On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: > Hi, > > I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two > *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one > another. > That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response > of the other (not caused by it). > Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball > of > any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball > of > the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first > saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The > separation distance is irrelevant. >
As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to *change* the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly.
