Science > Physics > EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"ben" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 08:14:13 PM |
| Object: |
EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
i'm reading the cosmic code by pagels and i'm at a bit that talks about
the EPR argument:
Two particles, call them 1 and 2, are sitting near each other
with their positions from some common point given by q1 and q2
respectively. We assume the particles are moving and that their momenta
are p1 and p2. Although the Heisenberg uncertainty relation implies
that we cannot simultaneously measure p1 and q1 or p2 and q2 without
uncertainty, it does allow us to simultaneously measure the sum of the
momenta p = p1 + p2 and the distance between the two particles q = q1 -
q2 without any uncertainty. The two particles interact, and then
particle 2 flies off to London while 1 remains in New York. These two
locations are so far apart that it seems reasonable to suppose that
what we do to particle 1 in New York should in no way influence
particle 2 in London - the principle of local causality. Since we know
that the total momentum is conserved - it is the same before the
interaction as after - if we measure the momentum p1 of the particle in
New York, then by subtracting this quantity from the known total
momentum p, we deduce exactly the momentum p2 = p - p1 of particle 2 in
London...
hang on a minute -- surely the momentums of the particles, any
particles, fluctuate? a particle's momentum isn't a fixed, constant
value. so the deduction that's going on there is useless. if you're not
measuring p2 at the same time as p1, one part of p is based on old,
therefore incorrect info which would make p wrong. at the point that p1
is measured you then know particle 1's momentum obviously, but unless
you also measure 2's momentum at exactly the same moment, p, the sum of
both particle's momentum is unknown so you can't reasonably deduce 2's
momentum using p2 = p - p1 because you don't know p. but that's what's
being said isn't it?
what's going on there?
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
30 Mar 2005 10:12:34 AM |
|
|
ben wrote:
i'm reading the cosmic code by pagels
***** alert.
and i'm at a bit that talks about
the EPR argument:
Two particles, call them 1 and 2, are sitting near each other
or on opposite sides of the universe - makes no difference
with their positions from some common point given by q1 and q2
respectively. We assume the particles are moving and that their momenta
are p1 and p2. Although the Heisenberg uncertainty relation implies
that we cannot simultaneously measure p1 and q1 or p2 and q2 without
uncertainty, it does allow us to simultaneously measure the sum of the
momenta p = p1 + p2 and the distance between the two particles q = q1 -
q2 without any uncertainty.
Position and velocity have nothing to do with it.
The EPR measurement is angular momentum - polarization. Before you
look, both entangled particles are superpositions of all possible
states weighted by their probabilities. Neither particle by itself
has a polarization. At the moment you observe one particle the other
*instantaneously* has the orthogonal polarization measureable. The
two ends of the experiment operate autonomously, then they get
together and compare notes to transform data into information. There
is no transluminal tranfer of information. Each isolated dataset
appears as random noise.
The two particles interact, and then
particle 2 flies off to London while 1 remains in New York.
Paired entangled photons are typically made by non-linear frequency
halving of an input photon. You tossed in a meaningless red herring.
These two
locations are so far apart that it seems reasonable to suppose that
what we do to particle 1 in New York should in no way influence
particle 2 in London - the principle of local causality. Since we know
that the total momentum is conserved - it is the same before the
interaction as after - if we measure the momentum p1 of the particle in
New York, then by subtracting this quantity from the known total
momentum p, we deduce exactly the momentum p2 = p - p1 of particle 2 in
London...
Information cannot travel the distance at lightspeed in the
observation time interval to very high confidence. Quantum state
collapse into an observable is not information. Collapsed quantum
states correlate *instanteously* across arbitrary separations and
volumes. The universe dos not tolerate contradiction.
hang on a minute -- surely the momentums of the particles, any
particles, fluctuate? a particle's momentum isn't a fixed, constant
value. so the deduction that's going on there is useless. if you're not
measuring p2 at the same time as p1, one part of p is based on old,
therefore incorrect info which would make p wrong. at the point that p1
is measured you then know particle 1's momentum obviously, but unless
you also measure 2's momentum at exactly the same moment, p, the sum of
both particle's momentum is unknown so you can't reasonably deduce 2's
momentum using p2 = p - p1 because you don't know p. but that's what's
being said isn't it?
what's going on there?
Read accounts of properly conducted Bell Inequality experiments.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "ben" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
31 Mar 2005 08:39:19 AM |
|
|
i'm reading the cosmic code by pagels
***** alert.
oh. but it's supposed to be quite a good book -- a bit old though 1982.
Before you
look, both entangled particles are superpositions of all possible
states weighted by their probabilities.
roughly/simply what does "entangled particles" mean? that must be much
the same thing as what the book meant when it said "The two particles
interact". this is the part that somehow joins them together in some
way? if this part didn't occur then the "orthogonal polarization" that
you mention wouldn't happen?
At the moment you observe one particle the other
*instantaneously* has the orthogonal polarization measureable. The
two ends of the experiment operate autonomously, then they get
together and compare notes to transform data into information.
There
is no transluminal tranfer of information. Each isolated dataset
appears as random noise.
so there's always a kind of balance (see-saw like behaviour) between
the two ends of the experiment?
The EPR measurement is angular momentum - polarization
so far as a single particle goes is that ploarisation value variable --
does it change (normally)? or is it once decided/measured fixed
generally -- not something that changes?
Paired entangled photons are typically made by non-linear frequency
halving of an input photon. You tossed in a meaningless red
herring.
that was from the book, not me.
Read accounts of properly conducted Bell Inequality experiments.
hmm, ok i suppose. the book's draw for me was that quite a few people
seem to think it gives a good not too technical (will be understandable
by me) description of quantum stuff -- gives a good feel for it. but if
it does simply get things wrong it doesn't matter how clear it is,
that's not good.
thanks, ben.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
29 Mar 2005 09:53:31 PM |
|
|
ben wrote:
i'm reading the cosmic code by pagels and i'm at a bit that talks about
the EPR argument:
Two particles, call them 1 and 2, are sitting near each other
with their positions from some common point given by q1 and q2
respectively. We assume the particles are moving and that their momenta
are p1 and p2. Although the Heisenberg uncertainty relation implies
that we cannot simultaneously measure p1 and q1 or p2 and q2 without
uncertainty, it does allow us to simultaneously measure the sum of the
momenta p = p1 + p2 and the distance between the two particles q = q1 -
q2 without any uncertainty. The two particles interact, and then
particle 2 flies off to London while 1 remains in New York. These two
locations are so far apart that it seems reasonable to suppose that
what we do to particle 1 in New York should in no way influence
particle 2 in London - the principle of local causality. Since we know
that the total momentum is conserved - it is the same before the
interaction as after - if we measure the momentum p1 of the particle in
New York, then by subtracting this quantity from the known total
momentum p, we deduce exactly the momentum p2 = p - p1 of particle 2 in
London...
hang on a minute -- surely the momentums of the particles, any
particles, fluctuate? a particle's momentum isn't a fixed, constant
value. so the deduction that's going on there is useless. if you're not
measuring p2 at the same time as p1, one part of p is based on old,
therefore incorrect info which would make p wrong. at the point that p1
is measured you then know particle 1's momentum obviously, but unless
you also measure 2's momentum at exactly the same moment, p, the sum of
both particle's momentum is unknown so you can't reasonably deduce 2's
momentum using p2 = p - p1 because you don't know p. but that's what's
being said isn't it?
what's going on there?
EPR is about polarization information. Bell predicted that local(speed
of light) effects would require a certain inequality be observed in
polarization measurements of two correlated photons received at
different detectors. Aspect conducted Bell's proposed experiment and
registered a violation of that inequality, thus leading some to
believe that there is a non-local interaction taking place between
photons. The incorrect assumption is that there even is an interaction
taking place between them. Of course there isn't, photons don't
interact with each other, not even locally.
The solution evaded Einstein for the simple reason that it was he who
introduced the idea of photon, and because of this blunder he
attempted to reason the problem through classically in conjunction
with an entity (photon) that his own classical electrodynamics was
perfectly contradictory to. The reality is that you can't *sort*
photons. One reason for this is that there are no fucking photons, and
another is that the wavelets, that are being confused with photons,
aren't being measured, they are being torqued. The QM interpretation
of the resulting data is nothing less than idiotic.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "ben" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
30 Mar 2005 05:08:30 AM |
|
|
thanks for the reply.
The incorrect assumption is that there even is an interaction taking
place between them. Of course there isn't, photons don't interact
with
each other, not even locally.
so deducing one particle's momentum by measuring another particle's
momentum is plain straight stupid and impossible full stop? if that's
the case why do books even bother repeating this twoddle? then i
wouldn't be asking silly questions about it. why isn't this crap just
burried and not talked about ever again? because it was einstein right?
then the sillyness is not actually with einstein -- *everyone* makes
silly mistakes. there's no surprises there. the sillyness is with
people who keep repeating (in a talking about it way) einstein's
mistake(s). they should concentrate on his non-mistakes and ignore the
mistakes (or at least make a tiny mention of them, label them mistakes,
and move on).
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
30 Mar 2005 07:38:50 AM |
|
|
ben wrote:
thanks for the reply.
The incorrect assumption is that there even is an interaction taking
place between them. Of course there isn't, photons don't interact
with
each other, not even locally.
so deducing one particle's momentum by measuring another particle's
momentum is plain straight stupid and impossible full stop? if that's
the case why do books even bother repeating this twoddle? then i
wouldn't be asking silly questions about it. why isn't this crap just
burried and not talked about ever again? because it was einstein right?
then the sillyness is not actually with einstein -- *everyone* makes
silly mistakes. there's no surprises there. the sillyness is with
people who keep repeating (in a talking about it way) einstein's
mistake(s). they should concentrate on his non-mistakes and ignore the
mistakes (or at least make a tiny mention of them, label them mistakes,
and move on).
The problem is that the majority would tend to disagree with me in
favor of Bell. They seriously "want" something mysterious to be taking
place, and so even in light of the fact that no signal can be shown to
have propagated superluminally, they won't let it go. Another reason
is that they still don't understand the results, thus to them the
question is still open.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "ben" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
30 Mar 2005 09:26:28 AM |
|
|
The problem is that the majority would tend to disagree with me in
favor of Bell. They seriously "want" something mysterious to be
taking
place, and so even in light of the fact that no signal can be shown
to
have propagated superluminally, they won't let it go. Another reason
is that they still don't understand the results, thus to them the
question is still open.
Richard Perry
in the text i quoted there's "The two particles interact". that was a
bit slyly slipped in (not much explenation). what's going on there?
"Since we know that the total momentum is conserved" -- we don't know
that at all do we? or should i know that? (the book seems to have just
come out with that out of the blue). do people know/think that? where
did that come from? why would anyone think that if they do? is that
actually what people think?
two particles that "interact" (whatever that means) then their
momentums are connected in a balanced kind of way? one speeds up, so
the other slows down.
is that what the book's saying does anyone think/know? or have i
misunderstood it?
"Since we know that the total momentum is conserved - it is the same
before the interaction as after". that sentance seems like an incorrect
one. can anyone confirm i'm understanding it correctly please?: i
_think_ it's refering to two particle's momentums summed together and
it's saying that that sum is a constant / invariant value. why does
anyone think that the sum is constant / invariant if that is what's
thought? that must be the mysterious wish that Richard's talking about.
i'm also confused on this: did einstein think that two particles
momentums are balanced/connected? or was he just using that as an
example and not actually think it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
30 Mar 2005 12:30:49 PM |
|
|
ben wrote:
The problem is that the majority would tend to disagree with me in
favor of Bell. They seriously "want" something mysterious to be
taking
place, and so even in light of the fact that no signal can be shown
to
have propagated superluminally, they won't let it go. Another reason
is that they still don't understand the results, thus to them the
question is still open.
Richard Perry
in the text i quoted there's "The two particles interact". that was a
bit slyly slipped in (not much explenation). what's going on there?
"Since we know that the total momentum is conserved" -- we don't know
that at all do we? or should i know that? (the book seems to have just
come out with that out of the blue). do people know/think that? where
did that come from? why would anyone think that if they do? is that
actually what people think?
two particles that "interact" (whatever that means) then their
momentums are connected in a balanced kind of way? one speeds up, so
the other slows down.
is that what the book's saying does anyone think/know? or have i
misunderstood it?
"Since we know that the total momentum is conserved - it is the same
before the interaction as after". that sentance seems like an incorrect
one. can anyone confirm i'm understanding it correctly please?: i
_think_ it's refering to two particle's momentums summed together and
it's saying that that sum is a constant / invariant value. why does
anyone think that the sum is constant / invariant if that is what's
thought? that must be the mysterious wish that Richard's talking about.
i'm also confused on this: did einstein think that two particles
momentums are balanced/connected? or was he just using that as an
example and not actually think it?
Read the original papers and decide for yourself.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm
Einstein was opposed to any non-local (faster than light) interactions.
Ask Al what information is obtained by comparing the data sets? LOL.
It's as easy as this, the incident polarity at A isn't known, because
it has been torqued, not measured. The resultant polarity is whatever
the polarity of the polarizer is, but the energy is a function of
angle. Assuming spin up or spin down leads to a false interpretation
of the resultant patterns. By comparison of the B data set to the
resultant A data set, the polarization of the polarizer at A can be
determined.
This is information that didn't propagate, period, it is deduced.
It's just coding and decoding. The B data set is the code key.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "ben" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
31 Mar 2005 08:59:40 AM |
|
|
http://www.drchinese.com/David /EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm
haven't looked at that yet but will do -- thanks for the link.
Ask Al what information is obtained by comparing the data sets?
is it not like a balance/see-saw type of thing? for example say the two
values add up to 1, then measuring one particle gives .4 then the
other's going to be .6. is that not the type of connection (and
information) that's being talked about?
It's as easy as this, the incident polarity at A isn't known,
because
it has been torqued, not measured.
"incident polarity" -- what does that mean? "torqued"? twisted? is that
what's involved in the particles interacting / entangled particles
part?
The resultant polarity is whatever the polarity of the polarizer is,
ploarizer -- part of the interaction / entangling part?
but the energy is a function of
angle. Assuming spin up or spin down leads to a false interpretation
of the resultant patterns. By comparison of the B data set to the
resultant A data set, the polarization of the polarizer at A can be
determined.
don't really understand that part.
This is information that didn't propagate, period, it is deduced.
right so the information that's being measured to a certain extent and
deduced is information that is not variable? (that is what this
question was about in the first place). it'd be really stupid to try
make a deduction from old variable information.
that's why i had a problem with the book. i'm not actually fussed if
it's talking about polarisation or velocity or whatever -- doesn't
matter too much right now. it happend to be talking about momentum
(which i realise isn't correct) but the part of it that cried out silly
to me is that that value (momentum) is variable -- it changes. so this
polarisation thing can't be variable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: EPR argument from pagel's cosmic code book sillyness |
31 Mar 2005 09:34:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1112281180.105256.118720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
ben <ben@mailinator.com> wrote:
haven't looked at that yet but will do -- thanks for the link.
You are not.
is it not like a balance/see-saw type of thing? for example say the two
values add up to 1, then measuring one particle gives .4 then the
other's going to be .6. is that not the type of connection (and
information) that's being talked about?
3.
"incident polarity" -- what does that mean? "torqued"? twisted? is that
what's involved in the particles interacting / entangled particles
part?
Science is what I am not sure I understand the question.
ploarizer -- part of the interaction / entangling part?
Science 's interactions with economics and game theory based strategy.
don't really understand that part.
Science is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
right so the information that's being measured to a certain extent and
deduced is information that is not variable? (that is what this
question was about in the first place). it'd be really stupid to try
make a deduction from old variable information.
Which is in the world.
that's why i had a problem with the book. i'm not actually fussed if
it's talking about polarisation or velocity or whatever -- doesn't
matter too much right now. it happend to be talking about momentum
(which i realise isn't correct) but the part of it that cried out silly
to me is that that value (momentum) is variable -- it changes. so this
polarisation thing can't be variable?
At least one of the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pleace to be teaching your otherwise splendid bot how to cascade." --
Peter J Ross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Math argument, round and round
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Finishing argument, core error proven
| Core error argument objection refuted, short
Key core error argument, stepped out
Key Core Error Argument
Argument with professor
The Hole Argument
Re: Hammond's god argument
How to lose an argument
|
|
|
