In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51
PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in
a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in
On 06/08/2010 11:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It
is a
mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the
best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the
real
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51
PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate
in
a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are
Ok, I read the wired article only, are they claiming that the photon can be
copied without collapsing the wave function yet produce non-entangled
copies?
Probably not, but if so then that could be used to cheat and actually read
the copies without collapsing the wave function.
That is of course
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:21:12 -0400:
Hi,
Maybe polarizers do more than measure? Perhaps they actually change the
polarization angle? e.g. if the electric field is more vertical than horizontal,
then it gets forced completely vertical, if more horizontal
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com
wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49
-0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are
Here's Wired's article on the subject:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/human-quantum-entanglement-detector/
T
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:29 PM
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one
another.
That means that the subsequent response of
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in
close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:16:27 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's
possible not only to observe but also to *change* the status of one of
the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite
change. It's
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum
Entanglement
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement
Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil
opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum
Entanglement
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement
Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil
opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
FR: A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles
remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially?
ML: That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional
plane(or volumetric cross
ON Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:37 Mauro Lacy said
If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that
define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional
manifold are the same for both particles, the answer is yes. I suppose
that could be named dimensional adjacency,
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another.
That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated*
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:41:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
ON Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:37 Mauro Lacy said
If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that
define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional
manifold are the same for
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one
another.
That
19 matches
Mail list logo
