On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:35:22 PM UTC-6, SEKI wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 1:58:46 PM UTC+9, 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.   
   >>   
   >> Note also that entanglement does not involve "the nonsense of one   
   >> detector determining, instantaneously, the result at a detector outside   
   >> its lightcone", it only yields a CORRELATION between detectors' results.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Let's assume that the source is located at the origin of Cartesian   
   > coordinate system.   
   > In some experimental settings, each of emitted paired particles is   
   > detected at the same time. In this case, a detection of a particle   
   > can never affect the other detection.   
   > So, in the Bell's context, entanglement is considered to be an illusion,   
   > whether emitted paired particles are massless or not.   
   >   
   > Am I wrong?   
   >   
   > SEKI   
      
   Just declaring that the entanglement is an illusion does not help   
   understand the underlying physics. There IS something connecting the two   
   detections, the question is where and how is this accomplished.   
      
   The problem is that experiments show a correlation between these two   
   detection events that can't be explained by each particle being emitted   
   separately but with fixed properties (e.g. polarization) that then, to   
   put it in anthropomorphic terms, goes off to meet its fate.  Bell's   
   Inequality and the experiments based on it show that the statistics of   
   these experiments implies that the second detection somehow knows what   
   happened at the first detection.   
      
   The problem is that particles (massive as well as massless) do not   
   propagate in the way we naively imagine based on our experience in our   
   macroscopic scale.  Just like you cannot say that a photon went through   
   one or the other slit in a two slit experiment, massive particles also   
   show interference and thus, in some sense, cannot be localized between   
   detection or scattering events. In some sense even massive particles go   
   through both slits.   
      
   As you clearly understand, relativity forbids events that have spacelike   
   separation to influence each other.  My point is that the common   
   emission event is always on or inside the past light cone of both   
   detection events.  One way to understand these entanglement experiments   
   is to consider that at the moment of emission that the particle already   
   "knows" where it will be detected (again putting it in anthropomorphic   
   terms).  I don't believe this is a generally accepted idea, and as   
   T. Roberts pointed out is more difficult to argue for massive particles.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)