Article View: sci.physics
Article #1198Re: My objections to the collapse postulate
From: Fran Litterio
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:36
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:36
22 lines
1645 bytes
1645 bytes
In article <219@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (paul) writes: > In article <1992Apr10.212404.2528@math.okstate.edu>, gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes: > >...The information that the second > > observer obtains does not travel between observers faster than light, because > > the second observer cannot know whether either observer was actually > > "there" when the photon collapsed. > > ... > > What's the problem? > ... > Using this technique we can prove that the remote observations > were instantaneously correlated with the local observations and manipulations > of a local polarizer. It's that "instantaneously correlated" part that bothers me. Various observers moving with different velocities will disagree about what events are simultaneous. How is this feature of QM reconciled with the relativity of simultaneity? -- franl@centerline.com || Fran Litterio uunet!centerline!franl || CenterLine Software R&D 617-498-3255 || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<FRANL.92Apr14173601@draco.centerline.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!centerline!franlReferences:
<217@mtnmath.UUCP> <ktv2arINNqjp@network.ucsd.edu> <1992Apr10.212404.2528@math.okstate.edu> <219@mtnmath.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.physics Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!centerline!franl From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) Subject: Re: My objections to the collapse postulate In-Reply-To: paul@mtnmath.UUCP's message of 11 Apr 92 17:08:28 GMT Message-ID: <FRANL.92Apr14173601@draco.centerline.com> Sender: news@centerline.com Nntp-Posting-Host: draco Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc. References: <217@mtnmath.UUCP> <ktv2arINNqjp@network.ucsd.edu> <1992Apr10.212404.2528@math.okstate.edu> <219@mtnmath.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:36:01 GMT Lines: 22