Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 03:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:27 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:41 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 19:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 23:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 11:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 04:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-02 05:46 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:43 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 08:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 12:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 13:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 16:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:52 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 18:04 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 17:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0ZidnUjDJ7z2ffzLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371413 |
On 12/4/15 12/4/15 9:39 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state >>> in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. >>> IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate >>> in binary. >> >> Not true. > > Wrong. Read the conditional again. Think. YOU read the conditional again -- it is satisfied (i.e. "quantum entanglement" is NOT a meaningless term). But yet your claims that follow are wrong: "a change of state in the local object" need not be detectable at all "in the remote object"; this does NOT allow communication in binary (or any other method). Apparently you think quantum entanglement is something QUITE DIFFERENT from what it actually is. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn68ohl.vrt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371427 |
Tom Roberts wrote in <0ZidnUjDJ7z2ffzLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com>: > On 12/4/15 12/4/15 9:39 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change > > > > of state in the local object has to be instantly detectable > > > > in the remote object. IOW, you have two distinct states, and > > > > that allows you to communicate in binary. > > > > > > Not true. > > > > Wrong. Read the conditional again. Think. > > YOU read the conditional again -- it is satisfied Wrong. The conditional is stated because "quantun entanglement" has NOT been shown to be a meaningful term. > (ie, "quantum entanglement" is NOT a meaningless term). *Physically* meaningful, idiot. > But yet your claims that follow are wrong: "a change of state in the > local object" need not be detectable at all "in the remote object"; Your idiocy is mind-boggling. Do feel free to get it into your pointy little head that a change of state in the remote object is detectable by the REMOTE entity. If no change is detectable, no change exists. (Of course, I am assuming that an entity capable of inducing change is also capable of detecting it.) > this does NOT allow communication in binary (or any other method). > > Apparently you think quantum entanglement is something QUITE DIFFERENT > from what it actually is. No. I think it's a pointless, meaningless mathematical exercise with no relationship to anything physical. Which is, of course, *exactly* what it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c24f194-7e7c-414c-865f-2ec053512ee0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371314 |
On December 2, tjrob137 wrote: > In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but > entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement > at either place immediately determines the measurement results for > both particles of the pair. > Assume A always performs the measurement first: From which reference frame? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0ZidnUvDJ7yQfPzLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371424 |
On 12/4/15 12/4/15 11:38 AM, RichD wrote: > On December 2, tjrob137 wrote: >> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but >> entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement >> at either place immediately determines the measurement results for >> both particles of the pair. >> Assume A always performs the measurement first: > > From which reference frame? This is not a relativity problem, and reference frames are not important. In every "usual EPR-type experiment", the measurements of both particles are made at rest on the earth's surface; the non-inertial motions of that surface are not significant. A and B are the locations of the measurements. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62f17463-d202-4eda-90cd-43b720b4847e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371428 |
On December 4, tjrob137 wrote: >>> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but >>> entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement >>> at either place immediately determines the measurement results for >>> both particles of the pair. >>> Assume A always performs the measurement first: > > > From which reference frame? > > This is not a relativity problem, and reference frames are not important. Let's make one. > In every "usual EPR-type experiment", the measurements of both particles are > made at rest on the earth's surface; the non-inertial motions of that surface > are not significant. A and B are the locations of the measurements. There's no upper limit on entangled pair separation. Thus, Al and Bob are widely separated, each with an optics lab, waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, traveling east, sees Al measure his photon polarity first; Dave, traveling west, sees the converse. Which one really and truly collapsed the wave function? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3uffo$peq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #371458 |
Użytkownik "RichD" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:62f17463-d202-4eda-90cd-43b720b4847e@googlegroups.com... |waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, |traveling east, sees And if Chuck is travelling through a forest, he is seeing the trees running around him, isn't he? Too bad the Shit's tales have nothing in common with reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29ed6a4e-580c-4806-b617-df8c9f6808b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371459 |
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 2:49:31 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "RichD" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:62f17463-d202-4eda-90cd-43b720b4847e@googlegroups.com... > > |waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, > |traveling east, sees > > And if Chuck is travelling through a forest, he is seeing > the trees running around him, isn't he? > Too bad the Shit's tales have nothing in common with > reality. You are confusing physics models with philosophical ones. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n40uuo$6da$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #371471 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:29ed6a4e-580c-4806-b617-df8c9f6808b3@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 2:49:31 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "RichD" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:62f17463-d202-4eda-90cd-43b720b4847e@googlegroups.com... > > |waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, > |traveling east, sees > > And if Chuck is travelling through a forest, he is seeing > the trees running around him, isn't he? > Too bad the Shit's tales have nothing in common with > reality. |You are confusing physics models with philosophical ones. No, you're confusing reality with physics "models".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <gLednQ2vAv2o1PnLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371458 |
On 12/5/15 12/5/15 3:55 AM, RichD wrote: > On December 4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but >>>> entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement >>>> at either place immediately determines the measurement results for >>>> both particles of the pair. >>>> Assume A always performs the measurement first: >>> From which reference frame? >> This is not a relativity problem, and reference frames are not important. > > Let's make one. > >> In every "usual EPR-type experiment", the measurements of both particles are >> made at rest on the earth's surface; the non-inertial motions of that surface >> are not significant. A and B are the locations of the measurements. > > There's no upper limit on entangled pair separation. > > Thus, Al and Bob are widely separated, each with an optics lab, > waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, > traveling east, sees Al measure his photon polarity first; Dave, > traveling west, sees the converse. > > Which one really and truly collapsed the wave function? The question cannot be answered. But then, it doesn't matter because all there is is a CORRELATION. Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84f4ee2d-dc7e-42f2-8c3d-d589c57fdd7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371484 |
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/5/15 12/5/15 3:55 AM, RichD wrote: > > On December 4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but > >>>> entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement > >>>> at either place immediately determines the measurement results for > >>>> both particles of the pair. > >>>> Assume A always performs the measurement first: > >>> From which reference frame? > >> This is not a relativity problem, and reference frames are not important. > > > > Let's make one. > > > >> In every "usual EPR-type experiment", the measurements of both particles are > >> made at rest on the earth's surface; the non-inertial motions of that surface > >> are not significant. A and B are the locations of the measurements. > > > > There's no upper limit on entangled pair separation. > > > > Thus, Al and Bob are widely separated, each with an optics lab, > > waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, > > traveling east, sees Al measure his photon polarity first; Dave, > > traveling west, sees the converse. > > > > Which one really and truly collapsed the wave function? > > The question cannot be answered. But then, it doesn't matter because all there > is is a CORRELATION. > > Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be > timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and thus > cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > > CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > > > Tom Roberts Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell test gets you off the hook to say the properties were always the opposite from the beginning therefore it is just correlation not causation. However if it passes a Bell test with non classical probabilities then there is a fly in the soup. The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was made to justify non classical probabilities and return them to classical probabilities. Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance that Einstein objected to. There must be something wrong with a Bell test and it is not Dr Bell as his thinking is clear. The scientific integrity of scientist doing Bell tests can be trusted so the problem is not there. This leaves only the Bell test itself , what could be wrong with it. It is either find something wrong or live with spooky action at a distance. The former is preferred over the latter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dck0ruF375dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371489 |
On 7/12/2015 2:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/5/15 12/5/15 3:55 AM, RichD wrote: >>> On December 4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>> In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with >>>>>> random but entangled spins are separated to locations A and >>>>>> B. So a measurement at either place immediately determines >>>>>> the measurement results for both particles of the pair. >>>>>> Assume A always performs the measurement first: >>>>> From which reference frame? >>>> This is not a relativity problem, and reference frames are not >>>> important. >>> >>> Let's make one. >>> >>>> In every "usual EPR-type experiment", the measurements of both >>>> particles are made at rest on the earth's surface; the >>>> non-inertial motions of that surface are not significant. A and >>>> B are the locations of the measurements. >>> >>> There's no upper limit on entangled pair separation. >>> >>> Thus, Al and Bob are widely separated, each with an optics lab, >>> waiting for an entangled pair of photons to arrive. Chuck, >>> traveling east, sees Al measure his photon polarity first; >>> Dave, traveling west, sees the converse. >>> >>> Which one really and truly collapsed the wave function? >> >> The question cannot be answered. But then, it doesn't matter >> because all there is is a CORRELATION. >> >> Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships >> must be timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike >> interval, and thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is >> well. Repeat the mantra: >> >> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. >> >> >> Tom Roberts > > Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell > test gets you off the hook to say the properties were always the > opposite from the beginning therefore it is just correlation not > causation. However if it passes a Bell test with non classical > probabilities then there is a fly in the soup. The properties had to > be undecided until the measurement was made to justify non classical > probabilities and return them to classical probabilities. Therein is > the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a measurement is > made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to assure it has > opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance that > Einstein objected to. We don't know that anything travelled, and if something did travel, we cannot tell in which direction (because the measurement events are space-like separated in the cases where FTL would be necessary). There are correlations, and they're weird, but it's a leap to get from them to some kind of FTL process, particularly in the face of the no-communication theorem, which tells us that if there is a FTL process mediating this, then it is completely hidden so that we cannot use it for FTL messaging. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <No2dnb2g1aDxQfjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371489 |
On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> [a Bell-type experiment] >> Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be >> timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and >> thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: >> >> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > > Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell test gets > you off the hook to say the properties were always the opposite from the > beginning therefore it is just correlation not causation. However if it > passes a Bell test with non classical probabilities then there is a fly in > the soup. Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism -- it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the assumptions you implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply cannot ask sensible questions or come to correct conclusions. And of course you remain completely oblivious of this. > The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was made > to justify non classical probabilities and return them to classical > probabilities. The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE PROPERTY -- your use of the plural "properties" is WRONG. That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined below. > Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided > until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to > assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance > that Einstein objected to. Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the experiment DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the way it is modeled in QM and QED does not. > There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about and describing this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T QUESTION THEM. And they are wrong. Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the "spins of each particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the system. But when the spins of the individual particles are measured, correlations violating the Bell inequalities are obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, but for these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING propagates between the measurements (nothing can, of course, because they are spacelike separated). Here is how that works in more detail: Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, because spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. In particular, the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic QM). So I only need to discuss this once for both theories; I'll use QM (it's more accessible to readers). Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a wavefunction; here each wavefunction is the product of a spin wavefunction and a position wavefunction. As usual, to compute the probability of obtaining a given result from a measurement, one evaluates the overlap integral between the system's wavefunction and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to the measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each measurement yields a value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and these values (measurement results) are distributed according to each eigenfunction's probability. In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a state with entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their spins are measured at events with spacelike separation (i.e. light cannot propagate between them). The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we only make measurements on the particles where they are located -- the overlap of the position functions is always 1, which multiplies the spin overlap discussed next. In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a spin wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as describing the individual particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S spin. So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one computes the overlap integral between the system's spin wavefunction and the eigenfunctions corresponding to the two individual particle spin operators -- modeling two measurements one uses the product of the two individual-particle spin eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here along z), one uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, the spin operators along the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; the result is that the overlap integral is zero unless they individual particle spins are equal magnitude and opposite directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's inequalities. Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your whole confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no "wavefunction for each particle's spin", there is only a wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how QM works. Yes, this is counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES about how the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and not Bell's. Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation of them he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is NOT local in the sense he needed (the system is not local). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7cd2f515-f379-4987-b895-cc7f6c7f7e6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371547 |
Jerk Roberts said: So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one computes the overlap integral between the system's spin wavefunction and the eigenfunctions corresponding to the two individual particle spin operators -- modeling two measurements one uses the product of the two individual-particle spin eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here along z), one uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, the spin operators along the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; the result is that the overlap integral is zero unless they individual particle spins are equal magnitude and opposite directions. Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance that Einstein objected to. The two entangled particles are still connected through the temporal horizon, each with reciprocal mirrored spin Time 14/3 = 4 2/3 Space 14/11 = 1 3/11 (14/11)/(14/3) = .272727272727 c / 0.2727272727 = 1,099,239,010 = c * (11/3) 1/(FTL) = 1/c seconds = 1/space = time. Spooky action at a (1/(Time / 0.27272727) 33 - (360/11) = 0.27272727 9/33 = 3/11 = 0.27272727 32 + 8/11 = 360degrees/11 = octahedral/11 = octave/11 Truncated octahedral tessellation 14D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <793e9d04-f6a4-44c6-9908-7bca2ebb5297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371553 |
http://i57.tinypic.com/zv3mzn.jpg The two entangled particles are still connected through the temporal horizon, each with reciprocal mirrored spin Time 14/3 = 4 2/3 Space 14/11 = 1 3/11 (14/11)/(14/3) = .272727272727 c / 0.2727272727 = 1,099,239,010 = c * (11/3) 1/(FTL) = 1/c seconds = 1/space = time. Spooky action at a (1/(Time / 0.27272727) 33 - (360/11) = 0.27272727 9/33 = 3/11 = 0.27272727 32 + 8/11 = 360degrees/11 = octahedral/11 = octave/11 Truncated octahedral tessellation 14D Schwartz minimal surface
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f200c65-ca33-4caf-94e1-2cd877774382@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371547 |
On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [a Bell-type experiment] > >> Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be > >> timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and > >> thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > >> > >> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > > > > Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell test gets > > you off the hook to say the properties were always the opposite from the > > beginning therefore it is just correlation not causation. However if it > > passes a Bell test with non classical probabilities then there is a fly in > > the soup. > > Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). > > I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism > -- it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the > assumptions you implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply > cannot ask sensible questions or come to correct conclusions. > And of course you remain completely oblivious of this. > > > > The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was made > > to justify non classical probabilities and return them to classical > > probabilities. > > The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE PROPERTY -- your use > of the plural "properties" is WRONG. > > That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined > below. > > > > Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided > > until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to > > assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance > > that Einstein objected to. > > Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the experiment > DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the way it is modeled in QM > and QED does not. > > > > There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] > > No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about and describing > this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T QUESTION THEM. And they are > wrong. > > Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the "spins of each > particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the system. But when the spins of > the individual particles are measured, correlations violating the Bell > inequalities are obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. > > Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" > between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, > but for these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING > propagates between the measurements (nothing can, of course, > because they are spacelike separated). > > > > Here is how that works in more detail: > > Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, > because spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. > In particular, the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible > representations of the Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic > QM). So I only need to discuss this once for both theories; > I'll use QM (it's more accessible to readers). > > Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a wavefunction; here > each wavefunction is the product of a spin wavefunction and a position > wavefunction. As usual, to compute the probability of obtaining a given result > from a measurement, one evaluates the overlap integral between the system's > wavefunction and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to the > measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each measurement yields a > value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and these values (measurement results) are > distributed according to each eigenfunction's probability. > > In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a state with > entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their spins are measured at > events with spacelike separation (i.e. light cannot propagate between them). > > The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we only make > measurements on the particles where they are located -- the overlap of the > position functions is always 1, which multiplies the spin overlap discussed next. > > In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a spin > wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as describing the individual > particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S spin. > > So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one computes the > overlap integral between the system's spin wavefunction and the eigenfunctions > corresponding to the two individual particle spin operators -- modeling two > measurements one uses the product of the two individual-particle spin > eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here along z), one > uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, the spin operators along > the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; the result is that the overlap > integral is zero unless they individual particle spins are equal magnitude and > opposite directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's > inequalities. > > Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your whole > confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no "wavefunction for each > particle's spin", there is only a wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how > QM works. Yes, this is counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES > about how the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and not > Bell's. > > Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation > of them he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is > NOT local in the sense he needed (the system is not local). > > > Tom Roberts Take it easy the number of coffees . This post sounds sounds like the attention span of a gerbil going off in six different directions. This is not a competition. You are clearly more knowledgeable than I so please stop competing with me. Now that the social pecking order has been set aside the way is clear to talk physics. A] A Bell test is about classical vs non classical probabilities period. If it is non classical then there is a fly in the soup that has to be rectified. B] A Bell test on the polarization of entangled photons leads to non classical probabilities so there is a fly in the soup that needs to be rectified. C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. The soup no longer has a fly. I can go on and on about why this solution works as well as provide software simulations to show that it works but first I need to know if you agree with A , B and C before proceeding. One step at a time and there is no hurry , take it easy on the coffees :<).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcpdh9Fdul7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371617 |
On 9/12/2015 12:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> [a Bell-type experiment] Thus we see that this does not violate >>>> SR: causal relationships must be timelike; these measurements >>>> are separated by a spacelike interval, and thus cannot be >>>> causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: >>>> >>>> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. >>> >>> Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell >>> test gets you off the hook to say the properties were always the >>> opposite from the beginning therefore it is just correlation not >>> causation. However if it passes a Bell test with non classical >>> probabilities then there is a fly in the soup. >> >> Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). >> >> I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism -- >> it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the assumptions you >> implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply cannot ask sensible >> questions or come to correct conclusions. And of course you remain >> completely oblivious of this. >> >> >>> The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was >>> made to justify non classical probabilities and return them to >>> classical probabilities. >> >> The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE >> PROPERTY -- your use of the plural "properties" is WRONG. >> >> That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined >> below. >> >> >>> Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a >>> measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner >>> to assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action >>> at a distance that Einstein objected to. >> >> Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the >> experiment DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the >> way it is modeled in QM and QED does not. >> >> >>> There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] >> >> No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about >> and describing this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T >> QUESTION THEM. And they are wrong. >> >> Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the >> "spins of each particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the >> system. But when the spins of the individual particles are >> measured, correlations violating the Bell inequalities are >> obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. >> >> Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" >> between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, but for >> these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING propagates >> between the measurements (nothing can, of course, because they are >> spacelike separated). >> >> >> >> Here is how that works in more detail: >> >> Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, because >> spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. In particular, >> the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible representations of the >> Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic QM). So I only need to >> discuss this once for both theories; I'll use QM (it's more >> accessible to readers). >> >> Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a >> wavefunction; here each wavefunction is the product of a spin >> wavefunction and a position wavefunction. As usual, to compute the >> probability of obtaining a given result from a measurement, one >> evaluates the overlap integral between the system's wavefunction >> and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to >> the measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each >> measurement yields a value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and >> these values (measurement results) are distributed according to >> each eigenfunction's probability. >> >> In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a >> state with entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their >> spins are measured at events with spacelike separation (i.e. light >> cannot propagate between them). >> >> The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we >> only make measurements on the particles where they are located -- >> the overlap of the position functions is always 1, which multiplies >> the spin overlap discussed next. >> >> In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a >> spin wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as >> describing the individual particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S >> spin. >> >> So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one >> computes the overlap integral between the system's spin >> wavefunction and the eigenfunctions corresponding to the two >> individual particle spin operators -- modeling two measurements one >> uses the product of the two individual-particle spin >> eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here >> along z), one uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, >> the spin operators along the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; >> the result is that the overlap integral is zero unless they >> individual particle spins are equal magnitude and opposite >> directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's >> inequalities. >> >> Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your >> whole confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no >> "wavefunction for each particle's spin", there is only a >> wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how QM works. Yes, this is >> counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES about how >> the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and >> not Bell's. >> >> Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation of them >> he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is NOT local in the >> sense he needed (the system is not local). >> >> >> Tom Roberts > > Take it easy the number of coffees . This post sounds sounds like the > attention span of a gerbil going off in six different directions. > This is not a competition. You are clearly more knowledgeable than I > so please stop competing with me. > > Now that the social pecking order has been set aside the way is clear > to talk physics. > > A] A Bell test is about classical vs non classical probabilities > period. If it is non classical then there is a fly in the soup that > has to be rectified. > > B] A Bell test on the polarization of entangled photons leads to non > classical probabilities so there is a fly in the soup that needs to > be rectified. > > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the > entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This > will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. > The soup no longer has a fly. > > I can go on and on about why this solution works as well as provide > software simulations to show that it works but first I need to know > if you agree with A , B and C before proceeding. One step at a time > and there is no hurry , take it easy on the coffees :<). > You won't get anywhere with a software simulation unless it cheats and simulates non-locality. If it doesn't simulate non-locality then it itself is a local model, and by virtue of Bell's theorem, it cannot simulate the actual results. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d3fd8fe-d3a2-431e-83dc-e70958c3e268@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371618 |
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 8:13:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/12/2015 12:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > >>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>> [a Bell-type experiment] Thus we see that this does not violate > >>>> SR: causal relationships must be timelike; these measurements > >>>> are separated by a spacelike interval, and thus cannot be > >>>> causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > >>>> > >>>> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > >>> > >>> Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell > >>> test gets you off the hook to say the properties were always the > >>> opposite from the beginning therefore it is just correlation not > >>> causation. However if it passes a Bell test with non classical > >>> probabilities then there is a fly in the soup. > >> > >> Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). > >> > >> I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism -- > >> it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the assumptions you > >> implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply cannot ask sensible > >> questions or come to correct conclusions. And of course you remain > >> completely oblivious of this. > >> > >> > >>> The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was > >>> made to justify non classical probabilities and return them to > >>> classical probabilities. > >> > >> The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE > >> PROPERTY -- your use of the plural "properties" is WRONG. > >> > >> That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined > >> below. > >> > >> > >>> Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided until a > >>> measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner > >>> to assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action > >>> at a distance that Einstein objected to. > >> > >> Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the > >> experiment DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the > >> way it is modeled in QM and QED does not. > >> > >> > >>> There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] > >> > >> No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about > >> and describing this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T > >> QUESTION THEM. And they are wrong. > >> > >> Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the > >> "spins of each particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the > >> system. But when the spins of the individual particles are > >> measured, correlations violating the Bell inequalities are > >> obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. > >> > >> Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" > >> between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, but for > >> these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING propagates > >> between the measurements (nothing can, of course, because they are > >> spacelike separated). > >> > >> > >> > >> Here is how that works in more detail: > >> > >> Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, because > >> spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. In particular, > >> the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible representations of the > >> Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic QM). So I only need to > >> discuss this once for both theories; I'll use QM (it's more > >> accessible to readers). > >> > >> Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a > >> wavefunction; here each wavefunction is the product of a spin > >> wavefunction and a position wavefunction. As usual, to compute the > >> probability of obtaining a given result from a measurement, one > >> evaluates the overlap integral between the system's wavefunction > >> and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to > >> the measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each > >> measurement yields a value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and > >> these values (measurement results) are distributed according to > >> each eigenfunction's probability. > >> > >> In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a > >> state with entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their > >> spins are measured at events with spacelike separation (i.e. light > >> cannot propagate between them). > >> > >> The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we > >> only make measurements on the particles where they are located -- > >> the overlap of the position functions is always 1, which multiplies > >> the spin overlap discussed next. > >> > >> In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a > >> spin wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as > >> describing the individual particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S > >> spin. > >> > >> So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one > >> computes the overlap integral between the system's spin > >> wavefunction and the eigenfunctions corresponding to the two > >> individual particle spin operators -- modeling two measurements one > >> uses the product of the two individual-particle spin > >> eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here > >> along z), one uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, > >> the spin operators along the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; > >> the result is that the overlap integral is zero unless they > >> individual particle spins are equal magnitude and opposite > >> directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's > >> inequalities. > >> > >> Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your > >> whole confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no > >> "wavefunction for each particle's spin", there is only a > >> wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how QM works. Yes, this is > >> counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES about how > >> the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and > >> not Bell's. > >> > >> Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation of them > >> he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is NOT local in the > >> sense he needed (the system is not local). > >> > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > Take it easy the number of coffees . This post sounds sounds like the > > attention span of a gerbil going off in six different directions. > > This is not a competition. You are clearly more knowledgeable than I > > so please stop competing with me. > > > > Now that the social pecking order has been set aside the way is clear > > to talk physics. > > > > A] A Bell test is about classical vs non classical probabilities > > period. If it is non classical then there is a fly in the soup that > > has to be rectified. > > > > B] A Bell test on the polarization of entangled photons leads to non > > classical probabilities so there is a fly in the soup that needs to > > be rectified. > > > > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the > > entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This > > will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. > > The soup no longer has a fly. > > > > I can go on and on about why this solution works as well as provide > > software simulations to show that it works but first I need to know > > if you agree with A , B and C before proceeding. One step at a time > > and there is no hurry , take it easy on the coffees :<). > > > > You won't get anywhere with a software simulation unless it cheats and > simulates non-locality. If it doesn't simulate non-locality then it > itself is a local model, and by virtue of Bell's theorem, it cannot > simulate the actual results. > > Sylvia. Agree. The purpose of the software simulation of Alice and Bob entangled photon polarization measurements is to put a finger on why the results are non classical to gain a better understanding of a Bell test. As to returning non classical probabilities to classical probabilities there are a few solutions. As you say the software is not a determinant of which is correct. I arbitrarily picked the most popular solution of undecided polarization until measurement was made. The software was not intended to show which solution is correct. Only to gain a feel of how a Bell test is done and how to make a distinction between classical and non classical probabilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58ce166d-66ac-4034-ba37-8116ed410711@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371617 |
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:08:33 PM UTC-8, John Heath wrote: > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> [a Bell-type experiment] > > >> Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be > > >> timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and > > >> thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > > >> > > >> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > > > > > > Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell test gets > > > you off the hook to say the properties were always the opposite from the > > > beginning therefore it is just correlation not causation. However if it > > > passes a Bell test with non classical probabilities then there is a fly in > > > the soup. > > > > Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). > > > > I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism > > -- it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the > > assumptions you implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply > > cannot ask sensible questions or come to correct conclusions. > > And of course you remain completely oblivious of this. > > > > > > > The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was made > > > to justify non classical probabilities and return them to classical > > > probabilities. > > > > The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE PROPERTY -- your use > > of the plural "properties" is WRONG. > > > > That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined > > below. > > > > > > > Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided > > > until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to > > > assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance > > > that Einstein objected to. > > > > Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the experiment > > DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the way it is modeled in QM > > and QED does not. > > > > > > > There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] > > > > No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about and describing > > this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T QUESTION THEM. And they are > > wrong. > > > > Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the "spins of each > > particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the system. But when the spins of > > the individual particles are measured, correlations violating the Bell > > inequalities are obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. > > > > Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" > > between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, > > but for these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING > > propagates between the measurements (nothing can, of course, > > because they are spacelike separated). > > > > > > > > Here is how that works in more detail: > > > > Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, > > because spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. > > In particular, the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible > > representations of the Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic > > QM). So I only need to discuss this once for both theories; > > I'll use QM (it's more accessible to readers). > > > > Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a wavefunction; here > > each wavefunction is the product of a spin wavefunction and a position > > wavefunction. As usual, to compute the probability of obtaining a given result > > from a measurement, one evaluates the overlap integral between the system's > > wavefunction and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to the > > measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each measurement yields a > > value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and these values (measurement results) are > > distributed according to each eigenfunction's probability. > > > > In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a state with > > entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their spins are measured at > > events with spacelike separation (i.e. light cannot propagate between them). > > > > The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we only make > > measurements on the particles where they are located -- the overlap of the > > position functions is always 1, which multiplies the spin overlap discussed next. > > > > In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a spin > > wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as describing the individual > > particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S spin. > > > > So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one computes the > > overlap integral between the system's spin wavefunction and the eigenfunctions > > corresponding to the two individual particle spin operators -- modeling two > > measurements one uses the product of the two individual-particle spin > > eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here along z), one > > uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, the spin operators along > > the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; the result is that the overlap > > integral is zero unless they individual particle spins are equal magnitude and > > opposite directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's > > inequalities. > > > > Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your whole > > confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no "wavefunction for each > > particle's spin", there is only a wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how > > QM works. Yes, this is counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES > > about how the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and not > > Bell's. > > > > Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation > > of them he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is > > NOT local in the sense he needed (the system is not local). > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Take it easy the number of coffees . This post sounds sounds like the attention span of a gerbil going off in six different directions. This is not a competition. You are clearly more knowledgeable than I so please stop competing with me. > > Now that the social pecking order has been set aside the way is clear to talk physics. > > A] A Bell test is about classical vs non classical probabilities period. If it is non classical then there is a fly in the soup that has to be rectified. > > B] A Bell test on the polarization of entangled photons leads to non classical probabilities so there is a fly in the soup that needs to be rectified. > > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. The soup no longer has a fly. > > I can go on and on about why this solution works as well as provide software simulations to show that it works but first I need to know if you agree with A , B and C before proceeding. One step at a time and there is no hurry , take it easy on the coffees :<). You are spinning wheels. Study what you seek to understand, there is no other way. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab6a7264-17f2-4294-abc5-642e2851a644@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371627 |
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:41:04 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:08:33 PM UTC-8, John Heath wrote: > > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 9:45 AM, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >> [a Bell-type experiment] > > > >> Thus we see that this does not violate SR: causal relationships must be > > > >> timelike; these measurements are separated by a spacelike interval, and > > > >> thus cannot be causal. But they AREN'T, so all is well. Repeat the mantra: > > > >> > > > >> CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > > > > > > > > Yes if it fails a Bell test for true entanglement. Failing a Bell test gets > > > > you off the hook to say the properties were always the opposite from the > > > > beginning therefore it is just correlation not causation. However if it > > > > passes a Bell test with non classical probabilities then there is a fly in > > > > the soup. > > > > > > Yes, FOR YOU. No for people who understand QM (and QED). > > > > > > I think your basic problem is an inability for self-criticism > > > -- it's quite clear you are completely unaware of the > > > assumptions you implicitly make; as they are WRONG, you simply > > > cannot ask sensible questions or come to correct conclusions. > > > And of course you remain completely oblivious of this. > > > > > > > > > > The properties had to be undecided until the measurement was made > > > > to justify non classical probabilities and return them to classical > > > > probabilities. > > > > > > The problem here is that the spin of the system is a SINGLE PROPERTY -- your use > > > of the plural "properties" is WRONG. > > > > > > That's one of your incorrect assumptions. Others are outlined > > > below. > > > > > > > > > > Therein is the rub. How do properties that were undecided > > > > until a measurement is made travel FTL to the other the entangled partner to > > > > assure it has opposite properties. This was the spooky action at a distance > > > > that Einstein objected to. > > > > > > Yes, YOUR DESCRIPTION is of "spooky action at a distance", but the experiment > > > DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR DESCRIPTION. Or at least the way it is modeled in QM > > > and QED does not. > > > > > > > > > > There must be something wrong with a Bell test [...] > > > > > > No. There _IS_ something wrong in the way you are thinking about and describing > > > this -- YOU MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND DON'T QUESTION THEM. And they are > > > wrong. > > > > > > Bottom line: the spin OF THE SYSTEM is modeled in QM, NOT the "spins of each > > > particle". There is a SINGLE property: spin of the system. But when the spins of > > > the individual particles are measured, correlations violating the Bell > > > inequalities are obtained, simply because that is how one computes them in QM. > > > > > > Note that QM is incapable of modeling any sort of "propagation" > > > between the measurements. QED is able to model such things, > > > but for these experiments that ability is not used, and NOTHING > > > propagates between the measurements (nothing can, of course, > > > because they are spacelike separated). > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is how that works in more detail: > > > > > > Note that the handling of spins in QM is "stolen" from QED, > > > because spins act in such a radically non-classical manner. > > > In particular, the spin wavefunctions of QM are irreducible > > > representations of the Lorentz group (even in non-relativistic > > > QM). So I only need to discuss this once for both theories; > > > I'll use QM (it's more accessible to readers). > > > > > > Background: In Quantum Mechanics a system is modeled by a wavefunction; here > > > each wavefunction is the product of a spin wavefunction and a position > > > wavefunction. As usual, to compute the probability of obtaining a given result > > > from a measurement, one evaluates the overlap integral between the system's > > > wavefunction and the various eigenfunctions of the operator corresponding to the > > > measurement (probability = overlap integral squared). Each measurement yields a > > > value corresponding to an eigenvalue, and these values (measurement results) are > > > distributed according to each eigenfunction's probability. > > > > > > In a typical Bell-type experiment, two particles are generated in a state with > > > entangled spins, the particles are separated, and their spins are measured at > > > events with spacelike separation (i.e. light cannot propagate between them). > > > > > > The position wavefunction does not affect the result, because we only make > > > measurements on the particles where they are located -- the overlap of the > > > position functions is always 1, which multiplies the spin overlap discussed next. > > > > > > In generating the "entangled spin state", necessarily there is a spin > > > wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM. Do _NOT_ think of this as describing the individual > > > particle spins, it describes the SYSTEM'S spin. > > > > > > So to model the measurements of individual particles' spins, one computes the > > > overlap integral between the system's spin wavefunction and the eigenfunctions > > > corresponding to the two individual particle spin operators -- modeling two > > > measurements one uses the product of the two individual-particle spin > > > eigenfunctions. For spin measurements along a common axis (here along z), one > > > uses the product of eigenfunctions of S_z1 and S_z2, the spin operators along > > > the z axis for particle 1 and particle 2; the result is that the overlap > > > integral is zero unless they individual particle spins are equal magnitude and > > > opposite directions. In general one finds correlations which violate Bell's > > > inequalities. > > > > > > Note there is NOTHING "propagating" between the measurements. Your whole > > > confusion is resolved by simply noting that there is no "wavefunction for each > > > particle's spin", there is only a wavefunction FOR THE SYSTEM -- that _IS_ how > > > QM works. Yes, this is counter-intuitive and does not conform to your GUESSES > > > about how the world works -- that's YOUR problem, not mine, not QM's, and not > > > Bell's. > > > > > > Yes, this violates Bell's inequalities. In his derivation > > > of them he assumed locality, but this spin wavefunction is > > > NOT local in the sense he needed (the system is not local). > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Take it easy the number of coffees . This post sounds sounds like the attention span of a gerbil going off in six different directions. This is not a competition. You are clearly more knowledgeable than I so please stop competing with me. > > > > Now that the social pecking order has been set aside the way is clear to talk physics. > > > > A] A Bell test is about classical vs non classical probabilities period. If it is non classical then there is a fly in the soup that has to be rectified. > > > > B] A Bell test on the polarization of entangled photons leads to non classical probabilities so there is a fly in the soup that needs to be rectified. > > > > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. The soup no longer has a fly. > > > > I can go on and on about why this solution works as well as provide software simulations to show that it works but first I need to know if you agree with A , B and C before proceeding. One step at a time and there is no hurry , take it easy on the coffees :<). > > You are spinning wheels. Study what you seek to understand, there is no other way. > > -- > Jan This is a sweeping generalization that is beneath your past posts. I challenge you to be precise within the limits of a Bell test. You are being tested , do not disappoint as I think you have the integrity to eat a little crow. Personally I have become accustomed to the taste and found a little salt and pepper can go a long way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcpnq5Fg2msU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371617 |
On 9/12/2015 12:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > C] The most popular solution is to say the polarization of the > entangled photons was undecided until the measurement is made. This > will return non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. > The soup no longer has a fly. If this were the case, and the measurements were made independently of each other, then you'd expect no correlation between the measurements. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web