On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> >>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a >>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently >>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way >>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are >>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less. >>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin >>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace >>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way. >>> >> >> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c, >> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.* >> > > Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to > and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than > light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to > there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number > at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you > also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the > probability your electron will make it through your filter is > [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees > different from mine the value of the expression is .75, so there is a > 75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you > happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your > electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees > there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set > my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by > side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of > electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its > certainly weird. > The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs. polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree with the statistics given above. However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance. Any particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to instantaneous spooky actions at a distance. The large numbers of correlated photons have each proto-measured their counter part. Measuring one entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite polarization angle. Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason who measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your expectations. But there is no single Jason or single measurement result, all of them happen. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
