On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 12:58:48 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:22 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> Please repeat your comment about the probability being cos(theta), under what conditions. TY, AG * *This is what I said on November 10 of last year: * *In a much more recent post you didn't use correlated photons. I am not sure what that means in this context or why you're using it now. AG * *If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did, because most correlated photons are anti-correlated, there is a 100% chance the other entangled photon will make it through your filter. But if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).* *If you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables. * *>Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do* *Certainly! All the other other Alan Graysons** have the exact same memories that you have because they all share the exact same past, however they experience a different present and as a result a different future too. Sometimes the difference is tiny, sometimes the difference is huge. * *> So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, * *Maybe, maybe not. * *There are countably infinite rational settings of the polarizers, hence a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs even if the universe is spatially finite. AG* *As I've said before, on the finite versus infinite question Many Worlds is agnostic. But at the very least there are one hell of a lot of worlds, that's why it's called "Many Worlds" . * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *3e* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ef10da99-5afc-45f8-b3c0-babdc6ff8304n%40googlegroups.com.
