Wow. I came across this essay about the topic of entanglement. It certainly clears the concept up for me, and provides a possible means of coming a
greater understanding of what might be causing it.
The only sad thing is Sid died in January of this year . He was Only 92 years old! Taken before his prime. Wait a moment. Wow.92!
His web site: www.siddeutsch.org...
Some highlights from his essay on this topic:
Entangled Physicists (Expanded) by Sid Deutsch
Most people who are scientifically knowledgeable are turned off by anything that smacks of "quantum mechanics." I can’t blame them – quantum
mechanics has a bad reputation because it is accompanied by some weird baggage. How can physicists expect us to understand the impossible? The most
glaring example is that of "entanglement." But if you read on, you may find that it is relatively easy to demolish "entanglement."
Einstein despised the idea, because he thought such ‘spooky action at a distance’ violated relativity’s basic tenet that information can’t
travel faster than light. Even now, after decades of experiments showing that entanglement is real, traces of the schism remain."
It is not at all true that "entanglement is real." There has been a strong element of exaggeration in those experiments. Nobody has ever shown that
a particular pair of photons is entangled – a photon is much too fragile, and is easily overshadowed by "noise" in the system. Instead, physicists
work with a large number of photons and, based on the statistical result, they claim that this proves that a particular pair of photons is entangled.
I maintain that it proves nothing of the sort.
As I have pointed out above, the evidence for entanglement is not based on actually fingering a particular pair of photons and following their
10,000-mile journey, say, to their final landing pads. No -- these particles are much too small and delicate to be tagged in this way. (A single
photon that conveys the color green has an energy of 4 X 10--19 joule. This is minuscule – extremely difficult to detect.) Instead, the
experimenters station themselves at the destinations, and electronically sense each photon as it arrives. Many of the photons don’t make it; they
get lost in "noise." But of the pairs that do reach their destinations, if D = 2.5° , 93% record 1 when we only expect 83% to do so, and so forth.
Is it possible that this epidemiological survey of populations can yield an incorrect conclusion?
Check out his web site for his graphs as without them this discussion is not as easy to understand. And to find out what he thinks might be disturbing
the data/statistical information.