- #1

- 1,679

- 3

## Main Question or Discussion Point

[I invite people to post links as responses in case the idea I'm putting forward

is already covered someplace that I missed.]

Something has been bothering me about this type of experiment for

a long time, but this is clearly the place to bring it up.

My problem is this: that in an EPR-type experiment, one simply cannot say

that one of the measurements took place before the other. Ever. So it

is simply NOT true that one measurement forces the other into a known

state.

Of course we *can* wait at B for the A-B order to become unambiguous

but this is exactly the uninteresting case in EPR. It's always the interesting

case when the two measurements are not in one another's light cone.

I advance the idea that the correlation must take place and therefore that

the

corresponding

words, widely seperated quantum engangled measurements are in fact

macroscopically entangled.

Comments?

is already covered someplace that I missed.]

Something has been bothering me about this type of experiment for

a long time, but this is clearly the place to bring it up.

My problem is this: that in an EPR-type experiment, one simply cannot say

that one of the measurements took place before the other. Ever. So it

is simply NOT true that one measurement forces the other into a known

state.

Of course we *can* wait at B for the A-B order to become unambiguous

but this is exactly the uninteresting case in EPR. It's always the interesting

case when the two measurements are not in one another's light cone.

I advance the idea that the correlation must take place and therefore that

the

*macroscopic A*measurement outcome is actually entangled with thecorresponding

*macroscopic B*measurement on the other side. In otherwords, widely seperated quantum engangled measurements are in fact

macroscopically entangled.

Comments?