Quantum entanglement

[little_monkey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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.

 

[Troublemane]

ya, supposedly its got to do with any kind of measurement. which is why i started thinking it may be due to the particle being in a high energy state (ie going real fast) then transiting to a low energy state (striking a detector). quantum theory only describes the path of the photon from the emitter to the detector as a probability, but the results show the photon somehow seems to strike only where it would if it was going through both slits at once....this is baffling, unless you think of it in terms of the photon travelling so fast that space and time shrink to zero, then it makes sense that the slits would seem to merge into one. in fact there would be no apparent distance between the emitter and the detector.

 

[Panda]

ya, supposedly its got to do with any kind of measurement. which is why i started thinking it may be due to the particle being in a high energy state (ie going real fast) then transiting to a low energy state (striking a detector). quantum theory only describes the path of the photon from the emitter to the detector as a probability, but the results show the photon somehow seems to strike only where it would if it was going through both slits at once....this is baffling, unless you think of it in terms of the photon travelling so fast that space and time shrink to zero, then it makes sense that the slits would seem to merge into one. in fact there would be no apparent distance between the emitter and the detector.

So you do not believe in wave particle duality? If you don't what do you think of the alternative Particle Only and Wave Only theory's?

 

[Kungfuzed]

Action at a distance (Newtonian physics) has long been replaced by Quantum Field Theory, oh say, about 80 years ago.

OTOH, Quantum entanglement is so weird that even Einstein was spooked by it.

I've never had physics class. I just like playing with magnets.

 

[Troublemane]

LoL,thats funny, cuz im not sure what to make of them. I call them particles, but they are probably not "solid" things, you know like ball bearings, LoL. I guess i think of them as more like little blobs, or raindrops of energy, than solid things. Though I believe they've managed to capture atoms, much to the chagrin of a few proponents of the uncertainty theory who called it 'impossible'.

another interesting thing is the effect of supercooling, when atoms are brought down to temperatures approaching absolute zero they seem to act like a laser---they synchronize into one big particle, like what happens when a metal becomes a superconductor. isnt that awesome? i just love this stuff

 

[Panda]

LoL,thats funny, cuz im not sure what to make of them. I call them particles, but they are probably not "solid" things, you know like ball bearings, LoL. I guess i think of them as more like little blobs, or raindrops of energy, than solid things. Though I believe they've managed to capture atoms, much to the chagrin of a few proponents of the uncertainty theory who called it 'impossible'.

Hmm but if the building blocks aren't solid how can the ball bearing be solid?

another interesting thing is the effect of supercooling, when atoms are brought down to temperatures approaching absolute zero they seem to act like a laser---they synchronize into one big particle, like what happens when a metal becomes a superconductor. isnt that awesome? i just love this stuff

Try putting a magnet over a superconductor. The superconductor has an induced magnetic field the exact opposite of the magnet so the magnet will float .

 

[Troublemane]

Hmm but if the building blocks aren't solid how can the ball bearing be solid?

hmmm good question! maybe nothing is really solid! :cover:

Try putting a magnet over a superconductor. The superconductor has an induced magnetic field the exact opposite of the magnet so the magnet will float .

neato!

 

[little_monkey]

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?

The only condition for quantum entanglement is that there is a source that will send particles in opposite direction. The velocity of those particles don't enter in any calculations ( see Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

The origin of QE is from the EPR paradox (I have already posted a link for that). At the time, Einstein was trying to show that the Copengagen Interpretation advanced by Bohr was wrong. So he proposed a "thought" experiment, suggesting that there were "hidden" parameters that would link the particles moving in opposite direction. This was in 1936. Bohr could not give an adequate answer. This led some to delve into the idea of "hidden" parammeters -- the one most associated with that line of thinking was David Bohm and his pilot wave theory ( see Pilot wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). But that was unsuccessful. The next step was John Bell, who in 1964, produced a theorem, now called Bell's theorem (see my website at Bell's inequality for a simple version of it). That theorem opened the door to verify QE experimentally, which until then was only a thought experiment. Alain Aspect was the first to do the experiment that would verify Bell's theorem (he did it as his PhD thesis, see Alain Aspect Ph D thesis ). The irony is that Bell was trying to show with his theorem that Einstein was right in this long debate, but he ended up showing that Einstein was wrong.

So far, there are no theories that can adequately explain QE. But some are taking advantage of it, and have developped quantum computing using the concept of Qubits (see Qubit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

 

[Valjean]

I think, in this case, terms like speed and distance can be misleading. A particle "at the other end of the Universe" need not be any farther from the primary particle than I am to this computer.

Keep in mind that we live in a multi-dimentional Reality of which we perceive only three, or three and a half if you count time.

If we lived on a flat plane, like a piece of paper, and knew only two dimensions, two dots on opposite sides of the paper might seem pretty far away. But bend the paper through a third dimension so that the two dots are on top of each other, and they miraculously appear to have suddenly merged through no comprehensible agency.
The trick seems obvious to 3-D creatures. Perhaps the solution to the quantum entanglement question would seem obvious to an 11-D creature, or the solution mathematically clear if we calculated in multiple dimensions.

 

[little_monkey]

I think, in this case, terms like speed and distance can be misleading. A particle "at the other end of the Universe" need not be any farther from the primary particle than I am to this computer.

Keep in mind that we live in a multi-dimentional Reality of which we perceive only three, or three and a half if you count time.

If we lived on a flat plane, like a piece of paper, and knew only two dimensions, two dots on opposite sides of the paper might seem pretty far away. But bend the paper through a third dimension so that the two dots are on top of each other, and they miraculously appear to have suddenly merged through no comprehensible agency.
The trick seems obvious to 3-D creatures. Perhaps the solution to the quantum entanglement question would seem obvious to an 11-D creature, or the solution mathematically clear if we calculated in multiple dimensions.

One of the principal aim of the LHC is to explore the notion of higher dimension. No one knows if these will pop out, and at what scale. String Theory depends heavily on higher dimension, but it is regarded as highly speculative. Peter Woit (see Amazon.com: Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law: Peter Woit: Books ) and Lee Smolin ( see Amazon.com: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next: Lee Smolin: Books ) are two highly respected physicists who have strongly criticized the theory for not producing one shred of evidence and have called on the physic community to start looking at other theories. Perhaps there are higher dimensions, but even at that, no one has a plausible theory ( that is, a set of equations and predictions that can be verifiable) to explain QE.

 

[Valjean]

I agree, LM. String "theory" is speculation, at best a thought-experiment, albeit a facsinating one.
The idea of a multi-dimentional Reality is not solely confined to String Theory, though.

 

[Troublemane]

Entanglement using light particles (photons)
http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html