Re: Faster than light signalling via an EPR type mechanism

On Apr 15, 6:29 pm, johnhudson20032...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:01 pm, Igor Khavkine <igor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:38 am, johnhudson20032...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Igor I expect you have not noticed, but you have gotten into the habit
of telling me my remarks are completely wrong or things cannot be so,
etc. but without saying why.

Until now, you've not asked for a reason.

I do appreciate your genuine attempts to (as you would see it) sort me
out, but perhaps you could try a few explanations.

I have to say that I'm not completely guilty as charged. My
explanation is simple, if what you claim about "communication" in an
EPR-like experiment is true, then it is in conflict with the No
Communication theorems. Now, there are three possibilities, either
(a) your claims are wrong and the NC theorems are right, (b) the NC
theorems are wrong and your claims are right, or (c) both your claims
and the NC theorems are wrong. As the NC thoerems have appeared as
published research, are direct consequences of QM, and rely on the
parts of QM that have been extensively checked experimentally, it is
not hard to dismiss possibilities (b) and (c) leaving only (a).

So what in your opinion does QM predict in this situation? What is the
elapsed time between the first photon being realigned by passing
through its filter to the second photon being realigned as a result of
the first photon passing through that filter?
The Bell Inequality test results demonstrate that it must happen
faster than any communication transmitted at the speed of light. That
is the whole point of the test. Isn't it?

So, without invoking `instantaneous changes' what is the mechanism (or
whatever you wish to call it) which is predicted by QM, and which in
the Bell Inequality test enables the second photon to change its
alignment faster than any communication between the two polarisers
which could be achieved at the speed of light?
And what is the speed at which this mechanism operates?

Now, some more explanations. You've fallen into the same reasoning gap
here as many times previously. Your questions (mostly) don't have
answers, as they are based on false premises.

Q: What is the elapsed time between realignment?
Non-Answer: There is no realignment.

Q: ... it must happen faster than the speed of light ...
NA: There is no *it* and the absence of *it* has no speed associated
to
it.

Q: Isn't it?
NA: No.

Q: What mechanism allows change faster than speed of light?
NA: There is no change.

Finally, a question without a false premise.

Q: What does QM predict?
Answer: QM predicts correlations. All the information about the
correlations are contained in the state (which is a vector in the
Hilbert space of joint 2-particle states). The statistical
properties of local measurements performed on one particle do not
depend on the outcome of local measurements performed on the other
particle or even whether measurements are performed on the other
particle.

If you are still looking for a more detailed explanation, I recommend
that you take a look at a discussion of EPR-type correlations in any
of the many books on elementary quantum mechanics that treat this
subject. One that I've already recommended is Sakurai's _Modern
Quantum Mechanics_.

Here's the thing. The mechanism for the correlations predicted by QM
is *not* like other kinds of correlation that you are used to. This is
where your intuition fails you. Everytime someone tries to come up
with a mechanism for this correlation that is based on something
familiar like a signal transmitted from particle to another or a
common hidden variable, they run into contradictions with QM. Bell's
inequalities (and other more general results obtained since his time)
as well as the No Communication theorems are examples. Of course, to
date, QM has come up victorious every time, with experimental results
on its side. Time to develop some new intuition. There is correlation
here, but it's different from every other kind of correlation you are
familiar with. That's why new terms have been invented to describe it,
such as "entanglement" or simply "quantum correlations".

If my proposal is
incompatible with QM then on this basis so should the Bell Inequality.

And once more, no.

Sorry, my proposal is identical in set-up and requires only the
information generated in the Bell Inequality testing to enable my
results to be calculated.

So how can my test be incompatible with QM and the Bell inequality not?

You claim "communication" and Bell's inequalities do not.

Please give reasons instead of saying you do not agree.

See reasons above.

I am not trying to patch holes in my argument. Nothing's changed.
All I am asking is what the standard deviation of polarized light?

By now you should have received enough information (in parallel posts)
to consider this question answered as well.

Hope this helps.

Igor
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?
    ... ]probability as it applies to QM. ... QM correlations exist without communication. ... A quantum system can be more strongly ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Quantum entanglement and information transfer
    ... These correlations ... > require no communication between the correlated ... information state of an observer at B (even if the only information is ... The fact that quantum entanglement is ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?
    ... >] Since there is no communication, ... The key issue is correlations. ... > strong correlations a quantum system can. ... that one photon can't really interfere with another one. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Faster than light signalling via an EPR type mechanism
    ... superluminal connection between correlated photons, ... point of the Bell Inequality, ... enables the communication between ... "superluminal communication via the instantaneity of Bell's ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Alternative approach to QM action at a distance
    ... It's now occurred to me that perhaps the "spooky communication" needs ... more than a scalar phase, if observations of two-state systems can vary ... correlations between observations should still depend only on the angle ... Are there similar possible observations of two-state systems which can ...
    (sci.physics.research)