From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:33:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
Message-ID: <199801282331.RAA09988@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
> Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:53:28 -0600 (CST)

> >> Someday in the future, I open my cookie, and instantly know what
> >> Lucky will see when he opens his.
>  
> > True, but your opening your cookie does not *force* Lucky to open his
> > at the same time. This is one fault with this model. The 'state' of
> > the cookies are not inter-dependant as the polarization of the photon
> > pairs are.
>  
> While it is true that my examining my cookie does not force Lucky to
> examine his, the same can be said of a photon experiment, where the
> photons can remain in flight for an arbitrary period of time before
> being measured.

Um, actualy no. Since the photons are coupled we know that the second photon
has actualy changed it's polarization, either that or your original
assumption they are coupled is not true. The polarization between the two
photons *must* be zero. Otherwise you arent' playing with our physics.

> The state of the cookies is highly correlated, since they have
> opposite values.  The polarization of the photon pairs is similarly
> correlated, as they have equal values.

Correlation is not a function of any quantity conservation operation.
The values of the photons are actualy opposite and therefore sum to zero.
Foo is not the inverse of Bar, as is the case for horizontal and vertical
polarization.

> > It isn't instantanous, the correlation existed when they were printed
> > and doesn't change.
>  
> And indeed in the photon case, the entanglement exists when two
> photons with correlated wavefunctions are created.

True, but the swap of polarization was *not*. That occured later and is what
changes instantly irrespective of distance.

> > If I destroy one of the cookies it doesn't destroy the other
> > spontaneously as would happen in a correlated photon-pair.
>  
> Nope.  Destroying one of a pair of entangled photons does nothing to
> the other.

Yes, it causes the correlation to be destroyed. You are not taking into
account the correllation or polarization dependency between the two photons.
Our base assumption is that when photon A is horizontal then photon B is
vertical. This *must* occur to preserve symmetry.

[more stuff deleted]


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |       The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate,       |
   |       but the desire to edit somebody elses words.                 |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                  Sign in Ed Barsis' office         |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|