Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375086
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Quantum Entanglement Question ? |
| Date | 2016-01-29 12:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgvsmfFbmhlU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <n87unf$33h$1@dont-email.me> <46-dnaX_CYPm4jrLnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <n889u4$1mi7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <8728e8e9-58c2-4e54-b170-e80875f3e577@googlegroups.com> |
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.
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