I'm not ignoring the following, just haven't had the time to compose a complete answer, with a detainled experiment plan. Short answer is I doubt there is a workable FTL scheme in the offing but there might be and it seems that between the last two schemes there is something to be learned about the nature of quantum reality. That is to say some of the possible quantum interpretations might posibly be dismissable in at least the case of these two experiments. This might be best demonstable in a synthesized experiment, an experiment wherein the three "bundles" (which were not aptly named) of the triad experiment might be constructed as a version of the FTL method posted just prior which depends on photons going through a filter not losing entanglement, call it here the FTL experiment. It all boils down to determining what constitutes a measurement.
The triad experiment should be, with regards to probabilities of a match (which is verified at slower than light speed), identical to the probabilities in the Aspect experiment, provided one and only one of bundles is sampled at random in each time slice at each of Bob and Alice's ends, and then compared at light speed or less. Bell's inequallity should be applicable to show there are no hidden variables. The key to no hidden variables lies in the ability to not "measure" the other two channels, those *not* selected at random, on either end during each time slice. To eliminate the possiblitity of "measurement", the photons in channels not selected might be directed to a black surface for absorbtion, so that no measurement of polarization is possible in any sense. If the photons in the non-selected bundles are actually measured, at either end, then the conjugate photons still in flight have a determined orientation, they in effect have been forced to carry a hidden variable, and, by Bell's inequality, there will be matches more than 50 percent of the time. Now, here's the upshot of all this. The FTL experiment only fails to provide FTL communication if entanglement is broken whenever a photon travels through a filter, be it absorbed or not, independent of the observer, his consiousness. Travelling through a polarizing filter constitutes a measurement, be there an observer or not, be there a particle detector at the end of the photons path or not. This fact eliminates any observer-detector model of quantum reality. Quantum cats can not exist. That is the price of FTL communication being impossible, if it is. Otherwise the FTL experiment as proposed does provide FTL communication. On the other hand, and this is the more likely outcome I would guess, just because something as wonderful as FTL communication seems too good to be true, we are left with a seeming paradox or difficulty. What constitutes a photon absorbtion which does not set the photons polarization? The black photon absorbtion material might in fact involve momentary polarization, and thus set a hidden variable. For example, the "black" absorber might be made of two crossed polarizing filters sandwiched together. Or, there might be a mixture of granules which polarize before absorbtion. If the photons on their way to Bob have their polarizations already set, due to "measurement" at Alice's end, they carry hidden variables, and Bob's randomly sampled photon will match Alice's randomly selected photon more than 50 percent of the time. The same is true if "measurement" occurs at Bob's end first. And what if allowing the non-selected photons to continue in flight unabsorbed changes the results? This only says that the *timing* of the measurements is important. However, relativity says this is impossible, because determining which event occurs first can depend on the observer. We thus see that the triad style experiment, as opposed to an Aspect style experiment which depends on spins, might possibly shed light on relativity as well as quantum reality. It seems to me that some useful knowlege might come out of a syntehsized triad experiment. However, I am only an amateur and am not familiar with the literature. This is a learning experience for me. At 3:00 PM 10/11/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Horace. > >Sorry I haven't picked up on this; the last time >I tried to wrap my head around Bell's theorem I got >a bit lost in the nomenclature. Maybe we can hash it >out here in terms less obscure. > >My understanding of all of these FTL schemes using >quantum teleportation is that some real physical event >is happening to the remote paired particle when the local >particle is detected. Yet, you are starting with the >condition that the particles be paired. This was Bertelmanns >critique; consider for example a pair of socks. We mix >up the right and left socks, and mail them off to >our two receivers. Bob opens his box, and sees he >has a left sock. Instantly, Marys sock "becomes" a >right sock, by virtue of the fact that according >to QM we can't treat the sock as right or left >until we measure it and thus it exists as a mixture >of the two states. This I see as an artifact of our >method of analysis; the using of statistics to study >a discrete real event. I am lead to understand that >Bells inequalities prove that no hidden variables exist, >but I'm wondering if there is any physical basis for >this? The sorts of experiments you are suggesting >are really to the point, if there is something physical >happening when we collapse the wave function then >some sort of FTL scheme ought to be realizable. I'm >skeptical of this only because I know from my meagre >study of statistics that the first thing that gets >thrown away in a statistical analysis is causality, >a requirement for any communication scheme. > >Do you still think one of your ideas presented earlier >on the list to be workable? > >K. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:53 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: FTL Triad Quantum Communication Method > > >Ooops! The post made sense to me at 2:30 in the morning, before going to >bed. Now that I have awoken, I see it is nonsense! Not an uncommon >experience for me these days. Sorry! > >The flaw is that, for Bell's inequality to be applied, Both Alice's and >Bob's individual results from observation of one photon selected at random >from each corresponding triad must be compared. This comparison takes >place at less than light speed. When this is done, however, the suggested >method does seem to provide a means to do an Aspect style experiment using >polarization instead of spin. The odd thing is the importance of timing to >the result, timing which relativity says can not always be provided because >Alice and Bob's time is relative to the observer. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner Regards, Horace Heffner
