0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quotea|1>+b|2>+∑|states missing the detectors> → |1>That notation expresses my idea well. The only thing is that it doesn't explain what is happening when it is 'resolved' by one detector.. The fact that it collapses into a|1 → |1 needs, somehow, to be communicated to all the detectors which were included in the first expression, instantly (?). The collapse must be instantaneous. I am happy with that if you are.
a|1>+b|2>+∑|states missing the detectors> → |1>
Quotequantum fluctuation of the voidYou have introduced another idea here. If you are suggesting that an emitted photon's energy is, somehow, absorbed into a general 'bank' of energy, which can turn up somewhere else in a position and time which are related by c, then that's fair enough. It's quite possible that you couldn't tell the difference. This depends on how complete the new idea / model is and how near it fits measurements to-date.I think you are bringing in an irrelevant argument about effectively 'knowing which photon you detected'. QM doesn't let us assert anything like that but there are plenty of experiments which could link a significant number of received photons with a particular source; take a lamp and a light cell down a coal mine and you can be pretty well sure where the photons all came from! By that I mean that a photon model which we have been discussing would reasonably indicate that the energy from the source was the energy detected. That's as much as you could say, though. Your alternative model could possibly give an explanation.
quantum fluctuation of the void
in 1907 in a letter to Einstein, he said I am not seeking the meaning of the quantum of action (light quantum) in the vacuum but rather in places where emission and absorption occur, and I assume that what happens in the vacuum is rigorously described by Maxwell's equations.
I've just discovered that Max Planck thought the same:
would this statement be correct about quantum entanglement. If you could change the spin of an entangled particle to whatever you wanted, you could break the theory of relativities prediction of nothing can travel faster than light?
QuoteI've just discovered that Max Planck thought the same:Well, you are in good company then! That means he was probably right?
But the reason you cant send information faster than light even though certain particles appear to interact with each other faster than the speed of light is because you cant control the information either particle is sending to the other. It would be analogous to two radio towers placed far away from each other, that always played the same thing as one another. Like in entanglement each radio tower always played a random broadcast. Even though these towers communicate with each other faster than c, you couldnt use them to communicate faster than c because the tower always plays a random broadcast. No matter what, each tower would just view a random broadcast, thats useless.However, if some clever engineer could figure out a way to affect the broadcasts of the towers, you could send information faster than c.
dude, that was a question not a wild statement.