On 9/22/2011 8:31 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/21/2011 12:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yeah, that is kind of an interesting case. The question is what sort of
>> interaction are you dealing with, with respect to a mirror, that isn't
>> the
>> same as if it hits something that doesn't have reflection?
>
> Except the interactions with mirrors are the same as the interactions
> with the other stuff. There's only one wave equation.
>
> I don't know the answer, but I'm not trying argue that the answer is
> simple and obvious, either.
>
Might be as simple as, "This is a special case where the wave equation 
is not the one you should be using." In general, the solution is almost 
also something simple. One possible "simple" solution, though it would 
create its own insane questions, would be that a mirror doesn't "bend" 
light, but actually emits a new particle, and does so in a way that 
"causes" the entanglement to remain, either by causing the first one to 
collapse, and a new entangled particle to show up, moving in the new 
direction, or by somehow trading off the new and old one, with the other 
half of the pair. It would certainly mess with the existing rules of 
what is assumed to happen, but not directly violate the wave equations. 
It would also be damn hard to detect/test, since.. how do you tell one 
particle from another, if their wavelength, and other characteristics, 
save for direction of travel, where all identical?

>>> Except you get different experimental results depending on whether you
>>> see it or not. That indeed is the entire point.
>>>
>>
>> But, its not. What is the fundamental difference between these
>> categories of
>> experiment design:
>>
>> 1. Two detectors, one farther away than the other, where you expect the
>> first one to detect the entangled particle, but the farther one to not.
>>
>> 2. One detector, and one solid block, where the block is closer,
>> again, with
>> the expectation that you will get no result, since the entangled pair
>> "stops" at the block, and never reaches the detector.
>>
>> 3. No detectors, but blocks in the same positions as above.
>>
>> You are proposing that "somehow" #3 is completely different, and that
>> only
>> #1, and maybe #2, somehow, produce a predictable effect.
>
> Uh, no. This is nonsense. I'm proposing no such thing. What did I say
> that lead you to believe that?
>
>> Where exactly does the entangled second particle go, if it doesn't
>> collapse into its twin, in case #3?
>
> In all three cases, the entagled particles stop at either the detector
> or the block, depending on what's in their way. Why would you think
> otherwise? You realize that in every case there are two particles, yes?
> And an "entangled" particle needs to be entangled with some other
> particle, implying the existence of two particles?
>
> I haven't any idea where you're coming from here.
>
The phrasing of your "prior" statement was to the effect that, "This 
doesn't happen unless you are observing it." That was what was seriously 
making me wonder. How to you observe the "absence" of a particle, which 
is what happens when your detector is the more distant thing? That makes 
no logical sense, and if its not what you meant, then you mistyped. Its 
the issue I have been trying to resolve since you made the statement.

Post a reply to this message