I am really not that concerned about China's technology... since for some reason, the U.S. just keeps on cooking. China is now prospering because it allows people to be very wealthy and so their GINI is now greater than the U.S. and China has much less freedom of belief. It is not clear how long China can survive with suppression of freedom of belief.

As far are quantum correlations go, I am all in and am really into quantum causal sets. Dave Rideout is a causal set guy and has had FXQI funding, but still, there is very little causal set stuff in the FXQI crowd. That is because causal sets do GR very well, but are not quantum... so far.

However, causal sets do this funny random sprinkling thing to a causal set that has no space or time. Space and time both emerge from this random sprinkling of a causal set into a spacetime manifold and so there is much hope that there are also quantum causal sets. A quantum causal set would then be consistent with GR and be a GUT or even a TOE.

The random sprinkling of causal set events is very reminiscent of the random but constrained photon paths of the two-slit experiment. The quantum question is never which slit does the photon go through, but the quantum question is rather how the presence of two slits alters the quantum photon phase.

Of course the photon is in a superposition of both slits because that is what quantum particles do. Anyway, here is my blog describing the two-slit causal set... two-slit causal set

There are a bunch of so-called random events that seem to determine the nature of physical reality. Since photon events are seemingly random, the photon connection between emitter and absorber seems to be at the foundation of what reality is...

John,

whether meeting the same orientations of an etched polarizer or same orientating of a facet of a crystal the 'identical' twins, I.e. Sharing relative to each other orientation, treated identically should not be expected to give different results. Why would they?

G,

B does the rotation which changes the vector of the spin angular momentum of Photon B. V does not do anything to Photon V, that detection system only registers what the vector of Photon V is. And it has changed from the original prepared singlet state vector to the reverse of the changed vector of Photon B. There is no synchronized "polarizer" in Vienna, the high tech polarizer is in the Bejing lab. In Vienna, the altered vector is registered by the detector which of course alters the altered vector, but the altered singlet vector has been observed and the detection alteration is superfluous. jrc

Georgi,

I take the coins from my pocket and put them on the counter and flip all the pennies so they show heads. Now all the pennies in your pocket are tails up. jrc

John,

I don't believe that. Heads up is a relation between observer and observed brought about via the experimental method or protocol. The coins in my pocket have not undergone the coin calling protocol or yet been observed. So there are of limited, fixed relative, contextual outcome states in my pocket. Isolated face outcomes are not the material coins. Beside them not being 'entangled'. Measuring B does not alter V. You are talking as if the theory was fact. Measuring B fixes what the matching measurement of V must be. That is not the same thing

That should say 'So there are no limited [etc.] outcome states in my pocket.'

Moving charge generates magnetic fields and the faster the motion, the greater the magnetism. The electric field of the photon changes fastest at the nodes and that is why magnetism peaks 90 degrees out of phase with the electric field for a photon.

Electromagnets emerge from the motion of electrons in wire loops and ferromagnets emerge from unpaired electron orbits in iron. This is why there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

Thinking more on the relative field orientations of EMr and photons. If the electric field acts out at 90 degrees to direction of travel; and the magnetic field encircles electric field at 90 degrees to direction of travel; the two fields are acting at 90 degrees to each other while taking the same wave path. Not two waves 90 degrees separated. That is a picture unlike convention. Like a boa constrictor encircling and being impaled by a porcupine.

    ...and of course, the oscillation of the electron electric field is what determines spin magnetism, not really a physical spinning charge. Note that the electron oscillates in both electric field as well as in mass, but at different frequencies. This is why it takes a spin rotation of 720 degrees to get the same spin back, not just 360 degrees.

    Georgina, that's a creative idea and would be worth fleshing out. I was browsing earlier for info on BBO crystals and there is a striking similarity. The entanglement is circular with one circle emission on the vertical plane and the other on a horizontal plane and entanglement occurs at the points of intersection of the two circles. The emission produced is conical rather than a spherical spread. The crystal element though, is made by sandwiching two Beta-Barium-Borate discs with a 90* rotation of one in relation to the other, so its still a 5mm x 1mm flat disc. So you might be onto something, there. :-) jrc

    Thanks for the link, Doc.

    I gave it a once through read, but will have to chew on it some more. Random sprinkling sounds good to me, even if we have a determinate side to reality, nothing in the universe can be assumed to always work perfectly. If Quantum Phase can be seen as cyclic across the wavelength, then a continuous change of some physical property would physically allow for a single photon to couple to both slits. jrc

    The advantage of the configuration given is that it gives the 90 degree relative orientation of fields and vector addition of fields as if one is a zero vector, as the field wave paths are the same. Not either or but both.

    Its hard to not to confuse the graphical representations with something in 3D space> I think I'm struggling with that. I have thought about representations of field strength (and curl). At least the girth of both animals is small at the head, large at the middle and small at the tail! ?? Reversal of field strength?? The animal analogy gets bizarre with inward pointing spikes and reverse coiling snake.

    Georgina,

    yeh, graphic interpretation onto a physical measurement space gets dicey. It goes topological a lot easier than 3D, and I try to keep in mind that the planar sections under the curve are representative of the measurement of inverse square law effect which is a straight line LOS. The minimum value of field intensity being coincident with the maximum of the other force effect field that results from the 90* phase shift, (I think) is indicative of there being a real cyclic rise and fall of density in the time span of any wavelength. And that can equate with acceleration (positive and negative) such that electric density reduces to maximum magnetic in the first half wavelength, then collapsing to recover electric effect density in the second half of the waveform (?). The reversing polarity of successive wavelengths is puzzling and maybe attributable to detector field reaction but I don't think that can hold up. Maybe at the head of the snake it bites the rattle on the tail of the next snake, and gets turned inside out lensing through that pinch point(?). jrc

    Electromagnetic waves, YouTube https://youtu.be/W1cTpqM9DaU Explains why in phase.

    John, I'm confusing both of us. By field reversal I was intending change of direction of the motion . Not clear sorry. I think it is not going to work combining what is with what happens. They are different pictures. I think the electric field always points out but that is based on a field from moving electrons. Maybe its different.

    Georgina,

    That's just the thing, isn't it? All of the graphics and representations are not of a hypothetical photon... they are all representations of observational measurements of interaction of the fields of both a photon and the aggregate field of a macroscopic (detector) antennae. And that interface incorporates the confused rates of change of intensities of electric and magnetic fields in the Transition Zone. Load in the particle model of the photelectric effect and the whole problem of "what is a photon"" gets profoundly confused. ( and it pays so well, eh? ) :-)

    Oh! I almost forgot. If we model a 3D photon and it has an axial rotation at all while moving at light velocity in one direction, then any point on the rotating surface would have to exceed light velocity or lag the direction of motion and drift backwards along the photon's surface.

    Dr. Agnew,

    "The photon connection between emitter and absorber seems to be at the foundation of what reality is..."

    And of course we cannot observe what that might be without absorbing a photon in mid flight. Even a semi-classical model would seem to founder on the shoals known physical laws. But superposition can be made real in a 3D model of a photon as a soloton due to the limit of light velocity. Spin angular momentum would dictate an axial rotation of a soloton and any vector of which would exceed light velocity as the vector projects perpendicular to a one dimensional axis parallelized to the direction of motion. That's wordy, but correct. Actually, in my attempts at modeling, physical rotation plays a relativistic role hypothesizing a postulate that density varies in direct inverse relation to velocity. ie: if a vector must exceed LV on a modeled surface of the soloton, then it must conversely compensate by drifting backwards to direction of mo9tion, so it physically would be in superposition. Relativistically, if it exceeds LV then it would be drifting backwards in time, so it would still be in superposition. It's operationally going forwards and backwards at the same time as long as the soloton is not slowed by a diffracting EM field or to rest by absorbsion. best jrc