Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

[adm]

Here's something to think about.....

Given that, at the point of the big bang, everything was a singularity - i.e. all the energy/matter in the universe today, was compressed smaller than the planck length.

And that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed from one apparent state to another.

And that waves and particles (i.e. mass and energy) are the same thing

It then follows that EVERYTHING in the universe is "entangled" with every other thing, as "in the beginning" it WAS all part of the same thing (and still is - just with different density levels now.

And another thing to think about. What if:

The "dark matter" and "dark energy" that astrophysicists are currently searching for and that makes up around 85%+ of the mass/energy of the universe is really just the gravitational shadow of the mass/energy that we can see emanating from additional dimensions that are "curled up" at sub planck lengths. i.e. we are not just four dimensional beings living in a four dimensional universe, but really n-dimensional beings living in an n-dimensional universe but that we can only perceive 4 dimensions (I believe the current odd-on favourites for "n" are 10 or 26)

Isn't multidimensional physics fun?

[adm]

Re: Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

I know there has to be at least one or two of you on this forum that know something about quantum mechanics, and more specifically quantum entanglement. If so, please help educate me by answering some question I have that you may know the answer to.



To start out:

1) Some research shows that two entangled particles can communicate information at a lower limit of 10,000 times the speed of light. (University of Geneva, Switzerland)

Q: Does anyone have any link/theories on what medium the two particles communicate through to establish this faster than light communication? It seems that to accept this, we would have to throw out our current understanding of the universe, as speeds like this seem to defy the concept of time.

Or accept that the "medium" is communicatio via additional dimensions. If they are really small, then communicating through them would be really, really fast. Although, having said that, our concept of time would be unlikely to apply in them, so "speed" would be meaningless.

2) From my understanding, there are ways of identifying if two particles are entangled using tests such as Bell's inequalities.

Q:Is it possible to entangle two targeted particles, or are they already paired, and if already paired, how do you identify the two particles and localize them for use as a quibit in quantum computing etc.

3) This is my main question:

According to quantum mechanics, two particles that are entangled have no set value untill they are measured, and upon measuring one particle in an entangled pair, it then locks in the value of it's entangled companion particle.

Also, bear in mind that Heisenberg says that measuring them will change their state/value anyway. The state cannot be known until they are measured - but the act of measurement invalidates the measurement itself!

Q: I don't understand what this means. Does this mean that all particles are just variables with no set value, and a set value is only determined once it is observed by human instruments? And then once observed, the result is random, as in we cannot predict what the value of the particle will be prior to observing it?

Yes and no (and maybe). Not a bad way of looking at it, BUT the result is not random as the act of measurement will have a non-random effect itself depending on how the measurement is done. So do we impose our own non-random values by our measurements. Seems likely, but in a way this would be creating our own reality as we go.

This does not sound like it makes sense. I am with Einstein on this one, it seems that they must have some set value that we just don't have the proper math to predict it with yet. Because if this was the case, how is the universe solid

It isn't. It's predominantly vacuum at every level. Ask a neutrino.

it doesn't make sense that the spin of an electron is not existant untill it is observed.

What is an electron anyway? look closer.....

Who says Einstein is correct? His theories are applicable at fairly large scales, but break down at very small scales. Einstein's theories and quantum gravity cannot be reconciled today. Newton was infallible until we got better math. It will likely be the same thing with Einstein

Can someone with more knowledge on this issue please help me understand how it could be posible that things basicly don't have solid traits untill we look at them?

Maybe we create our own realities as we go.

To quote the late great Bill Hicks:

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather

[lxskllr]

Here's a good article on quantum computers. I haven't finished reading it, but it's well presented. Check out the other articles too. Ars is my favorite site for tech news...

http://arstechnica.com/science/guide...uters-work.ars

[chadizzy1]

So....how bout them Saints? ....

[RRK]

So....how bout them Saints? ....

They are going to need some quantum theory to beet the Colts.

[Premium Parrots]

So....how bout them Saints? ....

They are going to need some quantum theory to beet the Colts.

Oh I love pickeled beets.

[RRK]

So....how bout them Saints? ....

They are going to need some quantum theory to beet the Colts.

Oh I love pickeled beets.

oops

[sgreger1]

While we're on the topic of quantum mechanics, I have been reading a lot of articles and research that seems to have a common trend among them; the prediction that quantum computer will start coming into a useable form in between 10-50 years. (A broad guess, I know)

uh, we already have them... we just don't have many applications for them yet.

Uh, we only have basic models that equate to toys, utilizing only 2 qubits of processing power. They are just to prove that it's not science fictions.

We have lots of applications for full scale working quantum computers, we just have not made them yet, and most people in the industry still say commercially viable models are decades in the future.

I thought you were the know-it-all IT guy of the forum, you should know that

[Monkey]

I got excited thinking this was about Quantum Leap....

I do make all kinds of food for a living.

Mike

[sgreger1]

Re: Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

Also, bear in mind that Heisenberg says that measuring them will change their state/value anyway. The state cannot be known until they are measured - but the act of measurement invalidates the measurement itself!

Ah, yes what an interesting universe we live in! The act of of observing changes the nature of that being observed!

Seems likely, but in a way this would be creating our own reality as we go.

I've been doing that for years. Life is only a rendering of information gathered by your hardware (eyes, ears, mouth) and seen through the lens of our software etc. Your perspective alters your reality.

It isn't. It's predominantly vacuum at every level. Ask a neutrino.

Haha, what a jokester. I mean how are object appearing to be solid in nature hard to the touch, how do the stars exist if on a quantum level the values of their particles are not constants until we observe them. My understanding of the system must be flawed.

What is an electron anyway? look closer.....

It's all just energy baby. The life-force of creation.

Maybe we create our own realities as we go.

To quote the late great Bill Hicks:

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather

Lol, best quote ever. It's so true. Reality is just a word we assign to our collective view of the world. What the world actually is will probably turn out to be very different from how we have perceived it for generations, much like when we realized the earth was not flat and at the center of the universe.

[sgreger1]

Here's something to think about.....

Given that, at the point of the big bang, everything was a singularity - i.e. all the energy/matter in the universe today, was compressed smaller than the planck length.

And that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed from one apparent state to another.

And that waves and particles (i.e. mass and energy) are the same thing

It then follows that EVERYTHING in the universe is "entangled" with every other thing, as "in the beginning" it WAS all part of the same thing (and still is - just with different density levels now.

And another thing to think about. What if:

The "dark matter" and "dark energy" that astrophysicists are currently searching for and that makes up around 85%+ of the mass/energy of the universe is really just the gravitational shadow of the mass/energy that we can see emanating from additional dimensions that are "curled up" at sub planck lengths. i.e. we are not just four dimensional beings living in a four dimensional universe, but really n-dimensional beings living in an n-dimensional universe but that we can only perceive 4 dimensions (I believe the current odd-on favourites for "n" are 10 or 26)

Isn't multidimensional physics fun?

Your theory is exactly what ive always thought. FTL communication cannot happen, must be inter-dimensional. I also believe dark matter may be the other dimensions as opposed to just unobservable matter in our dimension.

[Premium Parrots]

Wheres the beef?!?

[daruckis]

I got excited thinking this was about Quantum Leap....

I do make all kinds of food for a living.

Mike

scott bakula ftw.

[lxskllr]

Re: Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

What is an electron anyway? look closer.....

Who says Einstein is correct? His theories are applicable at fairly large scales, but break down at very small scales. Einstein's theories and quantum gravity cannot be reconciled today. Newton was infallible until we got better math. It will likely be the same thing with Einstein

I think string theory is still the favored bridge between general relativity, and quantum mechanics. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that stuff, but it's super fascinating. It's real life magic, with no tricks, or gods involved :^)

[Mordred]

Re: Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

I think string theory is still the favored bridge between general relativity, and quantum mechanics. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that stuff, but it's super fascinating. It's real life magic, with no tricks, or gods involved :^)

Quantum mechanics, and string theory in particular, are extremely fuzzy. We know next to nothing and our attempts at modelling reality on this level are still more akin to guesswork than science.

For quantum mechanics, what interpretation do you chose? Many worlds? Copenhagen? Any other? If so, what do you base that choice on?

Seriously, we're stumbling about in the dark at the moment and it will take a major breakthrough to get anywhere.

To get back to the OPs question about entanglement, I think it's safe to say that there is no commonly accepted explanation as to how it works.

On a personal note, I would strongly advise that you stay away from the "everything is entangled, we're all made of stardust" kind of romantic ideas about the universe. Such nonsense inevitably leads to spiritual and (pseudo) religious ideas seeping into the mix, which do nothing to explain anything.