at the color of the twin A eyes: ... Of course the correlation is preesistent at our ... of variability of the outcome of B is the analogy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twins versus quanta collapse
    ... eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look ... at the color of the twin A eyes: ... Of course the correlation is preesistent at our ... Instead the experimenters are able to predict with a efficacy of 75% ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twins versus quanta collapse
    ... eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look ... at the color of the twin A eyes: ... Of course the correlation is preesistent at our ... Prediction is possible by observing the parents, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twins versus quanta collapse
    ... eyes of twin B by opening the box of twin A and look ... at the color of the twin A eyes: ... Of course the correlation is preesistent at our ... of variability of the outcome of B is the analogy I am trying to make. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)