Distant killing of cats
mercury
long threads.
Here I propose a possible mechanism for space-like connections. I
would like to hear your opinion - is there something wrong in the
scheme?
1. Suppose Bob has taken a Schr�dinger cat with him. The death of the
cat hangs upon the quantum state of a number of atoms which are
coupled to the EPR photons of Bob (Bob and Alice share many EPR
pairs). If the spin of some atom is up poison is released and kills
the cat. If spin is down poison is not released and the cat stays
alive.
If Alice does nothing with her photon Number 1 the Bob�s atom N1 stays
in quantum superposition of up/down and the cat is neither dead no
alive. So if Alice doesn�t measure none of her photons the cat is in
superposition. If Bob opens the cage he may find the cat alive. (at
least in 50% or even he may save it as the poison should be released
at the time of opening).
If Alice measures her photon N1 then atom N1 at Bob�s place can turn
up and kill the cat (50%). If Alice wants to kill the cat surely she
would measure as many photons as she has until she receives that some
of Bobs atoms is up which kills the cat. If one opens the cage the cat
should be dead and it is surely killed by the actions of Alice.
2. By that example it follows that Alice can influence events at
space- like intervals instantly.
3. She would also know the result of her actions (as she would know
what the polarization of the Bobs photon is after her measurement). So
there is transfer of information too. Alice gets instant info about
the polarization of Bob�s EPR photon.
Ilian
Theo Wollenleben
> Here I propose a possible mechanism for space-like connections. I
> would like to hear your opinion - is there something wrong in the
> scheme?
[it follows a combination of EPR paradox and Schroedinger's cat]
> 2. By that example it follows that Alice can influence events at
> space- like intervals instantly.
>
>
> 3. She would also know the result of her actions (as she would know
> what the polarization of the Bobs photon is after her measurement). So
> there is transfer of information too. Alice gets instant info about
> the polarization of Bob�s EPR photon.
Is this situation different from the usual EPR paradox? There seems to
be no disagreement among physicists about the fact that entangled pairs
can't be used to transfer information. Can Alice receive the winning
lottery numbers faster than the speed of light with your set-up?
Ilja
> If Alice does nothing with her photon Number 1 the Bob�s atom N1 stays
> in quantum superposition of up/down and the cat is neither dead no
> alive. So if Alice doesn�t measure none of her photons the cat is in
> superposition. If Bob opens the cage he may find the cat alive. (at
> least in 50% or even he may save it as the poison should be released
> at the time of opening).
No. The cat is live/dead with the same probability as if Alice
measures something. Then, the poison is not released at the time of
opening, but before. The superpositional state is one of superposition
of the poison opened before (with a dead cat) and the poison not
opening at all (and a living cat).
> 3. She would also know the result of her actions (as she would know
> what the polarization of the Bobs photon is after her measurement). So
> there is transfer of information too. Alice gets instant info about
> the polarization of Bob�s EPR photon.
That's information about what will happen there. But not information
about the result of her action.
X-Phy
That is the measure/not measure version of the paradox, the cat isn't
necessary. But it is know that the result is the same. You present
the problem under the term of influence at space-like intervals, but
the question is whether it is a mere correlation or the transfer of
information. To address that question, you have to show that some
information travel faster than light. When Alice measure a spin up
(or down,) does she get information from Bob such as "le petit chat
est mort" (sorry, "the cat is dead", I skided to Moli�re.) Conversly,
when Bob see the cat dead (or alive), does he get information from
Alice such as "I measured an up (or down) spin"? Is there some other
form of information transfer? Think over that a while.
--
X-Phy
mercury
> On 23 Dez., 14:48, mercury <il...@abv.bg> wrote:
>
> > in quantum superposition of up/down and the cat is neither dead no
> > alive. So if Alice doesn�t measure none of her photons the cat is in
> > superposition. If Bob opens the cage he may find the cat alive. (at
> > least in 50% or even he may save it as the poison should be released
> > at the time of opening).
>
> measures something. Then, the poison is not released at the time of
> opening, but before. The superpositional state is one of superposition
> of the poison opened before (with a dead cat) and the poison not
> opening at all (and a living cat).
As far as I understand an atom stays in a superposition (spin up/down)
as long it is not measured (free Schroedinger evolution of the wave
function). The moment of measurement is just when one opens the cage
(of course measures have been taken that the atom does not interract
with environment etc.) or when Alice does her measurements far away.
A state of an atom is different when in superposition and when it is
measured (even as a partner in an EPR pair).
The problem can be reformulated as I think so.
Let a system (with two states and their superposition) is connected
(evolve together) with the EPR photons in possesion of Bob so that it
depends on the product of theirs states without measuring these
states. When Alice measures a photon down � Bob�s photon is up and
this gives 0 in the product vice versa 1. So if there is just one 0
the state of the system turns 0. And this state will occur sooner or
later as long as Alice does measure her photons. If she doesn�t
measure one has a product of superpositions and the system must be in
superpostion too.
Ilian