On 9/21/2011 8:37 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
An unnoticed speck of dust, or in a vacuum, a virtual particle? How 
exactly are they isolating things to "prevent" any interactions?

>> 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."
>
You know, I get the distinct feeling that, at least at some level, we 
are talking past each other. Then you come up with non-sequitors, like 
the idea that the effect of one detector, which I assume is not equal 
distant, can either cause, or not, a change in the other. Yet, somehow, 
I don't think that is what you are saying. What you seem to be saying is 
that an imperfect surface might coincidentally be hit in both detectors 
at the close enough to the same moment, to cause an "unchanged" state, 
i.e., both detect that state, while in other case, the interaction with 
one detector just happens to fall within the bounds of the time that it 
takes to transition, resulting in one detector "causing" a state change, 
with the other detecting the same.

Unless you are suggesting that, somehow, they are making one particle 
thick detectors, with perfect properties, and an "absolutely" smooth 
surface? Seems to em to be much more plausible that this ambiguity is a 
consequence of the imperfect nature of the detectors, not something 
profoundly strange going on. But, hell, what do I know...

Post a reply to this message