From: richalivingston@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:10:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   > On 10/16/22 7:09 AM, Richard Livingston wrote:   
   > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley   
   > > wrote:   
   > >> [...]   
   >   
   > You are both overthinking this.   
   > ...   
   > The source of this confusion is clear: thinking these are "individual   
   > properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not individual   
   > to the two particles.   
   >   
   > Tom Roberts   
      
   I disagree, I believe there is something to understand about how these   
   correlations are maintained over such space-time separations.   
      
   I believe the point of view of QM is that the two "entangled" particles are   
   in effect a single thing.  Certainly the math treats it that way.  Suskind et   
   al. have speculated that the two particles are connected by a wormhole,   
   and thus they are able to coordinate their behaviors over spatially   
   separated space-time distances.  I'm skeptical of this idea for several   
   reasons: 1) wormholes have never been observed, 2) wormholes are   
   a speculated GR effect and it isn't clear to me that photons can have   
   the energy density to warp space-time as required, and 3) it treats   
   photons as localized particles, which I think is a big misconception.   
      
   But I don't know, nobody does yet.   
      
   The reason I think there is something to understand here is that the   
   coordination of results is clearly not a local effect.  The state of the   
   detectors have been changed randomly and rapidly in some   
   experiments and still the required correlations observed.  Some   
   how the correlations were preserved even when the detection   
   conditions changed after emission.  This requires either that the   
   detection events coordinated their response (at faster than the   
   speed of light) or that the detection events somehow affected the   
   properties of the emitted photons (i.e. retro-causality).   
      
   These ideas are controversial because they are so counter   
   to our everyday experience.  Just saying that the correlations   
   happen is ignoring the question of how they happen.  While it   
   appears that many physicists choose to not question the mysteries   
   of QM, I think that is ignoring the possibility of discovering new   
   physics.  It might be like saying Newtonian gravity is the final   
   law and ignoring the small unexplained precision of Mercury.   
   We should ALWAYS wonder if there is another layer to be   
   discovered.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)