On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 5:56:34 AM UTC-6, SEKI wrote:   
   >   
   > Though the results of the above-cited experiments are significant,   
   > I still cannot consider photon entanglement to be possible.   
   >   
   > As I wrote a number of times;   
   > - Photon entanglement postulates two-photon state, whose quantum   
   >   wave, if actually present, is to swell at twice the speed of light,   
   >   and is to metamorphose instantaneously.   
   > - No or, at most, negligible interaction is possible between photons.   
   > - No restriction is imposed on superposition of quantum waves of   
   >   photons, which are bosons.   
   >   
   > How can photon entanglement be possible without invisible hand of God?   
   >   
   > Then, I come up with the following additional assumption.   
   > (4) The transmission characteristics of a polarizer are significantly   
   >     dependent on the state of zero-point oscillations around it.   
   >   
   > If the experimental settings are changed after a photon-pair emission,   
   > when a photon reaches a polarizer, the state of zero-point oscillations   
   > around it is different from that in case where the experimental   
   > settings have been the same as those after the change since the   
   > beginning. So, because of assumption (4), violation of Bell's   
   > inequality can be considered to be possible without entanglement.   
   >   
   > Though you may feel the above argument is so expedient, I consider it   
   > to be far less inconceivable and less weird than the concept of photon   
   > entanglement.   
   >   
   > Thank you very much for bringing up a valuable point.   
   >   
   > SEKI   
      
   An alternative to entanglement and/or the "hand of God" is direct   
   involvement of the photon detection event with the photon emission   
   event.  This is a bit heretical by current thinking, but is more likely   
   consistent with Relativity than the other concepts:   
      
   -In SR the separation between two events is ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2.  For   
    events on the light cone (past or future) this separation is zero.   
    While this is generally taken as a mathmatical property and not a   
    physical property, perhaps it is physical?  i.e. as far as photons are   
    concerned there may be no real separation between the point of creation   
    and the point of destruction.   
      
   -If we can accept this view of separation, then the "entanglement" only   
    has to be at the emitter of both photons.  If the two photons are   
    emitted in a cascade, then the polarization of the second photon is   
    fixed by the polarization of the first, which has already been   
    "coordinated" with its detector.  If the two photons are emitted   
    simultaneously (e.g. in a 2 photon down conversion effect) then both   
    photons and both detectors can "coordinate" at the moment of emission.   
      
   This is certainly a controversial view of these experiment, but I think   
   this viewpoint is very consistent with the rest of quantum mechanics,   
   QFT, and Relativity.  It avoids the nonsense of one detector   
   determining, instantaneously, the result at a detector outside its   
   lightcone (which is inherently incompatible with SR).   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)