Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

All my best students thought so too... the others would just say "why can't you just tell us the answer?" Exactly This is Bell's Theorem! Bell's Inequality says that coding will always be >=55%. You and me both, mate

RAZD is still very confused about the meaning of the experimental result. In his last post he seamed to be still under the false inpression that it is possible to build a classical coding to explain the experiment. I isn't.You're actually one step ahead of him. You have already suffered a brain meltdown, that is.There is only one option for the somethingelse that Cavediver was talking about (I hope I'm not spoiling the plot). If the message was not encoded in the particles (No coding satisfy all the constraints), nor was it sent instantaneously to the other particle (Relativity doesn't allow that and it(Relativity) has too many experimental verifications for us to let it go), Then the information must have been created in both spots stantaneously without any means of comunication between them. (WIRD, SPOOKY, YOU NAME IT...)

quote:

---

A
| G | R |
---------------
G | S | D |
B ---------------
R | D | S |
--------------- 

​

Precisely. It is a binary measurement of 3 switches. The next question is what gives you those results....

​

A A
| G | R | | G | R |
--------------- ---------------
G | 1-1 | 1-2 | G | 3-2 | 2-1 |
B --------------- B ---------------
R | 1-3 | 2-3 | R | 3-1 | 1-1 |
--------------- ---------------
​
A A
| G | R | | G | R |
--------------- ---------------
G | 2-2 | 2-3 | G | 3-1 | 3-1 |
B --------------- B ---------------
R | 2-1 | 1-3 | R | 1-2 | 2-2 |
--------------- ---------------
​
A A
| G | R | | G | R |
--------------- ---------------
G | 3-3 | 3-1 | G | 2-1 | 1-3 |
B --------------- B ---------------
R | 3-2 | 1-2 | R | 2-3 | 3-3 |
--------------- ---------------

​

---

Ok, let me try and articulate your position just so we are on the same page.You are trying to propose that the lights are just measuring the switch positions.Different switch positions have different probabilites of having the light combinations. This is what I get from the above grids. For instance, 1-2 can only get the results of RG, GR, and RR, ie, 33% RG, 33% GR, 33%RR, and 0%GG.In total now:1-1 RR, GG
1-2 RG, GR, RR
1-3 RG, RR, GR
2-1 RG, GR, GG
2-2 GG, RR
2-3 RR, RG, GR
3-1 GR, GG, RG, RG
3-2 GG, GR
3-3 RR, GGNotice you are double counting 31RG, but I think this is a typo. Should one of those 31RG's be 32RG?If this is what you are proposing, I have a couple objections:1. Is this the experimental result? Can 1-2 only give RG, GR, and RR?2. How does the Device A know what switch position Device B has?By excluding GG as a possibility, you are implying Device A has this type of knowledge of Device B's switch position, and vice versa. The devices are somehow coordinating their lights so as to never get GG when the positions are 1-2. This is just as remarkable as them coordinating their lights to get 11RR 11GG 22RR etc.So in order to get that type of coordination, there must be (as cavediver pointed out): How do you get around this?Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.Edited by JustinC, : aesthetics

Just dropping a better table of probabilities that are observed for the experiment (That would be easier with an equal sized font)

-------------- Detector A's Position --------------
​
# | --1--1--1--|--2--2--2---|--3--3--3---|
------------------------------------------------------
1 | RR : 50.0% | RR : 12.5% | RR : 12.5% |
1 | GG : 50.0% | GG : 12.5% | GG : 12.5% |
1 | RG : 0.00% | RG : 37.5% | RG : 37.5% |
1 | GR : 0.00% | GR : 37.5% | GR : 37.5% |
------------------------------------------------------
2 | RR : 12.5% | RR : 50.0% | RR : 12.5% |
2 | GG : 12.5% | GG : 50.0% | GG : 12.5% | Detector B's
2 | RG : 37.5% | RG : 0.00% | RG : 37.5% | Position
2 | GR : 37.5% | GR : 0.00% | GR : 37.5% |
------------------------------------------------------
3 | RR : 12.5% | RR : 12.5% | RR : 50.0% |
3 | GG : 12.5% | GG : 12.5% | GG : 50.0% |
3 | RG : 37.5% | RG : 37.5% | RG : 0.00% |
3 | GR : 37.5% | GR : 37.5% | GR : 0.00% |
------------------------------------------------------
​

Edited by AdminModulous, : "That would be easier with an equal sized font"
Your wish is my command -- AdminMod

Or they were in that state before A was measured, it is the way they were made at the start, and all you have done is verify it."Coupled" yes, "entangled" still a question.It could be that the process of making the "coupled" pair of particles causes the collapse at that time, so it doesn't matter when you measure A after that.It could be that the process of separation causes a collapse when a certain point is reached - the limit of their quantum communication distance (where it doesn't create spooky action at a distance).Tell me how to absolutely eliminate the possiblity that they were already in the collapsed state before A was measured and you might have something eh?Thanks for addressing the topic, I am interested in the question: it may shed light on the problems with Bell's Theorum, but that is a side topic.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.

Look at the results of the EPR experiments and consider the possibility eliminated. What problems with Bell's Theorem?

You are correct. I have corrected the post (see number in red there). (adjusted for the error correction above)I'd added it up as: An interesting pattern eh? Now it appears that 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3 are undercounted compared to the other tests, when before you were complaining that they were overcounted ... What I am trying to get you to do is look at what the experiment is really measuring and not just accept the results and the experimental setup as necessarily valid.I'll get to that in another response I am working on.Thanks.ps -- I use < pre > and < /pre > to preserve the space formating for the grids -- thanks to AdminAsgara for teaching it to me on the HIV thread.Edited by RAZD, : added ps

---

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.

see ps to JustinC in previous post to format precise spacing (or peek at my grids)You are also assuming that the experiment is valid eh? Your table is only "better" if the grid is valid.See more thorough response later.

---

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.

More thorough response coming ... Tell me why the results that take over 20 ns are eliminated from consideration in the "hidden variable" condition when it is not based on communication between the particles? Makes me wonder what they were regardless.How do you know the condition wasn't collapsed when the particles were filtered?This is more to the point of the topic than Bell's Theorum so I do want to come back to it. Let me settle where I stand on Bell's first ...

---

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 never thought to ask this until now, but what do you think entangled means?

Valid??? What are you talking about? That is a table of experimental results. This isn't some theoretical prediction, this is the observation. THERE IS NO GRID. There is just the tabulation of the experimental results which fallacycop has nicely drawn for us.All you have to do is explain how those results are possible in a classical world, without resorting to telepathic monkeys hiding in the boxes.Forget the friggin' grids, they are irrelevant. Just demonstrate that you can match experiment. I've seen some straw men in my time, but really...

That's my question eh? What is it?

---

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.

Rephrasing the question, what do you think Quantum Mechanics says it is?

Give me a reference and I'll take a look. How could you possibly get the output data if the states were already "collapsed"? The observed pattern is a direct consequence of the mixed state.

Welcome to the thread, Mod. I'll answer your post but address a number of other posts at the same time. This gets a little long so I hope all you posters will bear with me. It's in 3 parts,
(1) some comments\responses,
(2) what's "wrong" with Bell's, and
(3) just what are those funky results anyway ...

---

That is one of the assumptions of the experiment -- that there are actually 3 independent states being measured. This should be your first clue that you are not measuring the three states assumed above, but something else. If you are measuring 8 states with 9 measurements at least one of them is bogus.Several times I've said "It is a binary measurement of 3 switches" but your phrasing makes it much harder to ignore.It may well be the one extra measurement that causes the 5/4 inequality in the theory when it is absent in reality. That's why I think it is necessary to consider that you may not be measuring what you think you are measuring.This is part of the problem that I note in msg 24: Overlapping sensor readings? Remember that the founding assumption is that you are measuring 3 independent states. and again Now I absolutely respect cavedivers knowledge of physics, but I am a little perplexed at this direction.Of course to replicate an error you need to know the source of the error eh?To know you have valid measurements you absolutely need to know what you are measuring or it is bogus. No, not really. I am asking what entanglement really is and as a side issue arguing why I think Bell's Theory and the 5/4 grid are not really getting the results they think they are getting. Or that what is being measured is not what people think is being measured. Thanks.

---

Okay now. My objections to the experiment ...Let me address it first in terms of the macro environment with the GB's.Assumption: that we can set up a measurement of 3 independent states.Full independence is necessary, for even with partial independence we are sometimes measuring the same thing and sometimes measuring something else eh?Thus x,y,z measurements in space for a point are independent, changes in any one do not affect measurements in the other states, nor does the state in one predict any measurements in the other states.SO the first thing I need to do is set up switch 1 and then record results to find the null areas of its measurements: if I get no null areas I am not measuring anything right? I could use max/min and sinusoidal curves, but we want to simplify it.Let's say I'm interested in the positive north orientation above a horizontal plane on the path of the particle, so I can use a spreadsheet with the following formula: In column {C} where column {B} is angles from 1 to 360, and I get 1/2 the results at 1 and half the results a 0. A binary measure of a binary state.Now I want to set up switch 2.I can start with the same setting as switch 1 and then rotate it until I get no positive readings concurrent with switch 1 ... if any exist. We are in column {D} now with: ... Where D$1 is the angle of rotation of switch 2. With a little bit of experimentation (for those so inclined) or mathematical knowledge (for those so inclined) we find that D$1=180 for independent results.Now I want to set up switch 3I can start with the same setting as switch 1 and then rotate it until I get no positive readings concurrent with switch 1 ... if any exist. We are in column {E} now with: ... Where E$1 is the angle of rotation of switch 3. With a little bit of experimentation (for those so inclined) or mathematical knowledge (for those so inclined) we find that E$1=180 --- the same results as for switch 2.In fact I can set switch 3 at any angle from 1 to 360 and either measure the same state as switch 1 or the same state as switch 2 in different areas of overlap. Is this really critical? Let's set it at 90 and see how independent the results are then.Next I set up the comparison grid aka Bell's theorem:

{1-1}	{1-2}	{1-3}	{2-2}	{2-3}	{3-3}	{3-2}	{3-1}	{2-1}

under {1-1} I have =IF(C3=C3;1;0) where C3 is the result of B3 (the angle of the GB) for the switch in position 1 on each detectorunder (1-2} I have =IF(C3=D3;1;0) where C3 is the result of B3 (the angle of the GB) for the switch in position 1 and D3 is the result of B3 for the switch in position 2under (1-3} I have =IF(C3=E3;1;0) where C3 is the result of B3 (the angle of the GB) for the switch in position 1 and E3 is the result of B3 for the switch in position 3Same type test for each of the other of the 9 conditions of the "inequality" and the same set of tests for each angle in column B from 1 to 360; I sum the row comparisons and I get5For every angle. Of course the proponents of Bell's theorem will pounce and say I TOLD YOU SO!!!But here's the crunch: I can set switch 3 at any angle from 1 to 360 and get exactly the same results. I can set the results from switch 3 to read 1 from top to bottom and get the same results. I can set the results from switch 3 to 0 from top to bottom and get the same results.What does switch 3 measure? It measures the same thing as one or the other of the other switches, it does NOT measure an independent state. Adding it causes the inequality in the grid, it does NOT cause any effect on the real world. It is an artifact of assuming you are measuring something that you are not measuring.In reality you end up with 2 switches and you will get either: More astute observers will note that even switch 2 is not truly independent of switch 1, it is just the negative of it and you really have: Wow.Of course with one switch rotated so that there is overlap between the results you have sections where part of the grid is exchanged for other parts of the grid and you are getting: (think it through)Let me now address the issue in terms of the micro environment with the photons:I set up switch 1, a polarized plate that measures the polarization of the light in one direction.Then I set up switch 2, line it up with switch 1 and then rotate it until I get a null reading on 1 and a positive reading in 2, matching a maximum reading in 2 with a minimum reading in 1.Those familiar with this will know that the angle will be 90 degrees because the polarization doesn't care if you are up or down in the plane.Now I set up switch 3, and again I have exactly the same problem - I can rotate switch 3 to any angle I chose and the table results will be the same, I can force the reading to 1 or force the reading to 0 and the results will be the same.The three switches is a bogus setup and does not measure 3 states in the GB's or in the particles and the 5/4 inequality is an artifact of the setup not of reality.Can I be less than unimpressed?Note, I'm not saying that Bell's Theorem is invalid, just that this 'experiment' does not demonstrate it - it doesn't meet the conditions of 3 independent states being measured. It does something else instead ... because you are not measuring what you thought you were.

---

So what about those funky quantum results of the experiment ... what do they show? First I'm going to repeat fallacycops table again: The first thing I notice is that they are in 50%, 37.5% or 12.5% and there is no 1/3 involved and there is no 25%. To me this says that the particles are not seeing three different switches.The next thing I notice is that RR or GG gets either 50% or 12.5% and that RG or GR gets 0% or 37.5%.The 50% RR/GG and 0% RG/GR are only the identity conditions where either "coupled" or "entangled" predicts 100% compliance. No biggy there for macro or micro world.What we have for the conditions where the switches are different (doesn't matter which switches are involved, they just have to be different ones here) that 25% of the time they are RR or GG (in equal numbers) and 75% of the time they are RG or GR (in equal numbers).This is where macro world (quicky evaluation) predicted (if you remember Message 31) Which correctly got the 100% for RR+GG (S) and 0% for RG+GR (D) on the identity conditions (duh), but the different switch conditions would be RR+GG (S) 1/3rd of the time and RG+GR (D) 2/3rds of the time ... not even close enough for horseshoes. That ain't it bucko.Thus there has to be "something else" in the mix eh?Is it "entanglement"? Maybe, but I'm not sure I see how.We could assume that the particles {flip} or {their probability uncertainty} periodically change on their axis of alignment -- Son Goku again in Message 39: ie it goes from |A up>|B down> to |A down>|B up> and back ... and forth ... and back ...So that, in comparison to switch 1, say the behavior at switch 2 is "normal switch 2" result half the time while the other half the time it behaves as if it were at switch 3 (reverse switch 2 relative to 1). The {flip\probability} change would not affect a {1-1} result because the polarized filter doesn't care up from down, so this would only affect the mixed switch results. Then you could propose these changes:RR+GG (S) 1/3rd of the time becomes RR+GG (S) (1/2)(1/3) = 1/6 of the time
plus
RR+GG (S) 1/3rd of the time becomes RG+GR (D) (1/2)(1/3) = 1/6 of the timeand:RG+GR (D) 2/3rds of the time becomes RG+GR (D) (1/2)(2/3) = 1/3 of the time
plus
RG+GR (D) 2/3rds of the time becomes RR+GG (S) (1/2)(2/3) = 1/3 of the timeresult:RG+GR (D) 1/2 of the time
and
RR+GG (S) 1/2 of the timeThat doesn't help either ...We can posit a similar {flip\probability} issue on each of 3 coordinate axis, with one removed (direction along the path of the particle is not tested), and that would get you into considering 1/4ths changing hands.But you still need to take 1/3 - 1/4 = 1/12th = (1/3)(1/4) from RR+GG and NOT add it back when you take similar from RG+GR. You have to justify considering only {flip\probability} change in one group of particles and not in the other.What we have for the conditions where the switches are different (doesn't matter which switches are involved, they just have to be different ones here) that 25% of the time they are RR or GG (in equal numbers) and 75% of the time they are RG or GR (in equal numbers).This is where macro world (one of my quicky evaluations earlier) predicted (if you remember Message 31) Which correctly got the 100% for RR+GG (S) and 0% for RG+GR (D) on the identity conditions (duh), but the different switch conditions would be RR+GG (S) 1/3rd of the time and RG+GR (D) 2/3rds of the time ... not even close enough for horseshoes. That ain't it bucko.You need to have some mechanism to take 1/3 - 1/4 = 1/12th = (1/3)(1/4) from RR+GG and NOT add it back when you apply the same mechanism to RG+GR. You have to justify considering only {flip\probability} change in one group of particles and not in the other.Whatever that is. It may just be a function of basic quantum mechanics, imho, and not "entanglement" and certainly not Bell's Theorem.{abe}Of course if you look at my analysis of Bell's Theorem above - and what you are really testing - you will see that relative to switches 1 and 2, switch 3 sometimes measures the same as switch 1 and sometimes the same as switch 2, with similar overlap for each of the switches whichever you choose as odd-man-out. The results then are not from 1 2 and 3 but 1 and 2 with "3" divided between them or 2 and 3 or 3 and 1 ... and the quantum particles are not fooled by the experiment. {/abe}Enough for me tonight. I need to get entangled in some bedsheets Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added paragraph {abe} to {/abe}

---

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.