Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375093
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? |
| Date | 2016-01-29 13:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dh00mfFcgnoU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <46-dnaX_CYPm4jrLnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <n889u4$1mi7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <8728e8e9-58c2-4e54-b170-e80875f3e577@googlegroups.com> <dgvsmfFbmhlU1@mid.individual.net> <8fcfcee1-0356-4549-abc4-5c8bc6068040@googlegroups.com> |
On 29/01/2016 12:42 PM, jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> >>>>>> And, does the second particle assume the "state" of the first, or the >>>>>> opposite state after the first is observed ? Thanks, Bob >>>>> >>>>> Bob, try thinking of an entangle pair, triple or group as a single >>>>> quantum entity. >>>> >>>> Scientists Could Simulate Alien Abductions over 20 Years Ago >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48RX6xqKjnU >>> >>> Its nonlocal probability wave interference... >>> >>> But nonlocal won't work. >>> >>> How do we see a double opposite emission of light. >>> How do we know the two photons that come out? >>> have we observed it? >>> >>> >>> >> It's not necessary to know. The experiment looks at the correlation >> between photons that are emitted within some narrow period. The >> correlation is too high for a local model. This result is consistent >> with the majority of the pairs of photons being entangled, but the >> validity of the experimental outcome doesn't depend on that being what's >> actually happening. >> >> Sylvia. > > How do we verify double emission of light in opposite directions? > How would we know we are dealing with that doubled photon? > Statistically this is so far than reasonable as to be ruled out > by astronomical quantities of light waves. Which one do we measure... > Light is like atoms in quantity; there are so many we would never > know if we measured any particular one. Light is statistically > measured. > > We would need to weigh energy at absorption. > This is the only property to measure that would > tell us anything; and it is so far from being probable to do. > If measurement is out we need not pretend we know that something. > > Light is a dual force with the EM Forces manifesting as two waves... > but what about the third wave of probability wave function? > > Light is a double force with a third wave... this is bad theory > probability waves have been replaced in Quantum Mechanics > with an Einsteinian order theory. > > Mitchell Raemsch > There seems little point in my repeating myself. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? Lara Croft <character@development.org> - 2016-01-26 17:21 +0000
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-26 18:03 -0800
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 18:28 -0800
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-29 12:13 +1100
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-28 17:42 -0800
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-29 13:22 +1100
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-29 16:37 -0800
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-31 21:26 +1100
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-04 20:44 +0000
Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:21 +1100
csiph-web