Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Quantum Entanglement and Information Speed

 Posts: 4,249 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PMPosted: 3 years agoThis question was recently posed to me, and I just realized I couldn't answer it. For those of you who don't know what quantum entanglement is, or those who need a refresher, I'll provide a brief description for you - A simple example of it is during the decay of a particle with spin 0 (the definition of spin is complicated and unimportant; concisely, it's the way the particle interacts with a magnetic field, although it's not really "spinning") into two particles, one with spin 1/2 and the other with spin -1/2. Now just assume we can put both particles at the end of the universe, and we don't know which particle has which spin. If we measure one particle and find it's spin to be, say, 1/2, the other particle instantaneously has a measured spin value of -1/2 (because the spin direction must be opposite if they are entangled).So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Einstein argued that, "Einstein agreed that entangle particles could exist, he insisted that these entangle particles are like gloves. If you have a pair of gloves and you pack each glove in two different boxes and send these two boxes to two different places and when a person opens the first box can predict that what glove is in another box without looking at it. If he got the right hand glove in the box than the other must be left handed. Einstein thought the same idea applies to entangle particles, whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart."Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 480 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 9:20:26 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:This question was recently posed to me, and I just realized I couldn't answer it. For those of you who don't know what quantum entanglement is, or those who need a refresher, I'll provide a brief description for you - A simple example of it is during the decay of a particle with spin 0 (the definition of spin is complicated and unimportant; concisely, it's the way the particle interacts with a magnetic field, although it's not really "spinning") into two particles, one with spin 1/2 and the other with spin -1/2. Now just assume we can put both particles at the end of the universe, and we don't know which particle has which spin. If we measure one particle and find it's spin to be, say, 1/2, the other particle instantaneously has a measured spin value of -1/2 (because the spin direction must be opposite if they are entangled).So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Einstein argued that, "Einstein agreed that entangle particles could exist, he insisted that these entangle particles are like gloves. If you have a pair of gloves and you pack each glove in two different boxes and send these two boxes to two different places and when a person opens the first box can predict that what glove is in another box without looking at it. If he got the right hand glove in the box than the other must be left handed. Einstein thought the same idea applies to entangle particles, whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart."Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?Unless you're good at calculus, I'd suggest you don't try to understand to Bell's experiments.My assumption, and this is not based on experiment in the slightest, is that the entanglement of the two particles doesn't act over the space between them. Or maybe the space they occupy is entangled as well, so that there is technically zero distance between them. Again, I'm probably talking out of my a\$\$.
 Posts: 4,249 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 9:44:46 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 9:20:26 PM, apb4y wrote:At 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:This question was recently posed to me, and I just realized I couldn't answer it. For those of you who don't know what quantum entanglement is, or those who need a refresher, I'll provide a brief description for you - A simple example of it is during the decay of a particle with spin 0 (the definition of spin is complicated and unimportant; concisely, it's the way the particle interacts with a magnetic field, although it's not really "spinning") into two particles, one with spin 1/2 and the other with spin -1/2. Now just assume we can put both particles at the end of the universe, and we don't know which particle has which spin. If we measure one particle and find it's spin to be, say, 1/2, the other particle instantaneously has a measured spin value of -1/2 (because the spin direction must be opposite if they are entangled).So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Einstein argued that, "Einstein agreed that entangle particles could exist, he insisted that these entangle particles are like gloves. If you have a pair of gloves and you pack each glove in two different boxes and send these two boxes to two different places and when a person opens the first box can predict that what glove is in another box without looking at it. If he got the right hand glove in the box than the other must be left handed. Einstein thought the same idea applies to entangle particles, whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart."Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?Unless you're good at calculus, I'd suggest you don't try to understand to Bell's experiments.I'm pretty good at calculus, so if you can find a link showing it to me, I'd be very thankful.My assumption, and this is not based on experiment in the slightest, is that the entanglement of the two particles doesn't act over the space between them. Or maybe the space they occupy is entangled as well, so that there is technically zero distance between them. Again, I'm probably talking out of my a\$\$.The space doesn't matter. Information can only travel at the speed of light at the fastest. The correlation between the two values causes entanglement.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 1,023 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 10:17:09 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?I think this is a really interesting example of classical versus quantum physics: [http://marginalrevolution.com...]Essentially, Bell derived statistical predictions of Einstein's hypothesis (classical physics) similar to the prediction of how often you should win the game given the non-quantum strategy, and showed that the quantum mechanics violates those predictions, suggesting that the game can be won more often than would be expected otherwise.This isn't an entirely accurate presentation of Bell's theorem (you might be thinking measuring an unexpectedly high win rate of 85% with a large number of trials is still possible with the classical approach, and you'd be right). More precisely, Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof (it's a theorem, not an experiment) of constraints on the correlations between measurements; quantum mechanical predictions violate these constraints, and this has been verified experimentally (with some loopholes).The Wikipedia article on this is well written, consider giving it a read: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
 Posts: 145 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 10:31:16 PMPosted: 3 years agoNo Einstein still has not been proven wrong and the interpretations, whether qm is deterministic, or whether qm collapses are still debated. They know what happens, instantaneous speed, but dont know the mechanics of it.General relativity has shown to be absolutely correct. The only thing is the maths break down as you reach the speed of light or you have enough mass to warp spacetime completely. It seems obvious to me that if things like space being at every point at the same time and time slowing down to a stand still is enough to let the particles do "spooky action from a distance". NASA is working on their theoretical warp drives, jumping the universe by warping spacetime.
 Posts: 1,023 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 10:43:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Also, quantum and classical mechanics have the same predictions when you measure along the same axis (or when measurements are offset by integer multiples of 90 degrees from the original measurement); the discrepancy arises when considering oblique angles, and is greatest when the measurement is offset by 45 degrees.
 Posts: 480 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/23/2014 10:44:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 9:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:Information can only travel at the speed of light at the fastest.That is correct, but irrelevant if a shortcut is available. Classic example: a wormhole connecting two distant regions of space. Could entanglement function in a similar manner?
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 12:33:53 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 10:17:09 PM, Enji wrote:At 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?I think this is a really interesting example of classical versus quantum physics: [http://marginalrevolution.com...]Essentially, Bell derived statistical predictions of Einstein's hypothesis (classical physics) similar to the prediction of how often you should win the game given the non-quantum strategy, and showed that the quantum mechanics violates those predictions, suggesting that the game can be won more often than would be expected otherwise.This isn't an entirely accurate presentation of Bell's theorem (you might be thinking measuring an unexpectedly high win rate of 85% with a large number of trials is still possible with the classical approach, and you'd be right). More precisely, Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof (it's a theorem, not an experiment) of constraints on the correlations between measurements; quantum mechanical predictions violate these constraints, and this has been verified experimentally (with some loopholes).The Wikipedia article on this is well written, consider giving it a read: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Can you explain why the view that "whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart" necessitates a specific prediction scheme which quantum mechanics proves wrong?
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 12:52:22 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 9:20:26 PM, apb4y wrote:At 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:This question was recently posed to me, and I just realized I couldn't answer it. For those of you who don't know what quantum entanglement is, or those who need a refresher, I'll provide a brief description for you - A simple example of it is during the decay of a particle with spin 0 (the definition of spin is complicated and unimportant; concisely, it's the way the particle interacts with a magnetic field, although it's not really "spinning") into two particles, one with spin 1/2 and the other with spin -1/2. Now just assume we can put both particles at the end of the universe, and we don't know which particle has which spin. If we measure one particle and find it's spin to be, say, 1/2, the other particle instantaneously has a measured spin value of -1/2 (because the spin direction must be opposite if they are entangled).So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Einstein argued that, "Einstein agreed that entangle particles could exist, he insisted that these entangle particles are like gloves. If you have a pair of gloves and you pack each glove in two different boxes and send these two boxes to two different places and when a person opens the first box can predict that what glove is in another box without looking at it. If he got the right hand glove in the box than the other must be left handed. Einstein thought the same idea applies to entangle particles, whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart."Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?Unless you're good at calculus, I'd suggest you don't try to understand to Bell's experiments.My assumption, and this is not based on experiment in the slightest, is that the entanglement of the two particles doesn't act over the space between them. Or maybe the space they occupy is entangled as well, so that there is technically zero distance between them. Again, I'm probably talking out of my a\$\$.I don't think your that far off at all. I think your explanation is pretty darn close. I think the space between them, interacting between them and with the particles I mean, are also entangled. This is a conclusion that makes sense to me.
 Posts: 2,052 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 1:01:39 AMPosted: 3 years agoare = is
 Posts: 1,023 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 10:19:29 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/24/2014 12:33:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Can you explain why the view that "whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart" necessitates a specific prediction scheme which quantum mechanics proves wrong?The view that the state of the electron is determined when they fly apart is essentially identical to the strategy in the quantum game example that the answer each player gives is determined beforehand. In this example, the expected probability for winning the game is only 75%.Using the mathematics of quantum entanglement, however, you would predict a higher probability of winning the game than could be obtained classically due to the effects of entanglement and taking measurements offset by 45%; this gets you a probability of winning just over 85%, so the predictions of classical and quantum mechanics differ.If you're interested in a more complicated, mathematical approach to Bell's theorem, check out this article: [http://www.johnboccio.com...]. I think the graphs provided help to clear up the mathematics (at least if you are familiar with the use of Venn diagrams in probability theory or logic), and he provides a quantum example which violates Bell's inequality.
 Posts: 145 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 10:37:21 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 10:44:30 PM, apb4y wrote:At 10/23/2014 9:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:Information can only travel at the speed of light at the fastest.That is correct, but irrelevant if a shortcut is available. Classic example: a wormhole connecting two distant regions of space. Could entanglement function in a similar manner?That's the theory and makes sense to me.
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/24/2014 10:19:29 AM, Enji wrote:At 10/24/2014 12:33:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Can you explain why the view that "whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart" necessitates a specific prediction scheme which quantum mechanics proves wrong?The view that the state of the electron is determined when they fly apart is essentially identical to the strategy in the quantum game example that the answer each player gives is determined beforehand. In this example, the expected probability for winning the game is only 75%.Using the mathematics of quantum entanglement, however, you would predict a higher probability of winning the game than could be obtained classically due to the effects of entanglement and taking measurements offset by 45%; this gets you a probability of winning just over 85%, so the predictions of classical and quantum mechanics differ.If you're interested in a more complicated, mathematical approach to Bell's theorem, check out this article: [http://www.johnboccio.com...]. I think the graphs provided help to clear up the mathematics (at least if you are familiar with the use of Venn diagrams in probability theory or logic), and he provides a quantum example which violates Bell's inequality.Okay, I understand that. Can you explain why working off of QM premises allows you to predict with more accuracy? And in plain English, please :)
 Posts: 5,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 4:24:16 PMPosted: 3 years agoclosing the free - will loop hole.http://www.debate.org...The next great expansion on bell's theorem will involve multi dimensions and closing hidden variable in other dimensions should we have more than the three spatial dimensions.http://www.debate.org...three party entanglement. confirmed spooky actions at a distance for when more than two particles entangled.http://www.debate.org...As far as whether the information travels faster than speed of light or whether there are different configurations of space so it is traveling less distance than the typical three dimensional space, it is all speculation. What we can say though, is that the communication between the particles is much, much faster than any particle could itself travel. In fact, it is instantaneous, so speculation such as wormholes, which still require space to travel are pretty much thrown out because they are not instantaneous.
 Posts: 4,249 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 4:56:20 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/23/2014 10:44:30 PM, apb4y wrote:At 10/23/2014 9:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:Information can only travel at the speed of light at the fastest.That is correct, but irrelevant if a shortcut is available. Classic example: a wormhole connecting two distant regions of space. Could entanglement function in a similar manner?Travel by wormhole is not instantaneous. Wormholes take advantage of spacetime folds to make travel through it by the reference point of the "normal" (not using the wormhole) path. In other words, things traveling through a wormhole would only appear to be traveling faster than light to an observer outside the wormhole. Things traveling through a wormhole would see themselves traveling subliminally. Therefore, this cannot explain entanglement, which requires the instantaneous spread of information. Plus, it can happen anywhere.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 4,249 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/24/2014 5:01:41 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 10/24/2014 12:52:22 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:At 10/23/2014 9:20:26 PM, apb4y wrote:At 10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM, Subutai wrote:This question was recently posed to me, and I just realized I couldn't answer it. For those of you who don't know what quantum entanglement is, or those who need a refresher, I'll provide a brief description for you - A simple example of it is during the decay of a particle with spin 0 (the definition of spin is complicated and unimportant; concisely, it's the way the particle interacts with a magnetic field, although it's not really "spinning") into two particles, one with spin 1/2 and the other with spin -1/2. Now just assume we can put both particles at the end of the universe, and we don't know which particle has which spin. If we measure one particle and find it's spin to be, say, 1/2, the other particle instantaneously has a measured spin value of -1/2 (because the spin direction must be opposite if they are entangled).So the obvious problem with this is that it violates special relativity's "speed limit" for the spread of information. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics says that, before we measure the particle, it exists in both possible states. In other words, its wave function is 1/2 spin up plus 1/2 spin down (analogous to the positive and negative values I used). Measuring the particle collapses its wave function to have one specific measured value. This instantaneously forces the other particle to have the opposite spin.Einstein argued that, "Einstein agreed that entangle particles could exist, he insisted that these entangle particles are like gloves. If you have a pair of gloves and you pack each glove in two different boxes and send these two boxes to two different places and when a person opens the first box can predict that what glove is in another box without looking at it. If he got the right hand glove in the box than the other must be left handed. Einstein thought the same idea applies to entangle particles, whatever the configuration electrons are in, must have been determined when they flew apart."Now, if I understand correctly, Bell's experiments showed Einstein's view of entanglement to be wrong, and that it was indeed the instantaneous spread of information. But how was this shown? I've looked up the experiment, but none of the websites I have found explained how the experiment showed that Einstein was wrong. And if Einstein is truly wrong, can we reconcile relativity with quantum entanglement, or is relativity a fundamentally flawed theory (in the way that Newtonian mechanics is flawed; it's not wrong, but it only applies to certain situations)?Unless you're good at calculus, I'd suggest you don't try to understand to Bell's experiments.My assumption, and this is not based on experiment in the slightest, is that the entanglement of the two particles doesn't act over the space between them. Or maybe the space they occupy is entangled as well, so that there is technically zero distance between them. Again, I'm probably talking out of my a\$\$.I don't think your that far off at all. I think your explanation is pretty darn close. I think the space between them, interacting between them and with the particles I mean, are also entangled. This is a conclusion that makes sense to me.But that's not how quantum mechanics explains it. It's that the collapse of the wave function of one entangled particle causes the instantaneous collapse of the wave function of the other particle. Space itself is not affected by entanglement.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"