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

it will never become zero , you should know that.

and what has tiny got to do with it anyway.

how tiny do you think M1 and M2 are ???????

you could easily look at our solar system as being an atom
and we can calculate gravity in our solar system , so what
has size got to do with calculating gravity?

tell me , I'm beginning to think that you are faking things.

if size is such a importance in QM then why do they use
standard equations?

but really orac , you should know that you can never divide
anything and get zero.

The denominator goes towards zero Paul .. denominator means the bottom number of the division FYI ... go look again.

If the denominator goes towards zero the overall result goes towards infinity.

Whether you actually reach zero is not important, although you already did the divid by zero stupidity argument once before are you going to try and recycle stupid ideas again?

The key thing is when does gravity start getting very large like heading towards notional infinity or some very very big number because bad things are going to happen at that point like it is going to start swallowing everything and anything around it.

In the proper science version gravity is from the centre of mass so you need a lot of mass in pinpoint to tend towards infinity and we define a black hole as that ... that is ... a lot of mass in a small point like area = a lot of gravity

In the stupidity that you like you can get gravity tending towards infinity by simply moving very close to a neutron surface ... I think that defines science stupidity don't you as every neutron thus becomes a black hole.

So you now have neutrons in the nucleus each with there own gravity which actually gets stronger and stronger tending towards infinity the closer they get together ..... so how do you propose you are going to hold them apart ... anti infinity GOD force mark II perhaps?

The whole world would collapse in on itself at any and every nucleus of every atom.

Sort of get how stupid the whole equation is ????


So next time when you look at alternative suggestions especially mathematics for how gravity works here is the first set of anti-nutcase and whackjob tests to run

1.) Look how you take the proposal towards infinity because that should define a black hole.

2.) Look how you take the proposal towards zero because that should define open space

3.) What forces does the proposal create to oppose gravity to stop the whole universe simply collapsing in on itself.


If you can't pass those first 3 tests then the idea is blatantly stupid and you are dealing with a nutcase.

THE IDEA IN THE EQUATION FAILS NOT ONE BUT ALL THREE TESTS.

That's how I knew the author of that equation was going to be some pseudoscience whackjob with absolutely no clue.

Im going to say never , because in order for gravity to increase
using the equation , at least 1 of the 2 masses must increase.

your grabbing at straws again orac , your lack of understanding
of basic physics is leaking out into the universe.

why you would think that gravity would increase as it becomes
less and less is beyond logic.

ahem...



I suppose you made that garbage up yourself , because I
cant see why the three above would not also apply to newtons original equation.

and perhaps a nutcase is who I am dealing with as we continue this discussion.

If entanglement has nothing to do with conserved states then will you please explain what it does have to do with. You keep saying the same things over and over, but none of them seem to tell me what it is that causes entanglement. As far as I can see you just keep saying that entanglement just is, don't ask how it works. I want to have a relatively simple explanation of how it works. An analogy is just fine.

Bill Gill

It doesn't require an analogy it's not that hard to understand just follow the actual science

Go back to 2008 and the then cutting edge of science made an astounding prediction which is almost as astounding as the higgs


It's a fairly simple premise

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453022a.html



what you are trying to understand is this part



The answer proposed tested and verified is this one




The last sentence of that is important because it also kills some old arguments so I will separate it and explain.



It means the universe itself is an observer and thus it always has a solid and coherent ground state even without the presence of an actual observer.

Therefore questions like what Einstein asked

"Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it"

The answer is definitive ... yes the universe is an observer referenced from the CMBR.


And of that leads directly to the current QM position




So at this point the article then goes off into some basic testing that was done showing that testing on large molecules behaved exactly as predicted.

That is the process by which QM scientists predicted and created the experiments now of which hundreds exist to show you can entangle macroscopic objects.


The last six years has been spent showing repeatedly over and over again that the universe is quantum in it's nature and classical behavior is a natural phenomena evolving out of quantum behavior.

As sort of a cream on top proof of that was the discovery of the Higgs which is demanded by QM.


So as I have explained science says the following explicitly:

1.) Via Noether's theorem QM satisfies all conservation laws specifically against your argument it does not require entanglement to do that.

2.) The universe is built on top of QM behavior and classicality is a natural evolution out of quantum mechanics if things have superposition states.


So entanglement is an inevitable consequence of the 2 facts above you have superposition states in a quantum universe and that is all entanglement is nothing more nothing less.


QM scientists have spent the last six years systematically testing and taking on almost every area of science it is why I switched fields to it.

Just this week came the realization that there are some small problems with the laws of thermodynamics because of the implication that the universe structure is QM in nature. It's nothing exciting at large scales where all the current laws will hold but at very small scales things are going to break down

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-quantum.html

The bottom line here is we may actually finally have an understanding of why you can't have a perpetual motion machine and there are losses in all systems because QM seems to make that inevitable.


So there you have it QM is not so weird after all and you classical world would rise naturally from it.

what a load of C R A P

Qm is pseudo-science , it never has proven its value
it never has had any value , it certainly could not
be real-science.



QM does not make anything , anything.

it cant , its nothing.

the real problem with your claim is that we can have a
perpetual motion machine , which tosses QM in the toilet where it belongs.

what amazes me is that you would claim that anything is
not possible.

according to what you have rendered about QM , anything can
happen in QM , you just need someone to write it down
so that the QMers can read and understand it.

thats all QM is , its a load of ill configured thought processes announcing to the world that it has value and
that their value exceeds all other values , like a bloated
tick pumping itself up with the blood of others.

QM is now become junk science

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curios...m-mechanics.htm

Poor Paul your whole stupidity you believe blows up in your face sort of like your religion did.. have your religious mob found their book given to them by GOD yet or is it still lost and are they are still trying to steal the jewish one to cover it up

As neohippy and all the people with a brain realize QM has a lot of more use than a religion which lost it's word from it's GOD anyhow

Now I am happy to stay and take the proverbial out of your goat effigy and trade insults with no scientific value if you like.

So I checked out your link. It is interesting, but I don't see that it makes any statement about how the entanglement works. Basically it just discusses how the transition from quantum to classical effects occurs.

So in entanglement "properties become strictly correlated". That sounds to me as if the 2 systems are sharing states. When one of the systems decoheres it assumes a particular state, and leaves the other system to assume the complementary state, in accordance with any applicable conservation laws, and in accordance with Noether's theorem.


As I said, the universe is the one that keeps track of things.

No argument there. It is just an extension of basic entanglement.


Specifically the informal statement of Noether's theorem is: "If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

So conservation laws are a part QM. Therefore entangled systems have to follow conservation laws. If one part of an entangled system decoheres into a given state, then the rest of the system has to decohere into a complementary state that does not conflict with the state of the first part.

So I don't see why you keep saying that I am wrong. And I don't see why you keep having links that show that entanglement works. I know it works and it is being experimentally extended to more things all the time.

In order for you to convince me that I am wrong you need to provide some information that shows that entanglement doesn't involve some kind of conservation law.

Bill Gill

The fact you can use entanglement to teleport energy sows you are wrong entanglement itself doesn't demand conservation however to do the teleport we have to ensure the whole system itself correctly meets conservation.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417362/physicist-discovers-how-to-teleport-energy/

Ok lets look at a much more mundane example which arises in a similar way which is a rainbow.

A rainbow sometimes can be seen when it is raining ... does that mean that a rainbow is always part of rain?

You know the answer no its an effect that's caused by the underlying physics of light and diffraction in a media the rain merely creates a suitable media.

Entanglement is no different its simple a side effect of superposition states the total of the superposition states must be conserved not the entanglement.

We probably also need to explain to you that entanglement is not a black and white thing it can be partial which involves mixed states which makes a conservation background even harder.

As sort of a basic background start here

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_discord

EDIT:
Actually thought of a much clearer almost exact simple example.

Does a piece of copper wire always obey the laws of conservation?

The answer is no .. if I pass an electric current into the wire it is creating energy this is the identical situation to entanglement.

Its only when you pull back and include the source of energy that is creating the electric current that you have conservation.

That is why the 2nd law language is framed with some important words that involved an "isolated system" or a "complete system".


I have no doubt that the full system involving the entanglement does conserve energy but entanglement itself does not enforce that conservation any more than a piece of copper wire does and hence both can transmit energy.

Orac, That's what I have been saying. When one part of an entangled system decoheres into a given state then the rest of the system has to decohere into a complementary state so that the whole system meets all applicable conservation laws.

For this discussion I have been ignoring the problems with locality. We know from theory and experiment that locality doesn't apply to entangled systems. How that is handled by the universe is still a question, which I will leave for future enlightenment.

Bill Gill

If you are calling entanglement meaning the entire system controlling the entanglement I have no issue but just the entangled particles themselves no I disagree.

To show you what I am worried you were implying lets go back to our copper wire and do a thought experiment.

Lets assume you have a physics idea that conservation of energy is somehow part of matter itself this is sort of what I feared you were doing with entanglement.

You can break the argument apart by a simple thought example.

I can keep dividing the copper wire down and down and it must keep conservation law and I can do that until I have one copper atom.

So now my conservation law must be in my copper atom. There is a problem conservation is guaranteed on all atoms so I can keep throwing off 1 electron and 1 proton pair until I get to the element with 1 proton and 1 electron being hydrogen.

So we are all happy conservation is somehow stored in our simplest atom except Einstein realized the problem the energy bound into hydrogen is exact and a constant quanta and he could even calculate that energy E = MC2.

C is a constant so your conservation is now being held to where ????????? => something that is defined as the vacuum of space.


If you do the same thought experiment on an entangled particles you end up at the same place the conservation is at a deeper level than the entangled particles themselves it is to the vacuum of space.


What I am making sure is clear is that entanglement is nothing special in terms of physics people seek to mystify it and misrepresent it ... matter has properties like magnetism, conduction, hardness etc ... entanglement is just another property because of the quantum nature of the universe. All of those other properties have nothing to do with conservation either but in a system they will comply to it.


I guess what I am making sure is understood that the semi-recent view (like pre 2008) that we could have a classical world and somehow tack QM in is dead and buried and we have a QM world with classicality emerging from it.

Many of the string theories with holographic worlds etc are also dead and buried and some like many worlds interpretations are in trouble. You could never kill all string theories because of its range but many have been given there last rights. BTW I liked string theory if you remember because it is nice and logical but I am a scientist foremost and I have to accept the data and I was wrong.

There are a few still sticking to their guns on string theory but I loved "Not Even Wrongs" discussion on the upcoming conference "strings 2013" (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/)



I did laugh at that

I should also say that with strings being taken out of the equation it has opened up much more thought about how we could have dark matter without a string landscape.

I am still making my way through readings and background on this idea for example

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-simple-theory-dark.html

Anyhow will leave it at that getting way off topic to what we were talking about.

hmmm ... lets have a look.

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics?

10) The Transistor

nothing to do with QM , sorry.
the people at bell labs who built the transistor did not
use QM at all.


9 ) Energy Harvesters



I might add that simulation is not a part of real world!

8 ) Ultraprecise Clocks



developed a way?
is that like simulation or have they actually improved on
atomic clocks , either way QM is not responcible for atomic clocks.

a way is not a real world application!

7 ) Quantum Cryptography



theory , does that mean that its a theory and not a real world application?

BTW , a theory is not a real world application.

6 ) Randomness Generator



I agree , and thus serves no purpose for predictions.

5 ) Lasers



theory is not a real world application.



he found stimulated emission.
Lamb was 33 yrs old then

just a few years out of school then and at the beginning of his career.




Lamb FOUND the foundation of lasers , the rest of the story
is just a heap of thieves and lawsuits.

but Lamb was not a QMer when he found it.

4 ) Ultraprecise Thermometers

an actual real world application.

made only possible by QM noise.

but is QM noise truly QM?

3 ) Quantum Computers



not a real world application.

2 ) Instantaneous Communication



not a real world application.

1 ) Teleportation



not a real world application.


1 out of 10 , and the 1 is uncertain.

orac

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417362/physicist-discovers-how-to-teleport-energy/



First , I couldnt believe that MIT has its name on that
page , but its about a japanese scientist so that calmed me down.

if you believe that a measurement can inject energy
into a ion then....
let me ask you orac , which type of energy do you
fantasize that the measurement injected into the ion?

my reasoning on this is that in order to teleport energy you
must first have energy to teleport.

Have a look at this one too. Some repeats, but I find your explanations quite entertaining.

http://cosmomed.hubpages.com/hub/Applications-of-quantum-mechanics-in-real-world

Neo, don't forget that QM also explains why the universe hasn't gone up in one flash of Ultraviolet light. The first use of QM was by Max Plank. He derived the idea when he was trying to explain why classical physics didn't agree with observation when looking at something that was being heated. Classical theory when applied to a heated body led to the idea that all the energy that went in would immediately be released at extremely high (ultraviolet) frequencies. So the universe couldn't exist. Plank made the unique suggestion that if you assumed that light came in small lumps (quanta) you would be able to match observations to theory. He didn't like it. He considered it to be a mathematical fiction that made theory work, but was not the real world.

Of course then Einstein took his idea and applied it to the photoelectric effect and it explained the observations there too. In fact that was what Einstein got his Nobel for.

So another use of QM is to keep the world from going up in a flash.

Bill Gill

Anything to do with light you need QM

Anything to do with the properties of matter, conduction, hardness, structure, entanglement, organization and why it doesn't collapse on itself under gravity you need QM.

The Higgs discovery requires QM

What QM doesn't cover is conservation laws which it seems to have to obey from something deeper.

So QM can explain many things but it also indicates there is something deeper and this puts it alongside gravity in that regard.

neohippy's link was supposed to list

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics



that wouldnt really be a use of QM now would it.

whatever keeps the world from going up in a flash must have
been here before QM.

but to say that QM can claim a list of theoretical applications
as being real world applications is very misleading.

would I be correct if I claimed that classical physics brought about the first use of tools by humans?

well I guess I would these day's.

CLICK HERE --> light comes in small lumps <--CLICK HERE

nothing there , but I had to check.
now that I've checked ,for some reason I wonder if it really
is there and the reason I didnt find it was because someone
had checked / measured it earlier.

light comes to us in the form of particles that travel in
different wave lengths / patterns.

I think that is the most science correct post you have written and that alone and us liking it will make you unhappy

You are correct QM is a description of the universe at it's heart is mathematics and it is brutally accurate and gives no idea why the universe works like that.

Gravity and it's laws similarly give a brutally accurate mathematics which predicts perfectly with results and there is no indication why the laws of gravity work either.

Perhaps your GOD created those laws and hence you trying to lie and deceive about those laws would therefore be a direct insult to your GOD ... something you may ponder before you meet your maker and he judges you ... the thought of you being sentenced to hell for what you thought was helping your god's cause is quite amusing to me

All we can say as scientists having now got all the mathematics correct is trying to match and find a theory that fits both sets of mathematics and explains stuff we as yet don't understand. Unfortunately for you all your made up stupidity and lies never matches even the most basic mathematics of experiments ... and thus you do give us the greatest laughs.

There was a time I used to worry that students coming here may be misled by your ideas but I now realize your science is not good enough to cause anyone beyond 12 years old a problem and so I actually feel sorry for you.

I have found 2 very descriptive images made by newton of sagg.

hopefully newton will not mind that I use his images this way.

I have applied these two images to a light particle.
these two images provide a very good description of light travel.

the first describes/defines a light particle's motion as it travels around a gravity source.



the second describes/defines the ever increasing
wave pattern/length of a light particle as it travels in
a straight line outward from its source.





the first describes how we will find many more smaller parts
as we perform research into the unknown.

as our solar system has many more parts to it other than
its sun.

the second shows that space is not expanding the way common
laymen scientist want us to believe , and it describes how space appears to be expanding because of the distance increase as the light gets further away from its source.

also , I did not get mad at you for agreeing with me , I actually got scared that you did , it was frightening to think
that you could be developing some type of logic within your illogical world and that could be dangerous.

the fact still remains that QM has served no real purpose
and has generated no real worth and as we delve deeper and deeper into the unknown we will see that QM was merely a method of temporarily visualizing what might be possible in the unknown , like a roll of the dice or even better like winning the lottery by picking all of the numbers correctly.

pure chance!

as we go deeper we will gain knowledge of the attributes
of the elements we find in the unknown and will be capable of assigning properties to the many newly found elements.

these properties of the newly found elements will be constants that can be used in equations that are reality based.

and classical will be seen as the only true method of accurate prediction in that new world strictly because it uses constants
that do not vary.

c, c^2 , c^4 are not real constants.

because we know that the speed of light is not constant.

so any equation that uses c , c^2 , c^4 etc... is creative math and cannot be considered as being accurate.