How to make meaningful experiments and the methods of doing so [closed]

Question

I have thought of an experiment to test for statistical significance in a quantum entangled system. The proposed experiment is as follows:

Suppose there are 3 entities all in a straight line from each other, as a graph Z is at 0,0 B is at 44,44 and C is at 90,90. B is emitting quantum entangled particles to both Z and C. Z and C have both decided on a system where C has a polarized filter that only allows up or down, and Z measures the particles until it has obtained spin up or down 3 times in a row, then it rotates a polarized filter 90° for the next 5 particles to send a binary code where up would equal 1 and down would equal 0. C then knows if it receives 3 up or 3 down in a row followed by 5 particles absorbed by the filter and therefore not observed, that it got a 1 or 0. C measures every particle slightly later than Z as it is slightly further away from B. Would that send a statistically significant amount of data across Spacetime faster than light, or is it still random?

I ask wondering if this is definitively disproven by other experiments or theories, or if it is worth performing the experiment to find the results? Were this to be attempted how would one run the experiment on a technical level and what current technology/techniques could be used to perform it.

I am less interested it the actual results and more interested in whether this experiment is fundamentally flawed. If not how would one would preform it in the real world.

If I am not being clear enough, I am not making sense at all, or if this question doesn't belong here, please let me know in the comments. Simply down voting tells me nothing. Thank you.

Answer 1

There are a number of things to discuss about your experimental setup and your discussion around that (and I didn't downvote).

1. You have placed Z closer to B than C is to B. This distinction is completely meaningless to every experimental test you may perform, if your idea is that the first particle measured leads to some difference in the outcomes. There is not the slightest evidence this is the case, and there is no particular element of quantum theory that says there should be either.

2. You mention something about Z getting spin up 3 times in a row. Since each detection leads to a random outcome for Z, there is no difference here with flipping coins. There is a 1 in 8 chance of seeing 3 spin ups in a row, just like there is a 1 in 8 chance of seeing 3 heads in a row. The important point here is that ALL results Z sees are random. Always. And ALL results C sees are random. Always. And there is no connection between one pair (going to Z and C) and any other pair.

3. You mention something about Z rotating a polarizer 90 degrees. Fine, but that will have no observable effect on whether the particles C measure will go through a polarizer or not. Keep in mind that real Bell tests normally use Polarizing Beam Splitters rather than Polarizers, because they record whether the outcome is explicitly up or down (or H or V, depending on particle type).

In summary: all C ever sees is a random stream of ups and downs. Nothing Z does will ever change that. There is obviously no useful information to be seen in a random set of bits. The effects of entanglement are only evident when the results from Z ande C are combined. That requires classical communication.

And yes, hopefully you have picked up that this is a basic Bell test and has been performed many times, with many variations. I might suggest reading some actual experimental papers on Bell tests to gain a better understanding of entanglement basics. Here is one I recommend, which is as real world as it gets:

Entangled photons, nonlocality and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory