Cern and String Theory

[jj]

Its best to simply imagine a game wherein you and a friend are going to be locked in separate rooms.

A game show host is going to randomly either say "What is M1?" to you or "What is M2?". A different host is going to do the same to your friend.

Each of you can answer either 0 or 1.

Now - how can you and your friend win the game, if every time that you are both asked "What is M2?" you must give opposite answers, but for all 3 other possible pairs of questions you must give the same answer.

No quantum mechanics necessary to see that its "impossible" for you to satisfy this....

Ok, that becomes clear. Now, what is being measured in the M1 and M2 measurements?

I can imagine using 45 degree polarizers or something like that that one might be able to impliment this, if M1 is up or at 90 degrees, and M2 is +-45 degrees for instance??

 

[wipeout]

Well, I was able to follow the discussion after I blocked Answer for a while, but you guys have lost me now.

Ok, so WHAT are you talking about?

There are two particles, and an experiment is done on one and the other seems to know?

Has this been tested? Wouldn't it imply information travelling faster than light?

Or is it just an 'if' scenario?

The experiment has been done many times. The answers it gives are beyond reasonable doubt.

The standard way of looking at quantum mechanics usually interprets the results of the experiment as being that the particles communicated what you chose to measure about one particle to the other particle (at a speed which must be faster than light) for the particles to give the result that they do.

This then would mean that quantum theory and special relativity theory disagree. Which is a serious problem.

However, a new way of looking at quantum theory which is designed to avoid this problem (and more) of the standard way says that there is no effect that travels between the particles faster than light. Which would be nice indeed.

Which is why I brought this new way to people's attention in this thread.

Oh, and kind of off topic, but what the h3ll is a wavefunction collapse (Or something like that)?

Wavefunction collapse is a mathematical shortcut that most people don't know is a mathematical shortcut. It gives the right answers about what is where and when in the quantum world but is usually mistaken for being a physical effect instead of just as something appearing in calculations.

It's not actually necessary as is shown by the existence of the newer version of quantum theory which gives the same answers without having anything like a wavefunction collapse.

Or so say the experts.

 

[wipeout]

What does "free will" mean in this context? Are the experimenters choosing what to measure each time or are they basing the choice on some independent random criteria, like Griffith's "quantum" coin toss? And should it matter to the results how the choice is made (aside from possible bias introduced by the experimenter in favor of one test over the other)?

I think free will here is just to mean that the choice of what to measure is done randomly. A quantum coin is used to make the choice instead of a quantum person to make the analysis as simple and clear as possible.

But I must read much more of the book.