"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...
"Aidan Smoker" a écrit dans le message de
...

I found this discussion on Fermilab's web pages about the quantum
action-at-a-distance phenomena. Even as a scientist I find it an
unsatisfying explanation or resolution of the EPR paradox.

Actually, the issue is that one.

Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)
In any naturally correlated quantum entangled system it would be a very
difficult proposition to apply some type of bias in such a way that the
reciever of the information being sent could be able to discern a pattern
from normal noise. Think about what you are trying to do practically:
control a stochastic process. The idea begins to make sense only when you
find a way to correlate two non-interacting spacelike seperated systems,
however. In such a artifically entangled system, you do not need to be able
to modify stochastic processes, but can introduce dimensions of control that
a reciever can decode, such as a time varying voltage.


* If the answer is no, then it can be proven
(thanks to the no_communication theorem) that the EPR
correlation cannot be used to send information faster than light
(see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/no-communication.htm ).

In such a case, the principle of relativity is preserved because
then EPR correlations don't enable to break the symmetry
between two spacelike separated quantum measurements
of EPR correlated parts of a system (ie, there is no possibility
to ascribe a role of cause to the quantum measurement of a
part A of a system and a role of effect to a quantum measurement
outcome obtained on an EPR correlated part B of this system)

* If the answer is yes, then it might be possible (from a
principle point of view) to send a self correlation signal thanks
to a strong control of the quantum state of one polarizer of
the Alain Aspect EPR experiment for instance
(see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm
and thread Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
http://minilien.com/?ECZxLyrKX7 )

The answer can still be yes and relativity can be preserved because the
information linking the two systems is not energetic. Relativity limits
energy, but it is only a convienent supposition that information must also
be similarly limited. As far as the universe is concerned, nothing illegal
has happened, only now the reciever is producing "noise" you just so happen
to be able to make use of... you can have your cake and eat it too, without
invoking an 'Ether Theory' to explain why the two seperated systems become
self correlated.
..

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action at
a distance with a formulation of relativist invariance (of phenomena that
actually satisfy this invariance) in the framework of Aristotle
space-time.



Greysky

www.allocations.cc

"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
...

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...

Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
In any naturally correlated quantum entangled system it would
be a very difficult proposition to apply some type of bias in
such a way that the reciever of the information being sent
could be able to discern a pattern from normal noise.

Chaverondier
Yes. I completely agree with this mayor technical problem.
The possibility to send something else than noise depends
on the coherence time and length scales of the (possible ?)
contextual hidden variables (ie the quantum state of the measuring
apparatus and its environmement) which give rise to a unitary,
deterministic, and reversible evolution of the quantum whole of
the observed system, the measuring apparatus and its environment.

Greysky
Think about what you are trying to do practically:
control a stochastic process.

Chaverondier
Yes. But, if you settle the environment interacting
with a quntum measuring apparatus (and this apparatus
itself) in a drastically controlled quantum state (for instance
a Bose Einstein Condensate quantum state) and exert a
very strong control over the conditions of the experiment
is there really absolutely no possibility to bias
quantum statistics of quantum measurements ?

Greysky
In such a artifically entangled system, you do not need to be able
to modify stochastic processes, but can introduce dimensions of
control that a reciever can decode, such as a time varying voltage.

Chaverondier
I dont understand the experiment you are suggesting.

Greysky
The answer can still be yes and relativity can be preserved

Chaverondier
Yes to what ? To the possibility to bias quantum polarization
measurement statistics of the pair of EPR correlated photons
by a drastic control exerted only on one of the polarizers
of Alain Aspect experiment ?

Greysky
because the information linking the two systems is not energetic.
Relativity limits energy, but it is only a convenient supposition that
information must also be similarly limited. As far as the universe
is concerned, nothing illegal has happened,

Chaverondier
I don't agree. If you assume that a device is up to send signals
at velocity C c in an inertial frame R0 and assume nevertheless
the principle of relativity, then you are contrived to assume that
the same device, located in an other frame R2, would be up to
send back a signal at this same velocity C.

So, let us choose inertial frames R0, R1 and R2 such that
* velocity of R1 with regard to R0 = v
* velocity of R2 with regard to R1 = v
* vC/c^2 1

We can
* transmit immediatly at time t0 = t1 =0 a signal from A1
at rest in R1 to A0, located at the same place but at rest in R0,

* send a signal at speed C from A0 to B0 (at rest in R0)
at speed C c and receive this signal at B1 at rest in R1
located at the same place than B0 at time t0=(A0B0)/C in R0
and t1 in R1 such that
t1 = (t0 - vx0/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2), ie
t1 = (x0/C)(1-vC/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) 0
(where x0 denotes the distance A0B0 measured in R0)

* transmit immediately this signal from B1 at rest in R1 to
B2 at rest in R2 located at the same place than B1 at time t1,

* send back a signal at speed C in R2, from B2 to A2
at rest in R2, so that observer located at A1 in R1 can
receive the answer to its message at time 2t1 0 and
so can decide not to send it.

This provides the looked for contradiction.

Hence, FTL signalling is not compatible
with the principle of relativity of motion.

The possibility of signals propagating at speeds c and signals
propagating at speed Cc, both independant on the motion
of their sources, conflicts with the hypothesis of a principle
of relativity of motion applying to any phenomenon without
any exception.

Greysky
only now the reciever is producing "noise" you just so happen
to be able to make use of... you can have your cake and eat it
too, without invoking an 'Ether Theory' to explain why the two
seperated systems become self correlated.

Chaverondier
Ok. If you assume quantum indeterminacy to be fundamental,
then you can prove that you can send only noise. If you have
no control on the information you send, you cannot dedice
which is the emitter and which is the reciever of the noise,
so that the symmetry of the EPR correlation is preserved.
Hence the principle of relativity of motion is preserved too.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action at
a distance with a formulation of relativist invariance (of phenomena that
actually satisfy this invariance) in the framework of Aristotle space-time.

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...
"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
...

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...

Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
In any naturally correlated quantum entangled system it would
be a very difficult proposition to apply some type of bias in
such a way that the reciever of the information being sent
could be able to discern a pattern from normal noise.

Chaverondier
Yes. I completely agree with this mayor technical problem.
The possibility to send something else than noise depends
on the coherence time and length scales of the (possible ?)
contextual hidden variables (ie the quantum state of the measuring
apparatus and its environmement) which give rise to a unitary,
deterministic, and reversible evolution of the quantum whole of
the observed system, the measuring apparatus and its environment.

Greysky
Think about what you are trying to do practically:
control a stochastic process.

Chaverondier
Yes. But, if you settle the environment interacting
with a quntum measuring apparatus (and this apparatus
itself) in a drastically controlled quantum state (for instance
a Bose Einstein Condensate quantum state) and exert a
very strong control over the conditions of the experiment
is there really absolutely no possibility to bias
quantum statistics of quantum measurements ?

It's an interesting thought. The contextual hidden variable in such a
example is how the two highly controlled quantum states are interacting with
each other. Also, how you will be able to send information distinguishable
from noise through such a channel without collapsing your connection in the
process is also going to be a challange.


Greysky
In such a artifically entangled system, you do not need to be able
to modify stochastic processes, but can introduce dimensions of
control that a reciever can decode, such as a time varying voltage.

Chaverondier
I dont understand the experiment you are suggesting.

I am suggesting artificial entanglement, as opposed to 'natural'
entanglement, where there are no previous histories at all between the
transmission system and the reciever system because in this case the hidden
variable is one you introduce into the system and can hence control, for
example the application of a varying voltage, which can easily be detected
and decoded by an automated logic block set up to precisely look for changes
in such a parameter. Conceptually it simplifies what you are ultimatly
wanting - a process to send meaningful information through a quantum
connection superluminally.


Greysky
The answer can still be yes and relativity can be preserved

Chaverondier
Yes to what ? To the possibility to bias quantum polarization
measurement statistics of the pair of EPR correlated photons
by a drastic control exerted only on one of the polarizers
of Alain Aspect experiment ?

Well, perhaps I am reaching a bit. I want to think that relativity can still
be preserved overall - a FTL radio will not bring down the whole house with
a crash. Perhaps a gentle re-think about how information relates to
relativistic systems in certain very limited and artifical (contrived)
situations. In this regard, I see Aspect's experiment as a signpost
directing us to more subtle forms of information manipulation...Aspects
experiment covers only a single entangled system - I am convinced the answer
lies in the ability of connecting a multitude of such isolated systems
dynamically. Quantum mechanics never is a good theory for only a single
system. Involving many such systems can act as a amplifier, and will let you
see the results of your control operator as it acts on the statistics of
the many systems of particles you are applying it to.


Greysky
because the information linking the two systems is not energetic.
Relativity limits energy, but it is only a convenient supposition that
information must also be similarly limited. As far as the universe
is concerned, nothing illegal has happened,

Chaverondier
I don't agree. If you assume that a device is up to send signals
at velocity C c in an inertial frame R0 and assume nevertheless
the principle of relativity, then you are contrived to assume that
the same device, located in an other frame R2, would be up to
send back a signal at this same velocity C.

So, let us choose inertial frames R0, R1 and R2 such that
* velocity of R1 with regard to R0 = v
* velocity of R2 with regard to R1 = v
* vC/c^2 1

We can
* transmit immediatly at time t0 = t1 =0 a signal from A1
at rest in R1 to A0, located at the same place but at rest in R0,

* send a signal at speed C from A0 to B0 (at rest in R0)
at speed C c and receive this signal at B1 at rest in R1
located at the same place than B0 at time t0=(A0B0)/C in R0
and t1 in R1 such that
t1 = (t0 - vx0/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2), ie
t1 = (x0/C)(1-vC/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) 0
(where x0 denotes the distance A0B0 measured in R0)

* transmit immediately this signal from B1 at rest in R1 to
B2 at rest in R2 located at the same place than B1 at time t1,

* send back a signal at speed C in R2, from B2 to A2
at rest in R2, so that observer located at A1 in R1 can
receive the answer to its message at time 2t1 0 and
so can decide not to send it.

This provides the looked for contradiction.

Yes, this is the biggie. What becomes of causality if you can hear the
signal before it is sent? I suppose there can be explanations, such as
invoking Many Worlds - you are hearing the leakage of another freshly split
off universe, for example. But this is messy. I do think that we can test
for temporal order in an experiment, but to my knowledge this hasn't been
done. The closest we have come to demonstrating causality doesn't break down
is with the caesium gas / laser experiments Lijun Wang performed at the NEC
Research Institute in 2000, or measuring tunneling speed, for some examples.
Wang I think, got 300C. But even there its messy to describe phase and
group velocities through a dispersive medium. And remains so today...I am
not convinced temporal reversal takes place. This may be a solution to the
math of relativity, but the math is not faithful to observational reality.
This may be one of the tiny adjustments that may need to be made that I
spoke of earlier


Hence, FTL signalling is not compatible
with the principle of relativity of motion.

The possibility of signals propagating at speeds c and signals
propagating at speed Cc, both independant on the motion
of their sources, conflicts with the hypothesis of a principle
of relativity of motion applying to any phenomenon without
any exception.

Greysky
only now the reciever is producing "noise" you just so happen
to be able to make use of... you can have your cake and eat it
too, without invoking an 'Ether Theory' to explain why the two
seperated systems become self correlated.

Chaverondier
Ok. If you assume quantum indeterminacy to be fundamental,
then you can prove that you can send only noise. If you have
no control on the information you send, you cannot dedice
which is the emitter and which is the reciever of the noise,
so that the symmetry of the EPR correlation is preserved.
Hence the principle of relativity of motion is preserved too.

As I said, it really does depend on what dimensions of control you are
relying on to perform your experiment. It also depends on how you simplify
(restrain) everything else - so you can hear the noise you want to as
opposed to just hearing stochastic chatter.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc

"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Chaverondier
Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
Think about what you are trying to do
practically : control a stochastic process.

Chaverondier
Yes. But, if you settle the environment interacting
with a quantum measuring apparatus (and this apparatus
itself) in a drastically controlled quantum state (for instance
a Bose Einstein Condensate quantum state) and exert a
very strong control over the conditions of the experiment
is there really absolutely no possibility to bias quantum
statistics of quantum measurements ?

Greysky
It's an interesting thought. The contextual hidden variable in such
a example is how the two highly controlled quantum states are
interacting with each other. Also, how you will be able to
send information distinguishable from noise through such
a channel without collapsing your connection in the
process is also going to be a challange.

Chaverondier
Yes. A drastic one.

Greysky
I am suggesting artificial entanglement, as opposed to 'natural'
entanglement, where there are no previous histories at all between the
transmission system and the reciever system because in this case the
hidden variable is one you introduce into the system and can hence
control,
for example the application of a varying voltage, which can easily be
detected and decoded by an automated logic block set up to precisely
look for changes in such a parameter.

Chaverondier
I don't see the link of your suggestion with a possible FTL signalling.

Greysky
Relativity limits energy, but it is only a convenient supposition that
information must also be similarly limited. As far as the universe
is concerned, nothing illegal has happened,

Chaverondier
I don't agree. If you assume that a device is up to send signals
at velocity C c in an inertial frame R0 and assume nevertheless
the principle of relativity, then you get a conflict with the principle
of causality.

Greysky
Yes, this is the biggie. What becomes of causality
if you can hear the signal before it is sent?

Chaverondier
You don't need to drop causality if you drop the principle
of relativity of motion and assume the relativist invariance to
apply only to phenomena that really satisfy this invariance.

See http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
for an interpretation of Alain Aspect experiment
as an action at a distance compatible with causality
and with a formulation of relativist invariance
in the framework of Aristotle space-time.

Greysky
I suppose there can be explanations, such as
invoking Many Worlds - you are hearing the
leakage of another freshly split off universe,
for example. But this is messy. I do think that
we can test for temporal order in an experiment,
but to my knowledge this hasn't been done.

Chaverondier
This has been done in the "multisimultaneity" test at the
university of Geneva by professor Gisin. The results where
not that expected because it is not possible to assume
relativity of simultaneity _and_ a causal interpretation
of quantum collapse. These two interpretations are
not compatible (and I rather believe the second one).

Signals propagating at speed c and signals propagating
at speed Cc both independant of their sources
conflict with the principle of relativity of motion, not
with causality. They need only to assume an objective
quantum causal ordering (and an objective quantum
collapse) supporting an objective (ie observer's
motion independant) time ordering.

Bernard Chaveorndier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm
Quantum determinism or relativist locality

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...
"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Chaverondier
Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
Think about what you are trying to do
practically : control a stochastic process.

Chaverondier
Yes. But, if you settle the environment interacting
with a quantum measuring apparatus (and this apparatus
itself) in a drastically controlled quantum state (for instance
a Bose Einstein Condensate quantum state) and exert a
very strong control over the conditions of the experiment
is there really absolutely no possibility to bias quantum
statistics of quantum measurements ?

Greysky
It's an interesting thought. The contextual hidden variable in such
a example is how the two highly controlled quantum states are
interacting with each other. Also, how you will be able to
send information distinguishable from noise through such
a channel without collapsing your connection in the
process is also going to be a challange.

Chaverondier
Yes. A drastic one.

Greysky
I am suggesting artificial entanglement, as opposed to 'natural'
entanglement, where there are no previous histories at all between the
transmission system and the reciever system because in this case the
hidden variable is one you introduce into the system and can hence
control,
for example the application of a varying voltage, which can easily be
detected and decoded by an automated logic block set up to precisely
look for changes in such a parameter.

Chaverondier
I don't see the link of your suggestion with a possible FTL signalling.

Hmm... let's see if I can clarify this a bit. Suppose you have 2 systems of
particles which lie outside of each others light cones. They also have some
particular variable that you can measure, such as magnetic moment, charge,
etc. A nice example can be two clouds of interstellar charged particles
lying light years from each other (Cloud A and Cloud B) to provide both
something to measure and a system of many particles to act on- you want a
system of many particles to amplify the phenomena you are trying to see - a
system of only two charged particles is much, much to small to yield
anything useful. Also, suppose the particular variable, lets say net charge,
is dynamically variable over time. If you measure a precise value for charge
in cloud A, what is the expectation that your friend positioned at cloud B
will measure exactly the same value at his cloud at exactly the same
absolute time (remember these clouds are outside each others' light cones)?
It may be very small, but it is not zero. (You may verify this by later
evaluating the measurement data in a bar over a cold beer with your friend).
Suppose you, along with your friend, take another measurement. What is the
probabiity that the measured values will again be exactly the same? The
probability is smaller, but again it is not zero. Repeat this as many times
as you like. The probability that the measurements of both clouds being the
same may approach the reciprocal of infinity, but it still never zero. Also,
since the cloud is dynamically changing its charge, your measurements do not
interact with each other. One measurement or a million measurements, it
doesn't matter.

One conclusion you may reach is that there is a 'hidden' variable that is
really linking the two systems of many particles, which accounts for the
remarkable connectedness. But this is not the only conclusion. It could be
just 'chance'. Infinitly small chance, but nevertheless valid. Really it
doesn't matter either way. Next, you realize that since charge is something
you can control, what would happen if you varied the charge of your cloud A
whilest your friend measured his cloud B charge? The statistics of your
experiment have not changed, even though you are now manipulating a variable
directly and not just relying on a stochasic process to dynamically alter
the variable. Again, you do the experiment and your friend measures the
exact charge value in his cloud as you placed in yours. Even though you have
no proof there is a hidden variable involved in the process at all, and have
no way to prove there is one, your friend records the message you imprinted
on your cloud by measureing the charge in his cloud.

Is both cloud A and cloud B part of one dynamic quantum system? Ar there
hidden variables you are now able to manipulate? Is this communication? Is
relativity now destroyed? I guess you will have to answer this question
using whatever bias you wish to apply to it. IMO it is communication, but
there is no real way to ever know if it occured because the two clouds
charges' were somehow linked, or if you and your friend just were incredibly
lucky in that random chance made it only seem as if a message were
transmitted superluminally. This conclusion would remain even if you can
repeat the experiment successfully with other messages of any arbitrary
length.



Greysky
Relativity limits energy, but it is only a convenient supposition that
information must also be similarly limited. As far as the universe
is concerned, nothing illegal has happened,

Chaverondier
I don't agree. If you assume that a device is up to send signals
at velocity C c in an inertial frame R0 and assume nevertheless
the principle of relativity, then you get a conflict with the principle
of causality.
In the above example, both clouds of charged particles are well behaved
according to relativity. Even when you are using them to transmit your
laundry list to your wife across lightyears of spacetime. The huge point of
confusion in my example can be traced to how we define the word
'information' and how it relates to the rest of the material universe. In
certain cases, causality may not even be affected by such a set-up.


Greysky
Yes, this is the biggie. What becomes of causality
if you can hear the signal before it is sent?

Chaverondier
You don't need to drop causality if you drop the principle
of relativity of motion and assume the relativist invariance to
apply only to phenomena that really satisfy this invariance.

See http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
for an interpretation of Alain Aspect experiment
as an action at a distance compatible with causality
and with a formulation of relativist invariance
in the framework of Aristotle space-time.

Greysky
I suppose there can be explanations, such as
invoking Many Worlds - you are hearing the
leakage of another freshly split off universe,
for example. But this is messy. I do think that
we can test for temporal order in an experiment,
but to my knowledge this hasn't been done.

Chaverondier
This has been done in the "multisimultaneity" test at the
university of Geneva by professor Gisin. The results where
not that expected because it is not possible to assume
relativity of simultaneity _and_ a causal interpretation
of quantum collapse. These two interpretations are
not compatible (and I rather believe the second one).

Are there referencers to this on the web? I'd be most grateful if you could
point me to something.

Greysky

"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
m...

Chaverondier
Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
I am suggesting artificial entanglement, as opposed to 'natural'
entanglement...
...suppose the particular variable, lets say net charge,
is dynamically variable over time.

Chaverondier
It's not possible. It would contradict charge conservation.

Greysky
I do think that we can test for temporal order in an
experiment, but to my knowledge this hasn't been done.

Chaverondier
This has been done in the "multisimultaneity" test at the
university of Geneva by professor Gisin. The results where
not that expected because it is not possible to assume
relativity of simultaneity _and_ a causal interpretation
of quantum collapse. These two interpretations are
not compatible (and I rather believe the second one).

Greysky
Are there referencers to this on the web?
I'd be most grateful if you could point me to something.

Chaverondier
Quantum correlations versus Multisimultaneity : an experimental test
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/...ant-ph/0110117

This was an attempt to check if there was a possible compatibility
between relativity of simultaneity and a causal ordering of the
polarization measurement of one photon with regard to the
correlated polarization of the twin photon in the framework
of Alain Aspect experiment.

The performed experiment proved, the impossibility that one
photon polarization measurement be the cause of the polarization
outcome of the twin photon together with the assumption that this
causal ordering would comply with relativist time ordering.

Indeed if compatibility would be assumed, this would
need the disparition of EPR correlations in cases when
* polarization measurement by polarizer A be
performed first in polarizer A inertial frame and
* polarization measurement by polarizer B be
performed first in polarizer B frame

Of course, the assumed disparition of EPR correlation has
not been observed. This confirms the natural incompatibility
of a causal ordering of the observed polarizations correlations
with the relativity of simultaneity.

Hence assuming that polarization measurement of one photon
causes the polarization of the twin photon conflicts with the
principle of relativity of motion.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action at
a distance with a formulation of relativist invariance (of phenomena that
actually satisfy this invariance) in the framework of Aristotle space-time.

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message
...
"Greysky" a écrit dans le message de
m...

Chaverondier
Actually, the issue is that one.
Is there any possibility to bias quantum measurement statistics ?
(see Arnold Neumaeir answer in the thread "quantum state diffusion
question" http://minilien.com/?UlOUpjyhZ4 on sci.physics.research)

Greysky
I am suggesting artificial entanglement, as opposed to 'natural'
entanglement...
...suppose the particular variable, lets say net charge,
is dynamically variable over time.

Chaverondier
It's not possible. It would contradict charge conservation.
Yes, I suppose it would because of my silly attempt to keep the
experimenters from assuming anything other than natural variations in charge
density is responsible for their identicle measurements. It would work only
for the case where the experimenter is not actually adding or subtracting
charge. If, when the experimenter is adding charge to his cloud and then
taking measurements, if he could measure the amount of charge he has added
and noted the cloud he is on is displaying only a portion of that net
charge, then he would know some of the information he added is not accounted
for (because it turns up instantly in cloud B) then it would be too easy to
come to the conclusion there really were hidden variables linking the two
seemingly seperated clouds into one. Though if the clouds really were very
large themselves, perhaps it would be impossible to measure their total
individual charge, thus shielding the experimenters from the knowledge they
are violating charge conservation, I suppose. Measuring the charge in a
localized region of cloud says nothing about what is going on anywhere else
in the ensemble of particles. There is enough wriggle room , given the
clouds are large and composed of a multitude of charged particles, to keep
the experimenters believing nothing but stochastic process are contriving by
luck to keep their measurements the same. If someone is not looking hard
enough, he generally doesn't find what he isn't looking for or doesn't want
to see :-)



Greysky
I do think that we can test for temporal order in an
experiment, but to my knowledge this hasn't been done.

Chaverondier
This has been done in the "multisimultaneity" test at the
university of Geneva by professor Gisin. The results where
not that expected because it is not possible to assume
relativity of simultaneity _and_ a causal interpretation
of quantum collapse. These two interpretations are
not compatible (and I rather believe the second one).

Greysky
Are there referencers to this on the web?
I'd be most grateful if you could point me to something.

Chaverondier
Quantum correlations versus Multisimultaneity : an experimental test
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/...ant-ph/0110117

Thanks!


Greysky