swansont

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.

! Moderator Note Threads merged

I didn’t, either In that experiment. But that’s not the only way to do it. You can polarize it before, and then not do anything to the positions of the polarizers while obtaining which-path information. As I have pointed out before. If you want to show that polarization is the culprit, you would need to explain how that is possible.

Nobody said anything like that. There’s nothing legitimate to be gained by making the problem more complex. There is nothing about relativity that says anything about the number of cars being relative.

Why would air move, without a pressure difference? PV = nRT is approximately correct. If the lungs expand, V goes up, P goes down.

No, there is one train. If you had two, one could crash and the other not, but every observer has to agree events, like whether it crashed. The observers will disagree on what time and how far away the event occurred.

I don’t see how. The train isn’t in two places at once.

I must say you’re doing a poor job of explaining this. Especially since, as I said, you can do the experiment in such a way that you don’t change the polarization in the double-slit. You need to explain how that happens.

There are measurements you can do that show that the correlation is not because the particles were secretly in that state all along, which means they are entangled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Our current understanding of physics is that this is not possible. It’s not an engineering barrier to be overcome.

Yes. The length is relative (hence “relativity”). It depends on the observer.

If you have entangled spins the spins are correlated, but undetermined before measurement. e.g. if you measure an electron spin up, you know its entangled partner is spin down, but they did not have those spins prior to the measurement, unlike in a classical correlated system.