From: heathjohn2@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 2:29:47 PM UTC-5, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > On 2/4/2018 6:57 PM, SEKI wrote:   
   > > On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 11:11:15 PM UTC+9, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > >> On 2/4/2018 12:26 PM, SEKI wrote:   
   >   ..   
   > >>> You mentioned entanglement, which postulates two-particle state.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Consider a photon pair.   
   > >>> Quantum wave of paired photon system (if any) is to swell at twice   
   > >>> the speed of light,   
   > >>   
   > >> What do you mean?! Quantum field theory is restricted to the   
   > >> ordinary limit of the speed of light!   
   > >>   
   > >>>     and is to metamorphose instantaneously.   
   > >>   
   > >> Who tells you it will metamorphose instantaneously?   
   > >>   
   > >>> I cannot believe in such a system.   
   > >>   
   > >> Then why do you say it exists?!   
   > >   
   > > I just mean that entanglement between two photons is considered to be   
   > > illusion. It is imaginable, but I consider it unrealistic like   
   > > superposition of live-cat state and dead-cat state.   
   >   
   > But your arguments are in fact against the wave function   
   > collapse hypothesis (so in a way they are in favor of the   
   > eternal superposition alternative).   
   >   
   > > Considering that no or, at most, negligible interaction is possible   
   > > between photons, and that no restriction is imposed on superposition   
   > > of quantum waves of photons, which are bosons, isn't it uncontradictabl=   
   e?   
   >   
   > Considering those things, the wave function collapse in two   
   > distant positions, with the statistics that QM would require,   
   > which violate Bell's inequality, is difficult to accept. It is   
   > even completely untenable in my view if we also consider the   
   > other problems related to it.   
   >   
   > Which means that eternal entanglement as an alternative, however   
   > illusionary or unrealistic you may find it, becomes the most   
   > reasonable alternative!   
   >   
   > > By the way, you seem to have an absolute trust in quantum field theory.   
   >   
   > That was not implied, I just based my reply on this theory   
   > since it is the theory we now have, and the one you will have   
   > to compete against if you have another.   
   >   
   > > I wrote "I acknowledge that, in the field of physics, there can be no   
   > > theory without any assumption, and every theory has finite scope of   
   > > application and is only approximately true."   
   > > In fact, quantum field theory does not comprehend zero-point oscillatio=   
   ns.   
   >   
   > Nonsense. Quantum field theory has a well-defined concept of   
   > the vacuum state (that's even an important difference with the   
   > "old quantum theory", I would say).   
   >   
   > But I won't deny, however, that there are still difficulties.   
   > The vacuum state for interacting fields, in infinite space,   
   > described as a continuum (without discretizing space) does   
   > have the problem of Haag's theorem. That's true..   
   >   
   >   ..   
   > >> The only question that (some) people have is what happens   
   > >> if the particles meet their measuring devices! Everything   
   > >> happening before that moment is no point of discussion.   
   > >   
   > > Now, I understand that you do not understand the total context.   
   >   
   > What then, is unclear to you before the point where the   
   > particles reach their detectors?   
   >   
   > Do you mean you don't even want to except the mere existence of   
   > a pair of particles in a combined spin state? Or do you want to   
   > reject the entire idea that anything can be in a superposition?   
   >   
   > That would lead us to very radical changes of quantum mechanics   
   > (perhaps beyond the possibility of saving any part of it..)   
   >   
   > --   
   > Jos   
      
   This assumes a correct execution of a bell test. I have a photon   
   polarity test , cost ten dollars tops , that says a Bell test is   
   not applying the full height of special relativity. One can not use   
   SR when it is convenient then disregard it when it is inconvenient.   
   You either use it or you do not.   
      
   The test. One dollar store red LED pointer and one pair of polarizing   
   glasses. Break the glasses in two for two polarizing glasses.   
   Polarization of a red LED pointer is fixed at 0 degrees. Place one   
   polarized glass at 15 degrees off center. Place the second polarized   
   glass at 15 degrees off center , same position as first polarized   
   glass , and rotate back and forth the find the  distribution of   
   photon polarities at 15 degrees. My test results said bell curve   
   with perfect symmetry. Only with the full weight of SR can this be   
   done. A photon in the polarizing glass is not moving at c , not   
   frozen in time , and therefore can be physically twisted in polarity   
   by the polarizing glass. not before nor after but inside the   
   polarizing glass yes there is a window of opportunity for time to   
   match ahead for the polarity of the photon to be twisted off 0   
   degrees to 15 degrees. This will shift probabilities in favor of   
   Bell's inequality. I do not see this SR correction being applied   
   to a Bell test.   
      
   [[Mod. note -- Your statement that "A photon in the polarizing glass   
   is not moving at c" isn't true.  An individual photon in the polarizing   
   glass/pastic  is moving at the same speed as any other photon, i.e., c.   
   But the mean free path of such a photon is very short, so it will soon   
   be absorbed by a molecule in the glass/plastic (which will probaboy   
   emit another photon(s) soon afterwards).  The net effect of all these   
   absorption/emission processes is that the group velocity is c/n   
   and that the light that emerges from the glass/plastic has a different   
   polarization state than the incoming light.  But (to the extent that   
   this statement is meaningful) you should think of the outgoing light   
   as being comprised of different photons from the incoming light.   
      
   More generally, the propagation of light (whether polarized or not)   
   through a refractive medium (whether polarizing or not) can indeed   
   be analyzed in special relativity, and so far as I know classical   
   optics is fully consistent with that analysis.  (If you want to talk   
   about photons, then change "classical optics" to "quantum optics" in   
   the previous sentence.)  If you want to argue to the contrary, you'll   
   need to give more details of what you see as the problem; and maybe   
   this should go in a separate thread on optics vs special relativity.   
   -- jt]]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)