Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

What are you measuring with one set of sensors (one for each particle in a pair)?For any coupled pair you get the same results, but you also get 50% red and 50% green, agreed?What are you measuring with a second set of sensors set up to give you two different results for the same particle:For any coupled pair you get different results, and you also get 50% red and 50% green.Now, {deep breath}, what are you really testing with the apparatus?If I look at it such that 2 and 3 are interchangeable with respect to 1, 1 and 3 are interchangeable with respect to 2 and 1 and 2 are interchangeable with respect to 3 -- that only same switch settings result in same results, and 1-2 or 1-3 result in different results (and logically how can they not?)Then I get a grid like this:... with a 3/6 instead of a 5/4 distribution? THAT MAKES IT WORSE!!!What changed? The arbitrary assignment of results as "D" category. When 13, 31 are always "same" while 2-3 and 3-2 are always "different" ...Ask yourself that about the photons and the polarized plates.The problem is that we know that sometimes the results will be the same with the different switch settings, so how do you model that? We know that the 5/4 grid is arbitrary (in it's assignment of "S" to 1-3 and 3-1), and we know that the 3/6 grid is false. True, but what are you measuring? You are measuring magnetic field with regard to (re yr wrt abbrv btw) x y and z planes. You have no idea how strong the field is or how tilted it is wrt the measurment plane, so all you can tell is north = positive axis side of the plane or north = negative axis side of the plane. Each sensor will measure + or - for (virtually) every particle (we can argue about the relative infinity of ones |exactly| perpendicular to the plane - no field measured - vs the vast infinity of all the other orientations later).Coupled pairs measured by the same axis sensors will always have the same results - agrees with both "coupled" and "entangled" concepts.Coupled pairs measured by different axis sensors will sometimes be the same and sometimes be different. The assignment of "S" and "D" in the grid is bogus. It is not based on what is measured.If we look at probabilities of "S" and probabilities of "D" for 3 sets of detectors with positive orientations at 120^o intervals so that we have 0^o to 60^o centered on {1+}, 60^o to 120^o centered on {2-}, 120^o to 180^o centered on {3+}, 180^o to 240^o centered on {1-}, 240^o to 300^o centered on {2+} and 300^o to 360^o centered on {3-}, then for any particle that reads {1+} also reads {2-} and {3-} ... you get a SDD distribution (one pair of sensors - 2&3 -agrees the other two pairs of sensors - 1&2 and 1&3 - disagree).Plugging this into the grid you get: Using multiples to represent rough probabilities in each box. Add up all the "S"s and all the "D"s and you get 15/13. Whether it is GB's or polarized photons. Closer eh?{abe}Is this what is being measured?No, not really. Only two sensors are used at a time. You either have same setting or different setting, that's why earlier I had: plus plus {/abe} I get up at 5am here, it's all relative eh? EnjoyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzEdited by RAZD, : correction, added material

---

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.

RAZD writes

quote:

---

Detector A's Position
| 1 | 2 |
---------
1 | S | D | Detector B's Position
2 | D | S |
---------

​

plus

​

Detector A's Position
| 1 | 3 |
---------
1 | S | D | Detector B's Position
3 | D | S |
---------

​

plus

​

Detector A's Position
| 3 | 2 |
---------
3 | S | D | Detector B's Position
2 | D | S |
---------

​

Obviously resulting in a 50:50 distribution

---

This is all very confusing because you don't specify what coding you are using. How can you make a judgement about sameness or differentness if you don't know the coding.The possible codings are:RRR GGG RRG GGR RGG GRR GRG RGRPick anyone and put them into you're three grids. You don't get a 50/50 split with anyone of them.For example, use RRG. You get plus plus What you get, is 8 that are the same, and 4 that are different. But when you factor in that you are double counting some combinations, what you get is 5/4.You get 55.55% (5/4) the same with all combinations except RRR and GGG, where you get 100%.So in order to get the 50% split, you obviously aren't using any of the codings above.The question, then, is, "what coding are you using to get a 50/50 split and also to get the 11RR 11GG 22RR etc. correspondences?"Edited by JustinC, : aesthetics

But you are confusing 3 "states" with 3 "measurements"you only have two measurements at a time, sensor {A} or sensor {B}. Now take one "possible coding" out of each set and match it up to the right 2x2 box and then add up all the possibilities.RRX GGX RRX GGX RGX GRX GRX RGX (2x2 grid #1)
RXR GXG RXG GXR RXG GXR GXG RXR (2x2 grid #2)
XRR XGG XRG XGR XGG XRR XRG XGR (2x2 grid #3)The X's are NOT measured.Sum up the results, each line has 4 same and 4 different. Total 12/12. Or double counting all data? (it would be triple, except for the X's) Check the columns for each letter position.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.

Actually, RAZD the patern of probabilities you would have to explain is this:Detector A's Position
| -1--1--1- | -2--2--2- | -3--3--3- |
----------------------------------------
1 | S : 100% | S : 25% | S : 25% |
1 | D : 0% | D : 75% | D : 75% |
----------------------------------------
2 | S : 25% | S : 100% | S : 25% | Detector B's Position
2 | D : 75% | D : 0% | D : 75% |
----------------------------------------
3 | S : 25% | S : 25% | S : 100% |
3 | D : 75% | D : 75% | D : 0% |
----------------------------------------Where the percents after D : represent the probability of getting different light colors
and the percents after S : represent the probabilities of getting the same colorObserve that the average over the table is D : 50% and S : 50%
Same for any column or row.
But it shows an average of S : 100% and D : 0% in the diagonal.No classical experiment can reproduce these features. Try it

quote:

---

But you are confusing 3 "states" with 3 "measurements"
you only have two measurements at a time, sensor {A} or sensor {B}.

---

I don't think so. I am taking two measurements, signified by the the two character nature of RR, GG, RG, and GR.

quote:

---

Now take one "possible coding" out of each set and match it up to the right 2x2 box and then add up all the possibilities.

​

RRX GGX RRX GGX RGX GRX GRX RGX (2x2 grid #1)
RXR GXG RXG GXR RXG GXR GXG RXR (2x2 grid #2)
XRR XGG XRG XGR XGG XRR XRG XGR (2x2 grid #3)

---

This is where I lose you. The same coding is present in both "things" emitted (because of the 11RR, 11GG, 22RR, 22GG, etc. correlation), so you have to use two coding strings to see what is going on.Only one measurement is taken from each coding, so to accurately reflect what is going on with Grid 1, you have to use two strings.For the first box of Grid 1 (1/1), you'd get1st detector: RXX GXX RXX GXX RXX GXX GXX RXX2nd detector: RXX GXX RXX GXX RXX GXX GXX RXX2nd box (2/1)1st detector: XRX XGX XRX XGX XGX XRX XRX XGX2nd detector RXX GXX RXX GXX RXX GXX GXX RXXetc. You get the picture.When you cross out only one letter when you write you are implying that somehow the two detectors are taking two measurments from one code. But the code is in both "things." They are two codes, and they have to be the same.Look at the original diagram (I tried to reproduce it but it got botched up somehow). The squiggily emitter lines represent the same code going out, so replace them mentally with one of the 8 possibilities.Do you disagree with this?Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

I think you might have missed something. It assumes some axioms characteristic of any Classical Theory, not even Newton’s or Lagrange’s, but any conceivable classical theory that could be constructed.
It turns out any Classical Theory will obey the inequalities no matter what its character.However any Quantum Theory won't.When we run the experiment the inequalities don't hold, which is very solid evidence against a pre-assigned state, a lá Classical Mechanics.

Ok, unfortunately this has to be brief... more later tonight... so much confusion, so little time Firstly, let me again emphasise: I DON'T CARE! All that matters are the experimental data and some way of replicating it. FALLACYCOP has very kindly expressed the actual observed probabilities in the grid that have to be replicated. To delve into the mechanism is unnecessary and just adds to the confusion.With both the gyros and the photons, you get a roughly even mix of same and different when the switches are in different positions:e.g. 12RG 12GG 12GR 12GR 12RG 12RR 12RR 12GG etcsame with 13, 21, 23, and 31.With enough runs, the photons will get you exactly 50% RR/GG and 50% RG/GR. At the same time they will get you exactly 100% RR/GG with 11, 22, or 33. You will not get this with your gyros.As JustinC has pointed out, your move to three 2x2 grids is overcounting: you have the 11, 22, and 33 results listed twice. This is why your conclusion is wrong.By moving to your earlier four axis version, or your 3 rotations of each axis in the post to which I am replying is just hopelessly complicating the situation. The challange is simple: replicate the results of the experiment I described - not some other experiment.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Precisely. It is a binary measurement of 3 switches. The next question is what gives you those results.... The problem is that you have both the code and the measurement to get the result.Edited by RAZD, : Corrected one 3-1 to 3-2 per JustinC's good eye. (msg 48) 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.

Let us say that I have a particle called A and a particle called B.If A is in a spin up state then we label it with:
|A up>
If A is in a spin down state then we label it:
|A down>If A is in a superposition of spin up and down then:|State of A> = |A up> + |A down>The same goes for B.If I write a state:
|State of A and B> = |A up>|B down>
That means A and B are part of the same system with A being up and B being down.Now lets we get A and B and entangle them, to give the following state:
|State of A and B> = |A up>|B down> - |A down>|B up>This means A and B are part of the same system and that system is in a superposition of the two system states "A is up, B is down" and the system state "A is down, B is up".Now I send A and B off in opposite direction and somebody far away measures A to be spin up.This means the system cannot be in the state "|A down>|B up>" as A was measured to be spin up, so the system collapses to:
|State of A and B> = |A up>|B down>So B has to be down, because that is all that is left in the state.
When I measure B, this indeed turns out to be the case.The whole paradox is that the system went from:
|State of A and B> = |A up>|B down> - |A down>|B up>to|State of A and B> = |A up>|B down>instantly.
As soon as A was measured it pulled out the "|A down>|B up>" part across the whole universe.

Hi there,
I think I understand the situation here, but my head hurts trying to understand the consequences. So let me try and put down in words what I think is happening in the experiment and see where that leads me. I'll word the macroworld explanation in terms of communications rather than gyroscopes, since that makes more sense to me.We have a box that fires a signal to two receivers. That signal can be any one of the 2³ states of a three string binary code. For convenience we'll stick to Rs and Gs rather than throwing in 1s and 0s.The two receivers have a randomly selected switch that is either one of three settings. There are thus 3² switch positions.When a receiver gets the signal it uses the switch setting as a rule to determine what colour light to illuminate. Position one selects 'bit' 1 of the string. For example if the string is RXX and the switch position is 1, the red light goes on.OK. This is where my mind melts...For any mixed string of Rs and Gs the we would expect to see 55.5% of the lights being the same. And if we include RRR and GGG (where for obvious reasons the lights are always the same), we conclude that we should see the same lights shine more than 55.5% of the time.But we don't?*melting brain*Obviously in our macro experiment we do, but when we get to the quantum level we don't?Everything that follows makes no sense at all to my poor brain. This rhetorical question confused me totally: I thought that was obvious - the experimental setup more or less defines that this is the behaviour we should see. I'm not seeing any of this being relevant. Maybe its the 50% result, how is this possible? No wait, don't answer that, the question should be - 50% am I reading this right and is this relevant to entanglement somehow?

Is the desired and correct outcome. Einstein didn't object to this out of boredom But hey, according to RAZ, everyone from Einstein, Pauli, Fermi onwards has got it wrong and RAZ has cracked it and I'm 100 poorer Yes I've no idea. That might be a way of getting the observed output. Let's see... Yes It appears so, but again, I haven't looked in the box so I am not sure. If you were to try to construct this experiment results yourself, it sounds like a good way of proceeding. I really don't know, but it sounds like a plan. Yes, I agree. Your experiment should produce those results. No, not in my experiment. But then, I don't know what's in my apparatus. No, my experiment built of real macro-sized objects produces the 50% result and your apparatus seems to produce 55%+.My conclusion is that your apparatus is not a good model of my apparatus. ...when at the same time we observe 50% of the light pairs the same.It's obvious if we allow 55%+, as that is what your experiment produces. But that's not what my experiment does...

So very true SG, but unfortunately explaining it this way just "supports" the idea of hidden variables. The mystery of the antisymmetric state only really becomes apparent through the probability argument.

That's true. Reading over it again it does kind of lend itself to it.For anyboy who is interested the more modern version of Bell's experiments are called the Aspect experiments.
Described over the course of four pages here.

By the way Mod, please realise that as obtuse as my reply sounds, I am attempting to get you to think about this the right way.If we get the same colour when the switches are in the same position (but no knoweldge of which colour) then we concludea) some signal is being sent from one detector to the other to let it know the switch positionb) some pre-coding exists that enables the same colour to appear at both detectors.c) something elseThe whole business with the RGG nonsense is to show that there is no coding possible that gives the experiemental result. Thus we must abandon b). a) goes against all of relativity, so c) seems in order...

I read your other reply, but I think this response works, because it did get me to think. So the end result is that there is no coding scheme that could produce the same lights/same switch result and the 50% result at the same time? Is this related to Bell's Theorem that has been brought up? I should probably go try and understand that before going much further, huh?We get the 50% result: something 'spooky' is going on (ie no coding and no other communication between boxes). I'll need to think on this one awhile (and re-read the thread a couple of times), but I think I understand better now, thanks. My next challenge is to try and understand RAZD's objections.