From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 14:17:33 MDT
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 11:12 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com> Wrote:
>
> > I have an idea about that. Let's say for the experiment there are two
> > random states, at point A and point B. Each varies from zero to nine.
> > Now, A has the capacity to send a given state to B instantaneously.
> > Yet, A doe snot know the current state of B and B does not know the
> > current state of A. Also, as the random state changes for each to a
> > random number each time interval, neither A nor B has the immediate
> > knowledge if A's value was just sent in the immmediately previous time
> > interval. However, they do have synchronized clocks. Now, the goal
> of
> > A is to send a message, a bit of information, within an interval of
> the
> > smaller time intervals. Say the time intervals are seconds. At
> exactly
> > twelve midnight, A starts monitoring the state and whenever the state
> is
> > zero, a one in ten chance, then itis sent over to B. Now B also has a
> > one in ten chance of having a zero, yet also, there is the added
> > probability of it being a zero from aA sending a zero. Now, being
> > random, over the 3600 seconds in the hour from 12:00 to 1:00, B would
> > expect 360 zeros if none were sent from A. However, with A sending
> each
> > zero, then when B sees around 360+36-3.6 zeros in the hour, about 392,
> > then he knows A has been sending a message for the last hour.
>
> But it's not like there is a random process and then you decide if you
> are
> going to send a message or not, the randomness is inextricably linked
> to the
> transmission process. This is how it would work, a million years ago a
> series of green photons hit a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate
> and
> turned into 2 lower energy red photons with identical but unknown
> polarization. The photons are thus entangled and sent in opposite
> directions, one to me and the other to you. A million years later I
> spin my Polaroid sunglasses to a random direction, one second later you
> do the same thing 2 million light years away. If my photon makes it
> through
> my filter (and there is a 50% chance it will) and if you happen to set
> your
> sunglasses to the same angle then there is a 100% chance it will make it
> through your filter, if it is 90 degrees off there is a 0% chance. In
> general the square of the cosign of the angle between the 2 detectors
> for
> each photon pair is proportional to the probability that a photon will
> make
> it through your detector. There is no doubt I have instantly changed
> something in your detector 2 million light years away but there is no
> way
> I can use that to send a message because from your point of view it all
> looks random, sometimes the photon makes it through your detector and
> sometimes it does not and the probability it just what you would expect,
> 50%. It is only when we compare notes, and that can only be done at
> the speed of light or less, does it become obvious that I am influencing
> your receiver much faster than light.
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
>
It seems more like we each observed a photon from the original source.
Those twos photon have the same propensity to pass through a polarized
lens at a given angle. If we have the lenses at the same angle, the
photon passes through both or neither.
If we each have the lenses at the same angle then the photons go through
both or neither. That seems a repeatable experiment, each of us a
million light years from a coherent source, instead of an example of
mutual influence.
It's like if we were standing next to each other a million light years
away from a source of coherent light, each holding a lens. If the
photons go through one then they go through the other. Similarly, if we
are each holding a lens at a given angle a couple million light years
away from each other, if it goes through one it goes through the other,
and if it doesn't go through one then it doesn't go through the other.
It's like saying that there is a poison with a hundred percent chance of
killing. We each have a disposable rat which we poison. They each
die. These rats aren't linked in their living, poisoning one doesn't
kill the other, they only die if poisoned. The coherent light has the
property that it only passes through a lens (grating) at a given angle.
If we each have the lens at the same angle then it is like we each
poison the rat, or not, if we have them at different angles then each
might or might not be poisoned.
About the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one thing it has to do with
is solving the Schroedinger wave equation, which is recently solved.
The wave equation is solvable.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:12 MST