On 9/20/2011 16:57, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In this case, yes. But you are forgetting the "other" condition of the test,
> i.e., placing something into the path of one of the entangled particles,
> thus causing it to change state, thus resulting in it never "being"
> detected.

Both particles are detected. If you miss one particle or the other, the 
sample gets thrown away. I'm not sure what "being" detected means, other 
than that.

> The point being, the state changes, regardless of whether your
> "detector" is the thing that changed it, or something else did.

Right. And the problem is that the state apparently changes when *nothing* 
interacts with the particle. What causes that state change?

> Thus, they
> are decoupled, in the sense that the detector, and thus observation, is not
> needed to collapse the state.

It's not needed, but in this experiment, it is indeed what causes the 
collapse. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

> Its merely incidental that, when you allow the
> detector to be the state changer, it both "changes" the state, and
> "measures" the result.

No. The detector measures the result. Sometimes it changes it, sometimes it 
doesn't. And when the second detector changes the result, the first detector 
winds up having a different result also. That's the point of the experiment. 
I'm not sure how you're waving that off with "well, of course, but it has 
nothing to do with the measurements."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message