Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

Now suddenly we only have two possible orientations? What happened to all the rest of the possibilities?Let's try again.Particle {A} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is 0^o to the polarizing filter/mirror and passes through. Once passed, its alignment is 0^o to the polarizing filter.Particle {B} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is 90^o to the polarizing filter and bounces off the mirror portion. Once bounced, its alignment is 90^o to the polarizing filter.Particle {C} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is 45^o to the polarizing filter, and this is its lucky day and it passes. Once passed, its alignment is 0^o to the polarizing filter.Particle {D} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is 45^o to the polarizing filter, but it has a bad day, and bounces off the mirror portion. Once bounced, its alignment is 45^o to the polarizing filter.Particle {E} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is -45^o to the polarizing filter, and this is its lucky day and it passes. Once passed, its alignment is 0^o to the polarizing filter.Particle {F} hits the filter/mirror, its alignment is -45^o to the polarizing filter, but it has a bad day, and bounces off the mirror portion. Once bounced, its alignment is -45^o to the polarizing filter.{A} {C} and {E} are now aligned at 0^o to the polarizing filter, but {B} {D} and {F} are not, they range from +45^o to -45^o to the polarizing filter. On the next pass {D} could become {C} and {F} could become {E}.I can see "greeness" being preserved by the re-orientation that occurs when the particle goes through the gate, but I don't see how re-orientation can occur to preserve "redness" -- those particles do not know what the gate orientation is, they just know they hit the mirror part and bounced.The only way they can "know" is some process tied to the "green" side, as in entangled with an "antiself ghost" that does pass, which aligns its little ghost self, and this aligns the original "antighost" particle by entanglement, and then the "ghost" part dissappears without setting off the green light.Now we go back to an entangled pair passing two different filters, each one aligns itself with the filter it passes and the one the other particle passes ...

---

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.

Two of your statements are not acurate as they standandBoth of these photons had a bad day, bounced off the mirror, and realigned to be perpendicular to the polarizing filter. I don`t think that seeing the device as being composed of a mirror part and a gate is the way to go about it. The sphinx analogy realy works better. The sphinx doesn`t care about what polarization the photon had before. it just asks the question "Are you paralel to me or are you perpendicular", Or as president bush would say "Are you with me or against me". The maniqueist sphinx will not take a 45^o for an answer. So, the poor little photon is forced to make up its mind and choose one (its wavefunction collapses) As wird as that may sound, that is closer to the real thing than your classical giroscopes.

After pondering the photon/filter interpretation of the code/switch experiment, I realize I don't quite understand the actual experiment.When the switches are the same, the filters are aligned the same. So in order for their to be a 11GG correlation between the two devices, the photons must be polarized the same.Well, I thought that photons emmitted had to be at different polarization angles, so they both couldn't go through the same filter.

If you read the papers they tell you that they have inverted the switches as necessary to take care of this little element.See the one linked by Son Goku with the four way congruity test.They are presented this way for the simplification (riiiight) of the presentation.

---

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.

quote:

---

If you read the papers they tell you that they have inverted the switches as necessary to take care of this little element.

---

Read the actual paper? Never.

A more complete explanation is now at (proposed new topic)
http://EvC Forum: Bells, Bells, Bells, Bells ... -->EvC Forum: Bells, Bells, Bells, Bells ...As I felt this issue of {what bells really means} is taking away from the issue of entanglement.You won't be able to reply to the new thread until (IF) it is promoted, but you can read it and see my position.I'm not saying that entanglement is not observed, just that it is not exhibited in the Bell Experiment with 3 polarized filters at 120 degrees.And that the 5/9 grid is not anything to hang a hat on.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.

Great I'm busy as hell, have got a migraine from hell, and RAZD drops this "magnum opus" on me...that's fifteen pages of paper and printer ink you owe me RAZ oh well, at least I can sit on the loo and analyse at leisure...always did my best work sat on the loo...

It's 9 on mine, but then I have the original without borders and use small type (being nearsighted can have advantages). I'm honored that you will read it thoroughly. Until (IF) the topic is promoted we may want to discuss points by email rather than tie this thread up with it. My dad calls it the "Systems Analysis Lab" How goes the computer recovery (or is that still part of the migraine)hmm, I had a migraine on friday ... maybe it's contagious ... or carried by mysterious GB's with hidden variables Question (from my last SysAnal Lab session): when "entangled pairs" are made, how do we know that (xyz) orientations are not locked in at that time? Seems to me to be part of the preservation of angular momentum bit eh?Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

---

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.

Actually, make that 30 pages... thought it was taking a while... printer was still set up for two copies of a courier manifest sheet Ok, just to get the ball rolling before time becomes short. I have reached your three possibilities of X and Y. Can I challange you to differentiate 3) from 1) or 2)? Either they are independent or they are not (you could introduce stochastic coefficients in 1).Two different aspects of something are independent or not, immaterial of being defined as belonging to some "thing".Take a complex number w. Now w = x + iy. x is the real part of w and y is the imaginary part of w. x and y measure different aspects of w, but they are definitely type 2): completely different things. If I state that w^3 = 1, then now x and y are constrained and fall into type 1).I haven't studied further so I'm not sure how material this is to the follow-on, but let's get a concensus here.

You can also access the article here
http://razd.evcforum.net/Bell.html
with some minor edits at the end. Let's say we are measuring a vector.I can measure it angle clockwise from noon or counterclockwise from 3 o'clock. The numbers appear to change in different ways and have different values, but they measure the same aspect of the vector that we use to compare it to other vectors.I can also measure the length, and this is a different aspect of the same object being measured that is not affected by the way we measure the angle of the vector.Thus I have two necessary variables to describe the vector {system} and one unnecessary one.Both your x and iy aspects are part of the w being measured and both are necessary to describe wTotally different to me means measuring the tides in the Bay of Fundy and fluctuations in the temperature in Afghanistan. Both are cyclic in nature, with small fluctuations (waves) on top of large fluctuations (tides) with long term fluctuations (climate), but no one I know of would consider measuring one to describe the other.You can also measure the heat of a pendulum and the period of a pendulum and in both cases have decreasing values with time, but the aspects are not (strictly speaking) interrelated.Thanks.

---

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.

any more comments?

---

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.

Wading in here due to Modulous' comment on my thread, entanglement demonstrates a single system or that 2 separate parts can act as a single system. This shows a system or order that is non-observed controlling one or more particles in relation to each other.Perhaps if we are calling whatever something is a wave-function, we should see this as wave-functions coupling to become one wave function. The significance of this is to show that the fundamental nature and reality of a thing consists of a non-observed state(directly at least), and perhaps is best understood as a non-material state that controls manifestations in discrete forms in the material (observed) world.