Dror

The curvuture is the product of gravity.. And gravity is the interaction between masses. If something has no mass why would it be affected by gravity - affected by the "curvuture"? I'm not trying to say einstein was wrong, I'm just trying to understand whats behind this.

This means that at the first cohesive interference to either of the particles (regardless of if it teaches anyone anything about their state) the entanglment is destroyed. Kind of useless then, and makes you wonder how did they even prove the entanglment in the first place.. Cohesion in reality really collapses ALL of the wavefunctions.. Just the cosmic background radiation is sufficient for that.. The question is, if after the collapse, a new wavefunction is born..? Saying that there isn't one just cause we don't know it is kind of baseless, and the uncertinty principle only strenghes that point in a wierd way.

If a photon has mass then it can't possibly reach the speed of light, but if a photon is massless then it can't be affected by gravitational fields, and surely in reality, it is affected. The way I see it, if a photon has 0 mass, then not even the mightiest of black holes can affect it's course.. One argument could be that the photon just transports mass from place to place, while not actually having the effects on itself. But, saying that theres no effect on the photon by the mass it carries, is like saying that the photon is not a player in the gravity game. Ofcourse this is a paradox.. And I'm probably missing something. Anyone?

I don't understand why that breaks the entanglment.

If it's possible to check one of the spins without chaging it, then this information COULD be transmitted to the reciever by classical means, when the transmiter and reciver are close, then the reciever can safly fly off 100 light years away, and recive data instantly from the transmiter. AGAIN, correct me...

Exactly what goverens the nature of an entanglment? Is it analogous to the observed path of a particle? As in, probabilistic? If you repeat the creation of 2 entangled particles twice, will the entanglment be different each time? And, (I'm probably wrong and that's why I'm asking) it isn't clear to me why the mesurment will destroy the entanglment.. At mesurment the uncertinty law will come into action, but I have a feeling that with good accurate framework for the protocol it is possible to yield a change of 0 probability at rest, and results in recodnision of intentional change at the recieving end. It depends if it's possible to say "This and that will not accure without further intervension, even after I messed around with the particle once". And further, if the reciving end program knows the nature of the intervension meant to convey 'change' to it, it might just have a pretty good idea of the nature of the entanglment with repect to the other particle. I admit this is a bit vague.. Correct me if I'm wrong.

By saying that entangled pairs are no longer entangled at encoding/decoding (Or any other means of disruption whatsoever), as a lot of you are saying at different threads, you are bassicaly saying that entanglment is nothing more then two particles born with the same properties. And, by that you are dismissing the whole notion of entanglment. That kind of contradicts the whole meaning of 'entanglment'. It makes an entangled pair nothing more then 2 particles with the same properties somewhere in the universe. (Sorry for repeating my self) A question: Does interfering with the first entangled particle causes the same interference in the second? Or for argument's sake, the implication of intereference on the first particle doesn't have to be the same as the implication on the second particle. As long as there is SOME implication on the second. If not, then entanglment is dismissed. If it is, then communication between entangled particles is possible with a very very clever protocol, The way I see it. (At no time at all, ofcourse). I'm no expert and would like to hear what you think.

By saying that entangled pairs are no longer entangled at encoding/decoding (Or any other means of disruption whatsoever) you are bassicaly saying that entanglment is nothing more then two particles born with the same properties. And, by that you are dismissing the whole notion of entanglment. That kind of contradicts the whole meaning of 'entanglment'. It makes an entangled pair nothing more then 2 particles with the same properties somewhere in the universe. (Sorry for repeating my self) A question: Does interfering with the first entangled particle causes the same interference in the second? Or for argument's sake, the implication of intereference on the first particle doesn't have to be the same as the implication on the second particle. As long as there is SOME implication on the second. If not, then entanglment is dismissed. If it is, then communication between entangled particles is possible with a very very clever protocol, The way I see it. (At no time at all, ofcourse).