Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

[sgreger1]

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.

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.

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



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?

[daruckis]

uhh...

i make sandwiches for a living.


do you have any questions about sandwiches?

[sgreger1]

uhh...

i make sandwiches for a living.


do you have any questions about sandwiches?

Yes: May I have one for free

[daruckis]

eh probably. ive got this thing about rules. dont care for them.

[chadizzy1]

I make pizzas for a living.

Any questions about that?

[sgreger1]

I make pizzas for a living.

Any questions about that?

Maybe we should have a snuson potluck. I don't work at a food place so i'll just come to eat all the free sandwiches and pizza.

win/win

[Ainkor]

Re: Discussion: Help Sgreger1 understand Quantum Entaglement

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.

From what I have read, and while it may not be the most commonly accepted theory on the topic, but there is some traction gaining on the thought that it is through time that the particles communicate. As for how they communicate? I bet they use my damn wife's voice. It could go back in time to yell at me even before I did something.

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.

It usually falls into two camps of thoughts on this:

1. Predestination
2. Divine intervention

Some claim that there is a 3rd way, often referred to as the middle way, but I've yet to see anyone convince me of this.

In my reading it's usually a guy named Fred that runs out for the pairs. We've found that they work better in multiples of 3 (6,12,18 etc.) and the colder, the better.

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.

I imagine it's something like my last years Christmas gift for my wife. I gave her a diamond and she loved it, until she took it for cleaning and the jeweler told her that it was fake.

See, in this example, the diamond was in an entangled state with the comfort of my crotch. Once it was measured though (the diamond) and the measurement noted (jeweler) the quantum entanglement of the diamond and my crotch were in direct opposition of the said force (her foot).

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

No clue man. I make roast beef sandwiches for a living, but I am a pretty decent bullshitter!

[sgreger1]

You too???

Damn we really need to get a food box pass going around. everyone put in a food item from your place of business and everyone takes a bite of it as it goes around

Even a 3 week old roast beef sandwich partially eaten by 8 different strangers must taste better than anything from offroad

[chadizzy1]

Even a 3 week old roast beef sandwich partially eaten by different 8 strangers must taste better than anything from offroad

hahahaha, do they still do those frozen deliveries?

[wadetheblade]

I make designs and ads for a living.

[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)


But can anyone imagine what this would mean? It would be like going from using slide rules to using today's supercomputers as far as processing speed is concerned.

We could finaly make accurate climate predictions down to the particle, we could create unbreakable codes and make decryption of enemy cooding much simpler.


But most importantly, I will finnaly get my god damn Holodeck. They could take real places etc and form them into 3d models that are built down to the individual particle and apply environmental attributes to the game that would make it a 100% re-creation of reality that I can blow shit up in! MW2 would be way sweeter if it were in perfectly re-created virtual reality.

[RRK]

I am no expert and I actually avoid reading about quantum mechanics because it demands too much attention, which I would rather divide between many other things. My basic understanding is that you can't really try to interpret these type of things using Einstein's system. I think Einstein hated the quantum mechanics proponents of his time and he failed to resolve the problems himself. I believe some of the basic ideas are that observation does effect the result of experimentation on the quantum level. Particles can exist in more then one place at the same time. The entangled particle thing has been proven while elements of other systems have also been proven. I think some of them decided that no communication was necessary for this entanglement. It just seems like even though we have been thinking about these things for almost 200 years the theories still vary widely. String theory seems to be pretty popular now. I also think there is some kind of plasma theory that tries to explain these things. It all seems to contradict our basic ideas of how the universe works and is just to much of a pain to keep up with. The one guy I know who used to keep up with the field actually went insane. Though I don't think quantum mechanics had anything to do with it. He is back to only being just a little insane now. I don't know if he still keeps up with quantum mechanics though. The whole thing is just too much of a pain in the brain for me to dedicate time to it unless someone was paying me and I wouldn't even want that. Seems like almost a religious debate. Lots of zealotry.

[tom502]

If Richard Hoagland or Alex Jones or Fox News didn't say it, then I don't know.

[RedMacGregor]

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.

[Premium Parrots]

I drive a Jeep Cherokee, an Astrovan and an MG Midget. If I ever buy a Quantum I sure hope I can find a mechanic to work on it when needed. :shock:


as far as food goes......well lets just say I'm a consumer.