Your essay is correct, but then falls apart in the last sentence.
Here’s why.
QM-wise, here is a bit of what’s going on.
Imagine two particles come into existence at the same time as a result of some quantum state change.
This kind of thing happens all the time, it’s part of the background ZPE field.
Now particles can be said to have a property called spin. Now spin is a quantum property and as such, can be said to not exist in a real sense UNTIL IT IS MEASURED.
In this case, because we are talking about conjugated particles (they were both “birthed” by the same event at the same time), the total amount of spin is zero. If we measure one and find the spin is “up”, then the other will, if/when it is measured, have a spin “down”.
What Bells inequality says is basically IF this state of affairs it true, THEN Einsteins ideas of locality break down.
The experiments you talk of are the Aspect experiments. They were able to successfully show that once the spin of one particle was measured, the other particle ALWAYS shows the right spin.
People look at it and think about it and then think well, thats no big deal. If I pull a sock out of my sock drawer and it’s a right footed sock, then I KNOW the other sock left is a left footed sock.
But that’s not how QM works. The spin isn’t there before we measure it. It can be said to be there BECAUSE we measure it.
Imagine you had a bag that had two pairs of sunglasses in it. One was red and the other blue(lens-wise)
Somewhere away from you there was a person wearing a pair of sunglasses that were designed so that what you saw when you put on a pair, he would see.
So you can reach in the bag and pull out a pair and put them on and then see everything red and they would see the same. Or blue, if you saw blue.
But here’s the kicker, and this is why the last sentence of your essay fails:
Your choice of sunglasses is totally random. You CAN’T control which color you pick.
You do know that IF you see red, the other person will also see red, but you have no way of setting up any kind of messaging system because you cannot pick what you will see.
Mathematically, Bells theorem is quite easy to understand. But it implies something beyond Einsteins limited spacetime view of the universe.
I don’t understand how measuring something, or detecting something, CHANGES that object’s circumstances. It’s like saying that a tree isn’t 50’ high until I take a tape measure and measure it, but how can that be right, a tree has physical properties regardless of whether I take a tape measure and measure it...
Ed