Here is an experiment.
Say you have a photon, a particle of light, and it decays into a positron and an electron. The electron spins in one direction and the positron spins in the opposite direction. You know that the spins are opposite because the photon had zero spin, so to preserve angular momentum, their spins have to be the same value and in opposite directions.
And here is the Quantum Probability Mechanics >>
Without looking, there is no way to know if the electron is spin up or down, or whether the positron is spin up or down, since a photon decay can lead to either of these two alternatives:
Possibility: A. Electron is up and positron is down ... or
B. Electron is down and positron is up.
They have to be opposite. That is the only requirement. Quantum Theory does not violate the Law of the preservation of angular momentum.
We label A as Quantum state A, and B as Quantum state B. We can regard the electron-positron system as ONE physical system. And we can then say that this system is either in Quantum State A or Quantum State B. Remember that this ONLY means what I stated above. Mainly, that there are two possibilities:
Possibility: A. Electron is up and positron is down ... or
B. Electron is down and positron is up.
Because both quantum state A or B are possible, you cannot know which one happened until you look. Definitely, one or the other one did happen, in reality. You just don't know which because either thing could have happened. This is a very important point. Observation does not create reality. The only reason that you cannot know which until you look is because the law of Physics that describes the decay of a photon does not make a unique prediction, since nature is probabilistic and not deterministic.
Looking lets you either verify or not the predictions of the quantum theory, by doing the experiment over and over again and building up an empirical statistical table of results.
In Quantum Theory, even though you have not looked at the electron or positron, a physical system is still described. A mathematical object is still used to stand for the electron-positron system even though we don't know if it is in state A or B.
Again: State A >> The electron has spin up and the positron has spin down.
State B >>>>>>> The electron is spin down and the positron is spin up.
When we are in a state of "ignorance" like this, due to the probabilistic nature of Reality, we describe the state of the system when it is not being measured as State a plus State B = some State S.
Or Quantum State S = quantum state A + Quantum State B.
or just
S = aA + bB, . . equation 1
where small a and small b are numbers that are calculated from a formula in Quantum Theory. These small numbers are calculated from the application of the Quantum Theory to the specific physical situation and tells us the probability that, since measure, the electron will either be spin u or down.
Summary:
We are trying to find out if either electron is spin up or spin down. Once we know that, we know that the positron is the opposite, by the law of the conservation of angular momentum. The mathematical object S is defined by equation 1. You do not need to know what it is. You just need to know what I have written so far.
The photon has disintegrated, and one electron has flown off in one direction, and the positron has flown off in the other direction. For clarity, assume that they are now a few million miles away from each other.
By solving a Quantum Field equation, we can derive S as a mathematical function from which we can deduce the probability that the electron-positron system is in state A or B.
From the form of the equation, we can derive the probability that it is in state A from the small a, and the chance that it is in state B by the small b.
Step 1: measure the spin of either particle.
Step 2: repeat this experiment over and over again and tabulate the results.
Step 3: compare the predictions (a and b) with the empirical data.
Then conclude whether, as the number of experiments increases, the data converges to the probability predictions a and b.
Note that you only have to measure the spin of either the electron or positron. You can assume that the other particle will have the opposite spin. If it doesn't, then you have done the experiment wrong.
So now the question is: Where is this mysterious "quantum entanglement"? There is none. It only shows up if you interpret the above procedure within a weird modern context: mainly, that the S function represents a real physical quantity that exist in space.
So ....
Before you observe either the electron or the positron, the system is in a state (or mathematical object) S that is mathematically in a combination (what mathematically is called a "superposition" ) of both states, given by equation 1. The mathematical object A describes electron-up-and-positron-down, and B is (like I said above) the state of the system when you have electron-down-and-positron-up. I am just repeating and summarizing what I have already written.
The popular interpretation of a superposition of States (eq.1) is that, before you observe a system like S, the system is in a physically undefined physical state. The electron and the positron are both up and down at the same time. This is the equivalent of saying that the Schrodinger cat is both alive and dead before you open the box and take a look.
This contradicts the Probability Interpretation (proposed by Born and Von Neuman 100 years ago but ignored today) that S describes a probability prediction. Why was this view discarded? Because they did not know what I have proposed as the basis of why Probability is needed. This is my contribution: That since the cat can be both dead and alive, you can't know which until you open the box. The key word is "can." The cat is either alive or dead, not both, before you open the box. You just don't know which because from the initial conditions, the physical process can lead to two (or more results), not just one.
This is my Indeterminism Interpretation of Quantum Theory. The system is either electron-up-and-positron-down or electron-down-and-positron-up. You just don't know which until you make an observation because the physical process of photon decay can lead to either consequence.
And a superposition of states describes our uncertainty in the outcome (again) because a physical process can lead to more than just one outcome. Such a view is completely contained in the Math of Quantum Theory. And most important, you do not lose the view that Reality is not created by observation nor consciousness. Sure, we disturb physical systems by an observation, but observation is also a physical process, which has to be described also by a Quantum Field Interaction process.
So the current interpretation is this:
The electron and the positron are (say) hundreds of light years apart, described by S (eq.1).
When you make a measurement, S changes (for example) to state A. That is, the physical system changes from being both A and B to just A.
That is, we perform a single experiment and see that the electron is spin up. Then, a hundred light years away, the positron instantaneously changes from being both up and down at the same time to being just spin down. Not only are both particles locked across hundreds of light years, but measuring one changes the state of the other right away, breaking the law of Local Causality. Wow.
But this is all wrong. When we see that the electron is spin up, we are just gathering one bit of data. We have to gather tons of data to verify or not the probability prediction from the object S. And of course, we know that the positron must then be spin down because of the conservation of angular momentum.
Before we observe a system that can be in more than one possible state, we describe it as in a superposition of states only because the mathematical modeling works, not because in reality, they are really in both states at once.
Before you open the box, the Schrodinger cat is either alive or it is dead, not both ... because it can be in either one, since nature does not evolve in time deterministically. It is described as as in a superposition, sure, but the plus term in equation 1 does not imply that Reality is fuzzy. It implies only that our knowledge is "fuzzy," because we don't know -- we can't know -- what is happening without observing it because one or more things could have happened.
At this scale, it is easier to see that the trees are not under the influence of "artificial" gravity. It is real.
🌎🌐
The gravitational field around each blade of grass and tree is the same as the field around each blade of grass and tree on the surface of Earth.
Notice that if you drive on a road perpendicular to the cylinder axis, you will increase gravity driving one way and decrease it driving the other. If you drive opposite to the spin and at the radial speed, your gravitational field turns Minkowskian, and you are in a "free fall" or inertial coordinate system. That is, you and the car become "weightless."
That means this: The value of a gravity field can go from a surface-of-a-planet value to a free-fall value by a coordinate transformation among systems that are moving at a constant velocity with respect to each other.
At any instant of time, a car moving at the radial speed is in a Minkowski field, and a system at rest on the cylinder is in a planet-surface field. A ...
"Aja" is the title track of Steely Dan's 1977 album, and its meaning has been a subject of interpretation rather than a straightforward explanation from the band themselves, Walter Becker and Donald Fagen, who were known for their cryptic and layered lyrics. The song doesn’t tell a linear story but evokes a mood and imagery that fans and critics have analyzed over the years.
The word "Aja" is often speculated to refer to a person, place, or concept. One popular theory ties it to the name "Aja," which Becker and Fagen reportedly chose after learning of a Korean woman named Aja who married a friend of theirs. This fits Steely Dan’s tendency to draw inspiration from real-life fragments and transform them into something abstract. The lyrics—"Up on the hill / People never stare / They just don’t care / Chinese music under banyan trees"—suggest an exotic, serene escape, possibly a romanticized or imagined refuge from the complexities of modern life.
Musically and lyrically, "Aja" ...
"Deacon Blues" by Steely Dan, released in 1977 on their album Aja, is a richly layered song that invites multiple interpretations, blending the band’s signature irony, cynicism, and romanticism. Written by Donald Fagen and Walter Becker, the lyrics follow a narrator who seems to embrace a life of reckless abandon, yearning for a kind of mythic, self-destructive freedom often associated with jazz musicians or countercultural figures. Let’s break it down:
The title "Deacon Blues" itself is intriguing. It’s been suggested that it references football—the "Deacon" could nod to Wake Forest University’s Demon Deacons, a team whose colors are black and gold, though Fagen and Becker have said it’s more about vibe than a literal connection. "Blues" ties it to the musical genre, evoking a sense of soulful melancholy. In a 2003 interview, Fagen described the song as being about "a broken dream of a broken man living a broken life," but delivered with a sardonic twist typical of Steely Dan’s ...
