**Next message:**Anders Sandberg: "Re: steganography (and bin Laden)"**Previous message:**scerir: "Re: TECH: Quantum Head Job"**In reply to:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: TECH: Quantum Head Job"**Next in thread:**Colin Hales: "RE: TECH: Quantum Head Job DONE!"**Reply:**Colin Hales: "RE: TECH: Quantum Head Job DONE!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

*> The entangled two particles have a property, spin, that is guaranteed
*

*> to be opposite. Whatever the one particle's spin is or becomes, the
*

*> other is immediately the opposite. If all you do is measure it, then
*

*> that's like picking one ball out of a bag that has a white and a black
*

*> ball, then being able to instantly determine from your ball what the
*

*> other ball's color is, no matter how far away it is.
*

Yes, but you don't need entangled particles. One electron

is enough, as pointed out by L. de Broglie (1959).

de Broglie's paradox.

Consider a box B with *reflecting* walls.

The box B can be divided in two boxes B1, B2

by a double sliding reflecting partition. Initially the

box B contains an electron. Then the box B is divided

into B1 (taken to Paris) and B2 (taken to Tokyo).

The new situation is described by 2 w.f., one defined

in the volume V(B1), the other in the volume V(B2).

The original w.f. was defined in volume V(B).

Let's be P(B1) the probability for finding the

electron in B1 and P(B2) the probability for finding

the electron in B2. Before measurement, for QM, our

electron is in B1 *and* in B2. After measurement

our electron is in B1 *or* in B2. In detail. An observation

is performed in Paris at time T_0 and the electron is

found in B1. For T > T_0 the probability P(B2) of

observing the electron in B2 (in Tokyo) must be zero.

But P(B2) is given by the integral over V(B2) of the

squared modulus of the w.f. in V(B2). Thus the vanishing

of P(B2), at T > T_0, implies the vanishing of the

w.f. in V(B2).

Most physicists would say that the electron observed in Paris

at T_0 was *already* there. And that those 2 w.f. represented

just our *knowledge* prior to that observation.

Note that de Broglie's paradox exists only for physicists

who insist on a realistic philosophy (particles exist

objectively) and not for positivists (it makes no sense

to talk about an un-observed particle).

**Next message:**Anders Sandberg: "Re: steganography (and bin Laden)"**Previous message:**scerir: "Re: TECH: Quantum Head Job"**In reply to:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: TECH: Quantum Head Job"**Next in thread:**Colin Hales: "RE: TECH: Quantum Head Job DONE!"**Reply:**Colin Hales: "RE: TECH: Quantum Head Job DONE!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT
*