[SOLVED] A Look at Quantum &amp;quot;Spookiness&amp;quot; A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by Drs. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject "objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be produced by "local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm belief that information could not travel faster than the velocity of light. Indeed, if this were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky". Quantum theory required, for example, that "paired photons" maintain polarizations which were opposite in direction . If the polarization angle of one of the "paired photons" were changed, the polarization angle of the other photon of the pair must instantaneously change to match. ("Paired photons" are produced by the self annihilation of an artificial atom composed of an electron and a positron. They are polarized in opposite directions and are emitted in opposite directions. Their polarization angle is, of course, random with respect to the external world.) Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions, they rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous coupling of their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite velocity and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that information could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they had to conclude that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of "hidden variables". (These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily hidden, one of them for example, is the polarization coupling of "paired photons".Since this coupling had been shown to propagate at an "impossible" infinite velocity, it was necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea of "spookiness". If the effect were accepted without the idea of "spookiness" it, the existence of an absolute velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be accepted. Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained. An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen School" of physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there was only the reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to Schroedinger's Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that would be subject to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was detected by instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the decay of the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and alive until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind this was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This does not seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that counts in this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the observation by an external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead prior to his observation, it is one or the other, but not both. The fact that the observer does not know is meaningless. It is only attributed as having meaning as a result of intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox. A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum theory is the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each particle in the Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum "decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable "Parallel Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our Universe began. When one considers the number of particles in the Universe, the number of ways in which they can interact, and the number of instants of time since the Universe began, the number of Universes which are required under this theory is, incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally incredible is that each of these Universes contains the same amount of energy as our own and each of its particles occupies the same space at the same time as do its brothers. This interpretation seems to have a large number of believers of high reputation. In spite of this, the writer has no qualms about asserting that any physicist who would accept such a concept is in the wrong line of work. I understand that Wal-Mart is hiring. When one examines the concept that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on the fact that information is almost always encoded in the form of energy. Since the Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 (the same as the Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation becomes imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly cannot propagate faster that the velocity of light. When information is encoded in the form of the polarization angles of "paired photons", however, this limitation does not occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its energy. As a result, no energy transfer is involved in changing their polarization angles. If one extracts the Lorentz Transformation for Angle using the conventional Lorentz Transformations, one find that this transformation is unity since angle is equal to a LENGTH along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the radius of that arc. Accordingly, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle becomes ((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore, that the relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation of the polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect that velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed. Physicists have also concluded that even if information could be transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not be decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by their source was completely random. This apparent limitation is not fundamental problem, it is a signal to noise ratio problem. The information is actually being transmittted but it is swamped by the noise level of background photons. If the singal to noise ratio of the transmission could be sufficiently improved,communicating over a distance at a quasi-infinite velocity would be found to be perfectly feasible. The most dangerous part of this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of "absolute time" and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the hare-brained concept of "space-time". (For diagram see http://einsteinhoax.com/cf53.htm [Broken]. Omit the 45 degree polarizers. They may destroy the polarization coupling.) The source material for this posting may be found in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ [Broken] (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm [Broken] (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm [Broken] (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS. All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm [Broken]. Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary. E-mail:- firstname.lastname@example.org. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked. The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided. ..