Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum At last an explanation of quantum entanglement

I suppose if you cant think up a relevant reply its much easier to simply put your head back into the sand , that is the place where your head feels comfortably at home and where you fantasy scientist types feel a degree of peacefulness.

after all in your world of make believe and with your creative math you can imagine and invent anything.

it doesn't matter if what you imagine or invent has any value or not, because to your type of fantasy scientist the important thing is that you believe that it has value.



but those of us who have their heads above the sand , who deal
with reality know that what you fantasy scientist types believe has no value.

your problem is that you have immersed yourself in fantasy so deep that your brain believes the fantasy is reality.




slowly but surely QM , SR , GR is digging its own grave.

Good to see you are contributing to a science discussion on a science forum in a meaningful scientific way as usual you religious fruitloop ... let me guess your god made you do it.

Your arguments are as stupid and contradictory as the bible you follow and no one can seriously take such a contradictory piece of garbage as the literal word of an all powerful god ... well only the stupid and ignorant could.




So do you want to continue to trade insults or have a discussion ... your choice?

Yes, there has been a lot of experiment that shows that "spooky action at a distance" is real. Has there been any experimental evidence as to HOW it works? What you seem to be saying is that there is some kind of connection outside of space-time that makes entanglement work, but you aren't, in my opinion, showing just what that connection is. Is it string theory, m-theory, some other theory that requires extra dimensions? Is there a consensus on the most probable WAY it works? My opinion is that this is still an open subject, because nobody has come up with an experimentally testable theory on the way it works.

So far I am happy just to have realized at last that there is a relatively simple explanation of why it works, which as I have been saying, is that the universe enforces its rules about what states are permitted and what states are not permitted. I'm still waiting for a fully realized explanation for how the universe enforces those rules.

Bill Gill

which arguments are you talking about?

remember that voice in your head really isnt anyone arguing at you.

its you arguing at yourself.

Quantum mechanics is EXPLICIT about how and why it works it's not like we discovered entanglement and QM was developed to explain it.

It is the extract reverse situation go back and read the history of entanglement and QM which I will brief down below

Einstein realized the wave-particle duality in 1909 and realized mutual dependence of systems obeying bosonic statistics in 1924 (he in effect was describing entanglement but he did not formalize it). Bohr's via his Bohr model included the feature in his 1927 interpretation. Finally in 1935 Erwin Schrödinger showed the mathematics behind the predicted behavior and coined the term entanglement in his paper "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik".

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued against the Schrödinger paper describing the EPR paradox in 1935 because they could not fault the mathematics and argument of Schrödinger.

Max Born, Enrico Fermi, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Robert Oppenheimer all join the argument which at this point is largely about atomic structure but how entanglement fits into that structure.

At this point entangelement was still a theoretical argument between the top phsyicists of the day.

It's not until Bell in 1964 that we actually get a true experiment showing entanglement to be real and measurable.

That's why you comment above is ridiculous at a science level we know why entanglement occurs and why. The reality is we know more about the how and why of entanglement than we do about chemical reactions or almost any other part of science.

The mathematics and theory is so exact we can push the boundaries of the universe and break almost every classic law there is because of the reverse of what you claim ... we understand the mathematics and physics of what is happening EXPLICITLY.

What the universe is made of is an entirely different problem to entanglement you don't worry about what the universe is made of to understand a chemical reaction or scientifically study it or any other area of science.




Incorrect entanglement does not need an outside of the universe to work that's an entirely different problem with time, particles, gravity and all the stuff that makes up the standard model. You won't find much if any discussion on entanglement within the standard model.

What I am saying to you is if there is a hidden part of the universe and it appears there is for other reasons and sort of confirmed with the Higgs that hidden section also must by what we can experiment so far be compatible with entanglement.



That's all a totally different problem when trying to create a theory of everything.

Entanglement was realized as having to exist because otherwise your atomic structure doesn't work. Go back and read the history of the science of trying to understand atomic structure if you are trying to understand entanglement and why it is necessary to exist.




Holy molly you want a more precise testing and theory than what we have ... the theory we have is about the most proven thing in science are you really talking about entanglement?????

I really think you are getting the structure of the universe confused with the entanglement and they are very different arguments.




If it didn't work your atomic structure would fail and you would have no science at all.




That's a theory of everything you are waiting for has absolutely nothing to do with entanglement.

Remember at it's core QM started life about the very small like atomic structure it is only lately we realize that actually QM has also a lot to say about the macro structure of the universe but that is all expanded out from the implications of atomic structure.

today I finished build new tool for physics
Luminosity and velocity Vo and difraction

I already solved Fermat's Last theorem

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ck5EQue4R1M/Ubv7d_ruiPI/AAAAAAAAA-Y/1-IR_vRX5T0/s1600/CIMG2344.JPG

we are very close to build one good equation for all in physics

more details
http://maroszmaciej.blogspot.com/

The simplest explanation for entanglement is that every thing that is manifested has got infinite dimensions therefore nothing is isolated. The universe or universes behave as one unit.It can be proved that the electron is spread out through out the universe though the relation that governs the mass is such that practically the whole mass is confined to very very little volume and the mass density falls very rapidly with increase in distance from center of electron.The relation governing the mass is very simple and is related to the internal structure of electron or photon which are not like hard balls nor are dimensionless points.The ignorance about internal structures makes it difficult to understand the simplest laws of nature and abstract mathematics used leads to weird explanations. How can you reach a destination if road map is not known? The theoretical physicists are like blind persons trying to study the form of elephant the result will not be holistic because no one can see the elephant form as a whole.

That is neither simple or actually correct and you like Bill are getting things confused.

Read carefully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement



You are confusing non-locality into entanglement.

Entanglement at it's core has to do with light (wave particle duality) and atomic structure and the initial arguments go back to arguments about atomic spin,charge and structure it was realized it would have profound implications but that is an extension of entanglement not part of why it exists.

If you want a world without quantum mechanics then you need to work out how to explain light wave/particle duality and how to allow partial spins and charges within the atom.

The only way we have to do this at the moment is Quantum superposition ... read the formal interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition)

Hence the best and most consistent explaination of the universe in QM simply says

Applying the superposition principle to a quantum mechanical particle, the configurations of the particle are all positions, so the superpositions make a complex wave in space. The coefficients of the linear superposition are a wave which describes the particle as best as is possible, and whose amplitude interferes according to the Huygens principle.

That's all QM says and its a pretty clear and concise statement.

Entanglement can occur because of the superposition and note at this point we haven't dealt with non-locality at all. We have simply said that particles are complex waves in space.


The argument then widened out because it those top scientists above realized atoms are built out of these particles so that allowed them to have partial charges and spins etc.

The problem was that there is no good reason why it should stop at the atom and now you start to get real spatial non-locality issue.

We somewhat harshly judge Einstein as being anti-QM and anti-entanglement but that is harsh because entanglement was not actually experimentally proven in his time it was largely a theoretical argument then.

in 1964 !!!! we had the ability to precisely monitor the properties of photons !!! what a load of crap...

heres something else we had in 1964.



LOL , I seriously doubt that anything except the experimenter
and the sheer size of the equipment and its detection capabilities controlled the results of the experiment.




yes , they had already strongly suspected that QM would fail
if ever observed and this observation showed QM that if it
was to survive in a world of realist then
QM must change the realist into fantasist.

this must be where QM first knew it was crap
and knew that it must travel down an imaginary
path to even more and more crap as it traveled
down into the pile of crap it was materializing
on its way to destruction.

QM said , hmmmm we have nothing , we must invent ways
around our nothing so that we can become important in
the minds of the feeble minded.

Ok, then what is the current theory of what the hidden part of the universe is?

For purposes of this question I am not interested in whether entanglement exists, or how it works, or any of the other things you keep bringing up. I just want to know what the hidden part of the universe is.

Bill Gill

Bill

I hope you dont mind if I try this one !

I'll have a look at the places that modern scientist spend
so much of their time and see what I can find , perhaps they
are hiding the hidden in these places that we never have thought about looking in...

on second thought , I dont really think I would be capable
of seeing anything in those places so I will just ask some
of the brilliant students of fantasy science who are currently attending college learning the one
skill they will need mostly during their career.



you might wonder how the students could learn in there but remember these students are special with special abilities
they dont need an instructor or to be able to see anything real.
they dont really have to study in the sense that normal people
would , they just open their minds to it , and it flows in from
all parts of the universe replacing logical thoughts that they once experienced earlier in their lives.

The standard model creates that universe and the first particle off the reservation is the Higgs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model



So the importance of the Higgs to the standard model is given right there and after it comes all your string theories etc.

See nothing about entanglement in any of that stuff the standard model describes the first off solid world model and provides the kick off for more of it.

As I said if you go back to the original arguments about entanglement all this extra dimensions and string theory etc didn't even exist at science so it has no relevance to the discussion.

You are getting all that stuff confused with entanglement which is a more basic property of the universe because of it's QM nature.

The problem with QM which I have said many times but it is worth repeating is that it is a description of the universe not an explaination of it

The simple statement QM makes is this

Applying the superposition principle to a quantum mechanical particle, the configurations of the particle are all positions, so the superpositions make a complex wave in space. The coefficients of the linear superposition are a wave which describes the particle as best as is possible, and whose amplitude interferes according to the Huygens principle.

Most of that is easily understandable by a scientist except one thing => "complex wave in space"

Complex wave in space requires interpretation because complex waves by definition are a mathematical concept and space we assume means the solid construct around us.

That's the point QM gets hard because it's not exactly clear if QM is saying the universe is a mathematical construct, the universe isn't real or someone is manipulating a solid world model using mathematics or thousands of other possibilities.


I certainly have no idea or preference for what QM is implying what it is doing extremely accurately is describing the universe.

I would throw in that you accept gravity and its laws as a description in science and likewise for it you have absolutely no idea of why it comes about or what process it describes but you don't seem to struggle accepting gravity yet you struggle with QM?

I cant talk for anyone except myself.

I used to agree with what science said about gravity , Im not
sure if I still agree with what science is saying about gravity , these days its probably something to do with QM of course.

I accept gravity , yes , because its real.
gravity is a property of all mass / matter , when mass / matter is combined with / in the vicinity of other mass / matter gravity increases proportionately.

its really pretty simple.

and gravity does not describe a process !!

newton does not describe a process!
foot pound does not describe a process!

newton is (a force and a distance and a time). 1kg m/sec^2
foot pound is (a force and a distance and a time). lb ft/sec ^2

its a shame that science does not consider gravity as being a force but because the magnitude of gravity changes with distance between two objects I suppose that its easier that way
to teach the correctness of everything.

we only use the acceleration due gravity 9.8 m/sec^2
we overlook the force that causes that acceleration. 9.8 N/kg which is the force that we use only on earth !!!

but thats all we really need anyway , right?

Orac, I'm not sure what the Higgs has to do with the subject of the original post. That post was about what drove the "spooky action at a distance" of entanglement. I had just realized that it was "explained" by the fact that conservation laws, or parities if that is you preference, require any separated portions of an entangled system to act in unison when one of them is measured. For the balance required by the conservation laws to be maintained there can be no time between the instant one is measured and the instant that the other assumes the complementary state. I still don't know how the second part of the system "knows" when it is time to act. I think that that part of the question is still open.

Bill Gill

And as I explained that it totally incorrect conservation laws are not involved at this level it is the laws of the complex waveforms at play. At a deeper level maybe what is controlling the waveform laws is conservation but we have no way of knowing that at this point in time.

Again and repeating QM theory gives the answer which you want to ignore and say the question is open. Fifteen or twenty years ago the statement was probably semi ok but it isn't okay today because science has closed down all the wiggle room.

As a person who accepts science and I know you do you are left with two options now invalidate QM or accept the result your argument above is pseudoscience junk. You wont address the central issue that QM predicted entanglement 50 years before it was experimentally verified yet you say we don't know why it occurs ... how exactly does one predict something one doesn't understand?




QM predicted they would change instantly and it predicted entanglement and QM explicitly says the system doesn't know anything nor does it need to.

Essentially you are trying to invalidate QM with an EPR argument without calling it what it is and EPR argument.

On the science front we have falsified EPR completely there are no loopholes left the nails have been firmly driven in that coffin.

I actually would have said EPR was beyond dead with the amazing realization of "weak measurement" and being able to see the same photon in both slits of a double split experiment at the same moment. EPR says there is only one photon because it wants a nice neat solid world so the result is very hard for EPR to explain.

So as scientists we are back to trying to understand what a "complex wave in space" actually means at a physical level.

There is some testing that can be done on that front because QM predicts the change between the particle should be instant as in planck unit of time instant it predicts instant as in 0 seconds because we do understand how it works.

If you go back to the current longest distance test on 144km you have 0.8 nanosecond accuracy on a 487 microsecond flight time so we can set a lower limit of around 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. What we should be able to do by increasing the length and timing accuracy is push that number up and up towards infinity.

On other fronts the question becomes is the "complex wave in space" actually real or is it a mathematical description of a process there is definitely conjecture in this area and I have no issue the jury is most certainly out.

So gravity isn't a process then there must be a bloody big elastic band holding the earth in orbit around the sun or you have a very different description of process than science because the process of how gravity varies with distance to lock the earth to the sun is not a process apparently.

That Paul is why we ignore you ... because your next tactic will be no doubt you will try and turn this into a word game about the word process .. see I can predict and deduce how you react :-)

A 10 year old can understand the problem with your explaination and why perhaps you religious nutters need to brainwash your followers and children.

gravity does not change therefore there is no process that could
be considered along the context that you are attempting to amuse us with.

its magnitude changes with distance , but changing the strength or magnitude of the gravitational field of a object or combination of objects requires addition or subtraction of mass / matter.

you cannot extract gravity from an object.
you cannot destroy gravity.

gravity is the most stable property of the universe.

it does not alter itself and cannot be altered.


even the followers of general relativity know that gravity is a property.

not that I pay any attention to the einstonedians theories , certainly not the creative math they use.



BTW , gravity does not radiate away from an object like science
seems to imagine as I have read.

ie...



hogwash !




if there is any significant brainwashing taking place
on the earth it is what science teaches its followers
and the children who are its science students.

Ok Orac, If my simplification is wrong, then I need a new one that is right. Please provide one.

Bill Gill

Hmm okay so lets see if I can take this to a real layman level.

Most people will have seen or used bank or work security electronic tokens.

On that electronic token the number on displays rolls usually every 30 or 60 seconds to a new somewhat random number. You type in that number and the online system or door or appliance will let you in. There is no communication between the bank or security token other than the number you type in.

In QM terms the bank or security token and the system being accessed are entangled. To do this both systems must contain some means of keeping track of time and are running some sort prepared pseudo random number generator.

The EPR argument people would argue that the bank or security token must be communicating with the system trying to be accessed system or device.

This is a very normal type of security technology most people will have encountered so how would you determine which method is being used if you were given a random security token?

QM via entanglement faces exactly that problem in that we can see two particles changing states instantaneously in relationship to each other.

So the bank security token example is an exact match to our problem and so your challenge is to come up with another way of getting the security token system to work beyond the two ways given.

QM already has the time and pseudorandom code method covered and we can seperate the security token and the access system so far apart that the transmission time at the speed of light s to long for the communication method to work.

So you insist the jury is out find another way to make the bank security token system work that does not use either of those two methods.

This test first establishes that things are entangled the why becomes easier to understand when you realise how few options there are for the universe to synchronize.

Orac , I know that you asked bill the question and I know
that Bill can come up with something better than the below
but I thought that I would try it myself.

I thought this up while I was reading your post and having a
fresh cup of coffee.

couldnt your token / bank security system be replaced by

2 pieces of paper and a pencil?

every 30/60 seconds you are handed a new piece of paper
that has a random number on it.

you then write the number on the other piece of paper , and
if you write a correct number then the security system lets
you in.

anyway , sure there is a way to communicate at those distances
using classical real things.

a inelastic string for instance.

30 seconds x 186,000 miles = 5.580 million miles away.

if I stretch a inelastic string from the token to the bank
I can tug on the string at the token / RGN paper end and send signals to the bank.

the paper is not communicating with the bank , the paper is
only communicating with the person.
the person is then communicating with the string.
the string is then communicating with the bank.

and the communication is faster than light.

way faster than QM has claimed to have accomplished at 11,000 times c.

communication would be instant , faster than anything that QM could hope to achieve.

so classical has used reality once again to outdo the fantasy of QM's achievements.




Done!