At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>mix...@bigpond.com 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.
I tried to write a response to Roarty's comment and found it
difficult to distinguish the "change" from there simply being a
maintained difference from the beginning. If I'm correct, the
separated entities (photons, atoms, electrons) behave as a
superposition of states, which would show up as being able to pop up
as either state, and also to interfere with themselves, as in a
two-slot experiment (which requires that they be superpositions, if
I'm correct, i.e., "waves" rather than "particles,"), but then, when
one is "collapsed" into a unique state, the other behaves, then, as
the opposite state only. This is the "spooky action at a distance"
that Einstein was concerned about.
Roarty's comment assumes that the two entangled entitys are "really"
only one or the other state, from the beginning.
I searched for and found no really good explanations of quantum
entanglement and why this interpretation isn't considered legitimate,
but my sense is that this is because it then leaves unexplained the
behavior of each particle, before one is "revealed," and the other
then is revealed immediately as the opposite, as if it is both states at once.
Mauro, how can you tell the difference between the "pair of
switches," with one of the pair in one state and the other in the
other, from the beginning, only hidden, from quantum entanglement,
which assumes that both switches are in both states until one is
checked, and then both are revealed. All the explanations I saw did
not explain why one would follow the "both-states" interpretation. I
think it has to do with the behavior of each "particle" prior to
collapse, just as a beam of electrons impinging on two slits will
form an interference pattern on a screen, as if each electron goes
through two holes, as a wave, but anything that one does to cause or
determine that a particular electron goes only through one hole will
eliminate the interference pattern, and one will get only an image of
each hole from the separate passages.
