Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

February 23, 2018

ARTICLE: Editor's Choice: Through the Looking Glass [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 11:39 GMT
Can you prove that a single coin has more than 2 face values, either heads or tails?..a single coin if split down the middle, can be sent to two different shops, one having a complete heads face, and the other a complete tails face. On either side of the dissected coin, there would be a blank, "undefined" area, or one can assign both split coins having an imprint of what has been removed emmbedded into the face value being left?

For photons:"For example, if a scientist in Vienna intercepts one particle and checks its spin, the measurement of the other particle, which has now made it to, say, New York, instantaneously yields the opposite spin.

But how can a photon suddenly "know" what is happening to its entangled partner? Einstein and other “realist”

colleagues called the whole thing

"spooky" and dismissed it as too weird to be true, believing that particle properties should be determined upon their creation, and should only be influenced by their ‘local’ surroundings."

It not that the photon suddenly "knows" it's because it has no option but to be the "other" side of a dissected two headed coin!

What I find spooky, is that some people put quantum mysticism, above relative logical situations!

Initial photon has two probable spin state value's, if one is up, then the other is down, but once one disects a photon, there is no way to determine two "opposite" states, regardless of how near or far they are seperated.

Can it be proved that one half of an entangled/dissected photon, (say spin-down) be re-dissected again, and then itself be responsible for the creation of an "opposite" spin state, say spin-up ?

How does one prove that the initial photon, when disected, now in "spin-up" and seperated into opposite directional vector, the first revealed state, say spin-up, is one half of another spin-down state photon, at some other location?..can the "new york" spin-down state photon be anything other than one half of a "cutting/seperating operation" ?

Keeping separated photons in a "pure" environment, is a constrained and shielding process that can only yeild one probable outcome, no change to what it is!

One needs to prove that entangled photons can be "tagged" as two halfs of an "original" photon. their initial value, a single one state photon?

Problam being that photons cannot influence each other when brought together, they are non interacting quantities WRT each other!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 05:21 GMT
According to my current understanding, photons do not interject with ech other, photons can mix a flit by each other, they are seperate and individual particles, they are of certain values derived by Planck.

So, haow con ordinary photons have no correspondence to each other in real worlds of nuclear interactions etc.. as if they know not where other photons are, and then suddenly KNOW the wherabouts of ,not only itself, but it's "other" photon self in New York !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 21, 2007 @ 05:03 GMT
Mirror reflections are really fascinating for detailing reality, for instance which one of the metal balls placed between two mirrors is "real" newtonsorbit.

For photons, what is "now" appears to be relevant in order for interactions to become a process of interaction?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Apr. 1, 2008 @ 03:41 GMT
There are a number of really interesting avenues' being explored WRT measure,this for instance gives a fascinating overview and some insights to possible future experiments?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.