Two EPR questions

Blake Winter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nFirst, I\'m curious how one can explain the EPR paradox in relativistic\nQFT, since one sets (as I understand it, anyway) [q1(x1),q2(x2)]=0\nwhen x1 and x2 are spacelike related points and q1 and q2 are\narbitrary operators. This seems to destroy the possibility of having\nEPR states. Why doesn\'t it?\n\nSecondly, in considering Bell\'s proof that hidden variable theories\nhave to be nonlocal, isn\'t there a loophole in the sense that no\nmatter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum\nprocesses to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there\nwould be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory\nis, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial\nconditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what\nmeasurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need\nfor nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly\nattractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how\nthe information would be stored about which measurement would be made,\nbut I\'m still curious if its technically a loophole.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>First, I'm curious how one can explain the EPR paradox in relativistic
QFT, since one sets (as I understand it, anyway) [itex][q1(x1),q2(x2)]=0[/itex]
when x1 and x2 are spacelike related points and q1 and q2 are
arbitrary operators. This seems to destroy the possibility of having
EPR states. Why doesn't it?

Secondly, in considering Bell's proof that hidden variable theories
have to be nonlocal, isn't there a loophole in the sense that no
matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum
processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there
would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory
is, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial
conditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what
measurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need
for nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly
attractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how
the information would be stored about which measurement would be made,
but I'm still curious if its technically a loophole.

Ralph Hartley

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nBlake Winter wrote:\n\n> Secondly, in considering Bell\'s proof that hidden variable theories\n> have to be nonlocal, isn\'t there a loophole in the sense that no\n> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum\n> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there\n> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory\n> is, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial\n> conditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what\n> measurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need\n> for nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly\n> attractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how\n> the information would be stored about which measurement would be made,\n> but I\'m still curious if its technically a loophole.\n\nYes, it is, but it is a very small loophole. I\'ve seen it used by people\nwho obviously had no conception of how *very* small it is.\n\nWhat makes it so small is that Bell\'s theorem is violated for *all*\nmechanisms for deciding which measurements to make (at least all that have\nbeen tried).\n\nTo take advantage of that loophole would require "nature" do do something\nequivalent to reverse engineering the apparatus to figure out how the\ndecision depends on quantum events (if at all). The *exact* workings, to\nthe last logic gate out of millions, of your pseudo random number generator\nwould have to be taken into account, just to decide on the state of one photon.\n\nIt would require "The Lord" to be more than subtle, more than malicious,\nbut deliberately and fiendishly deceptive.\n\nIf that were so, locality would be the *least* of our problems.\n\nIt\'s like the possibility that the world was created in seven days, and\nonly a week ago, complete with fossils and our memories. You can\'t rule it\nout, but at that level you can\'t rule *anything* out.\n\nRalph Hartley\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Blake Winter wrote:

> Secondly, in considering Bell's proof that hidden variable theories
> have to be nonlocal, isn't there a loophole in the sense that no
> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum
> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there
> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory
> is, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial
> conditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what
> measurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need
> for nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly
> attractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how
> the information would be stored about which measurement would be made,
> but I'm still curious if its technically a loophole.

Yes, it is, but it is a very small loophole. I've seen it used by people
who obviously had no conception of how *very* small it is.

What makes it so small is that Bell's theorem is violated for *all*
mechanisms for deciding which measurements to make (at least all that have
been tried).

To take advantage of that loophole would require "nature" do do something
equivalent to reverse engineering the apparatus to figure out how the
decision depends on quantum events (if at all). The *exact* workings, to
the last logic gate out of millions, of your pseudo random number generator
would have to be taken into account, just to decide on the state of one photon.

It would require "The Lord" to be more than subtle, more than malicious,
but deliberately and fiendishly deceptive.

If that were so, locality would be the *least* of our problems.

It's like the possibility that the world was created in seven days, and
only a week ago, complete with fossils and our memories. You can't rule it
out, but at that level you can't rule *anything* out.

Ralph Hartley

Thomas Trotter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>blake.winter@houghton.edu (Blake Winter) wrote in message news:<87423d2a.0409261455.69146e11@posting.google.com>...\n> First, I\'m curious how one can explain the EPR paradox in relativistic\n> QFT, since one sets (as I understand it, anyway) [q1(x1),q2(x2)]=0\n> when x1 and x2 are spacelike related points and q1 and q2 are\n> arbitrary operators. This seems to destroy the possibility of having\n> EPR states. Why doesn\'t it?\n\nMy understanding is that paired detection attributes in, say,\noptical Bell experiments are related insofar as they correspond\nto paired photons produced via the same atomic emission(s). If so,\nthen because emission-paired photons *incident on* the analyzers\nare polarized identically (via conservation of angular momentum),\nthen you get nonlinear data graphs when you plot the rates of\ncoincidental detection (identical detection attributes) for the\nvarious angular differences (theta) of analyzer settings.\n\n>\n> Secondly, in considering Bell\'s proof that hidden variable theories\n> have to be nonlocal, isn\'t there a loophole in the sense that no\n> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum\n> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there\n> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory\n> is, in fact, deterministic?\n\nVarying the analyzer settings (randomly, pseudorandomly, or however)\nwhile the photons are in flight shouldn\'t matter anyway -- because,\nfor any given pair of detection attributes there\'s one and only one\ncorresponding theta.\n\n> That is, in some way the initial conditions which set up the whole\n> experiment would determine what measurements would be made as well,\n> thereby getting rid of the need for nonlocal effects.\n\nThere\'s no need for \'nonlocal effects\' anyway, imo. Bell showed that\nif you model the biparticle setup in a certain way, then you\'ll get\nexpectation values which are incompatible with qm for some theta.\nAnd, if you believe the subsequent experiments, then Bell\'s model is\nincompatible with reality also. You *can* tweak the model so that\nit\'s compatible with qm by allowing spacelike separated events to\ninstantaneously interact -- but this is an artificial and misleading\nway of representing the experimental/observational context and why/how\nthe measurement results are related.\n\nSo, what\'s wrong with the model? Well, for one thing, it assumes\nthat rate of coincidental detection is a linear function of theta.\nBut, qm and experiments say otherwise.\n\nIt\'s not the combination of the polarization of photon 1 wrt polarizer\nA and the polarization of photon 2 wrt polarizer B that\'s being\nmeasured in the combined context. Rather, it\'s the polarization\nof photon 1 wrt the polarization of photon 2 wrt theta that\'s being\nanalyzed. Now, if you assume, as the emission model does, that\nphoton 1 and photon 2 of any given pair of polarizer-incident\nphotons are polarized identically, then how would you formulate\nthe experimental context? Why does the probability of coincidental\ndetection then vary as a nonlinear function of theta?\n\n> Not that I think this is a particularly attractive loophole, since\n> it raises all sorts of questions about how the information would be\n> stored about which measurement would be made, but I\'m still curious\n> if its technically a loophole.\n\nImo, this particular consideration wrt Bell tests isn\'t important,\nthat is, no, it\'s not technically a loophole wrt my understanding\nof the meaning of Bell\'s theorem and violations of Bell inequalities.\nIn other words, if paired detection attributes correspond to\nemission-paired photons (and experimenters do take great care\nto facilitate this), then Bell inequalities will be experimentally\nviolated because they\'re based on a model which incorrectly\nrepresents the experimental/observational context. My interpretation\nof the qm formulation is that the spatially separated events\ndon\'t need to be instantaneously interacting in order to\nunderstand nonlinear curves of rate of coincidental detection wrt\ntheta. (see the Law of Malus)\n\nHowever, the consideration of experimental loopholes in general is\nvery valuable insofar as it produces refinements/improvements in\nexperimental techniques.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>blake.winter@houghton.edu (Blake Winter) wrote in message news:<87423d2a.0409261455.69146e11@p...google.com>...
> First, I'm curious how one can explain the EPR paradox in relativistic
> QFT, since one sets (as I understand it, anyway) [itex][q1(x1),q2(x2)]=0[/itex]
> when x1 and x2 are spacelike related points and q1 and q2 are
> arbitrary operators. This seems to destroy the possibility of having
> EPR states. Why doesn't it?

My understanding is that paired detection attributes in, say,
optical Bell experiments are related insofar as they correspond
to paired photons produced via the same atomic emission(s). If so,
then because emission-paired photons *incident on* the analyzers
are polarized identically (via conservation of angular momentum),
then you get nonlinear data graphs when you plot the rates of
coincidental detection (identical detection attributes) for the
various angular differences [itex](\theta)[/itex] of analyzer settings.

>
> Secondly, in considering Bell's proof that hidden variable theories
> have to be nonlocal, isn't there a loophole in the sense that no
> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum
> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there
> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory
> is, in fact, deterministic?

Varying the analyzer settings (randomly, pseudorandomly, or however)
while the photons are in flight shouldn't matter anyway -- because,
for any given pair of detection attributes there's one and only one
corresponding [itex]\theta[/itex].

> That is, in some way the initial conditions which set up the whole
> experiment would determine what measurements would be made as well,
> thereby getting rid of the need for nonlocal effects.

There's no need for 'nonlocal effects' anyway, imo. Bell showed that
if you model the biparticle setup in a certain way, then you'll get
expectation values which are incompatible with qm for some [itex]\theta[/itex].
And, if you believe the subsequent experiments, then Bell's model is
incompatible with reality also. You *can* tweak the model so that
it's compatible with qm by allowing spacelike separated events to
instantaneously interact -- but this is an artificial and misleading
way of representing the experimental/observational context and [itex]why/how[/itex]
the measurement results are related.

So, what's wrong with the model? Well, for one thing, it assumes
that rate of coincidental detection is a linear function of [itex]\theta[/itex].
But, qm and experiments say otherwise.

It's not the combination of the polarization of photon 1 wrt polarizer
A and the polarization of photon 2 wrt polarizer B that's being
measured in the combined context. Rather, it's the polarization
of photon 1 wrt the polarization of photon 2 wrt [itex]\theta[/itex] that's being
analyzed. Now, if you assume, as the emission model does, that
photon 1 and photon 2 of any given pair of polarizer-incident
photons are polarized identically, then how would you formulate
the experimental context? Why does the probability of coincidental
detection then vary as a nonlinear function of [itex]\theta[/itex]?

> Not that I think this is a particularly attractive loophole, since
> it raises all sorts of questions about how the information would be
> stored about which measurement would be made, but I'm still curious
> if its technically a loophole.

Imo, this particular consideration wrt Bell tests isn't important,
that is, no, it's not technically a loophole wrt my understanding
of the meaning of Bell's theorem and violations of Bell inequalities.
In other words, if paired detection attributes correspond to
emission-paired photons (and experimenters do take great care
to facilitate this), then Bell inequalities will be experimentally
violated because they're based on a model which incorrectly
represents the experimental/observational context. My interpretation
of the qm formulation is that the spatially separated events
don't need to be instantaneously interacting in order to
understand nonlinear curves of rate of coincidental detection wrt
[itex]\theta[/itex]. (see the Law of Malus)

However, the consideration of experimental loopholes in general is
very valuable insofar as it produces refinements/improvements in
experimental techniques.

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Ralph Hartley" <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> schrieb\n> Blake Winter wrote:\n> > Secondly, in considering Bell\'s proof that hidden variable theories\n> > have to be nonlocal, isn\'t there a loophole in the sense that no\n> > matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum\n> > processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there\n> > would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory\n> > is, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial\n> > conditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what\n> > measurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need\n> > for nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly\n> > attractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how\n> > the information would be stored about which measurement would be made,\n> > but I\'m still curious if its technically a loophole.\n>\n> Yes, it is, but it is a very small loophole. I\'ve seen it used by people\n> who obviously had no conception of how *very* small it is.\n>\n> What makes it so small is that Bell\'s theorem is violated for *all*\n> mechanisms for deciding which measurements to make (at least all that have\n> been tried).\n\nI have proposed another argument which works against this loophole:\n\nImagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to\ncommunicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes\nand some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody\non Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies\nrelativity.\n\nNow imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification\nof relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which\nsuggest that relativity is not violated.\nYou don\'t really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,\nit should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.\nThus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there\nexists an FTL phone should be wrong.\n\nNow, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.\nIf there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever\nyou like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove\nthat there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.\n\nIlja\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ralph Hartley" <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> schrieb
> Blake Winter wrote:
> > Secondly, in considering Bell's proof that hidden variable theories
> > have to be nonlocal, isn't there a loophole in the sense that no
> > matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum
> > processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there
> > would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory
> > is, in fact, deterministic? That is, in some way the initial
> > conditions which set up the whole experiment would determine what
> > measurements would be made as well, thereby getting rid of the need
> > for nonlocal effects. Not that I think this is a particularly
> > attractive loophole, since it raises all sorts of questions about how
> > the information would be stored about which measurement would be made,
> > but I'm still curious if its technically a loophole.
>
> Yes, it is, but it is a very small loophole. I've seen it used by people
> who obviously had no conception of how *very* small it is.
>
> What makes it so small is that Bell's theorem is violated for *all*
> mechanisms for deciding which measurements to make (at least all that have
> been tried).

I have proposed another argument which works against this loophole:

Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to
communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes
and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody
on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies
relativity.

Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification
of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which
suggest that relativity is not violated.
You don't really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,
it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.
Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there
exists an FTL phone should be wrong.

Now, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.
If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever
you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove
that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.

Ilja

Ralph Hartley

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIlja Schmelzer wrote:\n> I have proposed another argument which works against this loophole\n> Now, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.\n\nI think I have seen your argument before, but didn\'t read it carefully\nenough to understand it. It may have been part of a thread I was starting\nto tune out.\n\n> If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever\n> you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove\n> that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.\n\nThe problem with that argument is that it uses something like a triple\nnegative and a very unlikely hypothetical, which while logically correct,\nis more than you can expect the reader to follow. Especially a reader who\nis already struggling with the concepts, as most of those who need the\nargument are.\n\nA simpler way to put it would be that the loophole could explain away *any*\nnonlocal effect whatsoever, regardless of any conceivable evidence.\n\nRalph Hartley\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> I have proposed another argument which works against this loophole
> Now, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.

I think I have seen your argument before, but didn't read it carefully
enough to understand it. It may have been part of a thread I was starting
to tune out.

> If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever
> you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove
> that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.

The problem with that argument is that it uses something like a triple
negative and a very unlikely hypothetical, which while logically correct,
is more than you can expect the reader to follow. Especially a reader who
is already struggling with the concepts, as most of those who need the
argument are.

A simpler way to put it would be that the loophole could explain away *any*
nonlocal effect whatsoever, regardless of any conceivable evidence.

Ralph Hartley

Blake Winter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIt\'s certainly a rather ridiculous loophole, and I didn\'t mean to\nsuggest it as being a likely loophole. I was just curious if it was\nan actual loophole.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>It's certainly a rather ridiculous loophole, and I didn't mean to
suggest it as being a likely loophole. I was just curious if it was
an actual loophole.

rof@maths.tcd.ie

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:\n\n>Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to\n>communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes\n>and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody\n>on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies\n>relativity.\n\n>Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification\n>of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which\n>suggest that relativity is not violated.\n>You don\'t really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,\n>it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.\n>Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there\n>exists an FTL phone should be wrong.\n\n>Now, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.\n>If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever\n>you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove\n>that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.\n\nI should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who\nargue against taking Bell\'s inequalities seriously, namely the\ndogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the\nresults of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened\nhad the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,\nis also subject to your objection.\n\nThis is because anybody can always say that what person B would\nhave heard through the FTL telephone had person A said something\ndifferent is "undefined", or "not meaningful" or (if they want\nto summon up some pomposity) "not physically meaningful." The\nvalidity of the assertion that the telephone is a device which\ncommunicates what A says (whatever that might be) to B can then not\nbe established; only the fact that B heard what A said in this\ninstance can be established.\n\nThe rejection of so-called counterfactuals is a prescription\nfor never drawing any inferences from observed data, no matter\nhow consistently and reproducibly one event is found to\nfollow another. One would have thought that such a bizarre\nattitude would be restricted to skeptical philosophers, whose\ninsistence on rigour is so great that any claims to knowledge\nof an external world are denied. And yet the people who\nassert that counterfactuals are contraband (the majority\nof physicists who have managed to get this far in the debate) will\nat the same time express their disdain for philosophy.\n\n(It is, of course, useful for the factory-owner to instill in his\nworkers a certain amount of contempt for those who think compared\nto those who simply work without thinking. I wonder how many\nphysicists acquired their professed contempt of philosophy\nfrom other physicists, rather than having the idea on their own.)\n\nR.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:

>Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to
>communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes
>and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody
>on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies
>relativity.

>Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification
>of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which
>suggest that relativity is not violated.
>You don't really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,
>it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.
>Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there
>exists an FTL phone should be wrong.

>Now, the point is that the loophole can be used by that crank too.
>If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever
>you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove
>that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.

I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who
argue against taking Bell's inequalities seriously, namely the
dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the
results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened
had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,
is also subject to your objection.

This is because anybody can always say that what person B would
have heard through the FTL telephone had person A said something
different is "undefined", or "not meaningful" or (if they want
to summon up some pomposity) "not physically meaningful." The
validity of the assertion that the telephone is a device which
communicates what A says (whatever that might be) to B can then not
be established; only the fact that B heard what A said in this
instance can be established.

The rejection of so-called counterfactuals is a prescription
for never drawing any inferences from observed data, no matter
how consistently and reproducibly one event is found to
follow another. One would have thought that such a bizarre
attitude would be restricted to skeptical philosophers, whose
insistence on rigour is so great that any claims to knowledge
of an external world are denied. And yet the people who
assert that counterfactuals are contraband (the majority
of physicists who have managed to get this far in the debate) will
at the same time express their disdain for philosophy.

(It is, of course, useful for the factory-owner to instill in his
workers a certain amount of contempt for those who think compared
to those who simply work without thinking. I wonder how many
physicists acquired their professed contempt of philosophy
from other physicists, rather than having the idea on their own.)

R.

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Ralph Hartley" <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> schrieb\n> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:\n> > If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever\n> > you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove\n> > that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.\n\n> The problem with that argument is that it uses something like a triple\n> negative and a very unlikely hypothetical, which while logically correct,\n> is more than you can expect the reader to follow. Especially a reader who\n> is already struggling with the concepts, as most of those who need the\n> argument are.\n\nHm. At the current moment, it is the majority of the scientific community\nwhich does not accept my interpretation - that the violation of Bell\'s\ninequality is an experimental falsification of Einstein causality, as good\nas\nany other falsification. IOW, whose "who need it" are the majority of\nscientists. I would not expect that this majority is unable to follow\na logical argument of this type.\n\n> A simpler way to put it would be that the loophole could explain\n> away *any* nonlocal effect whatsoever, regardless of any\n> conceivable evidence.\n\nHm. Let\'s remember why I prefer the FTL variant. The argument is\ndirected against Einstein causality - my claim is that the violation of\nBE is a falsification of Einstein causality. Now, if an EPRB loophole\nis sufficient to explain away an FTL phone, Einstein causality becomes\nobviously unfalsifiable and is, therefore, no longer part of empirical\nscience.\n\nNot sure what is simpler.\n\nIlja\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ralph Hartley" <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> schrieb
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > If there is no free will of the experimenter, you can do whatever
> > you like with your FTL phone but you will be unable to prove
> > that there exists some FTL effects inside the phone.

> The problem with that argument is that it uses something like a triple
> negative and a very unlikely hypothetical, which while logically correct,
> is more than you can expect the reader to follow. Especially a reader who
> is already struggling with the concepts, as most of those who need the
> argument are.

Hm. At the current moment, it is the majority of the scientific community
which does not accept my interpretation - that the violation of Bell's
inequality is an experimental falsification of Einstein causality, as good
as
any other falsification. IOW, whose "who need it" are the majority of
scientists. I would not expect that this majority is unable to follow
a logical argument of this type.

> A simpler way to put it would be that the loophole could explain
> away *any* nonlocal effect whatsoever, regardless of any
> conceivable evidence.

Hm. Let's remember why I prefer the FTL variant. The argument is
directed against Einstein causality [itex]- my[/itex] claim is that the violation of
BE is a falsification of Einstein causality. Now, if an EPRB loophole
is sufficient to explain away an FTL phone, Einstein causality becomes
obviously unfalsifiable and is, therefore, no longer part of empirical
science.

Not sure what is simpler.

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n<rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb\n> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:\n>\n> >Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to\n> >communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes\n> >and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody\n> >on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies\n> >relativity.\n>\n> >Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification\n> >of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which\n> >suggest that relativity is not violated.\n> >You don\'t really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,\n> >it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.\n> >Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there\n> >exists an FTL phone should be wrong.\n\n> I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who\n> argue against taking Bell\'s inequalities seriously, namely the\n> dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the\n> results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened\n> had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,\n> is also subject to your objection.\n\nThank you for making that point.\n\nMy FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole\nclass of arguments around the Bell inequalities.\n\nThe only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments\nbased on the impossibility to apply the effects for information\ntransfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:\nAn information transfer A->B or an information transfer B->A.\n\nThese two are related. Once we have some effect which can be\nexplained in two ways - as A->B or B->A - then it cannot be\nused for information transfer: A transfer A->B would be in contra-\ndiction with the explanation B->A.\n\nWhat remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.\nObserving "A->B or B->A" is not accepted, only "A->B" pure\nwould be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation\nwould be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific\nmethod if applied everywhere.\n\nIlja\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:
>
> >Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to
> >communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes
> >and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody
> >on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies
> >relativity.
>
> >Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification
> >of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which
> >suggest that relativity is not violated.
> >You don't really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,
> >it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.
> >Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there
> >exists an FTL phone should be wrong.

> I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who
> argue against taking Bell's inequalities seriously, namely the
> dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the
> results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened
> had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,
> is also subject to your objection.

Thank you for making that point.

My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole
class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.

The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments
based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information
transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:
An information transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] or an information transfer [itex]B->A[/itex].

These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be
explained in two ways - as [itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A -[/itex] then it cannot be
used for information transfer: A transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] would be in contra-
diction with the explanation [itex]B->A[/itex].

What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.
Observing "[itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A[/itex]" is not accepted, only "[itex]A->B[/itex]" pure
would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation
would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific
method if applied everywhere.

Ilja

Blake Winter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nScientists don\'t accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof\nagainst relativity because one can\'t communicate information using the\nwave function "collapse". All relativity says is taht information\ncan\'t be communicated faster than c. Also note that one cannot\nexperimentally tell whether the measurement at A or B was made first -\nthe results are the same either way so there\'s no meaning to ordering\nthem in time.\nFurthermore its possible to show that the Bell inequalities are also\nresult from time symmetry. That is, its possible to understand them\nin a similar way as the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation\nresistance. Under such time symmetry one would expect to get Bell\ninequalities even from a deterministic classical theory, which leaves\nquantum physics ok.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Scientists don't accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof
against relativity because one can't communicate information using the
wave function "collapse". All relativity says is taht information
can't be communicated faster than c. Also note that one cannot
experimentally tell whether the measurement at A or B was made first -
the results are the same either way so there's no meaning to ordering
them in time.
Furthermore its possible to show that the Bell inequalities are also
result from time symmetry. That is, its possible to understand them
in a similar way as the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation
resistance. Under such time symmetry one would expect to get Bell
inequalities even from a deterministic classical theory, which leaves
quantum physics ok.

rof@maths.tcd.ie

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:\n\n><rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb\n\n>> I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who\n>> argue against taking Bell\'s inequalities seriously, namely the\n>> dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the\n>> results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened\n>> had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,\n>> is also subject to your objection.\n\n>Thank you for making that point.\n\n>My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole\n>class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.\n\n>The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments\n>based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information\n>transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:\n>An information transfer A->B or an information transfer B->A.\n\n>These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be\n>explained in two ways - as A->B or B->A - then it cannot be\n>used for information transfer: A transfer A->B would be in contra-\n>diction with the explanation B->A.\n\nThis reaction to the violation of Bell\'s inequalities is even more\ncommon than the objection to counterfactuals. It\'s still not really\na genuine counterargument, though, since nobody ever claimed that\nthe phenomenon could be used to transmit information. It\'s more\nof an attitude than an argument - "You can\'t use this effect to send\ninformation, so it\'s not worth thinking about."\n\nIf one does think about it a little, though, it quickly becomes\napparent that something very strange is indeed going on - there is\na conflict between Einstein causality and the observed experimental\nfacts (modulo the very small probability that, as experiments improve,\nthe observed effect will disappear). It means, essentially, that\nthe view of space-time as a structure that constrains which events\ncan affect which other events is incorrect. Space-time can still\nhowever be considered as a structure which constrains information\nflows (since information, rather than influence, is what can not\nleap across unlimited distances of space to affect the observations\nof distant observers).\n\nThe natural question for your ether theory is whether it strictly\nforbids information from travelling faster than light, since it\nis evidently comfortable with superluminal influences.\n\n>What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.\n>Observing "A->B or B->A" is not accepted, only "A->B" pure\n>would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation\n>would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific\n>method if applied everywhere.\n\nI don\'t believe I\'ve ever heard anybody express that position\nas their own; that is, a refusal to accept inferences of statements\nin the form "X or Y" from data which suggests it. Obviously\nsomebody who rejected statements like that would be severely\ncrippled in everyday life, rejecting the inference that x or\ny must be zero from the observation that xy is zero, for example.\nOn the other hand, the requirement that one\'s position make sense,\nor not lead to ridiculous consequences, doesn\'t appear to be one\nwhich many physicists make of themselves when dealing with quantum\nmechanics.\n\nRegards,\nR.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:

><rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb

>> I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who
>> argue against taking Bell's inequalities seriously, namely the
>> dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the
>> results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened
>> had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,
>> is also subject to your objection.

>Thank you for making that point.

>My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole
>class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.

>The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments
>based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information
>transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:
>An information transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] or an information transfer [itex]B->A[/itex].

>These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be
>explained in two ways - as [itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A -[/itex] then it cannot be
>used for information transfer: A transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] would be in contra-
>diction with the explanation [itex]B->A[/itex].

This reaction to the violation of Bell's inequalities is even more
common than the objection to counterfactuals. It's still not really
a genuine counterargument, though, since nobody ever claimed that
the phenomenon could be used to transmit information. It's more
of an attitude than an argument - "You can't use this effect to send
information, so it's not worth thinking about."

If one does think about it a little, though, it quickly becomes
apparent that something very strange is indeed going on - there is
a conflict between Einstein causality and the observed experimental
facts (modulo the very small probability that, as experiments improve,
the observed effect will disappear). It means, essentially, that
the view of space-time as a structure that constrains which events
can affect which other events is incorrect. Space-time can still
however be considered as a structure which constrains information
flows (since information, rather than influence, is what can not
leap across unlimited distances of space to affect the observations
of distant observers).

The natural question for your ether theory is whether it strictly
forbids information from travelling faster than light, since it
is evidently comfortable with superluminal influences.

>What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.
>Observing "[itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A[/itex]" is not accepted, only "[itex]A->B[/itex]" pure
>would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation
>would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific
>method if applied everywhere.

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody express that position
as their own; that is, a refusal to accept inferences of statements
in the form "X or Y" from data which suggests it. Obviously
somebody who rejected statements like that would be severely
crippled in everyday life, rejecting the inference that x or
y must be zero from the observation that xy is zero, for example.
On the other hand, the requirement that one's position make sense,
or not lead to ridiculous consequences, doesn't appear to be one
which many physicists make of themselves when dealing with quantum
mechanics.

Regards,
R.

Thomas Trotter

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message news:<ck2ofa\\$1i4\\$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>...\n> <rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb\n> > "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:\n> >\n> > >Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to\n> > >communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes\n> > >and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody\n> > >on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies\n> > >relativity.\n>\n> > >Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification\n> > >of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which\n> > >suggest that relativity is not violated.\n> > >You don\'t really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,\n> > >it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.\n> > >Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there\n> > >exists an FTL phone should be wrong.\n>\n> > I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who\n> > argue against taking Bell\'s inequalities seriously, namely the\n> > dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the\n> > results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened\n> > had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,\n> > is also subject to your objection.\n>\n> Thank you for making that point.\n>\n> My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole\n> class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.\n>\n> The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments\n> based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information\n> transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:\n> An information transfer A->B or an information transfer B->A.\n>\n> These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be\n> explained in two ways - as A->B or B->A - then it cannot be\n> used for information transfer: A transfer A->B would be in contra-\n> diction with the explanation B->A.\n>\n> What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.\n> Observing "A->B or B->A" is not accepted, only "A->B" pure\n> would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation\n> would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific\n> method if applied everywhere.\n\nIn optical Bell tests, in a given coincidence\nwindow, the relationship of the polarizations\n(wrt each other) of two photons from the same\noscillator are being analyzed wrt some theta.\n\nThe relationship between qm predictions,the\nobserved correlation curves (coincidence rates),\nand Malus\' Law seems clear enough.\n\nThus, considerations of an instantaneous effect,\nA<->B, would seem unnecessary -- and BI has\nnothing to do with the principle of locality.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message news:<ck2ofa$1i4$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>...
> <rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb
> > "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:
> >
> > >Imagine there is a preferred frame and we learn in some future how to
> > >communicate FTL. You have a working FTL phone - two black boxes
> > >and some channel between them which allows you to talk with somebody
> > >on Mars without any time delay. Surely, this FTL phone falsifies
> > >relativity.
>
> > >Now imagine some old crank who, despite the obvious falsification
> > >of relativity, wants to save relativity and presents some arguments which
> > >suggest that relativity is not violated.
> > >You don't really want to be as stupid as that crank? In this case,
> > >it should be clear that there is something wrong with his arguments.
> > >Thus, any sort of argument which allows to save relativity if there
> > >exists an FTL phone should be wrong.
>
> > I should mention that the usual utterance produced by those who
> > argue against taking Bell's inequalities seriously, namely the
> > dogmatic assertion that "it is not meaningful" to consider the
> > results of unperformed experiments, such as what would have happened
> > had the magnetic field of the apparatus been aligned differently,
> > is also subject to your objection.
>
> Thank you for making that point.
>
> My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole
> class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.
>
> The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments
> based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information
> transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:
> An information transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] or an information transfer [itex]B->A[/itex].
>
> These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be
> explained in two ways - as [itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A -[/itex] then it cannot be
> used for information transfer: A transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] would be in contra-
> diction with the explanation [itex]B->A[/itex].
>
> What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.
> Observing "[itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A[/itex]" is not accepted, only "[itex]A->B[/itex]" pure
> would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation
> would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific
> method if applied everywhere.

In optical Bell tests, in a given coincidence
window, the relationship of the polarizations
(wrt each other) of two photons from the same
oscillator are being analyzed wrt some [itex]\theta[/itex].

The relationship between qm predictions,the
observed correlation curves (coincidence rates),
and Malus' Law seems clear enough.

Thus, considerations of an instantaneous effect,
[itex]A<->B,[/itex] would seem unnecessary -- and BI has
nothing to do with the principle of locality.

Patrick Van Esch

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nblake.winter@houghton.edu (Blake Winter) wrote in message news:<87423d2a.0409261455.69146e11@posting.google.com>...\n> Secondly, in considering Bell\'s proof that hidden variable theories\n> have to be nonlocal, isn\'t there a loophole in the sense that no\n> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum\n> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there\n> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory\n> is, in fact, deterministic?\n\nI think a slightly more serious loophole for the moment is given by\nthe inefficiency of the photon detectors, in that if the hidden\nvariables are allowed to change the detection efficiency per impact\n(while keeping the average efficiency) you have a loophole until you\nhave an average quantum efficiency, I think, of about 87%.\n\ncheers,\nPatrick.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>blake.winter@houghton.edu (Blake Winter) wrote in message news:<87423d2a.0409261455.69146e11@p...google.com>...
> Secondly, in considering Bell's proof that hidden variable theories
> have to be nonlocal, isn't there a loophole in the sense that no
> matter how one constructs the experiment (even if one uses quantum
> processes to choose the polarization measurement orientations) there
> would be no way to really get "random" orientations since the theory
> is, in fact, deterministic?

I think a slightly more serious loophole for the moment is given by
the inefficiency of the photon detectors, in that if the hidden
variables are allowed to change the detection efficiency per impact
(while keeping the average efficiency) you have a loophole until you
have an average quantum efficiency, I think, of about 87%.

cheers,
Patrick.

Joe Rongen

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Blake Winter" <blake.winter@houghton.edu> wrote in message\nnews:87423d2a.0410071557.6cbf3170@posting.google.com...\n>\ n> Scientists don\'t accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof\n> against relativity because one can\'t communicate information using\n> the wave function "collapse".\n\nActually, that was precisely how Gisin\nperformed some of his experiments.\n\nFrom: ENtanglement, Amir D. Aczel,2002,\nISBN 1-55192-549-4 Page 238:\n\n"Gisin believed that while entanglement doesn\'t allow us to send\nreadable messages faster than light, the phenomenon still violates\nthe \'spirit\' of special relativity. He thus wanted to test the entanglement\nphenomenon within a relativistic framework. In one of his experiments,\nGisin used an absorbing black surface, placed at the ends of the optical\nfiber, to collapse the wave function.\n[.....]\nThis complex experiment using moving reference frames resulted in a\nstrong confirmation of nonlocal entanglement and the prediction of QM."\n\nRegards Joe\n\n\n"We won in Iraq. Now we have our very own West Bank."\n\n\n---\nOutgoing mail is certified Virus Free.\nChecked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).\nVersion: 6.0.774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: 10/7/04\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Blake Winter" <blake.winter@houghton.edu> wrote in message
news:87423d2a.0410071557.6cbf3170@posting.google.com...
>
> Scientists don't accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof
> against relativity because one can't communicate information using
> the wave function "collapse".

Actually, that was precisely how Gisin
performed some of his experiments.

From: ENtanglement, Amir D. Aczel,2002,
ISBN [itex]1-55192-549-4[/itex] Page 238:

"Gisin believed that while entanglement doesn't allow us to send
readable messages faster than light, the phenomenon still violates
the 'spirit' of special relativity. He thus wanted to test the entanglement
phenomenon within a relativistic framework. In one of his experiments,
Gisin used an absorbing black surface, placed at the ends of the optical
fiber, to collapse the wave function.
[.....]
This complex experiment using moving reference frames resulted in a
strong confirmation of nonlocal entanglement and the prediction of QM."

Regards Joe

"We won in Iraq. Now we have our very own West Bank."

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6..774 / Virus Database: 521 - Release Date: [itex]10/7/04[/itex]

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n<rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb\n> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:\n> >These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be\n> >explained in two ways - as A->B or B->A - then it cannot be\n> >used for information transfer: A transfer A->B would be in contra-\n> >diction with the explanation B->A.\n>\n> This reaction to the violation of Bell\'s inequalities is even more\n> common than the objection to counterfactuals. It\'s still not really\n> a genuine counterargument, though, since nobody ever claimed that\n> the phenomenon could be used to transmit information. It\'s more\n> of an attitude than an argument - "You can\'t use this effect to send\n> information, so it\'s not worth thinking about."\n\nYep.\n\n> If one does think about it a little, though, it quickly becomes\n> apparent that something very strange is indeed going on - there is\n> a conflict between Einstein causality and the observed experimental\n> facts (modulo the very small probability that, as experiments improve,\n> the observed effect will disappear).\n\nYep. Except that I don\'t see a reason to name this "strange".\nThat\'s what happens all the time in science - theories are\nfalsified by experiments. Moreover, we have alternative\ntheories which are not falsified (Bohmian mechanics).\nWhat\'s strange?\n\nThe only strange thing is the reaction of the scientific\ncommunity which prefers to reject realism instead of\naccepting the facts. Unfortunately, as you say:\n\n> On the other hand, the requirement that one\'s position make sense,\n> or not lead to ridiculous consequences, doesn\'t appear to be one\n> which many physicists make of themselves when dealing with quantum\n> mechanics.\n------------------------------------\n> It means, essentially, that\n> the view of space-time as a structure that constrains which events\n> can affect which other events is incorrect. Space-time can still\n> however be considered as a structure which constrains information\n> flows (since information, rather than influence, is what can not\n> leap across unlimited distances of space to affect the observations\n> of distant observers).\n>\n> The natural question for your ether theory is whether it strictly\n> forbids information from travelling faster than light, since it\n> is evidently comfortable with superluminal influences.\n\nIn the case of my classical ether theory I have proven the EEP.\nSee gr-qc/0205035. Once the theory is classical, causal and\ndeterministic, it follows from the EEP that the light cone restricts\ninformation transfer.\n\nIn the pure quantum case we have no longer a classical light\ncone which allows to restrict the flow of information. Therefore\nin full quantum theory we should not expect such a restriction.\n\nThe open question is, therefore, one about the semiclassical\nlimit where density, velocity and pressure of the ether are\nconsidered as classical fields but the other degrees of freedom\nas quantum fields. I don\'t think this will be a serious problem.\n\nIlja\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><rof@maths.tcd.ie> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes:
> >These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be
> >explained in two ways - as [itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A -[/itex] then it cannot be
> >used for information transfer: A transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] would be in contra-
> >diction with the explanation [itex]B->A[/itex].
>
> This reaction to the violation of Bell's inequalities is even more
> common than the objection to counterfactuals. It's still not really
> a genuine counterargument, though, since nobody ever claimed that
> the phenomenon could be used to transmit information. It's more
> of an attitude than an argument - "You can't use this effect to send
> information, so it's not worth thinking about."

Yep.

> If one does think about it a little, though, it quickly becomes
> apparent that something very strange is indeed going on - there is
> a conflict between Einstein causality and the observed experimental
> facts (modulo the very small probability that, as experiments improve,
> the observed effect will disappear).

Yep. Except that I don't see a reason to name this "strange".
That's what happens all the time in science - theories are
falsified by experiments. Moreover, we have alternative
theories which are not falsified (Bohmian mechanics).
What's strange?

The only strange thing is the reaction of the scientific
community which prefers to reject realism instead of
accepting the facts. Unfortunately, as you say:

> On the other hand, the requirement that one's position make sense,
> or not lead to ridiculous consequences, doesn't appear to be one
> which many physicists make of themselves when dealing with quantum
> mechanics.
------------------------------------
> It means, essentially, that
> the view of space-time as a structure that constrains which events
> can affect which other events is incorrect. Space-time can still
> however be considered as a structure which constrains information
> flows (since information, rather than influence, is what can not
> leap across unlimited distances of space to affect the observations
> of distant observers).
>
> The natural question for your ether theory is whether it strictly
> forbids information from travelling faster than light, since it
> is evidently comfortable with superluminal influences.

In the case of my classical ether theory I have proven the EEP.
See http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035. Once the theory is classical, causal and
deterministic, it follows from the EEP that the light cone restricts
information transfer.

In the pure quantum case we have no longer a classical light
cone which allows to restrict the flow of information. Therefore
in full quantum theory we should not expect such a restriction.

The open question is, therefore, one about the semiclassical
limit where density, velocity and pressure of the ether are
considered as classical fields but the other degrees of freedom
as quantum fields. I don't think this will be a serious problem.

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>NNTP-Posting-Host: lfa222122.richmond.edu\nX-Trace: rumor.richmond.edu 1097485444 8872 141.166.222.122 (11 Oct 2004 09:04:04 GMT)\nX-Complaints-To: usenet@rumor.richmond.edu\nNNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:04:04 +0000 (UTC)\nXref: core-easynews sci.physics.research:59806\n\n\n\n"Blake Winter" <blake.winter@houghton.edu> schrieb\n> Scientists don\'t accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof\n> against relativity because one can\'t communicate information using the\n> wave function "collapse".\n\nThis is something I have a problem with. I provide arguments against\nthis position, but these arguments are simply ignored.\n\n> All relativity says is that information\n> can\'t be communicated faster than c.\n\nThat is a positivistic reduction of relativity.\nIt should be distinguished from a fundamental claim about reality.\n\nThe problem with such reductions is that people like to switch\nbetween different versions. If confronted with the violation of\nBell\'s inequality, they move to the positivistic version.\n\nThe positivistic version is compatible with Bohmian mechanics,\nwhich has a hidden preferred frame. But relativists like to reject\nBohmian mechanics because it has a preferred frame, using the\nother interpretation of relativity.\n\n> Also note that one cannot\n> experimentally tell whether the measurement at A or B was made first -\n> the results are the same either way so there\'s no meaning to ordering\n> them in time.\n\nI have already spend some postings in this thread "noting" this difference.\nWe observe "A->B or B->A". Above explanations violate Einstein\ncausality. If you would like to reject indirect observation as a way of\nfalsification, you should throw away a lot of science. Interesting what\nremains at all.\n\n> Furthermore its possible to show that the Bell inequalities are also\n> result from time symmetry. That is, its possible to understand them\n> in a similar way as the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation\n> resistance. Under such time symmetry one would expect to get Bell\n> inequalities even from a deterministic classical theory, which leaves\n> quantum physics ok.\n\nOf course you can give up causality at all, allow causal influences\nbackward in time in some time-symmetric way. That\'s another nice\nexample of an "explanation" which allows to explain away even\na working FLT phone (see my previous postings in this thread).\n\nIlja\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>NNTP-Posting-Host: lfa222122.richmond.edu
X-Trace: rumor.richmond.edu 1097485444 8872 141.166.222.122 (11 Oct 2004 09:04:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@rumor.richmond.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:04:04 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC)
Xref: core-easynews sci.physics.research:59806

"Blake Winter" <blake.winter@houghton.edu> schrieb
> Scientists don't accept the Bell inequality violations as a proof
> against relativity because one can't communicate information using the
> wave function "collapse".

This is something I have a problem with. I provide arguments against
this position, but these arguments are simply ignored.

> All relativity says is that information
> can't be communicated faster than c.

That is a positivistic reduction of relativity.
It should be distinguished from a fundamental claim about reality.

The problem with such reductions is that people like to switch
between different versions. If confronted with the violation of
Bell's inequality, they move to the positivistic version.

The positivistic version is compatible with Bohmian mechanics,
which has a hidden preferred frame. But relativists like to reject
Bohmian mechanics because it has a preferred frame, using the
other interpretation of relativity.

> Also note that one cannot
> experimentally tell whether the measurement at A or B was made first -
> the results are the same either way so there's no meaning to ordering
> them in time.

I have already spend some postings in this thread "noting" this difference.
We observe "[itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A[/itex]". Above explanations violate Einstein
causality. If you would like to reject indirect observation as a way of
falsification, you should throw away a lot of science. Interesting what
remains at all.

> Furthermore its possible to show that the Bell inequalities are also
> result from time symmetry. That is, its possible to understand them
> in a similar way as the Wheeler-Feynman theory of radiation
> resistance. Under such time symmetry one would expect to get Bell
> inequalities even from a deterministic classical theory, which leaves
> quantum physics ok.

Of course you can give up causality at all, allow causal influences
backward in time in some time-symmetric way. That's another nice
example of an "explanation" which allows to explain away even
a working FLT phone (see my previous postings in this thread).

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Thomas Trotter" <thomastrotter2005@juno.com> schrieb\n> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote\n> > My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole\n> > class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.\n> >\n> > The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments\n> > based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information\n> > transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:\n> > An information transfer A->B or an information transfer B->A.\n> >\n> > These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be\n> > explained in two ways - as A->B or B->A - then it cannot be\n> > used for information transfer: A transfer A->B would be in contra-\n> > diction with the explanation B->A.\n> >\n> > What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.\n> > Observing "A->B or B->A" is not accepted, only "A->B" pure\n> > would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation\n> > would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific\n> > method if applied everywhere.\n>\n> In optical Bell tests, in a given coincidence\n> window, the relationship of the polarizations\n> (wrt each other) of two photons from the same\n> oscillator are being analyzed wrt some theta.\n>\n> The relationship between qm predictions,the\n> observed correlation curves (coincidence rates),\n> and Malus\' Law seems clear enough.\n>\n> Thus, considerations of an instantaneous effect,\n> A<->B, would seem unnecessary -- and BI has\n> nothing to do with the principle of locality.\n\nI don\'t understand your point.\n\nIn case you refer to known loopholes of actual tests\n(like detector efficiency): That\'s nothing I care about.\nBut that does not seem to be your point. It sounds more\nlike "we can compute the observed probabilities with QM,\nso what?"\n\nThe point is that QM is not a realistic theory, it does not\ndescribe what really happens, it allows to compute only\nsome probabilities without explaining them. But there is\nno necessity to reject classical realism, realistic theories\nwhich are compatible with observation exist\n(Bohmian mechanics).\n\nOf course, as long as BM has not been known, it was\na reasonable decision to "shut up and calculate" without\nthinking too much about the foundations: There were a\nlot of things to compute with QM, a lot of things which\ncould be done in this way. But today?\n\nIt is also possible to understand that Einstein did not like\nBM. Last not least it requires a preferred frame. But\nEinstein has not known Bell\'s inequality and Aspect\'s\nexperiment. But today?\n\nIlja\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Thomas Trotter" <thomastrotter2005@juno.com> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote
> > My FTL phone argument is, indeed, directed against a whole
> > class of arguments around the Bell inequalities.
> >
> > The only arguments I know which fail the test are arguments
> > based on the impossibility to apply the effects for information
> > transfer, and that the inequalities allow two realistic interpretations:
> > An information transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] or an information transfer [itex]B->A[/itex].
> >
> > These two are related. Once we have some effect which can be
> > explained in two ways - as [itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A -[/itex] then it cannot be
> > used for information transfer: A transfer [itex]A->B[/itex] would be in contra-
> > diction with the explanation [itex]B->A[/itex].
> >
> > What remains is, therefore, a rejection of indirect observation.
> > Observing "[itex]A->B[/itex] or [itex]B->A[/itex]" is not accepted, only "[itex]A->B[/itex]" pure
> > would be accepted. Such a rejection of indirect observation
> > would be obviously a very serious restriction of the scientific
> > method if applied everywhere.
>
> In optical Bell tests, in a given coincidence
> window, the relationship of the polarizations
> (wrt each other) of two photons from the same
> oscillator are being analyzed wrt some [itex]\theta[/itex].
>
> The relationship between qm predictions,the
> observed correlation curves (coincidence rates),
> and Malus' Law seems clear enough.
>
> Thus, considerations of an instantaneous effect,
> [itex]A<->B,[/itex] would seem unnecessary -- and BI has
> nothing to do with the principle of locality.

I don't understand your point.

In case you refer to known loopholes of actual tests
(like detector efficiency): That's nothing I care about.
But that does not seem to be your point. It sounds more
like "we can compute the observed probabilities with QM,
so what?"

The point is that QM is not a realistic theory, it does not
describe what really happens, it allows to compute only
some probabilities without explaining them. But there is
no necessity to reject classical realism, realistic theories
which are compatible with observation exist
(Bohmian mechanics).

Of course, as long as BM has not been known, it was
a reasonable decision to "shut up and calculate" without
thinking too much about the foundations: There were a
lot of things to compute with QM, a lot of things which
could be done in this way. But today?

It is also possible to understand that Einstein did not like
BM. Last not least it requires a preferred frame. But
Einstein has not known Bell's inequality and Aspect's
experiment. But today?

Ilja

Similar Threads for: Two EPR questions
Thread	Forum	Replies
A Log Questions for ya	Precalculus Mathematics Homework	6
SCR Questions	Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework	3
Two questions	Introductory Physics Homework	3
just some questions	Introductory Physics Homework	4
Questions.	Introductory Physics Homework	4