[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

I have a large block of cheese of two types each taking up one semicircle. I put the cheese in a box. I rotate the cheese box. I cut the cheese in half and put the halves in boxes without looking. I give the boxes to two strangers and tell them to go 1000 miles away. Then I ask them what percent of the cheese is one type and what percent is another.

Spooky how they both add up to 50%. Is the cheese entangled?

[baudrunner]

Uhmm, they should both add up to 100%. Given that you are talking about each box containing one-half of the total amount of cheese, then, yes, that would be 50% in each box, whether one contains 20% of the total of one type and therefore 80% of the total of the other type and then it would follow that the other box contains 80% of the total of the first type and therefore 20% of the total of the other type then each box would still contain 50% of the total amount of the two types of cheeses but if you are saying that each box contains 50% of each cheese then that would be a spooky co-incidence, wouldn't it? The only condition that I would see whereby the cheeses were entangled is if one of the types of cheeses were mozarella and the temperature in the boxes were high enough to melt the cheese then, yes, they would probably be entangled, but only locally.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

Uhmm, they should both add up to 100%. Given that you are talking about each box containing one-half of the total amount of cheese, then, yes, that would be 50% in each box, whether one contains 20% of the total of one type and therefore 80% of the total of the other type and then it would follow that the other box contains 80% of the total of the first type and therefore 20% of the total of the other type then each box would still contain 50% of the total amount of the two types of cheeses but if you are saying that each box contains 50% of each cheese then that would be a spooky co-incidence, wouldn't it? The only condition that I would see whereby the cheeses were entangled is if one of the types of cheeses were mozarella and the temperature in the boxes were high enough to melt the cheese then, yes, they would probably be entangled, but only locally.

I say they're entangled because they are split from that whole rather than being produced randomly.

I'm saying that they contain 50% of the whole not 50% exactly. And like the way you said 20% on one side 80% on the other.

My question is what's the difference between my not-melted-but-entangled pizza and entangled photons?

If the photons start out as opposites why shouldn't they be opposites when they're detected?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Dihydrogen Monoxide

I say they're entangled because they are split from that whole rather than being produced randomly.

I'm saying that they contain 50% of the whole not 50% exactly. And like the way you said 20% on one side 80% on the other.

My question is what's the difference between my not-melted-but-entangled pizza and entangled photons?

If the photons start out as opposites why shouldn't they be opposites when they're detected?

Hi DM, I'm not sure, but I think you are adopting the same argument as Einstein.

Einstein said that this is because the entangled particles were 'imprinted' with their properties prior to the time of their separation and therefore their properties can be known. (Einstein offered no explanation on how this imprinting occurs) This would seem to prove that QM is wrong, because QM says there is a degree of uncertainity about every particle and always will be.

The QM physicists dis-agreed with Einstein. This was the basis of the EPR paradox which was finally answered by an Irish Physicist named Bell and experimentally proved in the 60s.. The QM physicists were proven right.

You need to research on Bell's Theorem.

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Hi DM, I'm not sure, but I think you are adopting the same argument as Einstein.

Einstein said that this is because the entangled particles were 'imprinted' with their properties prior to the time of their separation and therefore their properties can be known. (Einstein offered no explanation on how this imprinting occurs) This would seem to prove that QM is wrong, because QM says there is a degree of uncertainity about every particle and always will be.

The QM physicists dis-agreed with Einstein. This was the basis of the EPR paradox which was finally answered by an Irish Physicist named Bell and experimentally proved in the 60s.. The QM physicists were proven right.

You need to research on Bell's Theorem.

cool bananas ... greg

Woah, back up.

First of all every particle in the universe is imprinted with the following Emergent properties:
Conservation of energy
Conservation of properties which are opposites such as clockwise or counterclockwise spin
And of course the speed limit c.

The final properties are applied at the time of the split not before. Not quite what Einstein said.

When you have two entangled photons by definition they have opposite spin. Why would we expect that to change in the results, even if measurements are taken at different angles?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Dihydrogen Monoxide

The final properties are applied at the time of the split not before. Not quite what Einstein said.

Nothing can be known with certainty.

Originally Posted by Dihydrogen Monoxide

When you have two entangled photons by definition they have opposite spin.

Only if they are measured from the same axis of spin.

Originally Posted by Dihydrogen Monoxide

Why would we expect that to change in the results, even if measurements are taken at different angles?

Because the axis of spin is always perpendicular to the detector, regardless of the detection angle, another QM quirk. When both detectors are aligned the results are always as you describe.

But when they are not aligned, it is not always so. If you take measurements from 3 different angles, say 120 degrees apart and label them A, B, C

Then whenever you are aligned at AA, BB, CC then 100% correct for that alignment, but only 33% over all alignments. For there are 6 other possible combinations. AB AC BA BC CA CB. When these are also correllated it can be shown statistically that there is a greater correllation than can be accounted for by Einsteins point of view. But Qm predicts this with accuracy.

That is ... The uncertainity is in the particles themselves .. uncertainty is part of the fabric of matter ... regardless of our observations.

Didn't mean to be offensive ....

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Nothing can be known with certainty.

Seems a little circular to start from there and arrive at it.

Only if they are measured from the same axis of spin.

Because the axis of spin is always perpendicular to the detector, regardless of the detection angle, another QM quirk.

Why do textbooks leave that out? Finally, I get some answers. I mean it changes everything.

When both detectors are aligned the results are always as you describe.

But when they are not aligned, it is not always so. If you take measurements from 3 different angles, say 120 degrees apart and label them A, B, C

Then whenever you are aligned at AA, BB, CC then 100% correct for that alignment, but only 33% over all alignments. For there are 6 other possible combinations. AB AC BA BC CA CB. When these are also correllated it can be shown statistically that there is a greater correllation than can be accounted for by Einsteins point of view. But Qm predicts this with accuracy.

That is ... The uncertainity is in the particles themselves .. uncertainty is part of the fabric of matter ... regardless of our observations.


Didn't mean to be offensive ....

none taken

I just hate Prussian pure left brain teaching methods which give you enough to be a trained monkey but not enough to understand.

The perpendicular measurement makes a lot of sense to me. If you could measure the magnetic field that would tell you zip about the electric field. I'll be damned, it makes so much sense now that you told me that. I hate the US education system.

I still have to think about it. I consider perpendicular to imply complex numbers and complex numbers are a funny way of expressing a value and a rate of change together in one elegant package.

cool bananas ... greg

[/quote]

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Seriously speaking that did it.

Forget spin. OMFG. This is huge.

I'll post tomorrow afternoon. I'm getting chills.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Dihydrogen Monoxide

The perpendicular measurement makes a lot of sense to me. If you could measure the magnetic field that would tell you zip about the electric field. I'll be damned, it makes so much sense now that you told me that.

On rereading this part of your post, I decided to check up on the word 'perpendicular'

What I meant by this was that when you 'observe' a particle, you always find yourself looking down the axis. You don't get a choice.

Hope I didn't mislead.

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

On rereading this part of your post, I decided to check up on the word 'perpendicular'

What I meant by this was that when you 'observe' a particle, you always find yourself looking down the axis. You don't get a choice.

You mean like looking at a specimen under a microscope?

Hope I didn't mislead.

cool bananas ... greg

Well, looking is relative to where we're getting results from. Even if we were looking elsewhere, our terminology would be biased toward the point of view of the results looking at us.