http://www.physorg.com/news8891.html
The procedure that is used in this experiment to establish entanglement seem rather convoluted.
I find the claim that non-locality is involved unsubstantiated.
Where is the evidence that when one atom is detected in one spin state, an opposite state of its siamese twin (borned from quantum entanglement) will be found instantly in the opposite state in another location?
Plus, how do you know its instant if we cant even measure it fast enough? Instant as in speed of light?
Hexa, It is strange, that it is given out for something new. 
Similar experiments were carried out in 1976 and I took in them participation. By the way, all this is direct consequence of laws of the quantum theory.
Similar experiments were carried out in 1976 and I took in them participation. By the way, all this is direct consequence of laws of the quantum theory.
Hi Alexander,
Hi Alexander,
Can you help on this instant bit?
We have an equilateral triangle A B C. We have an entagled something at A, the thing it is entangled with at B, and us crowded together to watch, all at C.
Thing at A does it's flipsky and a light comes on (to prove the point), as a result (?) of what happenned at A then the entangled thing at B does a flopsky and the light comes on at B (to prove the point). Looking at this from C we see the lights come on at the same time (?) forcing us to assume that the flipski and the flopski happenned at the same instant at points A and B. Is that the 'instant' or have I misunderstood? Can you confirm (eye witness style) that this entanglement business actually works?
-C2.
Hi Alexander,
Can you help on this instant bit?
We have an equilateral triangle A B C. We have an entagled something at A, the thing it is entangled with at B, and us crowded together to watch, all at C.
Thing at A does it's flipsky and a light comes on (to prove the point), as a result (?) of what happenned at A then the entangled thing at B does a flopsky and the light comes on at B (to prove the point). Looking at this from C we see the lights come on at the same time (?) forcing us to assume that the flipski and the flopski happenned at the same instant at points A and B. Is that the 'instant' or have I misunderstood? Can you confirm (eye witness style) that this entanglement business actually works?
-C2.
There is nothing passing through the intervening space that we know of so you won't see anything happening on the hypotenuse. This is apparently an "instantaneous" non-local correlation
Hi Duke..
You might recall the 'cold fusion' events of a few years ago..
As before, I'm just a simple guy wondering whether I see the lights come on at the same time. I'm looking from the apex C where AB = AC, this clarifies instant from that point of view. What passes A -> B or vice versa is another matter. Eye witness acount if poss. please. "I was there, I saw it, it did this.. " is really what I'm after. A lot of 'reports' are little more than 'please send money' (grants) etc.
You might recall the 'cold fusion' events of a few years ago..
As before, I'm just a simple guy wondering whether I see the lights come on at the same time. I'm looking from the apex C where AB = AC, this clarifies instant from that point of view. What passes A -> B or vice versa is another matter. Eye witness acount if poss. please. "I was there, I saw it, it did this.. " is really what I'm after. A lot of 'reports' are little more than 'please send money' (grants) etc.