On 9/19/2011 6:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 17:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> you have to have the particle pair you are testing
>> with "interact" with something. That interaction, as I said in the other
>> post, is almost never, if ever, the measuring device.
>
> I don't understand how you decouple the two. You shoot a photon at a
> photomultiplier. The photomultiplier emits a click. The interaction
> causes the measurement. I don't know how you take a measurement without
> an interaction of *some* sort, and I don't know how you interact with
> something without taking a measurement unless you entangle your state
> with the device with which you're interacting.
>
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. The point being, the state changes, regardless of 
whether your "detector" is the thing that changed it, or something else 
did. Thus, they are decoupled, in the sense that the detector, and thus 
observation, is not needed to collapse the state. Its merely incidental 
that, when you allow the detector to be the state changer, it both 
"changes" the state, and "measures" the result.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 16:54, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 6:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> the thing that alters the state.
>>
>> And in the case of the quantum delayed choice eraser, what is "the
>> thing" that alters "the state"?
>>
> If what you are doing is "undoing" the stat change, then its still the same
> thing as would have changed the state, uh.. sort of.. Yeah, confusing, but
> its not quite so big of a problem as it first appears. Something is still
> "effecting" the state, even if the "effect" is to prevent a transition into
> one that is collapsed.

Well, yes, but that's just explaining the results of the experiment without 
actually shedding any additional light on why it behaves that way.


>>> b) they opted for the misleading term "observer", when
>>> talking about how the state collapses.
>>
>> That's the problem. Nobody could come up with a reason that the state
>> would collapse at all. I'm not sure even now it's a solved problem.
>>
> I tend to think that they are either confusing themselves. There is no
> reason it wouldn't.

Oh? So you've solved the problem? Do tell, why does the quantum state 
collapse instead of merely becoming entangled with whatever it interacts with?

> But, we think about things with language. So, if you are
> using the wrong bloody language, it creates all sorts of errors in thinking.

I'm pretty sure the people who ague about this for real aren't using prose 
to do so.

> In principle, as long as a particle is isolated from influences that "can"
> collapse the state, it won't.

Why does a particle bouncing off a mirror not collapse the state? Certainly 
there's interaction there. Indeed, where in the wave equations is the 
expression for the collapse of the state? That's really pretty much what the 
question boils down to.

> Personally, I consider the confusion over what happens if you don't "see" it
> happen to be complete nonsense,

Except you get different experimental results depending on whether you see 
it or not. That indeed is the entire point.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

On 9/21/2011 8:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Why does a particle bouncing off a mirror not collapse the state?
> Certainly there's interaction there. Indeed, where in the wave equations
> is the expression for the collapse of the state? That's really pretty
> much what the question boils down to.
>
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? The only 
answer I have is that this is who mirrors work, for some reason, in that 
they "deflect" a particle, without causing a change. No idea why. But, 
if they didn't, we wouldn't have mirrors, pretty much by definition.

>> Personally, I consider the confusion over what happens if you don't
>> "see" it
>> happen to be complete nonsense,
>
> 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. I say this 
is absurd. Where exactly does the entangled second particle go, if it 
doesn't collapse into its twin, in case #3? What ever relevance to a 
mirrors ability to deflect a particle, without causing a collapse, is 
not relevant to this question. You could build your system without "any" 
mirrors, and you still have the same bloody situation. So, the question 
is, I think, fundamentally wrong. Its not, "Why does observation appear 
necessary?", but rather, "What exactly is it in the nature of mirrors 
that produces a different result than a non-reflective object?" I don't 
see how assuming that the first question makes any sort of sense leads 
you to finding any sort of answer to the second one.

Oh, and its not about "prose". Language is critical to how we think. A 
great many things we failed to grasp in the past *precisely* because the 
language was inadequate to describe them, and new language had to be 
defined, before comprehension was possible. The words we use "color" our 
perceptions, and determine how, and even if, in some cases, we can 
examine a problem. I seem to even remember studies on this, though I 
can't think of exactly when, or where, I read about it.

Post a reply to this message

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

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.

>> 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.

> Oh, and its not about "prose". Language is critical to how we think. A great
> many things we failed to grasp in the past *precisely* because the language
> was inadequate to describe them, and new language had to be defined, before
> comprehension was possible. The words we use "color" our perceptions, and
> determine how, and even if, in some cases, we can examine a problem. I seem
> to even remember studies on this, though I can't think of exactly when, or
> where, I read about it.

Of course. I'm just pointing out that the people who describe entanglement 
don't talk about cats. They have mathematics that describe it.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2011 12:15, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> An unnoticed speck of dust, or in a vacuum, a virtual particle? How exactly
> are they isolating things to "prevent" any interactions?

If the photon was colliding with a speck of dust, you wouldn't see it, and 
you wouldn't get a coincident detection. Ipso facto columbo oreo.

> 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.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. And exactly what the wikipedia article I 
pointed ot is 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.

Did you even read the quantum delayed erasure wikipedia article? Did you 
understand what it says? If not, that would certainly explain the confusion.

> 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...

Well, I don't know what to say. They do an experiment, it shows what you'd 
expect from the wave equations, even tho that's profoundly strange. And you 
seem to be arguing that they're doing ... some other experiment, because the 
one they're doing would be too strange or something.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

On 9/22/2011 8:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
>  > 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.
>
> Did you even read the quantum delayed erasure wikipedia article? Did you
> understand what it says? If not, that would certainly explain the
> confusion.
>
No, the confusion was in what you seemed to state was going on. Not what 
the article said. I don't think I intentionally misread you, but what 
you wrote implied something else entirely, or at least seemed to.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/22/2011 11:18, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Might be as simple as, "This is a special case where the wave equation is
> not the one you should be using."

There's really only one, you know. At least for photons vs electrons.

> 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,

Um, we already know that's the case.

> 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?

You test it by reflecting the light off a surface that also lets some of the 
light pass through, like glass, and studying the interference patterns.

> 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?

I don't know what particle you think is absent. You don't get interference 
effects unless you observe the entangled particle. You're not observing the 
absence of anything. I never meant to imply any particle was missing. I was 
talking about the wikipedia page. If you want to keep talking about this, 
talk about the wikipedia page, and not what you think I might have been 
saying about it.

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

Post a reply to this message