Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #374867 > unrolled thread

Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#374867 — Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#374886

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Lara Croft 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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374887

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 8:03:42 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Lara Croft 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?

All non local phenomena are beyond the realm of our controllable measure; thus, our sense of relativity of our local measures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375086

On 27/01/2016 1:03 PM, jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Lara Croft 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375089

> >> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375093

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375199

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 6:22:10 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else 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.
Light;s measurement is only statistical not individual
like atoms the quantities of light wave are astronomical.
New light by fission and fusion radiation means
the hypersphere universe is filling constantly
with more light. at the Big Bang there was first light
that light like all light gets redshifted by Hypersphere
universal expansion.

Stars are full of light the sustains there continuous
luminosity far beyond our puny hundreds of years of observation.
Give science 300 million years to construct the future
of the Herzsprung Russel diagram.

Prove that we have measured the right light waves from a
double emission. How have we observed double emission?
We would have to know where light is going to be absorbed..
Can we know by what atom to measure...?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375292

On 30/01/2016 11:37 AM, jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 6:22:10 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else 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.
> Light;s measurement is only statistical not individual
> like atoms the quantities of light wave are astronomical.
> New light by fission and fusion radiation means
> the hypersphere universe is filling constantly
> with more light. at the Big Bang there was first light
> that light like all light gets redshifted by Hypersphere
> universal expansion.
>
> Stars are full of light the sustains there continuous
> luminosity far beyond our puny hundreds of years of observation.
> Give science 300 million years to construct the future
> of the Herzsprung Russel diagram.
>
> Prove that we have measured the right light waves from a
> double emission. How have we observed double emission?
> We would have to know where light is going to be absorbed..
> Can we know by what atom to measure...?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Suppose it's the case that we cannot know whether any particular two 
photons were emitted together.

What do you think are the consequences of that?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375556

Użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

> Suppose it's the case that we cannot know whether any particular two
> photons were emitted together. 
> What do you think are the consequences of that?

Photon creation /detection is pure stochastic. What do you mean by 
"suppose"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375569

On 5/02/2016 7:44 AM, shan wrote:
> Użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:
>
>> Suppose it's the case that we cannot know whether any particular two
>> photons were emitted together.
>> What do you think are the consequences of that?
>
> Photon creation /detection is pure stochastic. What do you mean by
> "suppose"?
>

Posit.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web