Recent content by Joncon

Thanks the_pulp, I'll take a look at those

I've also heard a suggestion that the "first" measurement may send a signal backwards in time to when the entangled particles were first produced, ensuring that the spins are always opposite. This seems to solve the issue about the ordering of the measurements, and removes a bit of the...

Switch A. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer knowing or recording the which path information. The very fact that you've "asked nature a question" is enough. I've posted this before but I think it answers these sorts of questions brilliantly...

Bill, I've been trying to understand your coins example. Is this analogous to measuring a pair of entangled photons at one of three previously agreed angles? So tossing coins "a" and "b" means Alice measures her photon at angle "a", while Bob measures his photon at angle "b"?

what's a "quantum tunnel"?

You can place polarizers behind the slits. A polarizer won't destroy the photon, but any photon which passes through it is now polarized in a certain direction. So, in theory, you could later inspect the polarization of the photon to determine which slit it passed through. The fact that this...

Thanks, but there's nothing there which shows how to get perfect correlations at identical polarizers settings, using Malus. Of course it's not true. That's the whole point - Herbert is showing that this LR model can't reproduce the predictions of QM, or the results of actual experiments.

OK, but that still doesn't answer why you think Herbert ignored this, he mentions that the detectors will pick up a 50/50 random sequence of 1s and 0s. And anyway, how you would you go about constructing an LR model which uses Malus' Law and gets perfect correlations with the polarizers at...

I don't understand this, why do you say Herbert ignores the behaviour of light? All he's saying (as far as I can tell) is that an LR model which predicts perfect correlation when the polarizers are at the same setting will produce a linear correlation for the angles between the polarizers.

ThomasT, I'm struggling to understand your reasoning here, so let me ask a simple question. If photon A encounters polarizer A which parameter does it use to determine whether or not it passes, individual or coincidental?

But when photon A encounters polarizer A there's no such thing as "angular difference between two polarizer orientations". A (photon or polarizer) has no knowledge of what is happening at B.

I agree, that's why I double-quoted "choose". Okay, to put it another way, what determines which function (individual/coincidental) is applied to the photons? But they're not different measurement parameters. Each photon has it's polarization measured. That's it.

The point is that in an LR theory, each photon is using one and only one function. Each photon is acting individually, totally unaware of what is happening with it's entangled partner. So you either accept that the individual and coincidental functions are the same thing, or you make them...

ThomasT, please can you clarify what you mean here? I'm guessing you just typed this wrong and that one "coincidental" should have read "individual". If so, how could a coincidental parameter/function etc. possibly be different from an individual one?

Why does it have to be one or the other? The universe clearly is deterministic to a large degree but why is a certain amount of randomness such a problem? I'm not saying true randomness exists but you can't rule it out simply because you don't like the idea.