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

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > So why is it the entanglement is destroyed by the presence of the 45 > degree filter, but not the 0 degree filter? > Because before the photon hit the 0 degree filter, that is to say before it was measured, neither it nor it's entangled twin

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

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013Jason Resch wrote: > > > If a photon passes a filter orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters >> a filter at 90 degrees it will be blocked. >> > > How do you know the photon is oriented at 0 degrees? > Because it passed

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

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013Jason Resch wrote: > If a photon passes a filter orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters a > filter at 90 degrees it will be blocked. > How do you know the photon is oriented at 0 degrees? If the photon has never been measured, if neither it nor its entangled twin has eve

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

On 7/26/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random source as you assume.

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

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's >> assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random >> source as you assume. >> > > The photon

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

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: > I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's > assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random > source as you assume. > The photon has no polarization at all unless a filter is involved somewhere.