faster than light communications...

[Agamemnus]

Measuring or in any way doing anything to affect the spin of one photon will not in any way affect the other photon. And again one more time, you have no factual basis for believing that any such process will be instantaneous. (We've been over all of this, ad nauseum. )

"You seem to be reading *way too much* into one statement about the momentum state of two photons as they're emitted by an atom. The processes that determine the net spin state at emission has nothing to do with what happens afterwards. Perhaps you're thinking that, before they're emitted, the two photons are somehow already in existence inside the atom and that you can somehow control those photon's spin states."

It said their net spin state would be zero if the atom's net spin state is zero.

"A photon does not in fact exist before it's emitted. It's created at emission. (The atom itself looses angular momentum and energy.) Since the photon doesn't exist before emission, your apparent assertion that you can somehow ajust its spin state is even more ludicrous than it otherwise would be. "

ADJUST THE SPIN STATE AFTER EMISSION, when they're far apart.

"You still have not addressed the question of how the information (whatever it is) is transmitted. That involves an observation process, and that's *another* process, to again repeat myself, that will not occur instantaneously."

I didn't say it was. But AFTER THE FACT, AFTER everything was measured, the infinite spin states of the OTHER photon is instantaneously collapses to one spin state. The two combined must have a spin state of zero, as before noted. But their individual spin states were not measured, so until one of the spin states IS measured, the spin of both individually is indeterminate UNTIL you measure it... But again, as I said before, if you can't induce a spin state in one of the photons *******AFTER**** it was emitted, the result will just be random and not really transfer any information.

[Glenn]

It certainly seems to be what you've been saying from the outset that you said I didn't understand. As many times as I've said that regardless of how one adjusts the spin state of one of the photon's after emission, or whether or not that process is instantaneous, such adjustment will in no way affect the other photon, I really can't understand why you haven't gotten that yet. All I can come up with is that you, like most of the other armchair physicists that I've encountered, don't want to read or learn anything and you just want to keep repeating your fabricated concepts. (Just join the club and write a science fiction book.) And to again be repetitive, photons don't just randomly change their spin state.

And if you've got a book that's saying that a atom with an "angular momentum state of 0" *emits* photons via the normal inter-orbital transitions, you really need to quit taking that book seriously.

[Agamemnus]

"As many times as I've said that regardless of how one adjusts the spin state of one of the photon's after emission, or whether or not that process is instantaneous, such adjustment will in no way affect the other photon"

IF they BOTH have THE SAME spin state TOGETHER, but their spin individual states are UNdetermined, if you measure the spin state of the first, you know the spin state of the second, because you know the total spin state.


"And if you've got a book that's saying that a atom with an "angular momentum state of 0" *emits* photons via the normal inter-orbital transitions, you really need to quit taking that book seriously."

Why do I keep repeating myself? It's a DECAYINg, unstable, atom...

*goes on google.com*

[Agamemnus]

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/science/eprint.htm

[Glenn]

Repeating yourself? That's not what you've been saying.

The most common atomic transition involves a change in the atom's angular momentum. Emission involves a downwards in energy transition. I may have read too much into your "spin state of 0" but it sort of implied something that could only involve an upwards in energy transition. That process doesn't emit. It absorbs. And whichever it is, again, that transition seems to be a fundamental part of your fabricated communication process and that process, like all physical processes, doesn't occur instantanteously.

As for your article, 1) such experiments are a dime a dozen, 2) nothing you've said indicates you understood anything about that article or that you've studied enough physics to be trying to advance what you think its "cause" is.

[Agamemnus]

The most common atomic transition involves a change in the atom's angular momentum. Emission involves a downwards in energy transition. I may have read too much into your "spin state of 0" but it sort of implied something that could only involve an upwards in energy transition. That process doesn't emit. It absorbs.

OK, the thought I had was the one atom emits, the other absorbs. Read on........

"And whichever it is, again, that transition seems to be a fundamental part of your fabricated communication process and that process, like all physical processes, doesn't occur instantanteously. "

Wrong. I know exactly what it means. It means that you don't know the status of one of the photons until you measure it, and the other one's spin becomes the complement of that, which isn't really a paradox of faster-than-light-ness, but just physics.

*************************

So say you have an atom that accepts photons and you know the exact spin state of that atom. IF the atom's spin state would have an imposed limit, say .5, on it, and you knew the current spin state of the atom, you could transfer data faster than light, because you could rig the "Measurement" of the photon at that time. But I guess you can't impose a spin state limit, can you?

So, I was wrong. But you didn't point it out!

[Glenn]

is, Agamemnus. And that statement has no bearing on your "knowing what it means" (whatever the "it" is). Repeating your confusion over and over again isn't going to change the answer. There's no slot machine here.

[Agamemnus]

ok, i won't try to prove that I know what the EPR experiment is about, but I do, honest. :???:

------------

[Blitz]

Ag, you do realise that Glenn is a 41 year physicist (dunno how to spell that) don't you? He was working with physics before you even were born. Don't act like you know it all. People who don't know anything think they know everything. And people that know allot know that they don't know everything. You being the first case ag, think about that.

[Ninkazu]

Hmmm, I thought Glenn was 50. Good job not being old Glenn! :wink: