Quantum entanglement

[George-ananda]

That apparently non-local correlations become local in higher dimensional reality, is an interpretation of QM explored by Alyssa Ney, in her book The World in the Wave function: A Metaphysics For Quantum Physics. Ney is a Philosophy professor with a background in theoretical physics.

The World in the Wave Function: A Metaphysics for Quant…

New thinking allowed.

'non-local correlations' seems like something then to be curious about.

 

[Polymath257]

“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
Richard Feynman

New thinking then is welcomed unless you think it is already understood. Sources of inspiration can come from anywhere. That's the stage at which we are at.

I think the issue is what it means to 'understand' quantum mechanics.

A *lot* of people can use QM to make predictions about the real world that then come true in experiments. They can use QM to say what will happen in a wide variety of situations and to considerable precision. Feynman, as an example, was an expert on this.

So, at the level of 'shut up and calculate' (which Feynman suggested), a lot of people understand QM.

The next level up is having a 'feel' for what the calculations will give *before* they are done. This is also very common. I would say that most PhDs in physics are at this level. I also think that this is what most people would call 'understanding QM'. And, even when Feynman made his quote, it was false at this level.

The difficulties come when people try to see QM as talking about *classical* particles moving around and interacting. So, we might ask what an electron was doing between when it was made and when it was detected. For this, there is no answer, partly because QM is absolutely silent on the issue.

There is also the problem that people assume that electrons (or other quantum particles) have definite properties (like position, spin, etc) at all points in time. Again, this is NOT what QM actually says. In fact, QM results specifically say this is NOT what is going on.

So, the problem is trying to understand QM using *classical* notions of particle, matter, energy, etc. This leads to all sorts of paradoxes and seeming contradictions.

But the problem is trying to use classical ideas to understand the description that *replaced* classical ideas. It is like trying to understand Newton's laws of motion using Aristotle's physics. It simply won't work.

 

[Polymath257]

That apparently non-local correlations become local in higher dimensional reality,

This is only possible if there is a LOT of curvature in the lower dimension. Since curvature is linked to gravity and we don't see such strong gravitational fields all around, this seems unlikely.

 

[shunyadragon]

“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
Richard Feynman

New thinking then is welcomed unless you think it is already understood. Sources of inspiration can come from anywhere. That's the stage at which we are at.

I cite contemporary scientific sources and not speculative one line quips "arguing from ignorance" from dead scientists (Feynman died in 1988) that do not represent contemporary knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. Nonetheless this quip, though outdated, does not reflect Feynman's; view of Quantum Mechanics.

Please respond to coherent references and provide your own beliefs based on contemporary science and Quantum Mechanics.

Regardless of your outdated spooky supernatural view of Quantum entanglement it is a predictable and usable in practical applications of Quantum MEchanics and Quantum computing.

The following is a basic down to earth explanation of Quantum Entanglement. and its practical applications in the real world today.

https://www.aps.org/units/maspg/meetings/upload/franson-021815.pdf

 

[George-ananda]

I think the issue is what it means to 'understand' quantum mechanics.

A *lot* of people can use QM to make predictions about the real world that then come true in experiments. They can use QM to say what will happen in a wide variety of situations and to considerable precision. Feynman, as an example, was an expert on this.

So, at the level of 'shut up and calculate' (which Feynman suggested), a lot of people understand QM.

The next level up is having a 'feel' for what the calculations will give *before* they are done. This is also very common. I would say that most PhDs in physics are at this level. I also think that this is what most people would call 'understanding QM'. And, even when Feynman made his quote, it was false at this level.

The difficulties come when people try to see QM as talking about *classical* particles moving around and interacting. So, we might ask what an electron was doing between when it was made and when it was detected. For this, there is no answer, partly because QM is absolutely silent on the issue.

There is also the problem that people assume that electrons (or other quantum particles) have definite properties (like position, spin, etc) at all points in time. Again, this is NOT what QM actually says. In fact, QM results specifically say this is NOT what is going on.

So, the problem is trying to understand QM using *classical* notions of particle, matter, energy, etc. This leads to all sorts of paradoxes and seeming contradictions.

But the problem is trying to use classical ideas to understand the description that *replaced* classical ideas. It is like trying to understand Newton's laws of motion using Aristotle's physics. It simply won't work.

But inquiring minds would still want an explanation as to why this quantum behavior happens. What underlies quantum behavior? Predicting it is not explaining it. I think this is what Feynman was getting at with that quote.

So new thinking should be welcomed whatever the source.

 

[George-ananda]

I cite contemporary scientific sources and not speculative one line quips "arguing from ignorance" from dead scientists (Feynman died in 1988) that do not represent contemporary knowledge of Quantum Mechanics.

Please respond to coherent references and provide your own based on contemporary science and Quantum Mechanics.

Regardless of your outdated spooky supernatural view of Quantum entanglement it is a predictable and usable in practical applications of Quantum MEchanics and Quantum computing.

The following is a basic down to earth explanation of Quantum Entanglement. and its practical applications in the real world today.

https://www.aps.org/units/maspg/meetings/upload/franson-021815.pdf

But what underlies quantum behavior? I would think any scientific mind would ask this question and not give up. That's where new thinking is allowed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For those that are not sure what it is:
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space.

I don't get it, but maybe someone can help

How do they know that they are connected?

I could understand it, if this was done in a small box and they had particle A and B and then they could experiment on them. But there are trillions of particles, so how would they know that A is connected to B which is billions of light years away?

Keep in mind that this is just a theory based off mathematics.

Maybe down the road with some new information it might become a little clearer at least that's the hope with me because I can't understand a single bit of it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is only possible if there is a LOT of curvature in the lower dimension. Since curvature is linked to gravity and we don't see such strong gravitational fields all around, this seems unlikely.

Sure. But isn’t it the case that pretty much any ontology derived from QM seems unlikely? In which case either Bohr was right when he said “everything we call real is made of things that cannot be called real”, and we must abandon realism, or Einstein was right when he said that QM is either non-local or incomplete: Leaving one of the longest running debates in physics unresolved.

 

[Polymath257]

But what underlies quantum behavior? I would think any scientific mind would ask this question and not give up. That's where new thinking is allowed.

And then whatever explains that, we will ask 'what underlies *that*'?

All you are saying is that we want a *more* fundamental theory than QM. And, I agree: if anyone can find one, that would be amazing.

But *nobody* has any idea what such a more fundamental theory would look like.

If anything, we *know* the universe shows quantum effects. So any more fundamental theory will likely *include* QM in its description.

 

[Polymath257]

Keep in mind that this is just a theory based off mathematics.

Maybe down the road with some new information it might become a little clearer at least that's the hope with me because I can't understand a single bit of it.

Anything down the road would also be described mathematically. QM has been *extensively* tested and has passed every test, even those that seem counter-intuitive.

At this point, asking for a classical intuition concerning QM is simply denying the fact that QM works.

 

[shunyadragon]

But what underlies quantum behavior? I would think any scientific mind would ask this question and not give up. That's where new thinking is allowed.

Natural Laws. What underlies Natural Laws. Elephants all the way down. (Sarcasm noted.)

Your moving the goal posts to theological and philosophical questions to what, of course, is not the realm of science.

Science doe not need to answer this this question to gain knowledge and understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

Science only answers the questions concerning the physical nature of our existence, and with objective verifiable evidence. This is where the bogus accusation of "scientism" is meaningless.

You cannot answer the subjective question either. Can you with any certainty?

 

[Polymath257]

Sure. But isn’t it the case that pretty much any ontology derived from QM seems unlikely? In which case either Bohr was right when he said “everything we call real is made of things that cannot be called real”, and we must abandon realism, or Einstein was right when he said that QM is either non-local or incomplete: Leaving one of the longest running debates in physics unresolved.

Well, pretty much any *classical* ontology is out of the question.

My view is that we need a complete overhaul of metaphysics to make it more in line with what we have discovered, including QM.

For example, the 'realism' used by Einstein (and others) requires that particles have definite properties at all times. In this sense, QM is NOT a 'realist' theory. My conclusion is that if your ontology only says something is 'real' if it has definite properties, then the problem is your ontology, not the universe or QM.

Einstein suggested QM was incomplete because it made predictions he thought couldn't be true. The problem is that we have since actually done the experiments testing those predictions. The result was that QM is correct and Einstein was wrong. Local hidden variable theories are ruled out.

On the other hand, QM *is* a local, non-realist theory.

As far as we have found, QM describes the universe correctly. The experiments we have actually done rule out the sort of 'realism' that classical metaphysics desires. All that says to me is that we need a new metaphysics.

 

[George-ananda]

And then whatever explains that, we will ask 'what underlies *that*'?

All you are saying is that we want a *more* fundamental theory than QM. And, I agree: if anyone can find one, that would be amazing.

But *nobody* has any idea what such a more fundamental theory would look like.

If anything, we *know* the universe shows quantum effects. So any more fundamental theory will likely *include* QM in its description.

Sounds like you are agreeing with my point that new thinking should be welcomed.

I’ve heard ideas like from physicists like Amit Goswami that we might need to think in terms of top down causation. It all starts with non physical consciousness and higher planes of reality affect the denser planes as if playing out a grand thought. This effect from higher dimensions may appear to the physical as mysterious quantum behavior.

Now I’ll leave it to Goswami to explain that further but my point is new thinking should be welcomed.

 

[Polymath257]

Sounds like you are agreeing with my point that new thinking should be welcomed.

I’ve heard ideas like from physicists like Amit Goswami that we might need to think in terms of top down causation. It all starts with non physical consciousness and higher planes of reality affect the denser planes as if playing out a grand thought. This effect from higher dimensions may appear to the physical as mysterious quantum behavior.

Now I’ll leave it to Goswami to explain that further but my point is new thinking should be welcomed.

My viewpoint is that the whole notion of causality needs to be overhauled. Classical causation is definitely false. So the question is what replaces it?

And, as far as I can see, all 'causation' is really an averaging of probabilities.

As an analogy: rolling a six sided die one time is close to purely probabilistic (QM is *actually* probabilistic, by the way). The likelihood of 1,2,3,4,5,6 are all the same (assuming a balanced die). But, if you roll a million six sided dice (or one six million times), the *average* value of the results will be *very* close to 3.5. This is is predictable and gets more accurate the more dice are rolled.

Even if things on the level of subatomic particles are probabilistic (and QM says they are), the averages over trillions of atoms is very predictable and regular. This *is* causation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

My viewpoint is that the whole notion of causality needs to be overhauled. Classical causation is definitely false. So the question is what replaces it?

And, as far as I can see, all 'causation' is really an averaging of probabilities.

As an analogy: rolling a six sided die one time is close to purely probabilistic (QM is *actually* probabilistic, by the way). The likelihood of 1,2,3,4,5,6 are all the same (assuming a balanced die). But, if you roll a million six sided dice (or one six million times), the *average* value of the results will be *very* close to 3.5. This is is predictable and gets more accurate the more dice are rolled.

Even if things on the level of subatomic particles are probabilistic (and QM says they are), the averages over trillions of atoms is very predictable and regular. This *is* causation.

So in the macroscopic, classical universe which we inhabit, causal relations are deterministic, influences are only possible within light cones, the arrow of time is unidirectional, and entities have consistent properties. Whereas at a the subatomic level, there is an irreducible randomness in the way entities behave, non local correlations are observed contemporaneously, and entities do not appear to have consistent linear histories.

All this seems to support the philosophical observation, which I think @George-ananda may have been getting at, that we as conscious beings occupy a level or plane of reality governed by a different set of laws than those which pertain at a more fundamental level. And though the one may be emergent from the other, it seems our experience of reality is defined, if not in part created, by our own perspective, and by the act of observation.

 

[Polymath257]

So in the macroscopic, classical universe which we inhabit, causal relations are deterministic, influences are only possible within light cones, the arrow of time is unidirectional, and entities have consistent properties. Whereas at a the subatomic level, there is an irreducible randomness in the way entities behave, non local correlations are observed contemporaneously, and entities do not appear to have consistent linear histories.

In QM, there is certainly an irreducible randomness in the way things behave. The non-local correlations are *always* produced by events in the past light cone (so, when the entanglement is initially produced). The arrow of time is also unidirectional in QM. And events outside of each others light cones are independent.

The inconsistency of histories and the *appearance* of time not being unidirectional is a product of using classical ideas; there is no inconsistency in the quantum description. But, particles do NOT have definite properties at all times. They are still 'consistent'. For example, electrons always have a certain charge and a certain rest mass.

But there is only *one* universe. The macroscopic universe is *based* on the rules of QM. The main difference is that macroscopic systems have very large numbers of quantum particles. The averages over all of these particles is what gives the high predictability of the macroscopic world and hence the appearance of determinism (to within experimental error, of course).

All this seems to support the philosophical observation, which I think @George-ananda may have been getting at, that we as conscious beings occupy a level or plane of reality governed by a different set of laws than those which pertain at a more fundamental level. And though the one may be emergent from the other, it seems our experience of reality is defined, if not in part created, by our own perspective, and by the act of observation.

Not how I see it. We are macroscopic beings, so the high degree of predictability (because of large numbers of particles) is something to be expected at our level.

Yes, of course, our epistemology is determined by our observations. Our brains/minds are always attempting to find the 'best' description of the world based on the sensory data we obtain. This happens on a second to second basis. It is the 'best approximation' that we 'experience'.

But this is just how our fallible brains/minds respond to the, not always consistent, information from our senses. This is what we have to push through to get to ontology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like you are agreeing with my point that new thinking should be welcomed.

I’ve heard ideas like from physicists like Amit Goswami that we might need to think in terms of top down causation. It all starts with non physical consciousness and higher planes of reality affect the denser planes as if playing out a grand thought. This effect from higher dimensions may appear to the physical as mysterious quantum behavior.

Now I’ll leave it to Goswami to explain that further but my point is new thinking should be welcomed.

I read what I could found about Goswami and found nothing about the science of Quantum Mechanics.

The new thinking you propose involves metaphysical assumptions concerning Quantum Mechanics as causes beyond the physical existence for which we have no objective verifiable evidence. It may be called new metaphysical "thinking," but it is not science.

There are no questions answered here unless a falsifiable hypothesis possible here. It amounts to speculation concerning the metaphysical.

 

[Nimos]

Keep in mind that this is just a theory based off mathematics.

Maybe down the road with some new information it might become a little clearer at least that's the hope with me because I can't understand a single bit of it.

Im in the same boat as you. Even when explained how it is supposed to work, it doesn't make huge sense to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

So in the macroscopic, classical universe which we inhabit, causal relations are deterministic, influences are only possible within light cones, the arrow of time is unidirectional, and entities have consistent properties. Whereas at a the subatomic level, there is an irreducible randomness in the way entities behave, non local correlations are observed contemporaneously, and entities do not appear to have consistent linear histories.

The above is false. It is not necessary to have consistent linear histories to have predictable patterns of events explainable in science. I sense Hookus Pookus Intelligent Design dumping a smelly load here.

All this seems to support the philosophical observation, which I think @George-ananda may have been getting at, that we as conscious beings occupy a level or plane of reality governed by a different set of laws than those which pertain at a more fundamental level. And though the one may be emergent from the other, it seems our experience of reality is defined, if not in part created, by our own perspective, and by the act of observation.

I find no evidence to justify this metaphysical belief. One may believe this, but not based on science,

 

[Regiomontanus]

For those that are not sure what it is:
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space.

I don't get it, but maybe someone can help

How do they know that they are connected?

I could understand it, if this was done in a small box and they had particle A and B and then they could experiment on them. But there are trillions of particles, so how would they know that A is connected to B which is billions of light years away?

If anyone claims to truly understand this, they are mistaken/full of excrement.

Proving that quantum entanglement is real: Researcher answers questions about his historical experiments

In the 1930's when scientists, including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, first discovered the phenomenon of entanglement, they were perplexed. Entanglement, disturbingly, required two separated particles to remain connected without being in direct contact. Einstein famously called...

phys.org

A mind bending phenomenon.