John Clark wrote:
> You're missing the point. I'll be generous, I'll give you infinite sequences with
> no argument, it won't help you a bit, you still won't be able to make boxes as
> I have described.
> You can't just conjure up 4 boxes unless you spell out exactly how
> they're entangled. In my original specifications I said things like
> "If one box is set at X then the other box [...]", if there are only
> 2 boxes then the meaning is clear, if there are 4 boxes then it is not clear.
> I'm not saying 4 boxes could not be entangled, but the rules describing their
> behavior would be much more complicated and I doubt it would bring much
> clarity to the experiment.
I was positing that each of the 4 boxes was entangled with each other
box in the same way that each of the original two boxes were entangled
with each other. But, if we assume infinite sequences (or sequences
based on variables that are unknowable to any external observer, and
thus might as well be random for all intents and purposes) and keep the
algorithm limited to two boxes (which makes sense - we can entangle two
photons with each other, but can we entangle more than two with each
other all at once?), I can make the boxes like so:
Take six sequences, N1 through N6, all infinite length and random.
These are the "master sequences" that box A will use at each of its six
possible settings. (Or maybe just one master sequence - since they are
random, and each box A/box B pair has a unique sequence set shared by no
other such pair of boxes, who can tell if a sequence changes?) Box B
generates its sequence as follows:
* If A and B are set the same, B uses whatever sequence A uses.
* If A and B are set 30 degrees apart, B uses A's sequence, with 1 in 4
* If A and B are set 180 degrees apart, B's sequence is the inverse of
* If A and B are set 120 degrees apart, something else happens (exactly
what doesn't matter to meet the needs of the experiment; it could be
2/3rds difference or just use whatever sequence A would have used with
> Yes but it's not my logic, I don't pretend to understand why things work that
> way, as Richard Feynman said, nobody understands quantum mechanics.
> However the universe doesn't care if I think any of this makes sense or
> not because that's the way things do work, there is absolutely no doubt,
> and all you need is a filter that moves in 30 degree increments.
Granted. But the universe can't contradict itself. Nobody *currently*
understands QM fully - but that does not necessarily mean that QM can
not eventually be made sense of (it could be, it could be not; the only
way to know for sure is if it can and once we have). I'm just tossing
in my shot in the dark, on the off chance that it can help.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:27 MDT