Quantum entanglement and FTL
Matt Menge
when it is not detected it acts as a wave. With a slit experiment and
the second (terminal) detector at a sufficient distance, it would seem
that the entanglement of photons would allow you to communicate with
the second detector faster than the speed of light. Yet any physics
book tells you this is not so. But why?
Best Regards,
Matt
Sam Wormley
Detection has never been faster than the speed of light... where
did you get that idea?
Androcles
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1194835803.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: As I understand it when a photon is detected it acts as a particle and
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
s...@microtec.net
I suggest you look up Copenhagen school of thought.
There lies the crux of the issue.
Most physicists since the 1930's adhere to that philosophy according
to which particles cannot be localized as they move. They believe
that particles behave point like when they are immobile (which is
physically impossible, since immobility is impossible at the
fundamental
particles level) and that they become wave packets as they move, and
consequently cannot follow a precise trajectory (which is also
nonsense).
This led to a situation where nothing more can be learned about
physical reality, since particles obviously have to be localized as
they
follow their trajectories (we couldn't see the stars if it were
otherwise).
But to these guys, this make as little sense as speaking about the
age of dinosaurs bones to fundamentalists who believe that the
Earth was created 6000 years ago only.
Based on such nonsense, and the absence of further progress,
they have been resorting to magic (instantaneous action at a
distance) to explain out hypotheses that no one can verify, which
allows them to issue papers that keep the grant flow going.
They are so irrational that they loudly reject instantaneous action
at a distance when gravity is concerned (which is ok) while at
the same time quietly use the idea to support entanglement.
Seeing the inconsistency, some are not working at proving that
there is no instantaneous action at a distance in entanglement
even though no other conclusion can be arrived at to support
the irrational concept to start with.
A sad waste of public funding that will lead to nothing useful,
as so many projects that these guys make a living working at.
André Michaud