Quantum entanglement

[little_monkey]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

in experiments with subatomic particles, you need energy to separate them, this will impart velocity to them. if you try and test for quantum entanglement on a particle, it will be travelling at near light speed. you cannot test for quantum entanglement on a non-accelerated particle, one thats either a part of a molecule or just sitting there.

So...there is no quantum entanglement effects with a non-accelerated subatomic particle.

I don't know if you are serious or just joking around, so you will excuse me if I no longer answer your posts.

If you are serious, you are blatant ignorant. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn't a clue about high school algebra...

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

then this is not a quantum entanglement experiement

Are you perhaps getting confused with the fairly recent discovery that accelerating particles to near light speeds can cause entanglement when none existed when the particle is at rest?

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by little_monkey

I don't know if you are serious or just joking around, so you will excuse me if I no longer answer your posts.

If you are serious, you are blatant ignorant. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn't a clue about high school algebra...

well...ok. tell me of an experiment using particles that are going slow speeds, and quantum entanglement occurred go ahead, enlighten me please..

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Panda

Are you perhaps getting confused with the fairly recent discovery that accelerating particles to near light speeds can cause entanglement when none existed when the particle is at rest?

every experiment involving entanglement effects i have heard of use either a photon (obviously, travelling light speed) or an electron. in the case of the electron, coming from an accelerator into a stern-gerlach machine, and split into "up" or "down" spin pairs results in entaglement effects, but what speed are they travelling at in these experiements? certainly much faster than those found in "nature"

i am certainly not ignorant of that facts, though i am unaware of any experiements involving slow particles having quantum entanglement effects. MOSt of them use photons, that i have seen. if someone can demonstrate an instance that contradicts me then id be interested in seeing it.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

every experiment involving entanglement effects i have heard of use either a photon (obviously, travelling light speed) or an electron. in the case of the electron, coming from an accelerator into a stern-gerlach machine, and split into "up" or "down" spin pairs results in entaglement effects, but what speed are they travelling at in these experiements? certainly much faster than those found in "nature"

i am certainly not ignorant of that facts, though i am unaware of any experiements involving slow particles having quantum entanglement effects. MOSt of them use photons, that i have seen. if someone can demonstrate an instance that contradicts me then id be interested in seeing it.

Ok I just remembered reading an article about when they were accelerated particles developed a quantum entanglement. This is not a field I know much about.

[Troublemane]

it would be really interesting to find out if slow moving particles showed any entanglement effects, i just dont think they will, because you dont see it with cars or things of macro scale..the theory i put forward (that its due to Lorentz Contraction from relativistic motion) is my own theory. Im saying i believe (not that i can prove mind you) that the reason for entanglement effects is that (a) both particles are created simultaneously and (b) are travelling fast enough for relativistic effects such as time dilation.

this means they would be essentially the same particle until they strike different detectors, causing one to show as "up" and the other as "down" (because they actually were one particle that took both pathways simultaneously until they were detected).

same goes for the "double slit" experiment. the photon actually will (i predict) be travelling through both slits at the same time, not because it turns into a wave then back into a particle, but because it doesnt see more than one slit (due to spacetime contraction). thats my theory anyways

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

.

same goes for the "double slit" experiment. the photon actually will (i predict) be travelling through both slits at the same time, not because it turns into a wave then back into a particle, but because it doesnt see more than one slit (due to spacetime contraction). thats my theory anyways

What about the effect on the observer? In your opinion what impact does that have on the wave function?

Edit: Also how do you explain other effects like De Broglie wavelength or the photoelectric effect?

[Troublemane]

im kinda on the fence there, ...my faith in relativity and einstein (PBUH) tells me there is no "observer effect", that all outcomes are purely random,....I do feel there is an "observer effect", in that outcomes can be influenced by an observer, but I am unable to explain it rationally.

What do you think about the observer effect, Brother Panda?

[Panda]

I think the observer effect is interesting. I think I read something about this but don't take my word for it. It said that the wave function is a probability function, when unobserved the particle is in all places however the observer somehow collapses the wave function making the particle once again have a distinct location, probability dictates which location it will be. As to how an observer collapses the wave function I have no idea.