Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?

From: Neil (paradoxer@lykose.com)
Date: 03/08/03

  • Next message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: SSL/TLS DHE suites and short exponents" 
    From: "Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:29:52 -0500

    Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
    news:b480uv$6am$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
    > thinhvantran@cs.com (Thinh Tran) writes:
    >
    > ]"Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com> wrote in message
    news:<v6aajpbncpit24@corp.supernews.com>...
    > ]
    > ]> A short summary of your own new (?) concept about probability, and why you
    don't
    > ]> trust conventional QM (so, what do you trust?) might be helpful. Would it
    apply
    <snip>
    > ] Since there is no communication, there is no conflict between
    > ]Bell's finding and SR (because SR doesn't apply to remote QM
    > ]correlation,) and there is no need for the Many Worlds Interpretation
    > ]either.
    >
    > OK. The key issue is correlations. A (separated) quantum system can be more
    strongly
    > correlated than a classical system. This is the Bell's theorem. Now,
    > this stronger correlation could be the result of communication in a
    > classical setting. This has led people to say that this quantum
    > correlation IS the result of communication. That is of course a
    > non-sequitor.
    >
    > Note that correlations are set up by some common cause in both the
    > classical and quantum systems. The questions occurs with the random
    > nature of the systems. How can a system be random and still exhibit the
    > strong correlations a quantum system can. What Bell proved was that
    > those stronger correlations could not arise from a common classical
    > cause. So, they are either classical and then must involve
    > communication, or they are not classical and need not involve
    > communication. Many people who prattle about FLT communication for some
    > reason believe that the first must be true-- that the world must be
    > classical and that therefor the correlations must be set by
    > communication.
    >
    >
    > The following analogy seems to be completely beside the point.
    .........
    Perhaps it is beside the point, because too many readers assumed (?) that the
    situation I was referring to as OP was the traditional EPR situation, where
    correlations between widely separated detectors are found out through later
    comparison. The situation to which I refer, relies instead distinctions noted
    directly and "immediately' (needing a wait for statistical patterns to emerge
    locally, but not requiring a wait for later conveyance of detector results to a
    distant other detector location) on *interference* between two photons directed
    to a single place, and the two detectors are in close proximity. One photon P1
    is is left unaltered, but the other one P2 has another half-silvered mirror
    placed in its path (before either can reach the final half-silvered mirror which
    combines both photons.) Then, the condition of the wavefunction of P2 depends on
    whether a dectector checking the diverted portion of the beam path in which P2
    resides can register a hit before or after the interference is due to occur at
    the final combining beam-splitter. (Look at my final fixed-width font diagram.)

    However, first I need to resolve whether it is really true, as Peter Fairbrother
    states, that one photon can't really interfere with another one. I find that
    incredible, since their amplitudes should add and then be squared to get hit
    probability, just like with any "split" single photon. What happens in real
    experiments with *two* quanta emitted at once?

    Neil

  • Next message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: SSL/TLS DHE suites and short exponents"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: FTL Quantum Comm. via 2-photon Interference?
      ... ]probability as it applies to QM. ... QM correlations exist without communication. ... A quantum system can be more strongly ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: Faster than light signalling via an EPR type mechanism
      ... Communication theorems. ... your claims are wrong and the NC theorems are right, ... The Bell Inequality test results demonstrate that it must happen ... Answer: QM predicts correlations. ...
      (sci.physics.research)
    • Re: Quantum entanglement and information transfer
      ... These correlations ... > require no communication between the correlated ... information state of an observer at B (even if the only information is ... The fact that quantum entanglement is ...
      (sci.physics.research)
    • Re: Alternative approach to QM action at a distance
      ... It's now occurred to me that perhaps the "spooky communication" needs ... more than a scalar phase, if observations of two-state systems can vary ... correlations between observations should still depend only on the angle ... Are there similar possible observations of two-state systems which can ...
      (sci.physics.research)
    • Quantcast