Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

At least it feels good when you stop I had two computers go down within a month of each other, just getting one up and copying files from the other when it goes down. Now I use a portable hardrive and keep multiple copies - home/work/portable. I can deal with two out of three now, without even getting into the backup at work ... (full monty once a week) Oh, no problem there, but this changes if the photon is also polarized and you rotate the angles IIRC.ie two plates, one static and one rotated, you see cos²(A) distribution through the second filter of all photon that pass the first, where (A) is the angle between the polarizing slits in the two plates.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What you need is a RAID HD set up. Two mirrored HDs you can loose one HD and swap it out no problem. Chances of loosing both simultaneously is seriously minimal.

We have color filters at the start of the experiment, the pass\reflect filters are later (the ones that divide the particles into four streams from two) and are the ones that are time limited.The color filters assure that green goes one way and blue the other.We don't really know when the field collapses, we just know that when we measure one it is collapsed.Much more conclusive to me is the use of the uncertainty principle with entangled pairs: measure location\orientation of one, you can measure location\orientation of the other and find they are corollary.Measure momentum of one and you cannot measure location\orientation of the other. Some "Hidden Variable" cannot do that.Of course then I ask how can you transport one particle so far from the other that speed-of-light cannot allow communication if you don't have SOME clue to location ... ORWhen we know momentum, then the location is {everywhere} so when particles flip from location to momentum to location to momentum ... the re-attach at momentous occasions.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Cute, but why do I get the feeling that you are not telling me everything here?

---

Back to the test of Bell's Theorem predictions:If three (3) polarized sensors at equal angles are a valid measurement of the possible states of the photon, then five (5) sensors at equal angles are a valid measurement of the possible states of the photon.This gives a 5x5 grid and a predicted outcome of 13/25 same and 12/25 different for any photon pair measured by any two sensors.I've done the spreadsheet, just like I did for the 3x3 grid that predicted 5/9 same and 4/9 different for any photon measured by any two sensors. On the first spreadsheet for angles from 0 to 360 degrees I got exactyly 5/9 same and 4/9 different for every different case angle. On the new spreadsheet for angles from 0 to 360 degrees I got exactly 13/25 same and 12/25 different for every different case angle.This means that I have proven that either:

• 13/25 = 5/9 OR
• the grid does not truly reflect what is being measured by the sensors and it's prediction of results is false

Last time I checked 13/25 is less than 0.55Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : hit submit instead of preview.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'll address just one point for now. May come back for more latter. This is the core of what your question here is, isn't it.The important point is that the form of the collapse is dependent on the choice of switch position. Otherwise the collapse is just stablishing a classical coding, and, as cavediver poited out at the begining of the thread, a classical coding just won't do the trick. Therefore the collapse must happen at the switch. Unless you're proposing a faster then the speed of light communication with all its paradoxes

I think that by independent here he means only that the detector do not have hiden wires connecting them and are operated independently from each other

Hold that thought in your mind for a moment. That's exactly the solution to the puzzle. everything passes as if one of the photos "knows" that the other photon has passed through a polirizer (or been blocked) and acts as if it had passed through such a polirezer. Then when it hits its own polarizer, it acts as if this was a second polarizer getting the distribution.
this explains the 100% correlation when the two switches are set to the same position:
cos²(0^o)=1,
and the 25% correlation when the two switches are set to different positions:
cos²(120^o)=1/4.To explain that, it's not enought to assume that the two photons were created coupled to each other (As you correctly pointed out, that could have been done classicaly). It's also inportant that the photons somehow know what's happening to each other without any means of communication. Hence we say they are entangled. WIRD, SPOOKY, YOU NAME IT...

I agree totally which is why avoid talking about this. See my reply to SG earlier. Exactly. Now even better is to use both situations together, because the second could be mimicked classically with a coding, but not if the first is also required. The only way to get both is through use of a wave-function that is being operated on by the filters and forced into eigenstates based on the filter orientations. Welcome to the EPR experiment

A way an old professor described it to me was when two things are entangled, there is no longer two things.
So we don't have two photons, rather we have a system which can give two "photon" answers when experiments ask it questions.
Instead of two photons communicating with each other faster than the speed of light, think of it as a single system staying consistent faster than the speed of light. The Aspect Experiments are a lot more solid than Bell's Experiments.
There are genuine loop holes in the Bell experiments, so it might be better to discuss the Aspect experiments.
I think Bell's experiments were considered to be around the 80-ish% confidence interval, but the Aspect are 99%.
(Again, I think, I'm not sure I'm remembering the right figures.)The general consensus is that the Aspect experiments establish the following two cases:
(a) If there is collapse (i.e. quantities are undefined until we measure them): then entanglement exists.
(b) If there isn't collapse: then there is some kind of backwards in time or FTL communication.Now, how do we know collapse is true?
From a set of experiments called the Parametric Down Conversion experiments and their more modern counter-parts.I believe there is also a set of experiments which work testing for collapse into the Aspect Experiments.
I'm looking for some decent papers on all of this, because there is no use in me just saying it with nothing to back me up.
If there is any particular part you would like more litrature on, then just ask.

Another way to think of it is to consider that there are not two entangled particles but that they are two physical (in our universe) manifestations of the same object.This would be like a 3D string that intersects flatland in two places. I can measure direction of movement along the string and I can measure rotation of the string, and I will always get complementary answers no matter how far apart the points are in flatland, even though (until measured) I had no way of knowing which direction\rotation the string was moving in. There is no "collapse" because there is identity.In our 3D world you still have the uncertainty issue with the particle so when you measure one aspect of the {string intersection} the same aspect is also measured for the other {string intersection} and you cannot then measure the other uncertainty.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Personally, I think this is bad wording on the part of the author (here and a couple other places), for the {B} detector (switches 1, 2 and 3) are randomly chosen and not randomly rotated from the alignment of the {A} detector. And if that is what he meant, then "independent" is redundant - random is necessarily independent.Really the test does not depend on the switch orientation in {A} -- that one can be fixed, it is only the relationship of the switches in {B} compared to {A} that is of interest. To model {A} at position 2 you rotate {A} and {B} 120 degrees, to model {A} at 3, another 120 degrees. You get the same results. Tripling the database does not change the proportions.And you are only dealing with 4 situations (RR, RG, GR, GG), where - in theory for non-entagled\coupled particles - you can get: And the % results for the {entangled\coupled} photon test would still be: More to the point here, is discussing the results before the experiment -- multiple testing on the same particle -- and how that differentiates {coupled\macro} behavior from {entangled\quantum} behavior. If it does.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I said before "this changes if the photon is also polarized and you rotate the angles ... ie two plates, one static and one rotated, you see cos²(A) distribution through the second filter of all photon that pass the first, where (A) is the angle between the polarizing slits in the two plates.Let's discuss this in relation to testing particles with two sensors one after the other.

---

(1) We know from other test results that if a particle tests "Green" in one sensor that it will always test "Green" in another. Presumably we could test this a thousand times and always get a green light.In terms of probability and of only allowing those photons that pass the first filter to be tested by the second or third, this should not happen, though, should it?I start with a photon that is random orientation and pass it through filter #1, the probability of it passing the filter depending on it's orientation is cos²(A), where (A) is the angle from the photon's orientation to the polarized slits on the filter.From 0^o to +/-45^o the probability is more than 0.5, and from 180^o to +/-45^o the probability is more than 0.5, and for the rest of the angles (90^o to +/-45^o and 180^o to +/-45^o) the probability is less than 0.5.But that doesn't mean that a photon with an orientation angle where the probability is less than 0.5 will never pass the filter -- nor that ones with probability more than 0.5 will always pass the filter.And the problem comes when we get to the next filter. We've eliminated most (but not all?) of the particles with <0.5 probability, so the probability of any of these particles passing the second filter is mostly all >0.5, but: There should, logically (even for quantum mechanics) be some "Red" lights ... unless something else is happening.

---

(2) We know from other test results that if a particle tests "Red" in one sensor that it will always test "Red" in another. The problem here is that testing "Red" means not passing through the filter, so we have a little difficulty in seeing how this test could be repeated at a second sensor, and assuming such a result is not sufficient.In order to test the same photon a second time, we have to reflect the photon when it fails the polarizing filter test (we see this in Son Goku's link on the other experiment setup), and then once we do this we can test it a second time with Now presumably the polarizing slits are also the same surface as the reflecting surface (or you get light reflected that could pass the polarizing filter), and presumably this has been tested with rotating the reflecting polarizing filter to be certain that orientation of the mirror is not {adding\detracting\whatever} to the conditions of testing at filter #1.Reflecting light from smooth surfaces can polarize it (differentially selects horizontally orientated light to reflect and vertically oriented light to absorb) -- that is why polarized sunglasses are better at removing glare from wet roads than regular dark glasses even though they have less shading in the lens. This is also why using polarized sunglasses at night cuts down on glare from headlights (especially the new horizontally rectangular ones) while still letting you see the (randomly reflected) scattered light that comes back from your headlights.The greater the angle of the reflecting surface to the path of the photon and the greater the likelyhood of polarization effect, so to do this one properly you should use a nearly perpendicular surface (not one at 45^o as shown in the other test setup diagram).Once we have achieved complete reproducability of test #1 at the second test site for the photons that tested "Red" we still have the same problem with probabilities as the "Green" photons had ... unless something else is happening.

---

So is the repeated results of multiple testing not 100% but say 99.9% ... or is something else happening?Are the "Green" particles being "fixed", not just in the orientation they have when tested, but into the orientation that aligns 100% with the filter -- are they altered by the measurement of the orientation?And if this happens to the "Green" particles, then how does this happen to the "Red" particles -- they don't go through the filter so they don't 'know' what direction to be oriented into by the test (unless this information is provided by the reflection angle, say at 45^o or less, to the path of the particle)?Hope your head is not hurting so bad today and things are settling down into the normal patterns of chaos.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Does a particle, once it has passed a filter where it only had a 49% probability of passing, then always have the ability to pass a similar oriented filter? Then it doesn't have a 49% chance but a 100% chance eh?IE -- rather than the particle have a 49% probability of passing the polarizing filter, the probability is that particles with that orientation have a 49% probability as a group, but 49% of the particles have a 100% probability of passing the filter and 51% of the particles have a 0% probability of passing the filter?If that is the case, then ... imh(ysa(atm)) ... orientation is not what allows\prevents passage but some other factor (where'd that hidden factor go now!).Enjoy?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Okay, I'm interested. So we could think of {anything} being done to entangled pairs as if they were {sequentially\simultaneously} being done to a single particle.Thus testing Bell with the well worn photon filters should be predicted by the normal (quantum) behavior of a single particle passing through detector {A} and then detector {B} (or vice versa)This result, btw is: Where +1, +2 and +3 are where all the probabilities for the particle to pass the {A} or {B} detector switch {1, 2 or 3} with a >0.5 probability = green (+) result and -1, -2 and -3 are where all the probabilities for the particle to pass the {A} or {B} detector switch {1, 2 or 3} with a <0.5 probability = red (-) result,(ie - all orientation particles passing detector {A} in a GREEN condition, and ONLY those particles, are then submitted to detector {B} for the next test, for a GX result, and all orientation particles passing detector {A} in a RED condition, and ONLY those particles, are then submitted to detector {B} for the next test, for an RX result, for each switch condition in {A} and then in {B})SO, the numbers calculated are 1st filtered to pass detector {A} in either the green (+1) condition or the red (-1) condition, and then the remaining particles are tested to pass detector {B} ... in either the green (+1) condition or the red (-1) condition,WHERE, the number calculated for each angle is the added probability of meeting condition {A} to the probability of meeting condition {B} -- after passing {A}. What you see is the sum probabilities for all particle orientations to get the listed results.We of course recognize this as the experimental results:

---

Let's keep this to baby steps - not just for my poor understanding ability - but so that we know that each step is established in a simple and clear manner for any casual readers.So the first question was Starting with some background: what really is "entanglement" ... ?We have one simple description: That's one way to have "a single system staying consistent faster than the speed of light" anyway eh? It explains quantum uncertainty being preserved in both particles -- testing one for momentum makes it impossible to test the other for location and vice versa.Do we all agree on this description? Or is there some aspect of entanglement as used in quantum mechanics that is not included by this description?Edited by RAZD, : reformated "simple description"

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's definetly the case that every particle had initially the 49% chance of passing the first filter, and the filter did something to them (Collapse of wave function) that changed the probabilities of them passing the second filter to 100%To see that the filter actually does something to the particles, add a third filter between the first and the second which has an angle of polarization rotated 45^o (for instance) relative to the other two polarizers.Now the particle has a 50% probability of passing the middle polarizer and a 50% probability of passing the final one (not 100% anymore). So, the middle polarizer must have done something to the particles. It must be acctually changing the states of the particles, as oposed to just letting them pass or not, based on some previously stablished condition. The only logical conclusion is that the collapse must happen at the polarizer/detector.