mitchellmckain » June 3rd, 2018, 5:40 pm wrote:
Yes I can, the question is, why can't you? I provided the links, you just have to follow them. So why don't you? You have no interest in the science.
The problem is I can’t work long and hard enough to wrestle the facts into submission to see things as you see them. If you can’t point to which parts of your citations support your opinions, I can only assume that you can’t either.
mitchellmckain » June 2nd, 2018, 1:44 pm wrote:
LOL LOL LOL space-like intervals are outside the light cone, therefore by your own statement any causality you claim to exist over space-like intervals is part of an "imaginary zone beyond observable reality."
Outside the light cone is an imaginary zone where I can imagine causality exists just as you can imagine it does not.
mitchellmckain » June 3rd, 2018, 12:39 am wrote:
Incorrect. Bell's inequality demonstrates NOTHING about the order of events, which are either fixed for time-like intervals or arbitrary (relative to the inertial frame) for space-like intervals.
The point is that there is no basis for them to agree on which was first and the only rational conclusion is that with a space-like interval between them neither of the two measurements are first. Thus there is no instantaneous causality or information transfer between the two events. There is only the agreement between the random results of simultaneous measurements. The result is not a violation of relativity or the Minkowsky limitation of causality to time-like intervals, but there is a contradiction with Einstein's premise of local realism and we have to accept that there are non-local aspects to reality.
The measurements are not simultaneous and the timing of events is part of the experimental data so, when the observations on both ends of the experiment are compared, we can discover exactly the order in which the observations were made. When the experiments are repeated many times, they are found to be in violation of Bell’s inequality suggesting that the first entangled particle to be observed instantly fixes the quantum state of the other particle.
The observation of the first particle breaks the entanglement causing the other particle to assume an anti-correlated quantum state. If one particle is observed to be spin up, we know that the other particle is now permanently in the spin down position. This is contrary to Einstein’s local realism and evidence of non-local action at a distance.
http://courses.theophys.kth.se/5A1381/r ... chuetz.pdf
"We will see that things are different in the ’microscopic’ world, i.e., the two atoms do not decide which of them has spin 1 and which −1 until a measurement is performed."