Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?
From: danek (danek@ll.mit.edu)
Date: 03/06/03
- Next message: Thomas Pornin: "SSL/TLS DHE suites and short exponents"
- Previous message: Seznec Andre: "Post-doc position proposal"
- In reply to: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Next in thread: Tony T. Warnock: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Tony T. Warnock: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: danek <danek@ll.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:30:45 -0500
I am not an expert on QM but I am struggling with these ideas myself. I would think that
probability theory applies to an entangled photon pair before any measurement takes place.
However, after you measure one photon then you know for certain what the other photon is.
For instance, you generate one pair of photons that are entangled in polarization. The
photons are orthogonal to each other. Once the photons are generated you can separate them
from each other and send them down different paths. One of the two goes to a detector and
gets measured. Before the measurement takes place there is a fifty fifty chance you know
the polarization of the photon heading to your detector. Once you have detected that photon
you now know the polarization of both photons even though you never measured the second
one. This is what makes it different from Aliens flipping coins. The coins aren't
entangled.
P. Danek
Thinh Tran wrote:
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message news:<3E65AD2E.4040808@null.net>...
>
> > Thus, if probabilities aren't involved, what
> > is it? Degree of entanglement?
>
> [Reply] Sorry. I didn't see this question the last time. According to
> my findings, there is no need for probability because you are dealing
> with distributions. Distributions can explain everything that QM is
> explaining right now with probability.
> Probability: Starting from the parts, moving to the whole.
> Distribution: Starting from the whole, sometimes can move to the
> parts.
> That's a big difference.
> Thinh Tran (http://www.thinhtran.com)
- Next message: Thomas Pornin: "SSL/TLS DHE suites and short exponents"
- Previous message: Seznec Andre: "Post-doc position proposal"
- In reply to: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Next in thread: Tony T. Warnock: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Tony T. Warnock: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Reply: Thinh Tran: "Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|