Tim May wrote... (oh wait, maybe it was Jim Choate!) "The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is involved."
Choate, you DO say some interesting things sometimes*, but sometimes you come up with some real wacky crapola. This is one of them! PAM Dirac united quantum mechanics with relativity coming up with relativistic quantum mechanics. From this the existence of the positron was predicted. If you still want to say there's some kind of "hole" in quantum theory, then are you saying that if we fix this hole, QM will bve able to predict experimental outcomes to, say 20 decimals rather than 10? (QM is by far the most sucesful physical theory ever developed.) As for the other comments, they don't really have bearing on EPR. Remember, the E in EPR stands for Einstein, and it was he himself who predicted the bizarre and counter-to-all-rational-beliefs-about-physical-reality-type nature of quantum behavior. (Actually, he and Podolsky and Rosen put forth these arguments as proof that something was fundamentally flawed. He never guesed we'd actually SEE this stuff happen one day.) But my point is, if Einstein himself didn't see any reason to invoke relativity in this case, then its really not relevant. No, relativity is not the 'hole' in EPR. Our understanding about the nature of physical reality is the hole. How does a photon "know" what another photon is doing instantaneously? (It doesn't matter 'as measured by who'...as long as ONE observer is able to see then communicate 'instantaneously', then we're no longer in territory that anybody really understands.) Or if you want to weasel-word around this, then grapple with Ahranov-Bohm. How do the electrons "know" about the voltage of a removed zone? They have no connection with that zone whatsoever (unless you want to invoke the "Magentic Vector Potential", but then I guess its a complete coincidence that A-B accruately predicts the phenomenon...right?). -Tyler Durden I actually have wanted to respond to some of your attempts to de-couple strong crypto from a need for certain political/ideological stances, but I haven't had the time. Suffice it to say, there's good reason for using strong crypto without necessarily supporting any single political ideology.
