Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Einstein's Boxes

Expand Messages
  • Travis Norsen
    Hi everyone, I m pleased to report that my paper on Einstein s Boxes has appeared in the current (Feb.) issue of AmJPhys. I am quite happy with the final
    Message 1 of 126 , Feb 1, 2005
      Hi everyone,

      I'm pleased to report that my paper on "Einstein's Boxes" has appeared
      in the current (Feb.) issue of AmJPhys. I am quite happy with the final
      version and I would invite anyone who is interested to check it out!

      There is also a fascinating critical comment on my paper (in the same
      issue) written by Abner Shimony, who was one of the referees for my
      paper. I personally think he is rather confused about the whole business,
      but I have no complaints since his comment will be good publicity for my
      paper.

      I would of course love to discuss the paper or Shimony's reply (or other
      critical comments or thoughts that people may have) here...

      Best,
      Travis
    • tlt787
      On 29 Apr 2005 16:07:53 -0700 Israel Silverman ... No, Aspect eliminated the possibility of subluminal causation between A and B during any given coincidence
      Message 126 of 126 , May 1 10:15 AM
        On 29 Apr 2005 16:07:53 -0700 "Israel Silverman"
        <corplawyer@...> writes:
        > But in the case of space-like separated events,
        > the only possibility for causal influence is superluminal
        > causal influence. Forbidding any such influence
        > (by imposing Bell Locality) generates a
        > prediction which is violated by real experiments.
        > So these experiments involve superluminal causation.
        > ------
        > Further, besides the polarizer efficiency argument,
        > can we really say that Aspect eliminated all possibility
        > of subluminal causation?

        No, Aspect eliminated the possibility of subluminal
        causation between A and B during any given
        coincidence interval. However, if the correlations
        aren't produced by A and B affecting each other
        (and most physicists believe that they aren't),
        then spacelike separating them doesn't matter.

        You've got crossed linear polarizers analyzing the
        same light. So, you can separate them by a
        billion light years, and as long as the light
        from the emission events is undisturbed in
        transit, then you'll get cos^2 theta correlations.

        The roadblock to understanding why Bell
        test results don't imply superluminal signalling
        in nature is a flawed analysis of the comparison
        between an incorrect (the usual lhv) formulation
        of the probability of coincidental detection and
        a correct (qm) one. You could certainly generate
        an lhv that gives the correct cos^2 theta correlation
        curve, but it would proceed along the same line of
        reasoning that's used to generate the qm prediction.

        The point is that if you don't change the basis for
        calculating the probability of detection at B once
        a detection is registered at A, then you're not doing
        it right. This doesn't imply that the light incident
        on polarizer B has changed in any way via superluminal
        signalling or whatever. In fact, the correctness of the
        cos^2 theta formula *depends* on there being *no
        change* in the light incident on polarizer B following
        a detection at A. It has to be the same (meaning
        in phase with and polarized the same, via emission)
        as the light that was incident on polarizer A (which
        light, via transmission of some portion of it by
        polarizer A, ultimately produced a photon via the
        PMT at A).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.