# Re: Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

`On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:`
```
>  On 7/23/2013 7:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  When there are two polarizers A and C, which are rotated by 90 degrees
> to each other then no photons will pass through both polarizers.  However,
> if we insert polarizer B at a 45 degree offset to A and C then 1/4 of the
> photons will make it through.
>
>  Now let's say we have two entangled photons travelling away from each
> other.  If we send photon #1 through polarizer A right before photon #2
> goes through polarizer B,
>
>
> How about a clarifying diagram.  In the first para B was between A and C,
> now it seems it's in the opposite direction of A relative to the source.
>

In the first case:

0 degrees                45 degrees            90
degrees
photon #1 ---->   (Polarizer A)  ------>   (Polarizer B)  ------>
(Polarizer C)---->  (Detector)

In the second case, two entagled photons are sent in opposite directions
(45 degrees)                             0 degrees
90 degrees
<-----(Polarizer B) <-------  #2     #1 ----> (Polarizer A)
------------------> (Polarizer C)

Where B is spaced at a distance greater than A, but less than C.

> And you're talking about "right before" referring to events which are
> space-like separated, which is ill-defined per relativity.
>
> I think the answer though lies in the fact that a polarizer will cause
> both photons to be absorbed or to assume that polarization.
>
> Brent
>
>   right before photon #1 goes through polarizer C, then if I understand
> entanglement correctly that implies some of the time photon #1 will make it
> through polarizer C.  Is that correct?
>
>  To me it seems that must be incorrect, because it would enable super
> luminal communication.  By sending a continuous stream of entangled photons
> in opposite directions and changing the orientation of B between 0 and 45
> degrees, you could cause photons at C to stop with 100% or 75%
> probability.  This cannot be so then what is wrong with the above
> assumptions of how the three polarizer experiment works with entangled
> photons?
>
> Thanks,
>
>  Jason
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6511 - Release Date: 07/22/13
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email