Quantum Mysteries, Part 2: Non-Locality and the EPR Paradox

well, isn't the detectors themselves need some influence on the electrons to do their detection ?

It's not a mystery that observing a photon changes it, the mystery is why the photon avoids the hole that is being observed.

Got it. Thanks.
So both photons are choosing the same hole?
what happens if you put detectors on both holes?

Chance is that it will be detected in this hole or that hole or go undetected on both holes. That a photon will be detected is a probability. If photon is influenced by perturbed field due to electrons in a hole then it may change path or its energy may get altered or may get absorbed. You may also get two photons for one and that depends on the energy of the incident photon.

There are more than 2 photons involved, maybe millions, but it was my assumption that they all went through the other hole when one was observed. Assumptions are dangerous though, and the universe is full of surprizes. I wish I could obseve this experiment directly, and had more info on it. To answer your second question, stay tuned.

Regards,

S

What is a hole?

Hole is generally a space guided by surface structure fields, which is slightly different from ordered structure or compact structure fields with lots of space within. Hole also has some unbound atoms or molecules with random velocities. These atoms and molecules are part of partial vacuum. What is the hole you are talking about?

When you deal with numbers, statistical data becomes very clear and with some meaningful result. Events are happening irrespective of observers. Observer may find or miss the event depends on its synchronization with the event which may or may not happen. Chance that, you may observe something and may never observe again in entire life is also a possibility. However, there are other possibilities that can be nearly repeated and these form part of scientific data more than that can not be repeated even though both data are scientific.

If I say that tomorrow is a big bang day. Then this may have remote possibility and no one can rule out. Such data do not get scientific importance. Predicting weather becomes somewhat scientific and predicting solar eclipse is more scientific.

Whatever you wish to say, also will have reason within. Less one knows, more one get surprised. I do not see anything in black hole is not because I am observing it. That is the way it is. We are not so important that nature will avoid us from being revealed. Observation is multiple synchronization of conversions of energy up to the final link that gives us an idea. Without this link, the event remains undetected. Detection is a process. Match your detection phase with the event and you will find it. Mismatch it and you will never detect it.

Designed hole detection changes vitually in priciples to results which can cause changes that do not matter..

I should have read through this entire thread first but BECAUSE this comment pulled up first in my search I went back to the original post, as it was, reply to #2 took refrencing for thoughts as how it could stand alone.

Not to sell Einstein short or dispell either theory, the life of the light cell in source can have a varience that holds some of the effect, and the connections to it in many dimensions can have impededing affects as the swining balls on the pendalum

Dear StandardsGuy,

I must apologize for referring you in Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future? to EPR, and "Cat-In-A-Box", having missed your detailed introduction here.

I need to be more attentive, and less impulsive, both, some of my shortcomings, sorry again.

Yours,

Yuval

Hi Yuval,

Apology accepted. I came down pretty hard on you, so I understand. I think maybe I should have posted these in the general section. Now that the air is clear, I hope that we can be friends and have a lot if good "chats".

regards,

S