swansont

I invite you to try solving Maxwell's equations to obtain a wave equation with c being variable.

I assume you are referring to the statement "In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the other(s)" which is because you need to write the wave function in terms of the entangled superposition, rather than the separable individual wave functions. If you can write it as |s1>|s2> you can focus on just one of them. But if it's |s1s2> you can't.

This is not apparent to the people responding to you A number of your questions have been answered and points refuted, which are direct responses. SR has been verified countless times, so yes, SR is true. That's the baseline for any science discussion.

! Moderator Note Moved, because this is not a "Lounge" topic Radio receivers regularly have to compensate for Doppler shifts in spacecraft. It would be true for relativistic speeds, too. The bandwidth would be important as well, since having a narrow frequency sensitivity is how the Pound-Rebka experiment worked edit: I can't recall if it was reading about voyager or pioneer craft (or perhaps some other mission) where I first encountered this, but the receiver had to be tuned depending on the time of day, owing to the changing Doppler shift of the signal from the earth rotation

But you don't know one, unless you've measured it.

You said I see opinion is divided on this. And of course the object of this thread is to give the whole subject a proper airing. which is the bit I was responding to Seeing as he described something as THE characteristic trait of QM, it doesn't sound to me like generalization would be embraced in this case. Plus the faulty syllogism (that mathematicians generalize some things, does not imply all mathematicians generalize all things) The description is of the system before measurement, before you know the state of a particular electron.

If you want verification of Maxwell, all you have to do is test if your radio works when you are in a moving car, which is evidence we've had for some time now. The EM wave equation works, and relies on c being invariant.

The term "entanglement" entered the scientific lexicon after the EPR paradox paper was published, in a response by Schrödinger. He used a German term (Verschränkung), and translated that as entanglement. "I would not call [entanglement] one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement So the person that coined the term did so to describe quantum behavior and argued that entanglement was a purely quantum phenomenon. It's used to describe a situation that cannot be replicated in classical systems, which means there is no classical entanglement.

And every observer will agree with this. What it looks like depends on the observer. Your personal model of how this works is wrong and needs to be abandoned.

You can shield E&M fields This is not so simple that such a blanket statement applies. Neutrons, for example, have a magnetic moment. You can induce dipole moments in neutral atoms.

Will you explain how? I really hope you aren’t going to make me keep asking you for specifics. There’s no quantum mechanics here, thus, no entanglement But it has to be a Bell experiment, which is not generally the case. It must be the case that you can’t separate the wave function - it’s in a superposition of the states.

Citation needed

You need to explain how the properties are entangled

Particles in ion traps have been entangled. ”With such 'traps', atomic ions can be stored nearly indefinitely and can be localized in space to within a few nanometres” (captured text from “ion trap entanglement” search; Blatt, R., Wineland, D. Entangled states of trapped atomic ions. Nature 453, 1008–1015 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07125

Please, please, please read the description of the experiment I posted, because this is flat-out wrong, it’s been rebutted, and it’s getting tiresome to keep reading it. Your last justification of this claim didn’t actually support it, so where are you getting this information? And the experiment is using circular polarization, so this doesn’t apply anyway. Diffraction and interference are not the same, and this has been pointed out before. With one source, there is no interference. Then give a proper citation. Though the odds are excellent that it’s an explanation that has since been discredited.

So what? We aren’t bonobos. So we’re talking about being offended?Are you sure about the guy not being offended by staring? Do women who wear less get offended in this way? Do you have any evidence to offer here, or are we just going with assertions?

When the which-path is available you don’t have an interference pattern. Which is it? If you have an interference pattern, as you acknowledge above, you have destructive interference. Since this does not address what I said, I will ask again: how do you have interference? The 1st law is “Two orthogonal, coherent linearly polarized waves cannot interfere.” Nothing about interfering rapidly. And since we do this without linearly polarized light, why do you continue to bring it up?

! Moderator Note If you’re going to suggest mainstream physics is found wanting, you need to have a testable model to present. Do you have one?

I guess not. I don’t see a connection. There is no “classical entanglement” (if there is such a thing) in your example. With spin or polarization, you know the two possible outcomes, and know how they must relate to each other. So this “further information” is available.

! Moderator Note Split, as this has nothing to with the relativity question under consideration in the other thread

This is unclear to me. Are you asking about dress code rules? It seems like that where you’re going but there’s no actual question I can parse. Also you’re discussing laws but posted this in psychology. Please clarify. ”revealing clothing” rules are generally applied to women/girls, which is sexist. There’s an implied expectation that the men/boys can’t just refrain from bad behavior. (i.e. women are temptresses and men can’t help themselves) But this is both misguided and it doesn’t seem to be applied the other way around.

Pulling random gloves from a pile (or balls from a bag) is a straight probability calculation. The glove’s handedness is determined even if not known. My point was that there are limitations to saying the correlation is higher in quantum systems; it’s true in a Bell’s inequality experiment. It’s a case of classical physics not explaining the degree of correlation. But the underlying behavior is quantum - measuring a spin or polarization is not the same as determining the handedness of a glove. There’s no glove measurement analogue to putting the polarizers at 0 degrees and 45 degrees for photons.

I disagree. If I have a left glove and a right glove, they are correlated 100%, and you can’t get stronger than that. One special component of entanglement is that the states are undetermined until measured, not just hidden from observation.

But it has been done that way. Walborn, Terra Cunha, Padua, and Monken PRA 65, 033818, 2002 https://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/_amarch/eraser/index.html But it doesn't. The entangled partner allows you to know which path, without doing anything to the photon going through the double slit. The proposal that "the two beams interfere so rapidly and in such a random manner that the light is no longer coherent."? Show that this is the case, then. Nothing has changed with the light, so why do the beams "interfere more rapidly"? Oh, well, that's just science, right? Oh, wait, no, that’s the fallacy of argument by personal incredulity If the photon only goes through one slit, how can you have interference? How are they showing which path? Where is the linear polarization in the double slit beams in the experiment I've linked to? Again, the experiment I've discussed uses circular polarization and shows interference. That's because there are multiple ways of doing the experiment, which is often the case for complex experiments, where each step might have multiple options. There are even multiple ways to do two-beam interference, without the additional parts for quantum erasure, and for delayed choice.

If you could entangle these properties it would apply, but you would have to formulate it in an appropriate fashion. Not all correlations imply entanglement. If a particle at rest alpha decays, for example, there us a correlation between the kinetic energy of daughter and alpha, But there is no entanglement, as these KE values are known.