A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by
Drs. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by
"local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm belief that
information could not travel faster than the velocity of light. Indeed, if
this
were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky". Quantum theory
required,
for example, that "paired photons" maintain polarizations which were
opposite in
direction . If the polarization angle of one of the "paired photons" were
changed, the polarization angle of the other photon of the pair must
instantaneously change to match. ("Paired photons" are produced by the self
annihilation of an artificial atom composed of an electron and a positron.
They
are polarized in opposite directions and are emitted in opposite directions.
Their polarization angle is, of course, random with respect to the external
world.)

Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions,
they rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous coupling
of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite
velocity
and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that
information
could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they had to
conclude
that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of "hidden
variables".
(These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily hidden, one of them
for
example, is the polarization coupling of "paired photons".Since this
coupling
had been shown to propagate at an "impossible" infinite velocity, it was
necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea of "spookiness". If the
effect
were accepted without the idea of "spookiness" it, the existence of an
absolute
velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be
accepted.
Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained.

An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen
School" of physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there
was
only the reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to
Schroedinger's Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that
would
be subject to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was
detected
by instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the decay
of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind
this
was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This does
not
seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that counts in
this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the observation by an
external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead prior to his
observation,
it is one or the other, but not both. The fact that the observer does not
know
is meaningless. It is only attributed as having meaning as a result of
intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox.

A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum
theory is the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each
particle
in the Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable
"Parallel
Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our Universe
began.
When one considers the number of particles in the Universe, the number of
ways
in which they can interact, and the number of instants of time since the
Universe began, the number of Universes which are required under this theory
is,
incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally incredible is that each of
these
Universes contains the same amount of energy as our own and each of its
particles occupies the same space at the same time as do its brothers. This
interpretation seems to have a large number of believers of high reputation.
In
spite of this, the writer has no qualms about asserting that any physicist
who
would accept such a concept is in the wrong line of work. I understand that
Wal-Mart is hiring.

When one examines the concept that information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on
the
fact that information is almost always encoded in the form of energy. Since
the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2>^0.% (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation
becomes
imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly cannot
propagate
faster that the velocity of light. When information is encoded in the form
of
the polarization angles of "paired photons", however, this limitation does
not
occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its
energy.
As a result, no energy transfer is involved in changing their polarization
angles. If one extracts the Lorentz Transformation for Angle using the
conventional Lorentz Transformations, one find that this transformation is
unity
since angle is equal to a LENGTH along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the
radius of that arc. Accordingly, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle
becomes
((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore, that
the
relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation of
the
polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect
that
velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.

Physicists have also concluded that even if information could
be transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by
their
source was completely random. If this limitation could not be overcome, the
conclusion would indeed by true, but consider that would happen if a pair of
parallel axis polarizers were installed at opposite ends of the photon
source.
In this case the paired photons which were emitted would not be randomly
polarized but would be polarized in parallelism. Communicating over a
distance
at an infinite velocity would then be perfectly feasible. The most dangerous
part of this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of
"absolute
time" and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the
hare-brained concept of "space-time".

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

To all readers:

I agree with the explanations given of the situations noted above about
quantum spookiness, and with most of the explanations about what really
happens. It's a shame that the OP responds only to emails, as I have
no intention of doing that.

The believers in the Copenhagen Interpretation have gone to extreme
measures to force results that seem to support their claims. They
inject amounts of energy into their experiments that never occur
naturally and then they interpret those results as if they occur in
nature in ordinary ways.

Nevertheless, both sides offer convincing evidence that something
unintuitive occurs, and so the quantum spookiness arguments go on....

TomGee wrote:
To all readers:

I agree with the explanations given of the situations noted above about
quantum spookiness, and with most of the explanations about what really
happens. It's a shame that the OP responds only to emails, as I have
no intention of doing that.

I don't. The claims are simply wrong.
In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.
The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.

The other claim that energyless information can propagate faster than
light is also wrong. Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.

Apart from that, the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the others
mentioned) are not up to date.

The believers in the Copenhagen Interpretation have gone to extreme
measures to force results that seem to support their claims. They
inject amounts of energy into their experiments that never occur
naturally and then they interpret those results as if they occur in
nature in ordinary ways.

What are you talking about here?
High energy physics has very little to do with the Copenhagen
Interpretation.


Nevertheless, both sides offer convincing evidence that something
unintuitive occurs, and so the quantum spookiness arguments go on....

Only for those who have never read a textbook about QM...

Andreas Most wrote:
TomGee wrote:
To all readers:

I agree with the explanations given of the situations noted above about
quantum spookiness, and with most of the explanations about what really
happens. It's a shame that the OP responds only to emails, as I have
no intention of doing that.

I don't. The claims are simply wrong.
In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.
The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.


I agree with your observation and I have so said in these ngs since
1996 that the wave function cannot "collapse" because it is not a real
wave - it is only a "function" that is imaginary and arbitrarily
alluded to. As you say, it is not a physical object, and that infers
also that it cannot collapse as it is claimed to do.


The other claim that energyless information can propagate faster than
light is also wrong. Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.


Again, I agree with you. It is a matter of causality, which means it
is non-intuitive to believe FTL motion can occur. However, unless and
until we can explain the phenomena observed by the experiments on the
basis of causality, we cannot say for sure one side is right and the
other incorrect.


Apart from that, the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the others
mentioned) are not up to date.

The believers in the Copenhagen Interpretation have gone to extreme
measures to force results that seem to support their claims. They
inject amounts of energy into their experiments that never occur
naturally and then they interpret those results as if they occur in
nature in ordinary ways.

What are you talking about here?
High energy physics has very little to do with the Copenhagen
Interpretation.


The last I read of the wave function was that experiments performed by
accelerating the electron to extreme speeds created what seemed to be
consistent with the "quantum spookiness" concept. That was a few years
ago, so I will have to google up some more recent work on it. My only
explanation for the so-called "spooky" results in those experiments was
that the acceleration of particles causes the effect because electrons
do not ordinarily travel at those speeds, and so the cause could be
attributed to the artificial speed and not as a naturally occurring
event.

Nevertheless, both sides offer convincing evidence that something
unintuitive occurs, and so the quantum spookiness arguments go on....

Only for those who have never read a textbook about QM...

TomGee wrote:
...
I agree with your observation and I have so said in these ngs since
1996 that the wave function cannot "collapse" because it is not a real
wave - it is only a "function" that is imaginary and arbitrarily
alluded to. As you say, it is not a physical object, and that infers
also that it cannot collapse as it is claimed to do.

Again, I don't agree. The wave function "collapses" as soon as you
get new information about a quantum mechanical system.
This is because the wave function summarizes the information you have
about a system. As a consequence different observers may have different
wave functions for their description of a quantum mechanical system.
This is e.g. the case for EPR, where one side knows more about the
system due to a measurement he has performed.
There is no contradiction or paradoxon in there, however it doesn't
explain the measurement problem per se.

...
Again, I agree with you. It is a matter of causality, which means it
is non-intuitive to believe FTL motion can occur. However, unless and
until we can explain the phenomena observed by the experiments on the
basis of causality, we cannot say for sure one side is right and the
other incorrect.

What phenomena are you talking about? As I pointed out above there
is no paradoxon with EPR (even Einstein recognized that).
And there is no problem with causality as no information is exchanged.

...
The last I read of the wave function was that experiments performed by
accelerating the electron to extreme speeds created what seemed to be
consistent with the "quantum spookiness" concept. That was a few years
ago, so I will have to google up some more recent work on it. My only
explanation for the so-called "spooky" results in those experiments was
that the acceleration of particles causes the effect because electrons
do not ordinarily travel at those speeds, and so the cause could be
attributed to the artificial speed and not as a naturally occurring
event.

How do you know that these energies do not occur in nature?
And what makes you think that quantum physical behavior is different
at high energies?

Andreas Most wrote:
TomGee wrote:
...
I agree with your observation and I have so said in these ngs since
1996 that the wave function cannot "collapse" because it is not a real
wave - it is only a "function" that is imaginary and arbitrarily
alluded to. As you say, it is not a physical object, and that infers
also that it cannot collapse as it is claimed to do.

Again, I don't agree. The wave function "collapses" as soon as you
get new information about a quantum mechanical system.
This is because the wave function summarizes the information you have
about a system. As a consequence different observers may have different
wave functions for their description of a quantum mechanical system.
This is e.g. the case for EPR, where one side knows more about the
system due to a measurement he has performed.
There is no contradiction or paradoxon in there, however it doesn't
explain the measurement problem per se.

...
Again, I agree with you. It is a matter of causality, which means it
is non-intuitive to believe FTL motion can occur. However, unless and
until we can explain the phenomena observed by the experiments on the
basis of causality, we cannot say for sure one side is right and the
other incorrect.

What phenomena are you talking about? As I pointed out above there
is no paradoxon with EPR (even Einstein recognized that).
And there is no problem with causality as no information is exchanged.

...
The last I read of the wave function was that experiments performed by
accelerating the electron to extreme speeds created what seemed to be
consistent with the "quantum spookiness" concept. That was a few years
ago, so I will have to google up some more recent work on it. My only
explanation for the so-called "spooky" results in those experiments was
that the acceleration of particles causes the effect because electrons
do not ordinarily travel at those speeds, and so the cause could be
attributed to the artificial speed and not as a naturally occurring
event.

How do you know that these energies do not occur in nature?
And what makes you think that quantum physical behavior is different
at high energies?

You are wasting your time with TomGee, aka Thomas Garcia. He likes
"thinking" about such things but couldn't be bothered reading about
them, aside from definitions in his Encarta mini-encyclopedia. He is
easily confused about Newton's first and third laws of motion. His
understanding of dark matter is that there is a lot of it. He has no
understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever.

However, he does like taunting his respondents, blathering that they
are the "only ones who think that way" and that much of physics is full
of "wild, unsupported opinions."

If you enjoy that sort of thing, have at it.

PD

Andreas Most wrote:
TomGee wrote:
...
I agree with your observation and I have so said in these ngs since
1996 that the wave function cannot "collapse" because it is not a real
wave - it is only a "function" that is imaginary and arbitrarily
alluded to. As you say, it is not a physical object, and that infers
also that it cannot collapse as it is claimed to do.

Again, I don't agree.


Well, you have a most apt name, Most. You most disagree with
everything, even yourself!


The wave function "collapses" as soon as you
get new information about a quantum mechanical system.


No, it does not.


This is because the wave function summarizes the information you have
about a system.


Izzatso? And just how in your wildest dreams can a wave function
summarize any information you have? How stupid is that? You said the
wave function idea doesn't work and I agreed with you, but here you say
it works just great! What made you change your mind about that?


As a consequence different observers may have different
wave functions for their description of a quantum mechanical system.


But since the wave function cannot collapse, er, summarize any
information about anything, there are no consequences at all for any
observers.


This is e.g. the case for EPR, where one side knows more about the
system due to a measurement he has performed.
There is no contradiction or paradoxon in there, however it doesn't
explain the measurement problem per se.

...
Again, I agree with you. It is a matter of causality, which means it
is non-intuitive to believe FTL motion can occur. However, unless and
until we can explain the phenomena observed by the experiments on the
basis of causality, we cannot say for sure one side is right and the
other incorrect.

What phenomena are you talking about? As I pointed out above there
is no paradoxon with EPR (even Einstein recognized that).
And there is no problem with causality as no information is exchanged.


And yet you said it was a situation of causality. Do you have any idea
what you've said?

...
The last I read of the wave function was that experiments performed by
accelerating the electron to extreme speeds created what seemed to be
consistent with the "quantum spookiness" concept. That was a few years
ago, so I will have to google up some more recent work on it. My only
explanation for the so-called "spooky" results in those experiments was
that the acceleration of particles causes the effect because electrons
do not ordinarily travel at those speeds, and so the cause could be
attributed to the artificial speed and not as a naturally occurring
event.

How do you know that these energies do not occur in nature?


Simple intuition. If they did, there would be no need for researchers
to create them in their experiments.


And what makes you think that quantum physical behavior is different
at high energies?


And what makes you think that it is not? Intuition?

"Tleb" kirjoitti viestissä
...
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by
Drs. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by
"local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm belief that
information could not travel faster than the velocity of light. Indeed, if
this
were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky". Quantum theory
required,
for example, that "paired photons" maintain polarizations which were
opposite in
direction . If the polarization angle of one of the "paired photons" were
changed, the polarization angle of the other photon of the pair must
instantaneously change to match. ("Paired photons" are produced by the
self
annihilation of an artificial atom composed of an electron and a positron.
They
are polarized in opposite directions and are emitted in opposite
directions.
Their polarization angle is, of course, random with respect to the
external
world.)

Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions,
they rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous
coupling
of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite
velocity
and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that
information
could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they had to
conclude
that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of "hidden
variables".
(These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily hidden, one of
them
for
example, is the polarization coupling of "paired photons".Since this
coupling
had been shown to propagate at an "impossible" infinite velocity, it was
necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea of "spookiness". If the
effect
were accepted without the idea of "spookiness" it, the existence of an
absolute
velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be
accepted.
Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained.

An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen
School" of physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there
was
only the reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to
Schroedinger's Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that
would
be subject to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was
detected
by instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the
decay
of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and
alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind
this
was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This does
not
seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that counts
in
this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the observation by
an
external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead prior to his
observation,
it is one or the other, but not both. The fact that the observer does not
know
is meaningless. It is only attributed as having meaning as a result of
intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox.

A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum
theory is the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each
particle
in the Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable
"Parallel
Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our Universe
began.
When one considers the number of particles in the Universe, the number of
ways
in which they can interact, and the number of instants of time since the
Universe began, the number of Universes which are required under this
theory
is,
incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally incredible is that each of
these
Universes contains the same amount of energy as our own and each of its
particles occupies the same space at the same time as do its brothers.
This
interpretation seems to have a large number of believers of high
reputation.
In
spite of this, the writer has no qualms about asserting that any physicist
who
would accept such a concept is in the wrong line of work. I understand
that
Wal-Mart is hiring.

When one examines the concept that information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on
the
fact that information is almost always encoded in the form of energy.
Since
the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2>^0.% (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation
becomes
imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly cannot
propagate
faster that the velocity of light. When information is encoded in the form
of
the polarization angles of "paired photons", however, this limitation does
not
occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its
energy.
As a result, no energy transfer is involved in changing their polarization
angles. If one extracts the Lorentz Transformation for Angle using the
conventional Lorentz Transformations, one find that this transformation is
unity
since angle is equal to a LENGTH along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the
radius of that arc. Accordingly, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle
becomes
((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore,
that
the
relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation
of
the
polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect
that
velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.

Physicists have also concluded that even if information could
be transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not
be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by
their
source was completely random. If this limitation could not be overcome,
the
conclusion would indeed by true, but consider that would happen if a pair
of
parallel axis polarizers were installed at opposite ends of the photon
source.
In this case the paired photons which were emitted would not be randomly
polarized but would be polarized in parallelism. Communicating over a
distance
at an infinite velocity would then be perfectly feasible. The most
dangerous
part of this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of
"absolute
time" and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the
hare-brained concept of "space-time".

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO
NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD
OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.


When we have a long board and we turn it's one end upside down, the other
end turns at the same moment. Electromagnetic radiation works that way, and
there is no message needed from one end to the other. When we talk about
light as photons whe lose the reality of a light wave.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Tleb" kirjoitti viestissä
...
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

When we have a long board and we turn it's one end upside down, the other
end turns at the same moment. Electromagnetic radiation works that way, and
there is no message needed from one end to the other. When we talk about
light as photons whe lose the reality of a light wave.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

xxein: Perhaps it would fit logic better to say that whatever we do
with the middle of the board propogates outward with equal (maybe
changing along the way) magnitude to each of the ends. In that way one
could know what the other end was doing at 2xc. But who could know the
conditions of the setup unless it was predetermined (setup) in the
first place?

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Tleb" kirjoitti viestissä
...
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by
Drs. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by
"local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm belief that
information could not travel faster than the velocity of light. Indeed, if
this
were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky". Quantum theory
required,
for example, that "paired photons" maintain polarizations which were
opposite in
direction . If the polarization angle of one of the "paired photons" were
changed, the polarization angle of the other photon of the pair must
instantaneously change to match. ("Paired photons" are produced by the
self
annihilation of an artificial atom composed of an electron and a positron.
They
are polarized in opposite directions and are emitted in opposite
directions.
Their polarization angle is, of course, random with respect to the
external
world.)

Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions,
they rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous
coupling
of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite
velocity
and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that
information
could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they had to
conclude
that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of "hidden
variables".
(These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily hidden, one of
them
for
example, is the polarization coupling of "paired photons".Since this
coupling
had been shown to propagate at an "impossible" infinite velocity, it was
necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea of "spookiness". If the
effect
were accepted without the idea of "spookiness" it, the existence of an
absolute
velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be
accepted.
Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained.

An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen
School" of physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there
was
only the reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to
Schroedinger's Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that
would
be subject to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was
detected
by instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the
decay
of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and
alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind
this
was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This does
not
seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that counts
in
this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the observation by
an
external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead prior to his
observation,
it is one or the other, but not both. The fact that the observer does not
know
is meaningless. It is only attributed as having meaning as a result of
intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox.

A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum
theory is the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each
particle
in the Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable
"Parallel
Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our Universe
began.
When one considers the number of particles in the Universe, the number of
ways
in which they can interact, and the number of instants of time since the
Universe began, the number of Universes which are required under this
theory
is,
incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally incredible is that each of
these
Universes contains the same amount of energy as our own and each of its
particles occupies the same space at the same time as do its brothers.
This
interpretation seems to have a large number of believers of high
reputation.
In
spite of this, the writer has no qualms about asserting that any physicist
who
would accept such a concept is in the wrong line of work. I understand
that
Wal-Mart is hiring.

When one examines the concept that information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on
the
fact that information is almost always encoded in the form of energy.
Since
the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2>^0.% (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation
becomes
imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly cannot
propagate
faster that the velocity of light. When information is encoded in the form
of
the polarization angles of "paired photons", however, this limitation does
not
occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its
energy.
As a result, no energy transfer is involved in changing their polarization
angles. If one extracts the Lorentz Transformation for Angle using the
conventional Lorentz Transformations, one find that this transformation is
unity
since angle is equal to a LENGTH along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the
radius of that arc. Accordingly, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle
becomes
((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore,
that
the
relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation
of
the
polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect
that
velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.

Physicists have also concluded that even if information could
be transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not
be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by
their
source was completely random. If this limitation could not be overcome,
the
conclusion would indeed by true, but consider that would happen if a pair
of
parallel axis polarizers were installed at opposite ends of the photon
source.
In this case the paired photons which were emitted would not be randomly
polarized but would be polarized in parallelism. Communicating over a
distance
at an infinite velocity would then be perfectly feasible. The most
dangerous
part of this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of
"absolute
time" and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the
hare-brained concept of "space-time".

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO
NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD
OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.


When we have a long board and we turn it's one end upside down, the other
end turns at the same moment. Electromagnetic radiation works that way, and
there is no message needed from one end to the other. When we talk about
light as photons whe lose the reality of a light wave.

This is in error. When you turn one end of a long board, there is a
delay of at least L/c before the other end of the board turns, where L
is the length of the board. This is another variant of the
barn-and-pole puzzle.

PD


http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen