Quantum Entanglement - what is it?

Not betting but pretty confident in my logical ability. First, you will have seen where I calculated the probabilities of a single particle going through two detectors, the first one the standard "bell" {A} detector and the second the standard "bell" {B} detector. Only the ones that met the condition of the {A} detector being considered were passed on to detector {B}, and the probabilities of the orientations for passing through both detectors with the different test conditions were summed and the total probabilities determined for each possible setting.Let me repeat the result for the "type group" here:From this group you can get all the other results by "rotating" the whole set-up but leaving the switch ID #'s in place.Do you agree with that prediction for an entangled pair of photons to pass the two detectors simultaneously?Now I do exactly the same thing, except that I do not select only the ones that met the condition of the {A} detector to limit the ones that were passed to detector {B} but took all comers, and the probabilities of the orientations for passing through both detectors with the different test conditions were summed and the total probabilities determined for each possible setting.In this case the results for the "type group" were:Please note that the total end result is exactly the same and there is a predicted 50:50 result from the Gyro Boxes.What is different is the distribution of the results.The 5/9 analysis is bogus. I get the feeling that no-one ever tested it, but just assumed that the math was correct eh? (Can I get my favorite dig in here? :rolleyes. Needless to say, I am ...... not impressed Enjoy.

---

Anyone who wants to check my math MAY be able to download the spreadsheet (the smaller version with just the "Type Group" calculations} -- it's only 144KB -- here (my browser trys to open it as a website, and then I have to SAVE-AS and then open it):http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/QuantumBell.odsIt's open office suite, not excel.

---

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.

And again at each subsequent detector? or do we break entanglement somewhere\somehow?I'm still having trouble with the red ones, they aren't entangled to the green ones (that we know of ) and there is no logical reason to collapse -- is there?

---

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.

Entanglement gets broken after the first collapse in this kind of experiment. In a different situation there might still be entanglement left after a partial collapse if there was some aspect of the quantum estate that was still undeterminate after it. I`m not sure I understand that question.

.Edited by JustinC, : off-mark

quote:

---

I'd added it up as:

​

1-1 tested 2 times
2-2 tested 2 times
3-3 tested 2 times
1-2 tested 3 times
2-1 tested 3 times
2-3 tested 3 times
3-2 tested 3 times
1-3 tested 3 times
3-1 tested 3 times
sum 24 tests
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 ...

---

Looking at this now, I don't really know what you think you are trying to show.By showing that the 50% same pattern can be generated is pretty trivial; this is the experimental result. The hard part is showing how the 11GG 11RR 22GG etc. pattern can be generated in conjunction with these results. Why doesn't 11 ever produce GR or RG in your grids?So how do you get that correspondence? Cavediver proposed a triplet code, but we all know how that turned out....Maybe you can point me to a post in which you explained this correspondece?Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring you. The loss wasn't as bad as I feared but I still have much to do. I will get back to this...

Photon's don't have a concept of some fixed "orientation". Look at the triple filter that fallacycop mentioned.Hopefully have more time later.

I haven't got time to study this as carefully as I would like, and hence I am very confused by what you are doing here. Firstly, I thought you were talking about photons. When did you switch back to GBs?Can you be very clear and express how your gyros can give the observed statistics?

That the 5/9 grid analysis is bogus. Because it is an assumed condition of the 5/9 grid analysis. That is why it is bogus, it eliminates half the data for three sets in the analysis but not for any of the others.

---

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.

That was in the question you asked in the post I replied to. Send the same gyro or photon or whatever through two filtersIn one case you assume that the first (A) filter removes half the particles from the stream - the ones with the "RED" response - so only the "GREEN" ones proceed to filter {B}In the other case you assume that the first {A} filter does NOT remove half the particles from the stream - so both "RED" and "GREEN" proceed to filter {B}

---

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 a fragile web we weave eh? The green ones get "focused" by the polarizing filter into the filter orientation - that gives them the 50% chance at the 45 degree followup.How do the red ones know how to aquire the orientation that always produces a red answer? They don't go through a polarizing filter that gives them an orientation, so they can be anywhere in the red zone.

---

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.

Ok, let's try and sort out this mess before anymore analysis. There are too many issues flying around.We have two things here:The actual experiment - do you agree that the experimental results reveal quantum behaviour, inexplicable by classical reasoning? Or do you still think that you can replicate these results using classical objects? If the latter, please lay out your framework for doing this.Bell's Theorem and the grid - you seem to be saying that you believe that the 3-way coding is not a demonstration of Bell's Theorem. You think the 5/9, 4/9 analysis is bogus. Of course it is assumed!!! We are trying to replicate the experimental results: 100% of 11, 22, 33 produce RR or GG. All we are trying to do is find a coding that replicates what we see.I'm sorry, I may be being dense but i cannot follow this whatsoever. Yes, there are three times (11, 22, 33) when the filters align and there are six times (12, 13, 21, 23, 13, 31) when they 120 degrees apart. So what?Do you believe the experimental data-sets as I have described them?

Now I understand. Think of the filter as a sphinx asking the photons a question : "are you paralel to me or are you perpendicular to me?" If the photons answer "I`m paralel", the sphinx says "You can pass". IF the photons answer "I`m perpendicular", the sphinx says "you shall not pass". The former are the "green" photons, and the latter are the "red" photons. Both of them have to answer the question posed and, therefore, become polarized.

Oh I wish I did I've never seen anything so confusing as RAZD imparting classical properties to photons in such a confident manner. I'm just left spluttering, but, but, but at the screen... it's like someone saying "aren't the breannies swimping nicely for this time of year". How do you reply???

My understanding is restricted to that one question I was answering. I don`t understand his classical photons either.