Re: I don't understand EPR

From: Oz (oz_at_farmeroz.port995.com)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: 16 Jul 2004 09:19:49 -0400

Tom Trotter <tom129@juno.com> writes
>
>Oz <oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:<8Kpg65ICw77AFwUX@farmeroz.p
>o
>rt995.com>...
>> Tom Trotter <tom129@juno.com> writes
>>
>> >It's the "sameness" of polarization via emission that's
>> >being measured (filtered through the separated polarizers).
>> >
>> >This is why LHV formulations (such as Bell's) where Lambda
>> >is the "angle" of polarization of the photons following
>> >emission and prior to polarization/detection don't work --
>> >that is, they produce inequalities that will be experimentally
>> >violated.
>>
>> OK. You are getting near to explaining bells inequalities, which nobody
>> has done here (simply) before.
>
>There's really nothing to explain wrt Bell inequalities.
>They're just arithmetic relationships wrt quantities
>of groups of things.

<sigh>

But which things and what does experiment show under what circumstances?
Perhaps I should say 'what effect does the experimental results that
test bells inequalities imply'.

Something to do with 'hidden variables', but that's too broad a brush to
gain any insight.

>> Are you saying that bell assumed two particles leaving with a set angle
>> lambda. That is one at lambda+pi/2 and one lambda-pi/2?
>
>In terms of light and photons, Bell's lambda is the property
>of the light coming from the emitter, and incident on the
>polarizers, a (at A) and b (at B), that, if it were known,
>would allow more accurate predictions of individual results.

Right. So in this example bell assumed that he did (in theory) know
lambda and found this did NOT agree with experiment?

>So, lambda effectively refers to the *polarization* of the
>oppositely directed beams of light (in, say, the
>Aspect experiment) via emission.

So the assumption (falsely made) was that each particle left with a set
lambda?

>> From this he derived the appropriate statistics,
>> which turned out *not* to agree with experiment?
>
>Bell's theorem is an arithmetic relationship which
>must be satisfied if the relationship between lambda
>and a and lambda and b is relevant to the determination
>of coincidental detection.

Is there such a thing as 'coincidental detection', given the many frames
observers can be in?

>Experiment shows that
>it isn't. (But this can be deduced without
>referring to experiments.) It's the relationship
>between the emitted photons (that is, it's their
>combined orientation, not their individual orientations)
>wrt the polarizers that matters in determining
>coincidental detection.

OK. That's how I always read it.

>This *relationship* is
>a global or nonlocal parameter pertaining to
>paired photons. It doesn't vary. The relationship
>is that paired photons are polarized identically.
>
>In other words, the correlations in the combined
>context don't depend on the same thing that
>more accurate predictions of results of individual
>measurements would depend on.
>
>The things that are happening to produce individual
>results are still happening in the combined context.
>They just aren't relevent when talking about the
>combined context.

Ok. So if we consider the pair as a single particle it must be
inevitable that if (on 'decay' - ie detection of one) one is detected,
then the other has defined characteristics.

That's it. Nothing else to it.

So what's wrong with the following argument:

1) The particles are one particle until detected.
2) Because they are separated (to the outside world) only one particle
will be detected at any point in global (flat space, right) spacetime.
3) We cannot force the properties of the detected particle, just measure
if its up or down.
4) The waveform of the emitted (double) particle co-evolves. That is it
constantly varies its lambda, with 'one half' being in antiphase with
the other. This must be enforced, it seems to me.
5) We force a detection. We can only detect one particle of the
'combined pair' so the very detection process must break the
entanglement. Note that the detector interacts with the 'combined pair'. 

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
BTOPENWORLD address about to cease.      DEMON address no longer in use.
>>Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com<<
ozacoohdb@despammed.com still functions.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast