Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quantum Entanglement and Information Speed

Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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)?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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$$.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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.


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.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:17:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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...]
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No 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.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:43:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:44:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:33:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:52:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
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.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 7:40:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
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)?

Bell came up with an inequality which would hold to be true if Einstein was right and there was an underlying causal nature to quantum events. Bell's work essentially boiled the Einstein Poldolski Rosen (EPR) paper down to one simple inequality. Bell did this in 1964 before it was possible to verify the inequality experimentally. In the 1980's Alain Aspect realized it was then possible to test the inequality using entangled photons and checking their polarity. Electronics had advanced to the stage where nanoseconds could be measured.

If Einstein was right the entangled photons always had anti-polarization, one up and one down say at the moment they were created. If Heisenberg and Bohr were right the photons were undefined until measured. A photon will always pass through a filter that it is aligned with. If the filter is not perfectly aligned then there is a probability it will pass through dependent on the angle. For small angles the probability of not passing through is proportional to angle for Einstein's version of reality but proportional to angle squared for the Heisenberg version.

Aspect's experiment involved checking to see if paired photons passed through both filters that were at a slight angle to the expected angle of polarization. The photons traveled in opposite directions and were checked by two filters about 10 m apart. Electronic timing was needed to check that a genuine entangled pair had arrived at each filter simultaneously. If Einstein were right a smaller number of photon pairs would pass through only one filter than if Heisenberg were right. The measurements showed that Bell's inequality did not hold and entangled pairs were not defined until measured. There is no underlying causal nature to quantum events they are random.

There are local reality loopholes to Aspect's experiment and further experiments have been done to remove these in the last few years. Most now agree that EPR is completely false and spooky action is a reality.

No information passes between entangled pairs because the orientation of one of a pair of entangled photons cannot be used to send information. You need to know what was done to the other photon before any information is sent. The measurement of one photon does not allow you to fix the polarization of the other photon just that you know what orientation it has. The received photons will have random polarization, so no information. How we understand quantum physics and resolve the spooky action idea is still open for discussion. Everett's multi-universe idea currently is the most common interpretation. Heisenberg favoured the 'Shut up and calculate' version, which is to say he felt that we cannot achieve a meaningful interpretation of the mathematics at all.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:19:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
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.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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 :)
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
closing 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.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:56:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 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.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:05:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 7:40:08 AM, chui 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)?

Bell came up with an inequality which would hold to be true if Einstein was right and there was an underlying causal nature to quantum events. Bell's work essentially boiled the Einstein Poldolski Rosen (EPR) paper down to one simple inequality. Bell did this in 1964 before it was possible to verify the inequality experimentally. In the 1980's Alain Aspect realized it was then possible to test the inequality using entangled photons and checking their polarity. Electronics had advanced to the stage where nanoseconds could be measured.

If Einstein was right the entangled photons always had anti-polarization, one up and one down say at the moment they were created. If Heisenberg and Bohr were right the photons were undefined until measured. A photon will always pass through a filter that it is aligned with. If the filter is not perfectly aligned then there is a probability it will pass through dependent on the angle. For small angles the probability of not passing through is proportional to angle for Einstein's version of reality but proportional to angle squared for the Heisenberg version.

Aspect's experiment involved checking to see if paired photons passed through both filters that were at a slight angle to the expected angle of polarization. The photons traveled in opposite directions and were checked by two filters about 10 m apart. Electronic timing was needed to check that a genuine entangled pair had arrived at each filter simultaneously. If Einstein were right a smaller number of photon pairs would pass through only one filter than if Heisenberg were right. The measurements showed that Bell's inequality did not hold and entangled pairs were not defined until measured. There is no underlying causal nature to quantum events they are random.

There are local reality loopholes to Aspect's experiment and further experiments have been done to remove these in the last few years. Most now agree that EPR is completely false and spooky action is a reality.

No information passes between entangled pairs because the orientation of one of a pair of entangled photons cannot be used to send information. You need to know what was done to the other photon before any information is sent. The measurement of one photon does not allow you to fix the polarization of the other photon just that you know what orientation it has. The received photons will have random polarization, so no information. How we understand quantum physics and resolve the spooky action idea is still open for discussion. Everett's multi-universe idea currently is the most common interpretation. Heisenberg favoured the 'Shut up and calculate' version, which is to say he felt that we cannot achieve a meaningful interpretation of the mathematics at all.

I think you just won.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 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 :)

Classical premises can be derived from QM premises. In fact, classical equations are really just simplified forms of QM equations. In the normal world, the classical simplification creates an error so small its statistically insignificant. It's only when we go down to the size of the atom that QM needs to be taken into account. So, simply, QM principles are without error because they apply at all levels, but in the normal world, we can simply use the classical simplification.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 11:16:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:31:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 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 :)

Classical premises can be derived from QM premises. In fact, classical equations are really just simplified forms of QM equations. In the normal world, the classical simplification creates an error so small its statistically insignificant. It's only when we go down to the size of the atom that QM needs to be taken into account. So, simply, QM principles are without error because they apply at all levels, but in the normal world, we can simply use the classical simplification.

How does working under the assumption that the spin of particle A and B (entangled particles) are not determined until you measure one of them allow you to predict with more accuracy? In other words, how is the approach to the problem different? What would a QM person say that a relativist person wouldn't and vice versa?
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 11:59:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:56:20 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 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.

What your saying is true which is what I gathered was the point. With entanglement there is no need to travel faster than the speed of light. Due to the nature of particles in a quantum state, they would be in a position to do "spooky action from a distance" without violating physics. Because particles in a quantum state are outside spacetime.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 12:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM, Such 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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.

In other words, the path between one particle and the other is in a shape that can only exist in a higher dimension, and doesn't require a transit through the same distance as a shape within the second or third dimension.

So to speak.

And, I think that's the prevailing theory. But, I could be wrong. Fact is, scientists don't even really understand it. They're just recently even proving it's the case.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 12:36:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 12:03:10 PM, Such wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM, Such 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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.

In other words, the path between one particle and the other is in a shape that can only exist in a higher dimension, and doesn't require a transit through the same distance as a shape within the second or third dimension.

So to speak.

And, I think that's the prevailing theory. But, I could be wrong. Fact is, scientists don't even really understand it. They're just recently even proving it's the case.

We have known of the ramifications of general relativity for a hundred years so maybe we are understanding before we can even prove it. It is true new experimentation continues to confirm some of the better theories.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:19:29 AM, Enji wrote:
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 :)

Not with more accuracy. When you play the game with the quantum strategy, you can't guess which question your partner has been asked any better than you could with the classical strategy. There is still a 75% probability that you and your partner will be asked a question where you'll win if your answers are different, and a 25% probability that you and your partner will be asked a question where you win if your answers are the same.

The quantum strategy ends up with a better probability of winning than would be possible with a classical strategy due to the way the measurements correlate with each other.

Here's another example of correlation. Suppose we flip three coins, and randomly select two of the results: what is the probability that they match. The possible outcomes are: all three are heads, two are heads and one is tails, one is heads and two are tails, and all three are tails. It's easy to see that the probability of choosing two coins which match must be at least 1/3. Suppose coin A is heads, coin B is tails, and coin C is tails: If you randomly select A and B you won't find a match, and if you randomly select A and C they again won't match; but if you select B and C you'll find that they match -- getting you a 1/3 probability of matching. The probability can be higher; if all three are heads, then any two you pick will match so the probability of getting a match is 1. This fact that in a classical system matches should occur greater than or equal to 1/3 of the time is an example of Bell's inequality (P_same[A,B]+P_same[A,C]+P_same[B,C]>=1).

QM, however, predicts that the probability of a match is actually 1/4. It doesn't really matter where this number comes from (largely because it's derived from the mathematics of QM which wouldn't make sense in plain english, but also because it doesn't relate to much in this classical example); suffice to say QM's prediction violates Bell's inequality (1/4+1/4+1/4=3/4<1). As I mentioned above, it's not that QM allows you to make predictions with more accuracy; rather the predictions of classical models (like Einstein's local hidden variables) are incompatible with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 12:54:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM, Such 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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.

That's a truly interesting model, by not violating relativity, but simply making it essentially irrelevant to the conversation. I know there's no evidence for higher dimensions, but is there any evidence for this particular theory?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:05:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 11:16:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:31:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 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 :)

Classical premises can be derived from QM premises. In fact, classical equations are really just simplified forms of QM equations. In the normal world, the classical simplification creates an error so small its statistically insignificant. It's only when we go down to the size of the atom that QM needs to be taken into account. So, simply, QM principles are without error because they apply at all levels, but in the normal world, we can simply use the classical simplification.

How does working under the assumption that the spin of particle A and B (entangled particles) are not determined until you measure one of them allow you to predict with more accuracy? In other words, how is the approach to the problem different? What would a QM person say that a relativist person wouldn't and vice versa?

Einstein may have disagreed with quantum mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we've been trying to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics (we have united special relativity with quantum mechanics with the Dirac equation, which is essentially a relativistic Schrodinger equation).

In QM, each particle has a wave function described by the Schrodinger equation. We can find the probability of that particle being in a certain state with the equation. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, measuring the particle collapses the wave function to have a probability of 1 at the measured value.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 12:54:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM, Such 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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.

That's a truly interesting model, by not violating relativity, but simply making it essentially irrelevant to the conversation. I know there's no evidence for higher dimensions, but is there any evidence for this particular theory?

Well... there's this http://ieeexplore.ieee.org....

And this: http://www.renoust.com...

Which relies on multiplex networks, which is this: http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk...

Which leads to differential manifolds, as multiplex networks describe individual manifolds that are connected, called differential manifolds.

I would just explain it, but I only have 8k characters. It's Saturday; you have the time to read it for yourself, revisit the conversation, and start from there, if you're really interested. ~_^
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 12:54:53 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:45:39 AM, Such 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)?

The speed limit, as described by Einstein, is based on the theory of relativity, which rests on the measurement of a single topological manifold. Quantum entanglement depends on differential manifolds, which allows for differential calculus, thus resulting in a local calculation that presents a mirror image of the initial mathematical interpretation of a molecular model, but which doesn't depend on a communication through spacetime. It requires, instead, transition through a higher dimension, and this is why the multidimensional model is even taken serious, and has since the 90's taken hold (since the discovery of quantum entanglement).

It is why Stephen Hawking is considered such a genius -- a devised a multidimensional model before quantum entanglement was proven.

That's a truly interesting model, by not violating relativity, but simply making it essentially irrelevant to the conversation. I know there's no evidence for higher dimensions, but is there any evidence for this particular theory?

And, no evidence whatsoever for higher dimensions?

Proven, no, but no evidence? C'monnnnn.

Here, take a look: http://www.nbcnews.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:25:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:05:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:16:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:31:58 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/24/2014 12:00:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 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 :)

Classical premises can be derived from QM premises. In fact, classical equations are really just simplified forms of QM equations. In the normal world, the classical simplification creates an error so small its statistically insignificant. It's only when we go down to the size of the atom that QM needs to be taken into account. So, simply, QM principles are without error because they apply at all levels, but in the normal world, we can simply use the classical simplification.

How does working under the assumption that the spin of particle A and B (entangled particles) are not determined until you measure one of them allow you to predict with more accuracy? In other words, how is the approach to the problem different? What would a QM person say that a relativist person wouldn't and vice versa?

Einstein may have disagreed with quantum mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we've been trying to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics (we have united special relativity with quantum mechanics with the Dirac equation, which is essentially a relativistic Schrodinger equation).

By "relativist person", I simply mean someone who doesn't work under QM premises. Can you answer the question?


In QM, each particle has a wave function described by the Schrodinger equation. We can find the probability of that particle being in a certain state with the equation. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, measuring the particle collapses the wave function to have a probability of 1 at the measured value.