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

[John Clark]

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 had any polarization at
all. The single measurement gave both of them a value, but if you set up
the experiment again for just one photon with the filter at a different
angle you will get a different value for the polarization of that photon
and destroy the entanglement. It's very easy to destroy entanglement and
nothing does it better than measurement.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

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

[Jason Resch]

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 a filter orientated at 0 degrees.


> If the photon has never been measured, if neither it nor its entangled
> twin has ever passed through a filter of any sort before and now for the
> first time it encounters a filter set at 90 degrees, or set at ANY other
> angle, the probability it will be blocked by the filter is 50 50.
>
>
>>   > But, if you insert a filter in the middle orientated at 45 degrees
>> then there is a 50% chance it will continue through that filter after
>> passing the 0 degree filter, and also a 50% chance that that photon will
>> also pass the filter at 90 degrees.  Therefore there is a 25% chance a
>> photon that passes the filter at 0 degrees passes the next 2 filters.
>>
>
> Yes, and one chance in 8 that a previously unmeasured undifferentiated
> photon will make it through all 3 filters.
>

Yes, like I said.


>
> >> If my differentiated photon with a known polarization encounters a
>>> filter that its brother photon has not then the delicate quantum
>>> entanglement between the two is destroyed and there are just 2 unrelated
>>> photons a billion light years away
>>
>>
>> >I don't think that is correct.
>>
>
> It is correct, measurement can be very detrimental to quantum
> entanglement, that's why making a quantum computer is so difficult.
>
> > If a photon passes a 0 degree filter,
>>
>
> Then it has always been orientated at 0 degrees and so has its entangled
> twin, if you then put a filter set at 45 degrees in the photon's path there
> is a 50 50 chance it will get through, but get through or not the
> entanglement will have been destroyed unless somebody a billion light years
> away also put a filter set at 45 degrees in the distant photon's path.
>
>  > the twin photon a billion light years away will always be stopped by a
>> 90 degree filter.
>>
>
> Yes,
>

So why is it the entanglement is destroyed by the presence of the 45 degree
filter, but not the 0 degree filter?

Jason


> but there is no way to use that fact to send a message, because I have no
> way of forcing a unmeasured photon make it through my filter or be blocked
> by it, the chances are always 50 50; so I have no way to send a dot instead
> of a dash or a dash instead of a dot, so the only message I can send is
> random gibberish.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> 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 
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.

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

[John Clark]

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 ever passed
through a filter of any sort before and now for the first time it
encounters a filter set at 90 degrees, or set at ANY other angle, the
probability it will be blocked by the filter is 50 50.


>   > But, if you insert a filter in the middle orientated at 45 degrees
> then there is a 50% chance it will continue through that filter after
> passing the 0 degree filter, and also a 50% chance that that photon will
> also pass the filter at 90 degrees.  Therefore there is a 25% chance a
> photon that passes the filter at 0 degrees passes the next 2 filters.
>

Yes, and one chance in 8 that a previously unmeasured undifferentiated
photon will make it through all 3 filters.

>> If my differentiated photon with a known polarization encounters a
>> filter that its brother photon has not then the delicate quantum
>> entanglement between the two is destroyed and there are just 2 unrelated
>> photons a billion light years away
>
>
> >I don't think that is correct.
>

It is correct, measurement can be very detrimental to quantum entanglement,
that's why making a quantum computer is so difficult.

> If a photon passes a 0 degree filter,
>

Then it has always been orientated at 0 degrees and so has its entangled
twin, if you then put a filter set at 45 degrees in the photon's path there
is a 50 50 chance it will get through, but get through or not the
entanglement will have been destroyed unless somebody a billion light years
away also put a filter set at 45 degrees in the distant photon's path.

 > the twin photon a billion light years away will always be stopped by a
> 90 degree filter.
>

Yes, but there is no way to use that fact to send a message, because I have
no way of forcing a unmeasured photon make it through my filter or be
blocked by it, the chances are always 50 50; so I have no way to send a dot
instead of a dash or a dash instead of a dot, so the only message I can
send is random gibberish.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.

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

[meekerdb]

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.


The photon has no polarization at all unless a filter is involved somewhere. My filter 
can be orientated at any angle, in this case it just happens to be 0 degrees. When it 
hits the filter only 2 things can happen, the photon goes through the filter or it does 
not. The probability of the undifferentiated photon going through the filter or being 
stopped by it is 50 50 and I have no way of changing that probability. If the photon 
goes through my filter set at 0 degrees then the photon was always polarized at exactly 
0 degrees and so was its entangled brother photon a billion light years away even if the 
two were created a billion years ago. If the photon does NOT get through my filter set 
at 0 degrees then the photon was always polarized at exactly 90 degrees and so was its 
entangled brother photon a billion light years away even if the two were created a 
billion years ago.
Remember that I could have picked any angle to set my filter at, I picked angle X for no 
particular reason and did so only 30 seconds ago, but my choice today means that my 
photon and its entangled brother a billion light years away have always been polarized 
at  X degrees or at X + 90 degrees. So I have made the number X special to both photons 
regardless of if my photon gets through my filter or not, even though both photons were 
created a billion years before I was born. You can't use this for faster than light 
communication but I still find it very weird.


> He's proposing that inserting B will cause A to transmit some photons 
(~25%) that
go thru C.  Removing B will result in no photons passing thru C.  So 
removing and
replacing B can send dots and dashes to someone just beyond C.


If my differentiated photon with a known polarization encounters a filter that its 
brother photon has not then the delicate quantum entanglement between the two is 
destroyed and there are just 2 unrelated photons a billion light years away.


Yes, I think that's the answer.  B only affects the transmission at C when the photon goes 
through B, and having an entangled partner photon go through B only breaks the entanglement.


Brent

--
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.

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

[Jason Resch]

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 has no polarization at all unless a filter is involved
> somewhere.
>

There are 3 filters in my thought experiment.


> My filter can be orientated at any angle, in this case it just happens to
> be 0 degrees. When it hits the filter only 2 things can happen, the photon
> goes through the filter or it does not. The probability of the
> undifferentiated photon going through the filter or being stopped by it is
> 50 50 and I have no way of changing that probability. If the photon goes
> through my filter set at 0 degrees then the photon was always polarized at
> exactly 0 degrees and so was its entangled brother photon a billion light
> years away even if the two were created a billion years ago. If the photon
> does NOT get through my filter set at 0 degrees then the photon was always
> polarized at exactly 90 degrees and so was its entangled brother photon a
> billion light years away even if the two were created a billion years ago.
>

Sure.  But here is where it gets interesting.  If a photon passes a filter
orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters a filter at 90 degrees it will
be blocked.  But, if you insert a filter in the middle orientated at 45
degrees then there is a 50% chance it will continue through that filter
after passing the 0 degree filter, and also a 50% chance that that photon
will also pass the filter at 90 degrees.  Therefore there is a 25% chance a
photon that passes the filter at 0 degrees passes the next 2 filters.

My question is: if you do this experiment with entangled photons, and send
one photon through the filter at 0 degrees, and it passes, then you send
the twin photon through a filter at 45 degrees, and it passes, then is
there now a chance the first photon will now pass a filter at 90 degrees?
(when otherwise it would not have, save for the twin photon passing the
filter at 45 degrees)


>
> Remember that I could have picked any angle to set my filter at, I picked
> angle X for no particular reason and did so only 30 seconds ago, but my
> choice today means that my photon and its entangled brother a billion light
> years away have always been polarized at  X degrees or at X + 90 degrees.
> So I have made the number X special to both photons regardless of if my
> photon gets through my filter or not, even though both photons were created
> a billion years before I was born. You can't use this for faster than light
> communication but I still find it very weird.
>
>
If the experiment I described does not work (which I do not believe it can
but I am not sure how it fails, perhaps photons are always blocked at the
filter at 90 degrees), then that shows there really isn't anything spooky
going on at all.


> > He's proposing that inserting B will cause A to transmit some photons
>> (~25%) that go thru C.  Removing B will result in no photons passing thru
>> C.  So removing and replacing B can send dots and dashes to someone just
>> beyond C.
>>
>
> If my differentiated photon with a known polarization encounters a filter
> that its brother photon has not then the delicate quantum entanglement
> between the two is destroyed and there are just 2 unrelated photons a
> billion light years away.
>

I don't think that is correct.  If a photon passes a 0 degree filter, the
twin photon a billion light years away will always be stopped by a 90
degree filter.

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.

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

[John Clark]

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. My filter can be orientated at any angle, in this case it just
happens to be 0 degrees. When it hits the filter only 2 things can happen,
the photon goes through the filter or it does not. The probability of the
undifferentiated photon going through the filter or being stopped by it is
50 50 and I have no way of changing that probability. If the photon goes
through my filter set at 0 degrees then the photon was always polarized at
exactly 0 degrees and so was its entangled brother photon a billion light
years away even if the two were created a billion years ago. If the photon
does NOT get through my filter set at 0 degrees then the photon was always
polarized at exactly 90 degrees and so was its entangled brother photon a
billion light years away even if the two were created a billion years ago.

Remember that I could have picked any angle to set my filter at, I picked
angle X for no particular reason and did so only 30 seconds ago, but my
choice today means that my photon and its entangled brother a billion light
years away have always been polarized at  X degrees or at X + 90 degrees.
So I have made the number X special to both photons regardless of if my
photon gets through my filter or not, even though both photons were created
a billion years before I was born. You can't use this for faster than light
communication but I still find it very weird.

> He's proposing that inserting B will cause A to transmit some photons
> (~25%) that go thru C.  Removing B will result in no photons passing thru
> C.  So removing and replacing B can send dots and dashes to someone just
> beyond C.
>

If my differentiated photon with a known polarization encounters a filter
that its brother photon has not then the delicate quantum entanglement
between the two is destroyed and there are just 2 unrelated photons a
billion light years away.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

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

[meekerdb]

On 7/25/2013 1:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013  Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


> 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


I can't send a message that way because I have no way of controlling if I send a dot or 
a dash, if a photon polarized at 0 degrees hits a 45 degree filter there is a 50 50 
chance it will get through and I can't change that. Quantum entanglement can influence 
things faster than light but you need more than that to transmit information, you need a 
standard to measure that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that 
standard; all it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently 
random state.


Think of quantum entanglement as 2 magic coins, I have one and you have the other, no 
matter how far apart we are if I flip my coin and it comes up heads then when you flip 
your coin it will always come up heads, if my coin is tails then so will your coin when 
you flip it. As marvelous as this fact is there is no way I can use the coins to send 
you a message because I have no control over my coin, it could come out heads or tails, 
so you see just randomness in the coin toss just like I do. It is only when we 
communicate through conventional means (at the speed of light or less) do we realize 
that my apparently random sequence of coin tosses and your apparently random sequence of 
coin tosses are identical.




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.  He's proposing 
that inserting B will cause A to transmit some photons (~25%) that go thru C.  Removing B 
will result in no photons passing thru C.  So removing and replacing B can send dots and 
dashes to someone just beyond C.  I don't think that's right, but I've been very busy and 
haven't had time to figure out just why.


Brent

--
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.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:

> 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
>

I can't send a message that way because I have no way of controlling if I
send a dot or a dash, if a photon polarized at 0 degrees hits a 45 degree
filter there is a 50 50 chance it will get through and I can't change that.
Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you need
more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that
change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it
can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently random
state.

Think of quantum entanglement as 2 magic coins, I have one and you have the
other, no matter how far apart we are if I flip my coin and it comes up
heads then when you flip your coin it will always come up heads, if my coin
is tails then so will your coin when you flip it. As marvelous as this fact
is there is no way I can use the coins to send you a message because I have
no control over my coin, it could come out heads or tails, so you see just
randomness in the coin toss just like I do. It is only when we communicate
through conventional means (at the speed of light or less) do we realize
that my apparently random sequence of coin tosses and your apparently
random sequence of coin tosses are identical.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

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

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 7/23/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb  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 degrees45 degrees90
> 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.
>
>
> OK, but what are the angles and how are the varied to send a signal?
>
>
The angles (in degrees) are the angles relative to polarizer A.  To send
the signal, polarizer B is taken away (or put back).  Unless polarizer B is
there, then 100% of the photons at C get blocked.  When B is there, 25% of
the photons make it through.

Or does photon #1 have to be the one that goes through polarizer B in order
for it to have any chance of going through polarizer C?

Jason

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.

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

[meekerdb]

On 7/23/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb > 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 degrees45 degrees90 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.


OK, but what are the angles and how are the varied to send a signal?

Brent

--
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.

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

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb  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 degrees45 degrees90
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 
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.

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

[meekerdb]

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.  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.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Jul 2013, at 16:00, 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, 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?



Yes. Relatively to you.





To me it seems that must be incorrect, because it would enable super  
luminal communication.


In a single universe, it looks like there is such a communication, but  
the math shows that you cannot use it to send information (like with  
quantum teleportation).


But if you look at this in the Everett picture, you can see that there  
are no superluminal communications at all. By choosing some angle of  
some polarizer, you determine the type of partitioning of the  
multiverse you will stay in. May be you can do the computation  
yourself, and you might be inspired by the computation that Steve  
Price does in his "Everett FAQ".






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?


I think that you are using implicitly the "uniqueness of outcome"  
somewhere. Not much time to do the details for now, but I might do it  
later if nobody does it. But you can do it, also, as this needs only a  
minimal amount of QM. Of course this will not prove that Everett is   
always "local" in general. For this you can take a look on some paper  
by Tipler, or more rigorous one by Deutsch and Hayden, but even this  
is criticized by some physicists.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

[Jason Resch]

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, 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.