Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Quantum entanglement and EPR paradox

tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 1:56:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"An example of entanglement occurs when subatomic particles decay into other particles. These decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, pairs of particles can be generated so that they are in some specific quantum states. For instance, a pair of these particles may be generated having a two-state spin: one must be spin up and the other must be spin down. This type of entangled pair, where the particles always have opposite spin, is known as the spin anti-correlated case, and if the probabilities for measuring each spin are equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state." -Wiki

This is a hot topic in QM and it is treated as an almost mystical thing. What it claims is that you can take an entangled pair and separate them such that they are on opposite ends of the universe, and the moment you "measure" (ie interact) with one of the particles the other instantaneously changes. Wow!

Now let's pull the curtain back and explain it in layman's terms...
We have a machine that produces pairs of rubber balls. It produces the pairs such that they are anti-correlated: one is blue and the other is red. However, the inner workings of the machine are not viewable and each ball is delivered inside an indistinguishable box. So, when we press a button, the machine spits out 2 identical boxes with 1 ball each but we do not know which ball is in which box, only that they are anti-correlated. I take one box to NYC and you take the other to LA. You then open the box and find to your amazement that you have a red ball and instantaneously you know that I have a blue ball (no jokes please.) Wow! How thoroughly unamazing that was!

Do I have it right, or is there something wrong with the reasoning?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:24:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 1:56:04 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"An example of entanglement occurs when subatomic particles decay into other particles. These decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, pairs of particles can be generated so that they are in some specific quantum states. For instance, a pair of these particles may be generated having a two-state spin: one must be spin up and the other must be spin down. This type of entangled pair, where the particles always have opposite spin, is known as the spin anti-correlated case, and if the probabilities for measuring each spin are equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state." -Wiki

This is a hot topic in QM and it is treated as an almost mystical thing. What it claims is that you can take an entangled pair and separate them such that they are on opposite ends of the universe, and the moment you "measure" (ie interact) with one of the particles the other instantaneously changes. Wow!

Now let's pull the curtain back and explain it in layman's terms...
We have a machine that produces pairs of rubber balls. It produces the pairs such that they are anti-correlated: one is blue and the other is red. However, the inner workings of the machine are not viewable and each ball is delivered inside an indistinguishable box. So, when we press a button, the machine spits out 2 identical boxes with 1 ball each but we do not know which ball is in which box, only that they are anti-correlated. I take one box to NYC and you take the other to LA. You then open the box and find to your amazement that you have a red ball and instantaneously you know that I have a blue ball (no jokes please.) Wow! How thoroughly unamazing that was!

Do I have it right, or is there something wrong with the reasoning?

To my understanding, no, I wouldn't say that's how it works.

It's more like, a machine spits out a whole bunch of balls and these balls coalesce to create a bunch of larger objects. The objects that these balls create depends on their physical characteristics, such as color and size and such (in reality, it would be spin, position, number of electrons, etc.). These characteristics can change at any time, and they do, resulting in constant flux between the objects they manifest. Sometimes, when similar balls interact, they will become "entangled," and will mirror the other's behavior when observed. So, if two balls interacted and one turns blue while the other turns red, along with several other opposite, "mirrored" characteristics, then these two balls are then entangled.

As a result, if you took one ball and went to L.A. and I took the other and went to NY, then the fascinating thing would be that we could tell the precise condition of one ball by observing the other. So, if we open a box that contains the one in L.A. and it appears white, then we know for certain that the one in NY is black.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:28:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Really, you had it about 90% right.

I think what's even more fascinating is that it isn't limited to single atoms. Entire compounds can become entangled, including small diamonds.

To put it in perspective, particles that exhibit particle-wave duality can be converted from one to the other based on how one of them is perceived.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 8:47:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What boggles my minds about quantum entanglement is that quantum information can travel instantaneously to its partner molecule faster than the speed of light and doesn't have to travel through the intervening space. Wild!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 8:52:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:24:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/9/2011 1:56:04 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Do I have it right, or is there something wrong with the reasoning?

To my understanding, no, I wouldn't say that's how it works.

It's more like, a machine spits out a whole bunch of balls and these balls coalesce to create a bunch of larger objects. The objects that these balls create depends on their physical characteristics, such as color and size and such (in reality, it would be spin, position, number of electrons, etc.). These characteristics can change at any time, and they do, resulting in constant flux between the objects they manifest. Sometimes, when similar balls interact, they will become "entangled," and will mirror the other's behavior when observed. So, if two balls interacted and one turns blue while the other turns red, along with several other opposite, "mirrored" characteristics, then these two balls are then entangled.
Other than the added complication of the smaller creating the larger (which makes things worse not better,) I do not see how this is any different than what I have stated.

As a result, if you took one ball and went to L.A. and I took the other and went to NY, then the fascinating thing would be that we could tell the precise condition of one ball by observing the other. So, if we open a box that contains the one in L.A. and it appears white, then we know for certain that the one in NY is black.
Again, no difference.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 9:00:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 8:47:13 AM, Chthonian wrote:
What boggles my minds about quantum entanglement is that quantum information can travel instantaneously to its partner molecule faster than the speed of light and doesn't have to travel through the intervening space. Wild!
Actually, this isn't so! Entanglement does not violate FTL limitation! Furthermore, you cannot send information is this fashion WITHOUT a classical channel! Same goes for quantum teleportation: a classical data channel is required.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:06:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2011 8:52:51 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/10/2011 11:24:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/9/2011 1:56:04 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Do I have it right, or is there something wrong with the reasoning?

To my understanding, no, I wouldn't say that's how it works.

It's more like, a machine spits out a whole bunch of balls and these balls coalesce to create a bunch of larger objects. The objects that these balls create depends on their physical characteristics, such as color and size and such (in reality, it would be spin, position, number of electrons, etc.). These characteristics can change at any time, and they do, resulting in constant flux between the objects they manifest. Sometimes, when similar balls interact, they will become "entangled," and will mirror the other's behavior when observed. So, if two balls interacted and one turns blue while the other turns red, along with several other opposite, "mirrored" characteristics, then these two balls are then entangled.
Other than the added complication of the smaller creating the larger (which makes things worse not better,) I do not see how this is any different than what I have stated.

As a result, if you took one ball and went to L.A. and I took the other and went to NY, then the fascinating thing would be that we could tell the precise condition of one ball by observing the other. So, if we open a box that contains the one in L.A. and it appears white, then we know for certain that the one in NY is black.
Again, no difference.

There are three primary differences.

1. The machine does not produce balls that are reverse-correlated. Instead, it simply produces balls that are in constant flux, so that they can become reverse-correlated.

2. The balls do not have a predetermined reverse correlation. It requires taht matter interacts to potentially become entangled, almost as though the molecules "develop a relationship." Therefore, matter that was not initially entangled may become entangled. However, we do not know whether this entanglement breaks or expires, to my knowledge.

3. You suggested that you can simply predict the appearance of one by viewing the other, which I'd have to say is still pretty extraordinary. However, you didn't acknowledge that you can actually change the appearance of one to accomodate the appearance of the other by only viewing one. That, I believe, is the most amazing part.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 1:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:06:03 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/12/2011 8:52:51 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Again, no difference.

There are three primary differences.

1. The machine does not produce balls that are reverse-correlated.
Experimental evidence says otherwise: the balls when measured ARE reverse-correlated.

Instead, it simply produces balls that are in constant flux, so that they can become reverse-correlated.
But how can you claim they are in constant flux without OBSERVING that constant flux? Could it be that you are ASSUMING that they are in constant flux? One thing's for sure: the relationship between the entangled pairs is certainly NOT in flux!

2. The balls do not have a predetermined reverse correlation.
Again, measurements say otherwise. In other words, every time we check to see wether there is a reverse correlation, we find that there is!

It requires that matter interacts to potentially become entangled, almost as though the molecules "develop a relationship."
Yes, they have to be localized; in direct physical contact in order to "share" properties.

Therefore, matter that was not initially entangled may become entangled. However, we do not know whether this entanglement breaks or expires, to my knowledge.
Sure we do. Change the properties of each of an entangled pair by unknown amounts and you WILL loose the entanglement!

3. You suggested that you can simply predict the appearance of one by viewing the other, which I'd have to say is still pretty extraordinary.
Not in the least bit extraordinary, as my example illustrates. A simple parlor trick, really.

However, you didn't acknowledge that you can actually change the appearance of one to accommodate the appearance of the other by only viewing one. That, I believe, is the most amazing part.
And that I would totally agree, would be a rather amazing feat if it were only possible...but it is not!

You see, the problem with our examples here is that we are using these "passive observations" or "passive measurements." This is not how things operate at this level; however, it nonetheless illustrates that there is not magic happening here regardless. The point is this: if you "observe it" you "change it" and this applies to BOTH of the pair's constituents.

This is like if you have an equation like x = y; so long as you do the SAME thing to ONE side of the equation as you do to the OTHER, you WILL maintain the relationship. And this is EXACTLY how entanglement works.

So if you things to one side of the equation that you DO NOT do to the other, then you will loose the entanglement. This is why you still need a classical channel: so that Alice can inform Bob (on the other end of the entanglement) exactly what she did to her side of the equation so that he can do the same to his, thus maintain the entanglement! In our case "doing things the equation" is akin to making observations: remember, there are many different properties that can be read and also different ways of reading the same properties.

Not so magical after all, now is it?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 9:00:36 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/11/2011 8:47:13 AM, Chthonian wrote:
What boggles my minds about quantum entanglement is that quantum information can travel instantaneously to its partner molecule faster than the speed of light and doesn't have to travel through the intervening space. Wild!
Actually, this isn't so! Entanglement does not violate FTL limitation! Furthermore, you cannot send information is this fashion WITHOUT a classical channel! Same goes for quantum teleportation: a classical data channel is required.

Is this just your opinion or can you back up your claim with evidence or a source? There are folks in the scientific community who beg to differ: "Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times faster than light" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 6:36:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:46:39 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/12/2011 9:00:36 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/11/2011 8:47:13 AM, Chthonian wrote:
What boggles my minds about quantum entanglement is that quantum information can travel instantaneously to its partner molecule faster than the speed of light and doesn't have to travel through the intervening space. Wild!
Actually, this isn't so! Entanglement does not violate FTL limitation! Furthermore, you cannot send information is this fashion WITHOUT a classical channel! Same goes for quantum teleportation: a classical data channel is required.

Is this just your opinion or can you back up your claim with evidence or a source? There are folks in the scientific community who beg to differ: "Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times faster than light" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

This is not my opinion but scientific fact.

1) Entanglement ALONE cannot be used to communicate data; a classical channel is required. Classical channels operate at sub-luminal speeds or at c at best.

2) Nothing has broken Relativity's FTL limits.

Your source is lacking details and is more akin to the Science Channel or Popular Science magazine. The article itself is contradictory: it claims instantaneous detection yet also claims 10,000 times c. It's basically an article to gain interest in the subject and sell ad space. Again, no data was transmitted.

Entanglement is instantaneous so it would be infinitely faster than light...if that was what is really happening. What is actually happening is that the pair's relationship was set at the source.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 6:48:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 6:36:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:46:39 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/12/2011 9:00:36 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/11/2011 8:47:13 AM, Chthonian wrote:
What boggles my minds about quantum entanglement is that quantum information can travel instantaneously to its partner molecule faster than the speed of light and doesn't have to travel through the intervening space. Wild!
Actually, this isn't so! Entanglement does not violate FTL limitation! Furthermore, you cannot send information is this fashion WITHOUT a classical channel! Same goes for quantum teleportation: a classical data channel is required.

Is this just your opinion or can you back up your claim with evidence or a source? There are folks in the scientific community who beg to differ: "Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times faster than light" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

This is not my opinion but scientific fact.

1) Entanglement ALONE cannot be used to communicate data; a classical channel is required. Classical channels operate at sub-luminal speeds or at c at best.

2) Nothing has broken Relativity's FTL limits.

Your source is lacking details and is more akin to the Science Channel or Popular Science magazine. The article itself is contradictory: it claims instantaneous detection yet also claims 10,000 times c. It's basically an article to gain interest in the subject and sell ad space. Again, no data was transmitted.

Entanglement is instantaneous so it would be infinitely faster than light...if that was what is really happening. What is actually happening is that the pair's relationship was set at the source.

With all do respect, Scientific American was the 2011 winner of the National Magazine for General Excellence. And the referenced source is summarizing information pulled from the well-respected science journal "Nature" (http://www.nature.com...), which is embedded within the article.

Again: what is the source for your opinion???
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoone, you seem to be misunderstanding something.

Quantum entanglement does not suggest that some molecules manifested that mirror the behavior of other molecules. Quantum entanglement suggests that some molecules will interact with molecules with which they are completely disassociated, then become entangled. Following this entanglement, they will mirror the behavior of the other.

I know I mentioned particle-wave duality in this thread; let me explain the relevance.

Particle-wave duality was discovered due to the double-slit experiment, but there was far more that the experiment revealed. It just so happens that if you have a machine counting photons behind the slit (a photographic plate) and you know the trajectory of the photons leaving the light source (which slit they pass through), the light will suddenly behave like a collection of particles. However, when you do not know the light's trajectory, then the light beam behaves like a wave. This is evident, because knowing the light's trajectory will change the design it makes on the photographic plate -- not knowing its trajectory causes dark patches that are less illuminated than the patches around it due to wave interference -- think static -- which isn't possible with particulate matter. Particulate matter instead travels in a straight line unless influenced otherwise and will divert in opposing angles, causing a wider spread, rather than an interference pattern -- think a shotgun.

So. If you have two beams of light containing photons that are specifically entangled (which is nebulous in and of itself, given that it reinforces the particle idea of light, although the majority of light as we know it behaves like a wave), and you're engaging them in a double-slit experiment, then learning the trajectory of one beam of light will cause both beams of light to behave like a beam of particles, whereas both initially appeared to be waves.

That is no parlor trick. That is some mindblowing shtt right there.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:19:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know, I think it's safe to say that if you find anything you've learned about the physical world from a scientific or mathematical vantage banal, then you likely don't understand it.

It is reeeaaaaalllly fascinating. Quantum mechanics in particular is more incredible and fascinating than anything I have ever encountered in science fiction.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:28:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 6:48:56 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 6:36:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
With all do respect, Scientific American was the 2011 winner of the National Magazine for General Excellence. And the referenced source is summarizing information pulled from the well-respected science journal "Nature" (http://www.nature.com...), which is embedded within the article.

Again: what is the source for your opinion???

It's not opinion but fact: quantum entanglement does not allow for FTL communication, or any communication without a classical channel. Even the Scientific American article doesn't say that.

What is my opinion (and that of others) is that the relationship is set at the source. However, there is no direct experimentation that can be done to disprove it.

Do you have a credible source that says that entanglement can communicate without a classical channel? Or that it can communicate at FTL?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:52:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:17:33 PM, Ren wrote:
tBoone, you seem to be misunderstanding something.

Quantum entanglement does not suggest that some molecules manifested that mirror the behavior of other molecules. Quantum entanglement suggests that some molecules will interact with molecules with which they are completely disassociated, then become entangled. Following this entanglement, they will mirror the behavior of the other.
I understand entanglement; I have been studying it for some time now. I am not sure about what you are trying to say in your example above. Specifically, what you mean about "associated molecules" vs "disassociated molecules"? Not sure what you really mean.

To put it simply, 2 quantum level objects can be "synced up" such that they share a relationship or relationships. These relationships are quantum properties that adhere to Heisenberg's principle.

I know I mentioned particle-wave duality in this thread; let me explain the relevance.

Particle-wave duality was discovered due to the double-slit experiment, but there was far more that the experiment revealed. It just so happens that if you have a machine counting photons behind the slit (a photographic plate) and you know the trajectory of the photons leaving the light source (which slit they pass through), the light will suddenly behave like a collection of particles. However, when you do not know the light's trajectory, then the light beam behaves like a wave. This is evident, because knowing the light's trajectory will change the design it makes on the photographic plate -- not knowing its trajectory causes dark patches that are less illuminated than the patches around it due to wave interference -- think static -- which isn't possible with particulate matter. Particulate matter instead travels in a straight line unless influenced otherwise and will divert in opposing angles, causing a wider spread, rather than an interference pattern -- think a shotgun.
That's right! These are quantum properties that adhere to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But remember, observation is destructive: in other words, you must interfere with the experiment in order to observe it.

So. If you have two beams of light containing photons that are specifically entangled (which is nebulous in and of itself, given that it reinforces the particle idea of light, although the majority of light as we know it behaves like a wave), and you're engaging them in a double-slit experiment, then learning the trajectory of one beam of light will cause both beams of light to behave like a beam of particles, whereas both initially appeared to be waves.
This is so, but you have to realize that you need to observe (ie interfere) with the second beam in order to know if it behaves like particle. The only problem is that doing so would ALREADY have caused the beam to act like a particle just like a regular unentangled beam.

That is no parlor trick. That is some mindblowing shtt right there.
The second (entangled) beam needs to be observed in order to see it act like a particle but that is something it would do even if it wasn't entangled. Ergo, nothing spectacular here.

Unless I do not understand the experiment you have presented. If so, please elaborate.

Also, I would like to know if you are suggesting that you can communicate using entangled pairs without a classical channel? Or that entanglement allows for FTL communication?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:00:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:19:28 PM, Ren wrote:
You know, I think it's safe to say that if you find anything you've learned about the physical world from a scientific or mathematical vantage banal, then you likely don't understand it.

It is reeeaaaaalllly fascinating. Quantum mechanics in particular is more incredible and fascinating than anything I have ever encountered in science fiction.

Don't get me wrong, I also find this stuff fascinating. I have nothing against EPR pairs and I think that we will gain many technological advancements. What I'm not crazy about is the "hype" that becomes "common knowledge" and is not accurate at all. One of the key things about EPR pairs and quantum transportation that has not been understood by many, is that it does not allow FTL communication nor does it allow any communication without a classical channel. This is NOT a technological limitation but a fact of QM: the uncertainty principle.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:17:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 11:52:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I understand entanglement; I have been studying it for some time now. I am not sure about what you are trying to say in your example above. Specifically, what you mean about "associated molecules" vs "disassociated molecules"? Not sure what you really mean.

Well, pretty much what you said below:

To put it simply, 2 quantum level objects can be "synced up" such that they share a relationship or relationships. These relationships are quantum properties that adhere to Heisenberg's principle.

That's right! These are quantum properties that adhere to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But remember, observation is destructive: in other words, you must interfere with the experiment in order to observe it.

Oh, you mean to determine a particle's trajectory? See, that's the thing--you only need to measure photons from one beam for both beams to exhibit whatever property you observe, despite the properties they exhibited prior observation.

This is so, but you have to realize that you need to observe (ie interfere) with the second beam in order to know if it behaves like particle. The only problem is that doing so would ALREADY have caused the beam to act like a particle just like a regular unentangled beam.

Right, that's the premise behind the Uncertainty Principle -- we're still not sure whether it is our observation that chances the behavior of the photons, or some effect of our observation -- but, what you're forgetting is that you only need to observe one beam. Presumably, the other is already being measured by the photographic plate on the other side of the slits, after they have already exhibited whatever property the machine is reading (therefore disproving that it's the measurement itself causing the effect).

In other words, you're half right, and that's what makes it fascinating -- we can affect one set of entangled particles and cause a change in another set. This is what I've been trying to explain all along. In fact, what's even more incredible is that it may be our consciousness (expectation in observation) that actually causes these changes. So, in other words, this literally suggests that it's possible to indirectly manipulate matter by locally manipulating other matter telepathically from any other point in the universe.

The second (entangled) beam needs to be observed in order to see it act like a particle but that is something it would do even if it wasn't entangled. Ergo, nothing spectacular here.

Unless I do not understand the experiment you have presented. If so, please elaborate.

Also, I would like to know if you are suggesting that you can communicate using entangled pairs without a classical channel? Or that entanglement allows for FTL communication?

See, that's the thing. We're not even sure whether it's any sort of communication at all. All we know is that affecting one somehow affects the other, and at a rate that is fast enough to cause a change in the behavior of photons midway from one point to another within a relatively infinitesimal distance. That kind of suggests that it's the only behavior of matter within the Universe that we know of that isn't within the contraints of physical laws; i.e., it doesn't appear to require any travel at all.

It's probably moving in a direction perpendicular to the flow of time. That would definitely make sense of it; I'm sure the only reason why it hasn't been proposed (although undoubtedly pondered) is because we can barely conceptualize such a direction, or how one can possibly assume it.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:33:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 12:17:20 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:52:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
This is so, but you have to realize that you need to observe (ie interfere) with the second beam in order to know if it behaves like particle. The only problem is that doing so would ALREADY have caused the beam to act like a particle just like a regular unentangled beam.
Right, that's the premise behind the Uncertainty Principle -- we're still not sure whether it is our observation that chances the behavior of the photons, or some effect of our observation -- but, what you're forgetting is that you only need to observe one beam.
Not so, because if you have not "observed" the second beam, it is still a state of superposition. It is ONLY when you observe the second beam that the relationship becomes evident. Consequently, that second measurement affects the outcome.

What the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually saying is that given a quantum system, there are properties (aspects) of that system that are related in such a way that the more you know about one property the less you necessarily know about the other.

Realize however, that the Uncertainty Principle might actually be an unsurpassable technological limitation. QM claims it is not: it is a fundamental property of the universe.

Presumably, the other is already being measured by the photographic plate on the other side of the slits, after they have already exhibited whatever property the machine is reading (therefore disproving that it's the measurement itself causing the effect).
But it has not disproved that the measurement itself is causing the effect because the second beam was also measured. Ergo, the second measurement caused the effect!

In other words, you're half right, and that's what makes it fascinating -- we can affect one set of entangled particles and cause a change in another set. This is what I've been trying to explain all along.
But again: there are 2 measurements done: one on Alice and one on Bob. The measurement on Alice affects the result on Alice and the measurement on Bob affects the result on Bob! Two measurements, two influences.

Look, what boggles physicists is the fact that if you take a pair of Alice and Bob which are NOT entangled, you would notice that their relationship with respect to a specific property is random (50/50.) Yet somehow, we can generate Alice and Bob pairs that always yield the result (relationship) whenever they are measured! How can such nonrandom behavior come from such a random source?

Experiment:
(Setup) We have an experiment with Alice and Bob EPR pairs where Alice & Bob particles are both generated on the center. Additionally, Alice is detected on the "Alice side" of the experiment and Bob is detected on the "Bob side" of the experiment. We will be observing the "black or white" property of said pairs and the EPR effect is anti-correlated.
(1) We generate the pairs but ONLY observe Alice. What we get is a 50/50 distribution of "black and white" for Alice.
(2) We generate the pairs but ONLY observe Bob. What we get is a 50/50 distribution of "black and white" for Bob.
(3) We generate the pairs and observe both. We still get a 50/50 distribution of "black and white" for either BUT we notice that Alice and Bob are ALWAYS opposite of each other!

QM acknowledges that "observation" has an affect on what's being observed; HOWEVER, said effect SEEMS to be random. Yet it is NOT random when it comes to the relationship BETWEEN entangled pairs...but how so?

QM has to claim some "spooky action at a distance"; if not, it MUST then abandon the Uncertainty Principle. Einstein claimed that there is some OTHER thing going on here: namely that the pair's RELATIONSHIP was set at the source. QM claims that nothing can be set at the source because of the Uncertainty Principle.

In fact, what's even more incredible is that it may be our consciousness (expectation in observation) that actually causes these changes.
Absolutely not! Let computers or robots run the experiment and you will get the same results. Reality does not depend on us "knowing" about it. If that were so, we wouldn't even be here!

So, in other words, this literally suggests that it's possible to indirectly manipulate matter by locally manipulating other matter telepathically from any other point in the universe.
No way, no how. That's what I have been trying to tell you. This is what is being "hyped" but it is not supported by the science. You still need a classical channel in order to transmit or receive data. Do you understand what that means?

Example: if Alice & Bob are on opposite sides of the Milkyway, each with one of an EPR pair. In order for this to work, they need to maintain the relationship (ie entanglement) at ALL times. This means that ALL influences whatsoever on these EPRs must be controlled. Ergo, any action (reading, writing, or "unintended" externalities) must be controlled and known by BOTH sides, otherwise the entanglement is lost. If Alice "reads" her EPR more or less times than Bob, then they will be out of sync and will LOOSE the relationship (ie entanglement.) In order to prevent that, you need a classical channel so that they can inform each other when they have interacted (read or written or externalities) with the EPR. Furthermore, any "unintended" externality is an unknown (Heisenberg) ergo you couldn't really compensate for it on the other end without re-localizing the EPRs (re-entangling.)

If Alice writes to her EPR Bob will NEVER know about it unless he "looks" for it, the relationship is lost...but if Bob looks for it and Alice didn't write anything then he's just affected his EPR in a way that Alice has not and therefore the relationship is lost. See the problem?

Also, I would like to know if you are suggesting that you can communicate using entangled pairs without a classical channel? Or that entanglement allows for FTL communication?
See, that's the thing. We're not even sure whether it's any sort of communication at all.
Actually, we are. We are sure that there is no way to communicate using EPR pairs. This is a scientific fact.

All we know is that affecting one somehow affects the other, and at a rate that is fast enough to cause a change in the behavior of photons midway from one point to another within a relatively infinitesimal distance.
That's only because of QM's interpretation (ie opinion) on what's going on behind the scenes. And said interpretation is unfalsifiable. What I'm suggesting (Einstein as well) is that the relationship was set up at the source. The problem is that QM does NOT allow for that interpretation...but then again, there are things that are SO yet QM doesn't allow for them either...ergo QM is incomplete.

That kind of suggests that it's the only behavior of matter within the Universe that we know of that isn't within the constraints of physical laws; i.e., it doesn't appear to require any travel at all.
Yes, but there are other explanations that don't require the unfalsifiable hokus pokus.

It's probably moving in a direction perpendicular to the flow of time.
Not even sure what that means as an expression of physical reality. To be perpendicular to the flow of time...applying a geometrical concept to a non-geometrical object...this makes for great NetFlix quiz-show commercials!
Announcer: If you add purple to New York what do you get?
Contestant: Sunday?
Announcer: Correct!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:35:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 12:17:20 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/13/2011 11:52:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
(Continued)
That would definitely make sense of it; I'm sure the only reason why it hasn't been proposed (although undoubtedly pondered) is because we can barely conceptualize such a direction, or how one can possibly assume it.
That's quite a contradiction! Are you saying that we can't imagine the unimaginable yet somehow you have?

Again, there are no credible scientific sources claiming that EPR pairs or quantum teleportation can be done without a classical channel or that information can be transmitted at FTL speed

What might really cook your noodle is that all of existence (all of the universe) was once entangled! At t=0 of the Big Bang, everything was entangled!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 12:03:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For a better understanding of EPR pairs: http://www.hep.yorku.ca...

Of particular interest is page 8: VI. Quantum Information and Entanglement. This should make clear the requirement of the classical channel.

Also, the section on pages 5-8: V. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell's Inequality. This should give a better understanding of some of the experimentation behind EPR particles. Of particular interest (especially to me) is page 6: "One problem in all experimental situations thus far is due to technical insufficiencies, namely that only a small fraction of all pairs emitted by the source is registered. This is a standard problem in experimental work and experimentalists take great care to ensure that it is reasonable to assume that the detected pairs are a faithful representative of all pairs emitted. Yet, at least in principle, it is certainly thinkable that this is not the case and that, should we once be able to detect all pairs, a violation of quantum mechanics and data in agreement with local realism would be observed." (Emphasis added.)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:36:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 12:03:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
For a better understanding of EPR pairs: http://www.hep.yorku.ca...

Of particular interest is page 8: VI. Quantum Information and Entanglement. This should make clear the requirement of the classical channel.

Also, the section on pages 5-8: V. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell's Inequality. This should give a better understanding of some of the experimentation behind EPR particles. Of particular interest (especially to me) is page 6: "One problem in all experimental situations thus far is due to technical insufficiencies, namely that only a small fraction of all pairs emitted by the source is registered. This is a standard problem in experimental work and experimentalists take great care to ensure that it is reasonable to assume that the detected pairs are a faithful representative of all pairs emitted. Yet, at least in principle, it is certainly thinkable that this is not the case and that, should we once be able to detect all pairs, a violation of quantum mechanics and data in agreement with local realism would be observed." (Emphasis added.)

Thanks for the link, T.

Interesting article.

According to the author, the quantum state of a particle is not just unknown but undetermined and can only be determined after it has been measured. Moreover, two entangled quantum particles can share information in such a way that neither particle carries any information on its own.

Ok now I am really confused...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:36:43 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/15/2011 12:03:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
For a better understanding of EPR pairs: http://www.hep.yorku.ca...

Of particular interest is page 8: VI. Quantum Information and Entanglement. This should make clear the requirement of the classical channel.

Also, the section on pages 5-8: V. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell's Inequality. This should give a better understanding of some of the experimentation behind EPR particles. Of particular interest (especially to me) is page 6: "One problem in all experimental situations thus far is due to technical insufficiencies, namely that only a small fraction of all pairs emitted by the source is registered. This is a standard problem in experimental work and experimentalists take great care to ensure that it is reasonable to assume that the detected pairs are a faithful representative of all pairs emitted. Yet, at least in principle, it is certainly thinkable that this is not the case and that, should we once be able to detect all pairs, a violation of quantum mechanics and data in agreement with local realism would be observed." (Emphasis added.)

Thanks for the link, T.

Interesting article.
Don't mention it. It's got some math in it but it's also got a lot of clearly expressed points.

According to the author, the quantum state of a particle is not just unknown but undetermined and can only be determined after it has been measured.
Yes. That's because according to QM those properties (entangled or not) are undetermined. But isn't it funny how that aspect of QM is not falsifiable?

Moreover, two entangled quantum particles can share information in such a way that neither particle carries any information on its own.
That's right, that's why you need the classical channel. But one cool thing that comes from EPR pairs is quantum cryptography. We can have "snoop proof" communication and that can be a great security tool. The idea is that if someone where to "snoop" in on a communication, it would affect the communication and the receiver would be instantly alerted! Firstly, the "spy" would not be able to decipher the communication because they would not know the nature of the entanglement(s). Secondly, the simple act of "reading" (ie snooping) by the spy destroys the information and so when the receiver gets the signal it will be improperly decoded as "junk data."

Ok now I am really confused...
Well, I am still a hold out so it's not as confusing to me. I simply accept that the relationship is set up at the source and voila! There's no more confusion!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 10:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:33:35 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Not so, because if you have not "observed" the second beam, it is still a state of superposition. It is ONLY when you observe the second beam that the relationship becomes evident. Consequently, that second measurement affects the outcome.

Ah, not so, not in every situation. Granted, if we're talking about measurements within the Hadron Collider, then you're absolutely correct. However, in the double-slit experiment specifically, that particular rule doesn't apply.

In the double-slit experiment, it was literal foreknowledge of the trajectory of a beam of light that caused a beam of light emanating from a slit to behave like a series of particles. However, without knowing the trajectory of the photons, light suddenly behaves like a wave.

What's special about that is that you don't need to measure both for both to exhibit the same properties, which is evident by the design they make on a photographic plate, rather than any applied measurement.

What the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually saying is that given a quantum system, there are properties (aspects) of that system that are related in such a way that the more you know about one property the less you necessarily know about the other.

????

Please explain.

To my understanding, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates to the fact that you can't determine both the momentum and position of an object with 100% certainty.

Observing particle-wave duality does not require measuring momentum.

But again: there are 2 measurements done: one on Alice and one on Bob. The measurement on Alice affects the result on Alice and the measurement on Bob affects the result on Bob! Two measurements, two influences.

No. Alice and Bob are standing in their respective locations on opposite sides of the planet with cameras pointing at them. Scientists have observed that if Alice and Bob are married, if you take pictures of Alice and Bob repeatedly and cause Alice to dance, pictures with show them both dancing for no discernable reason when they were both initially still.

Due to everything I just wrote, I don't understand the rest of what you wrote at all.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 11:39:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, I'm reading through your link and it's very informative... so far, information that I'm familiar with.

And, here, I'd like to highlight a major point that I've been trying to explain to you recanted in the paper:

"It is important to realize that this
does not imply that an observer actually takes note of
what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference
pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle
from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the
environment and beyond any technical possibility to be
recovered, but in principle still ‘‘out there.'"


This means that a measurement is not necessary. It is simply understanding the path that a beam is taking that causes it to behave like particles instead of waves, or, as the paper states, cause it to lose its interference pattern and simply platter on a surface in a linear fashion.

In fact, the paper takes it a step further -- I was under the impression that you must measure at least one of the beams. But lo -- you must only know the trajectory, if even logically through inference, in order to alter the state of photons as they're expressed on a surface:

"Will we now observe an interference pattern for particle 1 behind its double slit? The answer has again to be
negative because by simply placing detectors in the
beams b and b8 of particle 2 we can determine which
path particle 1 took. Formally speaking, the states ua&1
and ua8&1
again cannot be coherently superposed because they are entangled with the two orthogonal states
ub8&2
and ub8&2."


That funny combination of letters, symbols and numbers are actually equations. It's essentially expressing the algorithm to the pattern the photons make when they strike a surface together from a beam of light.

To bring it together:

"Obviously, the interference pattern can be obtained if
one applies a so-called quantum eraser which completely erases the path information carried by particle 2"


This is the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Entanglement:

"A momentum eigenstate cannot carry any position information, i.e., no information about which slit
the particle passes through. Therefore, a double-slit interference pattern for photon 2 is registered conditioned
on registration of photon 1 in the focal plane of the lens"


In other words.

If we take an entangled pair of objects and measure the light they're radiating (or pass light through them, be it as it may, as this regards creating pairs of entangled photons by passing them through a crystal), and cause one of the beams of light to pass through a lens that measures its momentum, we can no longer with 100% certainly measure its location, and therefore, it's trajectory. As a result, an interference pattern will result, or, the light will behave like a wave. In other words, they showed that it worked in reverse to the way it worked in the double-slit experiment.

According to this paper, the concerns you've been outlining regarding a path of communication is actually a geometric one that relates to interaction and location. However, as it turns out, that is one of the major contradictions between macro physics and quantum physics, and it's termed Bell's Inequality, or Bells Theorem:

"Second, a most important development was due to
John Bell (1964) who continued the EPR line of reasoning and demonstrated that a contradiction arises between the EPR assumptions and quantum physics. The
most essential assumptions are realism and locality. This
contradiction is called Bell's theorem."


That section detailing Bell's Inequality provides an equation for the likelihood for coincidence between two measurements, whether directly relational or polar. There are outright violations for given variables, though, which shows that quantum physics defies locality laws of topography and geometry.

Finally, to bring it all together regarding the inaccuracy of your theory that it requires a communication channel to exhibit quantum entanglement:

"While teleportation presently might sound like a
strange name conjuring up futuristic images, it is appropriate. The reader should be reminded of the strange
connotations of the notion of magnetism before its clear
definition by physicists. Quantum teleportation actually
demonstrates some of the salient features of entanglement and quantum information. It also raises deep questions about the nature of reality in the quantum world.
Most important for the understanding of the quantum
teleportation scheme is the realization that maximally
entangled states such as the Bell basis are characterized
by the fact that none of the individual members of the
entangled state, in our case, the two photons, carries any
information on its own."


There you have it. The information is teleported; or, even better, exists in two or more places at once.

And how about this -- something I didn't know that really intrigued me:

"This possibility results
in entanglement swapping (Zukowski et al., 1993; Pan
et al., 1998), that is, in entangling two particles which
were created completely independently and which never
interacted."


Whaaaaaaaaaat?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 1:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 10:39:29 PM, Ren wrote:
In the double-slit experiment, it was literal foreknowledge of the trajectory of a beam of light that caused a beam of light emanating from a slit to behave like a series of particles. However, without knowing the trajectory of the photons, light suddenly behaves like a wave.
This is the case with or without entanglement; all this shows is wave-particle duality.

What's special about that is that you don't need to measure both for both to exhibit the same properties, which is evident by the design they make on a photographic plate, rather than any applied measurement.
The design on the photographic plate IS an applied measurement! And the fact that they both exhibit the same properties is no surprise because they were generated with the same properties at the source!

To my understanding, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates to the fact that you can't determine both the momentum and position of an object with 100% certainty.
Electron spin, photon polarity, etc. There are MANY properties that share the uncertainty principle.

Observing particle-wave duality does not require measuring momentum.
No just its corollary: position!

No. Alice and Bob are standing in their respective locations on opposite sides of the planet with cameras pointing at them.
Cameras perform OBSERVATIONS, ergo they are being measured.

Scientists have observed that if Alice and Bob are married, if you take pictures of Alice and Bob repeatedly and cause Alice to dance, pictures with show them both dancing for no discernable reason when they were both initially still.
This is ONLY true if the SAME method of observation is used on both Alice & Bob; otherwise, you will not see this behavior.

Due to everything I just wrote, I don't understand the rest of what you wrote at all.
So because of something YOU wrote you now do not understand what I wrote?

And, here, I'd like to highlight a major point that I've been trying to explain to you recanted in the paper:

"It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle still ‘‘out there.'"

This means that a measurement is not necessary. It is simply understanding the path that a beam is taking that causes it to behave like particles instead of waves, or, as the paper states, cause it to lose its interference pattern and simply platter on a surface in a linear fashion.
No, it does not mean that at all. What it means is that a measurement does NOT require an observer to be aware of it: "… observer actually takes note of what happens …"

According to this paper, the concerns you've been outlining regarding a path of communication is actually a geometric one that relates to interaction and location. However, as it turns out, that is one of the major contradictions between macro physics and quantum physics, and it's termed Bell's Inequality, or Bells Theorem:

"Second, a most important development was due to John Bell (1964) who continued the EPR line of reasoning and demonstrated that a contradiction arises between the EPR assumptions and quantum physics. The most essential assumptions are realism and locality. This contradiction is called Bell's theorem."
The need for a classical channel has nothing to do with locality whatsoever. It has to do with the fact that the quantum information is NOT accessible without measurement.

That section detailing Bell's Inequality provides an equation for the likelihood for coincidence between two measurements, whether directly relational or polar. There are outright violations for given variables, though, which shows that quantum physics defies locality laws of topography and geometry.
Bell's inequalities simply state that either locality is true and qm is false OR qm is true and locality is false. However, there are still loopholes in these experiments.

Finally, to bring it all together regarding the inaccuracy of your theory that it requires a communication channel to exhibit quantum entanglement:
Only problem is, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that in order to use entanglement as a method of communicating (example radio/tv communications, etc.) a classical channel is required. As is evidenced by the quote you gave:

"While teleportation presently might sound like a strange name conjuring up futuristic images, it is appropriate. The reader should be reminded of the strange connotations of the notion of magnetism before its clear definition by physicists. Quantum teleportation actually demonstrates some of the salient features of entanglement and quantum information. It also raises deep questions about the nature of reality in the quantum world. Most important for the understanding of the quantum teleportation scheme is the realization that maximally entangled states such as the Bell basis are characterized by the fact that none of the individual members of the entangled state, in our case, the two photons, carries any information on its own."

There you have it. The information is teleported; or, even better, exists in two or more places at once.
Read your own quote above.

As I said (actually restating consensus), communication involving entanglement still requires a classical channel.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.