bangstrom

I make no claims to understand all of it. Is this even a question? “You have placed the germ of the answer in your use of 'former partner'. I was waiting for you to explain what you meant. There is no need to know anything about the spin states of a Cooper pair. I explained how it is done with diamonds and there are articles that explain how it is done if you care to look. It is done by illuminating the diamonds with lasers and wait for them to emit a pair of entangled photons. They measure the spin state of the electrons indirectly by observing circular polarization of the photons emitted. They measure the polarizations by an unusual method using lasers that I am not familiar with but I am looking into how it is done. Absolutely not. Where did you get that crazy idea? I know what isn’t entanglement when it is obvious that it isn’t. This is why Ghideon's explanation fails the Bell test by its lack of possible anti-coordinated combinations. If two people get married, they instantly become husband and wife at the pronouncement. But at the same pronouncement, if one is alive, the other drops dead. I have studied the maths of Bell's Inequalities. I am always open to new ideas. I am open to open old ideas if I find them to be sensible and logical. But, old ideas that have been debunked for more than fifty years- not so much. That is things things like the non-existence of non-locality (instant action at a distance) or hidden variables with entanglement.

The twins paradox still includes a time dilation as a part of the explanation. The other part is travel through space and then how to combine the two. Einstein said gravity and acceleration are equivalent. We can ignore gravity for the twin in space but the twin in space has to deal with acceleration. As you probably know, gravity is defined as curved spacetime and acceleration is likewise curved spacetime. It is hard to visualize how either space or time can curve so I prefer to think of gravity as shorter space and slower time. The space traveling twin experiences a greater acceleration than his Earthbound brother so, just as a greater gravitational field slows time, greater acceleration slows time by an equal amount. So the space traveling twin’s clock ticks slower and he ages less than his brother. Acceleration is the physical mechanism that slows time. If the space traveler is traveling to a destination a light year away, averaging 80% the speed of light, he will reach his destination in half the estimated time by his clock because he is either accelerated by speeding up or slowing to a stop. And it will be the same as he returns to Earth. If he measures his travel distance by time, he will say he made the trip to his destination and back in one year instead of the expected two years and he will have aged by one year while gone. His twin will have aged by two years if he was away form Earth’s gravity. But by any observation, if he traveled by train and measured the distance by the number of ties in the track, all observers would say he traveled the same distance in ties crossed. But he covered the distance in half the expected time so he took a shortcut through spacetime. I like to think if the little squares on a Minkowski or Epstein diagram as little time zones. Each square you pass in any direction is essentially a trip to an earlier time zone. Travel through space is simultaneously travel through both space and time as Minkowski said. Each time zone you cross whether coming or going subtracts a little time from your clock.

Please, please don't ask me about electrons in a hydrogen molecule! I am avoiding that question like the corona. You didn't specify what you were asking for in your question, "Can you provide an actual example of the circumstances for these two electrons ?" so I didn't know what what kind of answer you were expecting. Why do you think I don't know there are two electrons in a hydrogen molecule and they are entangled? The electrons in the electron clouds of all the elements are also entangled. In ultra-cold superconducting materials, electrons circulate as entangled pairs called Cooper pairs. They are forced to quantum tunnel out of the superconductor by the application of a high voltage at which time the entangled electrons separate naturally by mutual repulsion as they leave in different directions. https://news.softpedia.com/news/Extracting-Entangled-Electrons-from-Superconductors-124341.shtml "Extracting Entangled Electrons from Superconductor In its experiments, the UB team used an innovative approach to mining the electrons out of the material. It created an aluminum superconductor and attached nanowires to it that could have represented the particles' way out. Ironically, the key to the entire process did not prove to be offering the electron pairs a way out, but actually preventing them from getting out. When a high voltage was applied to the nanowires, they started acting like barriers, and electrons are known to perform something called quantum tunneling when presented with such an obstacle. The pairs essentially drill their way out through the barrier, at a very small pace, allowing the researchers to catch and isolate them as they emerge. As they exit the superconductor and the nanowires, the electrons' natural repulsion force kicks in, and the pair splits. Each nanowire has a junction, and each of the possible avenues can only house one electron. Using this method, the UB team was able to produce and then separate streams of entangled electrons" The Henson experiment in 2015 used a similar method to obtain their entangled electrons. They started with an ultra-cold superconducting ring of graphene and allowed the separated entangled electrons to stream into opposite pieces of artificial diamond. The carbon lattice of an artificial diamond contains traces of accidental nitrogen atoms in place of carbon and the gaps between the N and C atoms creates an environment called a 'hollow' which is attracting to electrons. This is the method they used to create a pair of diamonds containing opposite pairs of entangled electrons for their experiments in Delft. The entangled electrons are stable within the diamonds and they can be transported without disturbing the entanglement. Ghideon's example has nothing to do with entanglement. It is simply an example of changing the name of states with no physical interactions. The examples with boxes of socks and gloves are strictly classical and have been invalidated by Bell and the experiments by Aspect and Clauser and Zeilinger's teleportation would not work if the analogies were true. The idea that, "Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant." implies the presence of a hidden variable. That has been debunked by the violation of Bell's inequality and double debunked by Henson et al.'s experiments in Delft.

Your question made no sense. “Really? A real signal, i.e. transferring information (and therefore at least a minimum amount of energy)? Or will you beg the question, and will give entanglement as example? So, please, give an example of such a signal, but not concerning entanglement.” Your question is asking for, a real signal transferring information and energy but not entanglement. That is any ordinary signal. It could be a signal with a bell or a postal letter or a signal with flags. That can't be what your asking for. If you are asking for a signal without a transfer of energy, I gave you one and that is entanglement. If you want a signal with entanglement and a transfer of energy, I gave you one. If you want an example of a signal without a transfer of energy, I can't think of any example except entanglement. And if you want an example with exactly what you asked for, I just gave you three. And this post via computer is four.

Henson’s experiments were made beyond light-like which means they were made beyond the reach of a light signal in order to close ‘locality loop’. In reverse of the usual practice, the emitters were beyond reach of a light signal with a single detector near but not exactly in the center. I am not confident enough to describe how Henson’s experiment works except to say that it involves a single photon detector to detect photons from two stationary sources that contain entangled electrons embedded in a diamond material. When illuminated by a laser, the diamonds emit streams of photons and vary rarely they emit a pair of entangled photons from a pair of entangled electrons. One photon simultaneously from two remote sources. A coincidence detector identifies the entangled photons and sends a ‘ring’ signal to the detector to start recording for a narrow window of time when the photons arrive. As I recall the spin states of the electrons is interpreted from the interference pattern of the photons since the photons are also entangled with the electrons. It’s complicated. Don't bother, the socks don't fit the widows.

I agree this is a superb example. That was the worst explanation of entanglement I have ever seen. If that is entanglement, then Aspect and Clauser got the Nobel for discovering that entanglement is a matter of changing the names on particles. It doesn't know, why should It ? The quantum properties of both entangled particles are random and changing on both ends of the entanglement until one property of the two is measured. The particles can be widely separated, and because of the distance between them, one particle shouldn’t ‘know’ what is happening to its partner without some form of communication between them and time for the communication to reach it. If a pair of entangled electrons is generated and a one sent in one direction and the other is sent in another direction the measurement of a single property of one electron, the spin direction for example, instantly establishes the identity of both separated electrons and quantum properties of the two will be found to be anti-correlated. Even if the the electrons are far apart and before a light signal has time to reach the second electron to get the message and ‘know’ which property was observed and how it should be oriented. https://www.tudelft.nl/en/dossiers/loophole-free-bell-test-tu-delft-crowns-80-years-old-debate-on-nature-of-reality-einsteins-spooky-action-is-real “Quantum mechanics states that a particle such as an electron can be in two different states at the same time, and even in two different places, as long as it is not observed. This is called ‘superposition’ and it is a very counter-intuitive concept”, says lead scientist Professor Ronald Hanson. Hanson’s group works with trapped electrons, which have a tiny magnetic effect known as a “spin” that can be pointing up, or down, or - when in superposition - up and down at the same time. “Things get really interesting when two electrons become entangled. Both are then up and down at the same time, but when observed one will always be down and the other one up. They are perfectly correlated, when you observe one, the other one will always be opposite. That effect is instantaneous, even if the other electron is in a rocket at the other end of the galaxy”, says Hanson.

Again use of vague concepts. What does 'grounded' mean here? That the experiment happens to be done in an inertial frame? How is that statement vague? 'Grounded' in the local reference frame means it is based upon the local reference frame or it uses the local reference frame. And don't you have the same usage in German 'auf gegrundet'? That is a bit of confusion that kept things going. I kept saying that outside observations have no effect on the results of the experiment while "joigus" and others kept saying that outside observers see events in a different order so no one can say which came first. I was thinking of the experiment only while "joigus" and some others were discussing an Alice and Bob type scenario where SR matters. That was an unfortunate confusion that never should have happened but it did. My arguments were based on the experiment and the particles involved so I kept insisting that the SR differences of outside observers have no effect on the results. It is not so simple. For one thing, as I have explained before, you have the wrong idea about what a "preferred frame of reference" is and why it is prohibited by SR. Can you define what you mean by a preferred frame of reference? Also consider this, if Alice is next to the detector on the far left and Bob is next to the detector on the far right and the entangled particles reach both detectors at measurably the same instant relative to their origin at the center. Alice will say the particle arrived at her detector first and Bob will say the particle arrived his detector first. This should indicate that they, like all outside observers, are not in exactly the same reference frame as the experiment itself so they are in no position to say which particle was detected first. Others, and if I recall you are among them, say it is impossible to say which came first because the observation is relative. This is essentially saying outside observers can affect the order of events. I say there has to be a first by some tiny amount of time and the particles know which was observed first. It is not for outside observers to decide. Yes, the detectors are space-like separated even if they are both visible. If they are beyond the range of a light signal, they are light-like separated. See the definitions from physics.stackexchange.com/questions below. Spacelike separation means that there exists a reference frame where the two events occur simultaneously, but in different places. Timelike separation means that there exists a reference frame where the two events occur at the same place, but at different times. Lightlike means that, well, light could travel between those points. You seem to be avoiding quite a few questions put to you, and just repeating the same things over and over again. Your question was strange but I did answer it. The detectors may be space-like separated but they are not light-like separated for the operators so nothing superluminal was required. The detectors are only light-like separated when the signal between them is superluminal. There are ways of changing the detectors at superluminal speeds like for experiments involving Wheeler’s delayed choice but that was not one of them. If anyone thinks I didn’t answer their question their response should be- as was yours, ‘You didn’t my question about...’ And if they didn’t like my answer they should explain why and not just repeat the same question expecting a different answer. That would save a lot of miscommunication. And don't complain, 'You didn't answer my question,' without explaining what it was and expect me to guess.

No, a 'preferred frame of reference' is an unworkable cosmological reference frame. That is the kind of "preferred" frame that is prohibited. It's an unfortunate and confusing use of the word 'preferred'. This example should be non-controversial enough. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/ Previous experiments led by Graham Fleming, a physical chemist holding joint appointments with Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley, pointed to quantum mechanical effects as the key to the ability of green plants, through photosynthesis, to almost instantaneously transfer solar energy from molecules in light harvesting complexes to molecules in electrochemical reaction centers. Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum effects. When two quantum-sized particles, for example a pair of electrons, are “entangled,” any change to one will be instantly reflected in the other, no matter how far apart they might be. Though physically separated, the two particles act as a single entity.

The entanglement experiment is grounded in the local reference frame of the experiment itself. The Alice and Bob scenario involves the SR observations of two outside observers. Their observations have no affect on the timing or calculations of the local reference frame and the experimental setup is blind to both classical and SR variations in timing by its perfectly symmetrical design so SR variations need not be considered. I agree, SR works differently in individual references frame so we can compare. That is what I have been saying all along. Observations outside the local reference frame do not change the local reference frame.

Apparently we have been discussing two different pictures. I have been discussing the entanglement experiment the whole time and you appear to have been discussing an Alice and Bob scenario and that is a disconnect that appears to have lead to some major confusion. To go back to the beginning, I said the first particle observed decides the quantum properties for both entangled particles. Someone asked. “How do you know which particle was observed first?” A sensible question. I said there is rarely a need to know which came first but the experimenters can decide which particle they choose to measure first. That means they can choose to measure the particle that went to the left first- or- they can measure the particle that went to the right first. It all depends on how they setup the experiment prior to each run. You said I know nothing about SR because I failed to consider the SR observations from outside observers. I explained that SR may work but it does not work across reference frames. SR can not change the order of events in the experiment so SR is irrelevant to the experiment and its calculations. The setup of the experiment itself decides the order of events. I don’t know where Alice and Bob came from but that was never my view. Does that clarify things? A “preferred inertial frame of reference” has a specific meaning in physics (look it up) and it is prohibited by SR. But nothing in SR prohibits designating your local frame as your center of discussion to the exclusion of all others. How exactly do they decide, or synchronize if you will, without super-luminal communication ? Please explain the process for space-like separated experiments/observations. What I said is in reference to the experiment itself. The experimenters can decide which particle to measure first as part of the setup of the detectors in the experiment. My FoR was always the local RF of the experiment itself. The signal (if there is one) is an important consideration. If there is one, it would likely be two, as with Cramer's or Wheeler-Feynman's advanced and retarded waves extending both forward and backward in time.

There is rarely any need to know which measurement came first but it is possible to do so. One entangled particle goes to a detector on the left and another goes to the right. The experimenters can decide to move one detector closer to the source so that side becomes the first particle to be measured because the particle with the shortest distance to travel is the first to reach a detector. Easy-peasey. You are just giving a person or particle a different name. That is by no means entanglement.

Information has no energy and a signal need not be energy bearing. The question is, if an electron on one end of an entanglement is found to be spin-up, how does it's former partner in the entanglement instantly 'know' it should be spin-down? Simultaneous within the reference frame of the experiment itself and its measurements. Or, simultaneous relative to the origin of the entangled particles if you want to be really precise. The detectors are ideally widely spaced so the events will never be simultaneous to all observers but that has no relevance to the experiment or its measurements since outside observations can not change the results.

That's what I said. If it matters to know which measurement came first, the experimenters can decide which to measure first. I have explained many, many times I understand this. What are you saying I don't understand? Agreed, a purely space-like separation has no timely order. Also, the term 'privileged reference frame' is specifically a cosmological term and one that I would not use in reference to an ordinary reference frame so your claim that I did had me confused. I understand the point you were making but, in reality, when two different measurements are made in the 'real' world it has to be nearly impossible to make both measurements at absolutely and precisely the same femtosecond or less so there will always be a first measured. I know you say there is no message. But I say there does appear to be evidence of a signal and response and that is suggestive of a message being sent and received so I am not convinced. Different observers seeing signals going in different directions is a well understood phenomenon of SR. It may be counter intuitive but I don't understand how it means there is no signal. It also makes no difference to the measurements at the local level of the experiment itself. . That seems incompatible with Special Relativity. Clarification: I'm sure the actual experiment is consistent with Special Relativity, your explanation is not. Agreed, changing the names to first observed and second observed or to widow and widower has nothing to do with SR. Also, the experiments with entanglement are consistent with SR because they are designed with SR in mind. They are perfectly symmetrical with pairs of entangled particles originating in the precise center between two measuring devices so the measurements on both ends are made simultaneously. This eliminates any time variations due to either classical or relativistic variations. Very much so- right from the start. Could it be that the common wave function that “defines” the correlation is a form of ‘signal’ that maintains correlation? I don’t find the view that a correlation is because “it simply is” as explanatory when the quantum identities are indeterminate until observed and entangled particles always appear anti-coordinated even when separated by a great distance.

Yes, you did: 23 hours ago, Eise said: I never claimed the inertial frame of the experiment was a ‘privileged’ frame. Sorry, the first part or this was omitted so I will repeat it in the next comment. My underline. In physics, the term ‘preferred frame’ or ‘privileged frame’ has a specific meaning much different from the common usage of the word meaning favored or selected. It has a cosmological meaning unrelated to anything we were discussing. So I never claimed my frame was ‘privileged’. Using a local reference frame to the exclusion of others is a normal and accepted practice. It is absolutely not the same as a ‘preferred frame’. A ‘preferred frame’ is a global reference frame that unifies all reference frames. Various preferred frames, such as the CMBR, have been proposed but so far they have all been proved unworkable so there is really no such thing as a preferred frame. This is from Wikipedia, "In theoretical physics, a preferred frame or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames. In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion, physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all frames under the principle of general relativity." If it is necessary to know which measurement came first, the experimenters can decide which measurement to make first. Easy-peasy. Usually it is not necessary to know which came first and the measurements may not be able to determine which was first but that only means that the timing was below the device's threshold of measurement. On the other hand, when one particle is measured, the other responds correctly by being predictably anti-coordinated so the second measured particle apparently ‘got the message’ no matter how quickly or beyond measure the timing was. I nowhere said such a thing. If you think I did, cite the relevant text passage. That was one of MY explanations for why SR considerations are neither relevant nor used in the the calculations. I made no claim that you said that. You would have been right if you did. My underline. In physics, the term ‘preferred frame’ or ‘privileged frame’ has a specific meaning much different from the common usage of the word meaning favored or selected. It has a cosmological meaning unrelated to anything we were discussing. So I never claimed my frame was ‘privileged’. Using a local reference frame to the exclusion of others is a normal and accepted practice. It is absolutely not the same as a ‘preferred frame’. A ‘preferred frame’ is a global reference frame that unifies all reference frames. Various preferred frames, such as the CMBR, have been proposed but so far they have all been proved unworkable so there is really no such thing as a preferred frame. This is from Wikipedia, "In theoretical physics, a preferred frame or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames. In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion, physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all frames under the principle of general relativity." It is more like they are soft-wired since we know nothing about the properties of entangled particles until observed and then it all comes together. In the actual experiment, the first particle observed instantly makes the other particle the second particle to be observed. You should write a paper.

I was discussing two objects in ordinary space. You assumed I was discussing a diagram. I was not discussing a diagram so the confusion was on your end. I never claimed the inertial frame of the experiment was a ‘privileged’ frame. As usual, it was a frame of its own. I said the particles ‘know’ which was measured first. That was a teleological statement but how better to say it? If you understand SR, you should know that observers from outside a single reference frame can not go back in time and change events that have already happened to conform to their various outside observations. The "people" in this case were telling me SR applies across reference frames. I was saying that ain't so. This sentence doesn't make sense gramatically, let alone physically. A cohort is a set. An ‘entanglement’ is a ‘set’ of two or more particles that may be widely separated in space but they act as if they were side-by-side.

There are no cohorts among quantum properties but there is a non-local connection among entangled particles that maintains correlation. Are you implying that entanglement itself is a cohort? Non-local updating of the system without ‘hidden variables’ is a generally accepted principle of QM. The non-local updating of the system is what Einstein objected to as, “Spooky action” but it has been routinely verified as a real effect ever since it was first demonstrated by Bell. Why is this not an interaction? It represents an updating of the system itself. Your observation tells you that the system has been updated but the system was updated whether you are aware of it or not. Experiments involving entanglement work over both large or small distances and there are no 'hidden variables' in position.

I don’t know if you noticed but the first part of my statement was self contradictory because I inadvertently omitted a word. I intended to say interacting particles can not have a space-like separation. In the second part, where I said that any two particles in different locations have a space-like separation, I was referring to different locations in the usual sense of ‘different locations’ not to locations on a diagram. So your comments about diagrams do not apply. I made a statement that, with entangled particles, the “first particle observed” breaks the entanglement for both particles simultaneously. The result was that everyone, including yourself as I recall, were claiming that different observers see space-like events differently so no one could say which observation came first therefore I was ignorant of SR because I ignored SR in my explanation. I agreed that remote observers may not know which came first but the “particles know” which was ‘first observed’ and no outside SR observations could change the order of events. I don’t know if anyone got the message that SR was irrelevant to the problem because the bickering about my omission of SR continued for much longer than it should have. I was not aware that a space-time diagrams should plot events and not physical objects. You can't have events without physical objects so I would would think plotting one would be redundant to plotting the other. All the light cones I have seen, do plot physical objects and they plot them as world-lines. Never as points. I was not aware that my arguments are so vague. Could you point which of my depictions of a space-time diagram got you so confused, or in the future, let me know when my arguments are vague.

It is simply not true that every particle, given enough time, will eventually interact with another particle. Two photons that are being lost beyond the cosmic horizon in opposite directions, eg, will never meet again, or interact in any way. You are reading something into it that isn't there. Each photon will eventually strike another particle. Not necessarily the other photon or any specific particle. Just another particle. I don’t agree that a local interaction is required to initiate entanglement although that is necessary for experimental sources. Any non-local, two-way interaction among particles, usually electrons, such as Cramer’s advanced and retarded potentials constitutes an entanglement. If you can have numerous observers in different inertial reference frames all claiming a different timing and different orders of the same event, I call that “ambiguous”. That may not be the best word but it appeared to be a fit regurgitation at the time and it was mine. That sounds like a line from my gazpacho in support of Bell’s analysis. To continue: I say the observation of one property determines nothing about the possible outcome of any of the others, with the one exception of the same property to be observed with the other entangled particle. I think our difference in opinion is with quantum properties having cohorts. Classical objects have cohorts but quantum particles do not so any of the combinations in your “Collectivity (2)” are possible. No quantum properties necessarily go together. If you have a quantum coin that is heads on one side and tails on the other- and red on one side and blue on the other- you can get Heads- Red one time and Heads-Blue the next. Quantum properties do not cohort and that is the Bell test.

Yes, for space-like separated events, timing is ambiguous but the ambiguous nature of SR events for different observers can not reverse or even slightly affect the order of time-like events. You and others were trying to tell me some discussions ago this is possible but I still say outside observations can not go back in time and reverse the order of events that have already happened. I thought this was eventually understood but you raised the issue again. I agree with Bell that the many kinds of variations such as those found in your "Collectivity (2)" are observed with observations involving entangled particles. The observation of one quantum property can not indicate the possible nature of any other of the several quantum properties. They can all vary independently and this indicates that they are not fixed from the start. There are no cohorts among quantum properties as there are among classical properties and every observation is random.

The outer bounds of a space-time diagram are the propagation distance of a light flash and the inner contents of a light cone can include anything within the entire visible universe. The light cones themselves are imaginary constructs and it is legitimate to populate the cones with any ‘objects’ relative to the discussion. The contents of a light cone are not limited to events alone and other contents frequently include particles, world world lines, smaller cones, and even space travelers as with illustrations of the twin paradox so your assertion that the addition of anything other than events alone in not kosher with SR is without merit. No. Two photons parting away from each other will never meet. OK, but that is not what I said. The generation of an entanglement event is like the generation of a light flash. It can be anywhere an origin is possible and it makes no difference where the origin may be if you are just speaking of entanglement or light flashes in general. A major difference with entanglement is that it can begin at a single point when two particles are generated from a common source or it could be generated at more than one point as when two electrons in different locations spontaneously entangle. In that case, it would be the origin of two separate light cones but with electrons sharing a common non-local wave-like connection. Your second picture of light cones illustrates that sort of an event.

This isn't what I said but close enough. What is so wrong about this statement? Essentially it says that every particle, given enough time, will eventually interact with another particle. I don't find that to be so controversial. This statement had something to do with how a thrown stone has an impact site in its future light cone but that doesn't mean it is entangled. Also, I learned nothing from your excellent discussion about light cones because it was nothing I didn't know before. We appear to be in general agreement but you missed the points where our views part company. One minor point is that particles can not have a space-like separation. I say that any two particles in different locations have a space-like separation. The only major disagreement I see is the one below. There is one remarkable exception to the rule and that is with entanglement. When two similar charged particles, usually electrons, establish a two-way resonant connection and act as if they were side-by-side, even though they may be galaxies apart, that is entanglement. Their connection is non-local and you could say they even reside in different light cones because they have no ordinary classical connection. As I recall there are some basics of SR that you never explained if I may go back and review. For one, if you have a source of entangled photons (usually a down converter) exactly in the middle of two synchronized clocks, so that two photons are generated simultaneously and they reach opposite detectors at exactly the same time, how do the observer-dependent views of outside observers affect the timing of the events. I say they have no effect on the the timing at all. Secondly, with the same setup, if one timer is closer to the source than the other so a measurement is made on the closer particle before the farther particle, that makes the closer particle the ‘first observed’ and the difference in the timing of the measurements both time-like as well as space-like. Then, as before, if an observer closer to the farther particle sees the farther particle as the ‘first observed’, how does this change the order of events and make the farther particle the actual ‘first observed’ and the closer particle the ‘second observed’? I would say the local view where the closest particle is the first particle observed still holds true and the view of an outside observer has no effect on the local observation of which came first. What is wrong with these scenarios?

I asked the question because your explanations of why the particles always appear anti-coordinated only work when one assumes that they are unchanging as with the 'gloves in boxes' example or how the particles are always anti-correlated with no signal between them. I wasn't asking about the quantum properties while they were entangled. Knowing the “before” state is not necessary to observe that changes in the quantum properties of entangled particles are taking place. It is NOT necessary to know the ‘before’ state with the Bell test. The Bell test demonstrates that there are more possible outcomes of an ‘after’ observation when more than a single quantum property is observed than are possible with the classical model where the quantum properties are fixed and unchanging from the start. Are you implying the Bell test is faulty? Also, knowing the ‘before’ identity is also NOT necessary for quantum teleportation because a second entanglement can change the observation of a remote entangled particle from indeterminate to determinate. If you understand how quantum teleportation, works you should know that the instant teleportation of a single quantum property from one particle to that of a remote entangled particle is only possible if the quantum property under observation is capable of being instantly changed (teleported) from one particle to a distant particle. You may not know what the quantum property of the particle may have been without teleportation but you can reliably predict what it will be after teleportation because it will always be identical to the identity of the particle whose property you teleported. This requires some kind of instant signaling between the particles. Experiments demonstrate that the quantum properties of entangled particles are random and anti-coordinated on both ends of an entanglement and become determinate when the first particle is observed. So how does a particle on one end of a remote entanglement 'know' it should be anti-coordinated with its partner when its distant partner is observed without some kind of an instant signaling?

Are you incapable of determining whether or not I said that? Or that I’ve repeatedly confirmed that the states are undetermined? I guess reading comprehension is one of the issues here. We both know entangled particles are indeterminate before the first observation is made so why tell me they are indeterminate? Quantum particles have observable properties BEFORE and or AFTER entanglement and you say they are coordinated or anti-coordinated after entanglement. The Bell test and quantum teleportation experiments tell us that any AFTER property is not necessarily the same as the BEFORE. Do you agree with this observation or not? Entanglement is not SR and think about what you said in the above. Every particle large or small is “within the absolute future light-cone of another.” If that is your understanding of ‘entanglement’ then every interaction is an entanglement so entanglement is no different from throwing a stone. I don’t know if that is what you mean but that is what you appear to have been saying the whole time. Do you recognize that there is a difference between entanglement and classical interactions? I know the problem well so take your time.

Again, are you saying the quantum properties of entangled particles are ‘fixed’ at the start and unchanging? This is contrary to the Bell test and Zeilinger’s teleportation experiments would be impossible if it were so. This should be a yes or no question. More examples with macro objects will not answer the question since the question is about entangled “particles” and not macro objects after separation. Energy, spin and all other properties are conserved but are the quantum properties unchanging? Are you saying they are fixed from start to finish? I'm waiting. "So you force the quantum state to "decide" (select, einselect) what particular value of the quantity Q it --for lack of a better word-- "encapsulates." How does that 'force to decide' not involve some kind of a signal? The individual quantum properties are binary, either one state or another, and they don’t disappear with the loss of entanglement. They become determinate. What happens with the others is unknown because we can only observe one property and that causes entanglement to be lost. Would you say space-like separated particles interacting on the same light cone are local or non-local? I would call that a non-local interaction. If that is 'local,' what would you call non-local? Or, are you saying nothing is non-local?

I will leave it to you to speculate about how a correlation is not an interaction? The correlation may be present from the beginning but the quantum properties have been demonstrated to be random at the first observation and instantly predictable at the second observation. If the observed properties were unchanging from the first, then the instant correlation could have a simple classical explanation but it has been determined that this is not the case. This makes it difficult to explain how a correlation can be constantly maintained from one end of the connection to the other, no matter what the distance between, without some kind of an instant signal common to both ends of the entanglement. The conventional explanation is that the quantum properties are random, indeterminate and superimposed prior to the first observation. This explains the random nature of the observation but it doesn’t explain the correlation. Some have described the connection between the two or more entangled particles as a Schroedinger wave-like connection and that implies some kind of a circular undulation like the one depicted with “Hoola’s” wave a few posts ago. If the two particles are always at opposite points of the wave function such that, when one particle is at a point that could be considered the ‘peak’ of the wave, the other particle will be at a point that could be considered the ‘trough’. This could explain how the entangled particles remain anti-correlated where opposite positions on the common wave function represent opposite quantum properties. N. “Viv” Pope explained the connection as “swapping stools” much like two persons in a game of musical-chairs with two chairs. When the music stops, each one grabs a chair but they will always be anti-correlated. The first observation is the thing that breaks the entanglement and the loss of a connecting wave function instantly ‘stops the music’ on both ends and this signals each particle to take on an identity that is appropriate for whichever its position on the wave function calls for at the time. In this scenario, the connecting wave function is what maintains the correlation and the instant loss of entanglement is the signal that ‘stops the music’ and ends the entanglement leaving the particles on both ends of the former entanglement with the appropriate anti-correlated quantum properties.