Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

hey?! You cannot change the experiments to fit your theory. It's supposed to be the other way around. May be you need to be reminded that this experiment (or something equivalent to it) has been done in the real world. it's the theorist's job to find an explanation that works. To say that the experiment isn't valid is not an acceptable solution. Go ahead and try your scheme if you will. have fun.

Oh my, Oh my, where to begin? (that was a very long post of yours) Started with the wrong foot. The experiment does not assumes such a thing. It's really all in the table I presented you. These are the results. No assumptions made. I think that may be what's getting you out of course in this matter, so let me make it clear to you. What we think we are measuring is completely besides the point. We call it here greenness and redness just for argument sake. you can call it plus-minus, up-down, hit-miss(that’s the closest one to the real experiment), male-female, yin-yang, bfltsq-quiglibit, or whatever you want. I couldn’t care less. But you still have to explain the probability patern of the table I presented. NO, not at all. as cavediver said: The point is: what’s being measured is a red hearing. Whatever it is, you will not be able to reproduce the probabilities presented with a classical coding. No, not at all. As pointed out above, no such assumtion is made. That’s why we can call the three switch positins, 1,2,3; or 0,120,-120; athos,pothos,aramis; gold,mir,frankincense. It does not matter. all you have to do is to explain the probability table. I guess I said it before haven’t I? this condition is not a requirement for Bell’s Theorem The most sensible thing you said in the whole post. many would see quantum entanglement as basic quantum mechanics. I would. except that your scheme did not explain the probability table. Ready to give up?

By filtring I assume you mean at the time of production, as oposed to at the time of detection.The problem with that is that it creates a classical coding that, as pointed out by cavediver, is unable to explain the probabilities results. The collapsing has to happen at the detection because the "fashion" of collapse depends on the positions of the switches. That's what the switches' role in the experiment is.I think you are under the belief that the switches are supposed to select different and completely independent aspects of the particles to measure. That’s not the case.When the switches are set to the same position, one of them forces the particles’states to collapse in a given fashion. The second switch receives the particle already collapsed in a agreeable fashion and therefore samples the same result, leading to the 100% correlation between them in this situation.When the switches are set to different positions, as before, one of them forces the particles’states to collapse in a given fashion. But now the second switch receives the particle collapsed to a non-agreeable fashion and forces a second collapse. this second collapse does not have a 50%-50% distribution between the two possible results because the intermediary state has uneven overlap with the two possibilities. that's where the 120 degrees cavediver talked about comes into play.Conclusion: Contrary to your beliefs, the fact that there are overlaps between the states measured by different switch positions is actually part of the solution to the problem.It is not an experiment set-up deficiency, as you seem to imply in your posts.

Thanks for taking the time to reply! From what I'm reading that isn't the case at all, and that's the point. We could try designing an experiment that does measure three states, but when we do we don't get the 50% same colour result, but we do get the same light/same switch result. Since we don't get both results the experiment is flawed and thus the concept of measuring three independent states cannot be the way the experiment works (exclusively). I don't think we are necessarily measuring something bogus per se. Its just that if we do measure it, we don't get the correct results so obviously just measuring a random one of the three binary states is not the way the entangled experiment works. Remember that this founding assumption has been shown to be flawed by the entangled experiment's results. Sounds good so far. No offense intended, but Excel formatted equations hurt my eyes...I'll just agree with the maths for the moment, but I haven't checked it. Sounds like your experiment sucks then, since you set out to design an experiment that tests three independent states. We know that measuring three independent states is not the way to get the 50% result and the same light/same switch result at the same time, since if we do that we would get the 55.5%+ result.In your experiment, switch three is somehow useless, so you dispense with it, entirely. Are you suggesting that this mirrors Bell's experiment?The problem I have is that I don't think it matters why there is inequality with three switches. Let's say switch 3 measures exactly the same thing as switch 1.Then we have the following possible 'codes':GGG
GRG
RGR
RRRIf the code we send is GRG the light combos we get are:

	1	2	3
1	GG	GR	GG
2	RG	RR	RG
3	GG	GR	GG

Which gives usGG: 44.44% (4/9)
RR: 11.11% (1/9)The total percentage of the time we get the same lights is 55.55% (5/9) which is still not the 50% that happens when we run the entangled experiment. No, in reality there are three switches - one of which gives us identical results to another. Unfortunately we don't work with RATE so we can't ignore the inconvenient third switch whatever it is measuring.Our conclusion must be that trying to develop a code system that gives us the result that we see is futile. It seems that we have two unstated assumptions. One is that our measurements are of properties that exist prior to (and independent of) measurement. This is certainly true in classical physics.The second assumption is that the measurement results are indpendent of any action that occurs at seperate spatial locations.If those assumptions are in place, we get the 5/9 issue, so at least one of the assumptions cannot be true in our 50% experiment. Maybe, but the curious thing is that we don't get this 5/9 inequality in the entangled experiment...so what's going on? To me it says, there is no coding mechanism inherent in the properties of the tested particle, pre-decided at time of transmission. OR there is some 'collusion' between particles acting faster than light.

---

I know I don't know, but I'm fairly sure that it is.
This seems interesting. However, it raises an important problem. What happens when both switches are set to three? They both act like either switch 1 or switch 2. How do the two different receivers know which switch they should both be acting like?

---

Incidentally, I'm not trying to show you to be wrong, I'm pretty much at my cognitive tolerance zone here, so I don't know what is happening. All I know for sure is that the results of the experiment indicate that there isn't some kind of property measurement code being transmitted which decides which light to illuminate depending on the switch and there is no receiver collusion.I keep trying to think of ways to fool the experiment. Perhaps using probabilities, but that seems to screw everything up (specifically the same switch/same light part of things). After a brief period of dissonance I'm inclined to sit down and accept the results. I don't suppose I can 'destroy' your argument since I am not entirely up to speed on everything going on here, but mounting an attack against it helps me understand the concepts a little more.Take care RAZD, speak to you later.

I have to say, whatever the content, you have really put some effort into this... Now if only we could channel your exuberance into more productive lines of reasoning I have to say, Fallacycop and Mod have covered just about everything. I'll repeat just to add emphasis, then I'll quickly cover your main problem with your GBs. Absolutely, most definitely NOT. No three states, no such assumption. No, no, no, no, no I introduced the idea of a 3-state coding as one POSSIBLE way to explain the experimental results. I failed.My coding was that at creation, the "things" each took a copy of a piece of paper with a three digit binary string, usung R/G as the bits.This was then suggestive that if this most basic level coding cannot produce the observed results, no coding can. Not a proof of Bell's Theorem, just an example of it at work.There is no assumption whatsoever in the experiment concerning the switches' purpose or mechanism. You can invent anything you like, where they are all independent or where they all do nothing at all, and aren't even connected!!! It's your choice. If you can classically reproduce the experimental set-up (two boxes, 2 lights and 3 switch settings on each, and a "source", and NO CONNECTIONS) and reproduce the expeimental results, you have won. What your source emits, what your switches do, what the lights mean is all ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.My coding on a piece of paper fails. Your gyroscopes fail. Anything else?Now, your Gyros: all you are worrying about is mapping a point on a sphere (your gyro orientation) which is 2d to a set of three binary measurements. This is not a map from 2d to 3d (which lies at the heart of your concern). It is a map from 2d to 1d. The 3 measurements are binary. They form a single discrete 1d measurement (0 to 7, or, 000 to 111) This isn't perfect because of half-way points (neither up nor down), expressed mathematically that there is no smooth map of S2 to R (or discrete subsets of R, except the trivial null map). But it is not over-determination, it is under-determination.However, this has NOTHING to do with the EPR experiment. You can choose the apparatus to measure your gyros however you like. Disconnect the third switch if you like. The problem remains. Errr, yes!!! Becasue you do not understand the mathematics of entanglement, or mixed states. enatnglement IS basic quantum mechanics. You cannot have QM without it!!! You are reading something into entanglement that is not there. ??? BT simply says that you cannot reproduce the experimental results classically.Too much popular science I think. Given your mental gymnastics above, I think it is time you burned all of your layman books and start again with your QM textbooks... even bettr, Feynman's Lectures in Physics series.Anyway, you asked for it. I'm now going to present the two switch version of EPR... serves you right

What error? Basic QM predicts the observed results of the experiement. If we didn't see the expected results, QM woud be wrong, and most of the hi-tech around you designed upon the principles of QM (certainly your Intel/Athlon processor) would cease to exist. Let's hope the results are error-free The only issue here is that the results deomnstrate a fundemental property of QM that is not present in CM, that seems at odds with common sense and, more importantly, Special Relativity.As you know, we don't care a rat's ass for common sense, BUT we do care about SR. Fortunately, SR is not in any danger (also good news for your processor!) as the effect is totally unrelated to "superluminal" communication of any kind, despite what Randman may have hoped...

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

___                                    ___
  =R|1 2|/                T               \|1 2|R
   G| / |           <~   >O<   ~>          | \ |G=
    |___|\                                /|___|

Once again, an emitter in the middle, which upon the press of the button emits two "things" in opposite directions towards two detectors. Detectors are identical, and each has a 2-way switch , and two light bulbs, red and green. When a "thing" enters a funnel on the detector, one of the two lights illuminate.THERE ARE NO HIDDEN CONNECTIONS ANYWHEREThe experiment is simple: we select a switch setting at random on each detector, press the button on the emiiter, and record which lights illuminate. The situation depicted in the diagram would be recorded as 21RG for reasons that I hope are obvious. After many many many trials of the experiment we have some data:Random stream of 50% Rs and 50% Gs from detector 1.
Random stream of 50% Rs and 50% Gs from detector 2.If the switches are both at 22, then 15% of all colour pairs are the same and 85% are different.
If the switches are at any other setting, then 85% of colour pairs are the same and 15% are different.Have fun

The experiment is supposed to be a test of the predictions made by the theory, yes?The experiment is valid if it truly tests the theory predictions (including the conditions of the predictions). It is not valid if it does not test the theory predictions (including the conditions of the predictions) but measuress {something else}.State it another way: if the test is not set up to meet the conditions assumed in the theory then any result of the test cannot be compared to the predictions of the theory and they will neither confirm nor invalidate the theory.Is not this the basis of the scientific process? Observations, theory, predictions, testing, review, repeat as necessary?Let's look at your nifty table of actual data again and see what it means -- in my humble (yet sometimes arrogant (according to moose)) opinion -- (or "imh(ysa(atm))o"):Agreed?So what the photons "see" in the experiment is:Feel free to correct the maths.ORAnybody quibble with that?From the results it appears that the photons are responding to testing of 2 "states" -- or +A vs -A -- rather than 3 regardless of the setup.That -- in a nutshell - is my problem with the experiment.More later. Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typo

---

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.

Just a quick note - I'll get to the rest later ... This is a theoretical test switch response to the angle of the object ("B3"):
if sin(angle)>0 then 1 (= green) otherwise 0 (=red)
The {pi()/180} factor is converting degrees to radians, as for some arcane encephalic (microsoft only knows) coding reason they only have spreadsheet functions available to calculate the various trig functions in radians, rather than have one for radians (sinr) and one for degrees (sind) - a relatively simple matter to code.You also need to run the degree column from 0.5 to 359.5 degrees (or any "D" - where 0

​

Hope that helps ...

​

ps - it's Open Office coding (hence the ; instead of a ,) in the formulas ... I haven't checked to see if they are any better than MS yet.

​

---

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 are these three states you keep mentioning?The photons are polarized. The switch decides the angle of filter. The photons are either polarised so that they pass the filter, or they are not... 50/50.The whole point is that there is no way of coding into the photon how it will respond to the filters which is consistent with the observed probabilities. Yet the two photons manage to respond the same when tested the same way.Photons do not have an internal state of polarised this way or that. Polarisation is a question asked of the wavefunction. The answer does not exist until the question is asked. The wavefunction extends over both photons, however far separated.

Some highlights from one of many on-line documents about Bell's Theorum:
(Teaching and Learning STEM) Bold mine for emPHAsis. Repeat: "We presume that each of these three orientations is measuring something different about the electron."This is a necessary part of the equation for the analysis. We'll come back to it later.The last paragraph quoted is also important as it talks to the preservation of {N-ness\RG-ness} (where N is 1, 2 or 3 and RG is Red or Green) -- whatever that is -- in any particle.If we see preservation of {N-ness\RG-ness} in all particles on their own, then we should also logically see it preserved in both coupled particles - ones made to be similar in their {N-ness\RG-ness} -- whatever that is.Back to the article: We then get a standard discussion of the 5/4 grid pattern followed by: (again, bold mine for emPHAsis, I've also taken the liberty to strike out the logical fallacy in one statement )Any quibbles with any of that?The different result states can be restated as the eight possible outcomes we have seen listed before:RRR RRG RGR RGG GRR GRG GGR GGGSome might quibble (me?) whether the detectors -- as laid out -- would ever respond RRR or GGG, but as we only see two results at any time we would never know from the test results eh?Let's look at the independence of the three measuements another way (seeing as some are having some difficulty with the measurements being ... entangled ? with each other):If the three measurements are independent then I can flip the orientation of the particle in such a manner that it changes one and only one of the RG results.The problem I see is that no matter what angle you flip {N-ness\RG-ness} you affect two switches because of the overlapped angles.To me that means that if I change G to R in one switch I will also change the value in at least one other switch. For instance if I flip about switch 1 I in effect switch the results of switch 2 with switch 3, changing both.

---

Let's start over by "polarizing" the GB sensors to more closely model polarized light behavior and see where that leads us.Polarized light doesn't care whether it is up or down in the orientation of the slits. I can model this with the GB sensors by squaring the {value} of cos(A), where A = angle from orientation of sensor to orientation of object, and:cos²(A){Values} have max = 1 at angle = 0^o (parallel orientation) and at angle = 180^o (also parallel orientation)cos²(A){values} have min = 0 at angle = 90^o (perpendicular orientation) and at angle = 270^o (also perpendicular orientation)I can accomplish the same thing by doubling the angle to measure cos(2A):cos(2A){Values} have max = 1 at angle = 0^o (parallel to slits) and at angle = 180^o (also parallel to slits)cos(2A){values} have min = -1 at angle = 90^o (perpendicular to slits) and at angle = 270^o (also perpendicular to slits)Mathematically these are the same relationship - (digs out old college math text ... "Calculus and Analytic Geometry" by Thomas, 3rd edition, p348 ...): The only difference is vertical offset of the axis by 1/2 maximum value, and the latter is better for our purposes as it allows a direct binary output ==> positive or negative values = green or red output repectively, just like the polarized light sensors.I believe this pattern of polarized light passing through polarized slits based on the angles of polarization of the light and the slits is also the same distribution of a cos²(A) pattern. Correct me if I'm wrong eh?Now we want to find an orientation for switch 2 such that I can flip the +/- polarization of switch 1 to -/+ and have no effect on the results of switch 2.In 3D space I can take any vector and switch the sign of the x values and have no effect on the y values or the z values, and I can likewise flip y and have no effect on x or z and flip z and have no effect on x or y. These are independent measurements.I can set up a pattern of vectors that is (get out your pencils):

+++ ++- +-+ +-- -++ -+- --+ ---
​
RRR RRG RGR RGG GRR GRG GGR GGG

Eight quadrants in space.To get this with the GB sensors I start with switch 1 in +/-{X} alignment - it measures {X}ness. The higher the absolute value the closer the orientation is to the X-axis. The higher the value² the closer the orientation is to the X-axis.I then find that switch 2 - in order to be able to flip the X values and have no effect on any of the measurements - has to be where {X}ness is 0, or at 90^o or 270^o to the X-axis, it has to measure {Y}ness. The higher the value² the closer the orientation is to the Y-axis.I also find that switch 3 - in order to be able to flip the X values AND the Y values and have no effect on any of the measurements has to be where {X}ness AND {Y}ness is 0, at 90^o or 270^o to both {1} and {2}, it has to measure {Z}ness. The higher the value² the closer the orientation is to the Z-axis.This is not what is done in the experiment though, is it? -- {Z}ness is not measured.We've taken the switches and put them at 120^o angles. This means that switches 2 and 3 measure some amount of {X}ness and some amount of {Y}ness.The amount of {X}ness is cos(120^o) or cos(240^o)
The amount of {Y}ness is sin(120^o) or sin(240^o)Remember that to polarize the sensors we have to double the angle -- or square the sines and cosines ...Anyone want to tell me what the cos²(120^o) is? cos²(240^o)? sin²(120^o)? sin²(240^o)?And ... that is why I think that the experiment -- if actually done with GB's -- will also give you a 50:50 distribution and NOT a 5/4 pattern.Feel free to correct my math and my logic.Bell's theorem may be correct, but this experiment does not demonstrate it.Are we having fun yet?Edited by RAZD, : fixed qb text line breaks

---

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.

How much Z do you think a photon posseses? Here's a clue... what speed is it travelling? What do we know about length in the direction of travel at that speed? Hence what do we know about polarization of a photon?You are barking up the wrong tree with this in trying to compare your GBs to the photons.As for the rest of your stuff, it will have to wait. I have just lost more business data than I could believe possible, and am having a nightmare.However, can you elucidate your new experiemntal set-up and tell me precisely what R and G correspond to for each switch setting. You seem to have lost your up/down by your squaring, so what are you left with???

I don't see how it can be polarized in Z - or have that measured - that's the problem with using polarized sensors, it's only 2D. Do polarized filters measure up/down? or alignment to the filter orientation?I thinking of a spreadsheet to run it. It may take a while I wish you well and a fast recovery ... think I'll run backup tonight ... been there, done that, hated the t-shirt.

---

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.

Thanks... it won't be though Can you believe I used to be a blue-chip risk management consultant? And I can't get my own f'ing back-ups sorted out!!! My head hurts so much from repeatedly smacking it against the wall... After this evening, every night is back-up night! Well, you're into quantum behaviour here. The filters pass or don't pass the photon. There is a 50% chance of making it through. But you either do or you don't. There can be no half-way house, no attenuation, as you are dealing with discrete photons.

btw read you link and followed some of the other links on the site.This page that presents the EPR paper has a nice little tid-bit:
(EPR Paper) The first situation is not surprising, really, but is usually what is trumpeted about as reasons to believe in entanglement. This seems to be the focus of most entanglement experiments, but in my mind it only makes entanglement possible but not necessary.The second situation makes it (very extremely etc) difficult for entanglement NOT to exist, and is a much more powerful argument. I'm surprised that this isn't used more often.(I had wondered if you couldn't test each part of an entangled pair to get around the uncertainty issue. You would think that if they were just coupled that you could, but this says not.)Thanks.(of course this does not mean that the "bell exeriment" really demonstrates either entanglement or Bell's Theorem ... {ducks})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.