From: bergervo@iae.nl   
      
   On 2/27/2018 5:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   > On 2/26/18 9:05 AM, richalivingston@gmail.com wrote:   
   >> [treating the null interval between emission and detection literally]   
   >   
   > But one can have entanglement for massive particles, for which the   
   > interval between emission and detection is not zero.   
      
   And one can have entanglement for any pair of systems, even if   
   emission does not apply to it at all (like two entangled atoms).   
   Or if no detection ever occurs (e.g. if you disentangle them   
   before doing anything else with them).   
      
   > Note also that entanglement does not involve "the nonsense of one   
   > detector determining, instantaneously, the result at a detector outside   
   > its lightcone",   
      
   One certainly could say that it does, if hard wavefunction collapse   
   is assumed to happen! (And that is what popular literature is still   
   advertising, even though many physicists might not agree.)   
      
   The choice of angle and subsequent collapse at the first detector   
   have to be (instantly) known by the second detector, or else it   
   cannot obey the correct rules for it's own collapse into a result.   
      
   > it only yields a CORRELATION between detectors' results.   
      
   That is correlation between last-minute choices of the combined   
   experimenter-detector system at location 1 and the outcome of   
   detector 2. (The experimenter's choice of angle, the detector's   
   choice of collapsed output state.)   
      
   So to say that it "only" gives correlation, is not completely   
   fair. It is a kind of correlation that should not exist. (Of   
   course *only* if you assume the reality of the collapse, but as   
   said, the whole Wikipedia "measurement" page is full of it!)   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)