Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi

Im thinking you are at an impasse you dont want to look into experiments and chose not to believe the results. You dont want to do the math so you can understand how we would know hidden variables existed. And you dont understand what hidden variables are and once again they wouldnt be random if they were no need for hidden variables. So until you decide to make some effort towards learning about physics your stuck where you are alot of questions no answers.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Im thinking you are at an impasse you dont want to look into experiments and chose not to believe the results. You dont want to do the math so you can understand how we would know hidden variables existed. And you dont understand what hidden variables are and once again they wouldnt be random if they were no need for hidden variables. So until you decide to make some effort towards learning about physics your stuck where you are alot of questions no answers.

Answer my questions dipstick. I am right, your understanding is wrong. Answer the questions I asked in my last reply. You are a master at projection, you are at an impasse, you cannot answer my questions, because you do not know truth, you know ignorance. If you were to attempt to answer my questions, you would see that you know only ignorance. If you are not afraid of showing your true cards, your true colors, answer the questions I asked you in my last reply.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Im thinking you are at an impasse you dont want to look into experiments and chose not to believe the results. You dont want to do the math so you can understand how we would know hidden variables existed. And you dont understand what hidden variables are and once again they wouldnt be random if they were no need for hidden variables. So until you decide to make some effort towards learning about physics your stuck where you are alot of questions no answers.

Do you know how entanglement works? Does the information from one particle transfer to another particle INSTANTANEOUSLY? There can be no such thing as instantaneous, so right there you know there are variables hidden. There is information unknown about how entanglement functions. That is hidden variables. You denying the existence of hidden variables is the same as saying you have complete understanding of what entanglement is and how it works, this is false.

I understand bells inequality theorem, it is false, it is a faulty arguement. I am arguing against it by using your knowledge of it, and my knowledge of reality. I am asking questions to prove you do not know reality. Your refusal to answer my questions is an acknowledgment of your ignorance.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Just want to point out the following. Being unable to understand an argument due to personal ignorance does not mean your original proposition is correct.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do you know how entanglement works?

To observe behavior via experimental results is to know something, but not necessarily everything. We can say this for gravity and entanglement, that they are both understood to an extent, but not completely.

Does the information from one particle transfer to another particle INSTANTANEOUSLY?

This is like the "does a photon have mass?" question. It's probably impossible to prove the photon's mass is zero, and it may be impossible to prove "instantaneous" because there will always be limitations in our measurements. All we can hope to do is put lower and lower limits on the photon mass and the temporal separation of quantum entanglement events. The last research I saw claimed the entanglement operated at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, but made no claim about whether it was instantaneous or not.

Quantum "spooky action at a distance" travels at least 10,000 times faster than light

So is the spooky action at a distance associated with entanglement actually instantaneous, or does it simply has a very large propagation speed?...a number of factors go into the interpretation of the results, which reduce the lower limit of the speed of entanglement influence to about 10,000 times the speed of light.

Notice that this result does not eliminate the possibility that the influence of entanglement actually is instantaneous – it merely sets a limit saying how close the influence must be to infinitely fast.

There can be no such thing as instantaneous, so right there you know there are variables hidden.

Nature tells us how it behaves. Not the other way around; you can try to tell nature how to behave, but it won't obey you.

There is information unknown about how entanglement functions. That is hidden variables.

Maybe or maybe not to both. Bell's tests concern LOCAL hidden variables, not all hidden variables.

You denying the existence of hidden variables is the same as saying you have complete understanding of what entanglement is and how it works, this is false.

I understand bells inequality theorem, it is false, it is a faulty arguement.

It's not apparent that you understand it, because it doesn't imply the things you seem to think it does. The interpretation doesn't claim that QM is complete. What does it claim?

Bell's theorem

In experimental tests following Bell's example, now using quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons, John Clauser and Stuart Freedman (1972) and Alain Aspect et al. (1981) convincingly demonstrated that the predictions of QM are correct in this regard. While this does not demonstrate QM is complete, one is forced to reject at least one of the principles of locality, realism, or freedom

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi

Just want to point out the following. Being unable to understand an argument due to personal ignorance does not mean your original proposition is correct.

Tell him to answer my questions. He knows if he attempts to answer my questions, he will have to confront his ignorance, and then what, that is scary isnt it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This is like the "does a photon have mass?" question. It's probably impossible to prove the photon's mass is zero, and it may be impossible to prove "instantaneous" because there will always be limitations in our measurements. All we can hope to do is put lower and lower limits on the photon mass and the temporal separation of quantum entanglement events. The last research I saw claimed the entanglement operated at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, but made no claim about whether it was instantaneous or not.

Quantum "spooky action at a distance" travels at least 10,000 times faster than light

So is the spooky action at a distance associated with entanglement actually instantaneous, or does it simply has a very large propagation speed?...a number of factors go into the interpretation of the results, which reduce the lower limit of the speed of entanglement influence to about 10,000 times the speed of light.

Notice that this result does not eliminate the possibility that the influence of entanglement actually is instantaneous – it merely sets a limit saying how close the influence must be to infinitely fast.

The term instantaneous, would only imply, that an entangled particle, is physically the same object as its entangled partner, and that when you move one of the particles, 'you are not actually moving it'. Please explain how a reality might exist that this is physically hypothetically and/or theoretically possible?

If it is not instantaneous, then you MUST ADMIT, that there is some physical structure, some means as to how the information or influence occurs. I am not saying you must know how it occurs or what the structure is, but you must admit that 'there is some reason' why it occurs at the speed it does, and not infinitely faster or slower. This is admitting there exists truth, that you are ignorant of the full enlightenment of. Do you understand this? This is Newton saying, I know a phenomenon of gravity exists, but I dont know everything about it. That which Newton did not know about gravity, were hidden variables, of his knowledge.

The fact you do not know everything about entanglement, is the fact that there are variables hidden from your knowledge. If you were to know that knowledge, there would be no hidden variables.

Nature tells us how it behaves. Not the other way around; you can try to tell nature how to behave, but it won't obey you.

I am trying to argue what nature, or your experiments have told you to tell yourselves. How do you know that when an entangled pair of particles are created, 2 particles with opposite states arent created? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT, ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT THERE.

Maybe or maybe not to both. Bell's tests concern LOCAL hidden variables, not all hidden variables.

Even non locality would be local. I am grappling right now with man making artificial distinctions to help organize his understanding, where there in nature may not be distinctions, when 'a certain distance turns from local to non local'. Even non locality would be local somewhere somehow, because if the quanta were to be influenced instantaneously or 10,000 times the speed of light, the quanta would have to be locally related in some way; either, quantumly or hilbertspacely never leaving each other, or quantumly or hilbertspacely yea, never leaving each others sides, remaining the same particle.

It's not apparent that you understand it, because it doesn't imply the things you seem to think it does. The interpretation doesn't claim that QM is complete. What does it claim?

Bell's theorem

In experimental tests following Bell's example, now using quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons, John Clauser and Stuart Freedman (1972) and Alain Aspect et al. (1981) convincingly demonstrated that the predictions of QM are correct in this regard. While this does not demonstrate QM is complete, one is forced to reject at least one of the principles of locality, realism, or freedom

No, this sort of argument is silly. Please answer my questions, importantly, how you know that when an entangled pair of particles are created, 2 particles with opposite states arent created?
QM says, 2 particles with superposition states, meaning each being both head and tails, exist, and that when we measure them they are definite and opposite. And then they measure, and say, yes they are definite and opposite, information must have traversed them instantly, how do you know, when you create 2 particle pairs, 2 entangled particles, they are not opposite states the entire time, and that when you measure them, you measure that they are opposite states?

Bells inequality does not answer this question, but if you think it does, instead of saying "bells inequality", say 1 or 2 sentences from bells inequality, that I can argue, that prove your position.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok lets start with i think your a bit confused about entanglement.So first lets just look at two particles from a classical interpretation. Think of two particles (which repel one another) on a collision course as viewed in their center-of-mass frame. If the particles are directed perfectly "head-on", each one will bounce back in exactly the opposite direction. this will mean their spin and velocity are entangled. This means we can measure one and know the other this is a very basic example and their are other ways to create entanglement but this is the easiest to visualize. Entanglement at its most basic means a particle may have the same spin and momentum only direction would be different. So this is basic entanglement than we thow QM into the mix and we get a weird result this has to do with wave functions like i tried to explain to you in previous experiment. Here is where superposition comes into play now we can have a particle instead of bouncing back and traveling in opposite directions we can get unusual results on direction because the particle is in multiple states. This is what i was attempting to show you but your intent on glossing over the experimental data.

But i can come back to this to explain i want to clarify something for you entanglement doesnt mean they change states or even information is being transferred. What does happen is the entangled particle acts as if we measured it even if we didnt. In other words the wave function breaks down and acts as a particle instead of a wave even though if we didnt observe it we get different results. This shows us that the experiment isnt causing the collapse of the secong pair but its behavior changes just as if we measured it. We can use this to say cause interference patterns on the particles not measured.

Tell you what take a look at this experiment and think how this is possible and we can discuss it.

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Now for your question there can be opposite states created im not sure what question you think your asking?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok lets start with i think your a bit confused about entanglement.So first lets just look at two particles from a classical interpretation. Think of two particles (which repel one another) on a collision course as viewed in their center-of-mass frame. If the particles are directed perfectly "head-on", each one will bounce back in exactly the opposite direction. this will mean their spin and velocity are entangled. This means we can measure one and know the other this is a very basic example and their are other ways to create entanglement but this is the easiest to visualize.

Does this mean that all particles which repel one another have opposite spin? Are we under the impression in the experiment that you fired both particles at exactly the same velocity? When they collide is not some energy emitted? So you would know the original velocity of both particles, measure 1 particles velocity, and determine that the other particle must have exactly the same velocity, and determine if any energy was released in the collision by comparing the difference in summed starting velocities and summed post collision velocities.

Entanglement at its most basic means a particle may have the same spin and momentum only direction would be different.

May have the same spin? Or definitely have the same spin? May have the same spin and momentum, or may have the same spin and/or momentum to be considered entangled?

So this is basic entanglement than we thow QM into the mix and we get a weird result this has to do with wave functions like i tried to explain to you in previous experiment.

A wave function for probabilities of where multiple particles land when fired one after the other, has not much to say about what a single particle is, and how it is decided where exactly it will land. You actually think, that because after firing 1000 particles, you can make a chart of where each one landed, so that if you fire 1 particle, there is a good chance the particle will land at one of any of the spots any of the previous particles landed on, and you think 1 particle that is fired 'decides' to land exactly where it lands, not because of hidden variables, but because?

But i can come back to this to explain i want to clarify something for you entanglement doesnt mean they change states or even information is being transferred. What does happen is the entangled particle acts as if we measured it even if we didnt. In other words the wave function breaks down and acts as a particle instead of a wave even though if we didnt observe it we get different results.

How do you know the entangled particle acts as if it is measured, if you are not measuring it? How do you know its wave function breaks down and acts as a particle, if you are not observing it?

Now for your question there can be opposite states created im not sure what question you think your asking?

When I am talking about entanglement, I use the term states, as I am under the impression the main idea of entanglement is that particles that are said to be entangled by the relationship between their states, I was under the impression the term states, was used to denote characteristic such as momentum, spin, etc.

Don't have time to read all the walls of text. But briefly 2 QE particles need not have different states. Place 2 particles in the same magfield for some time and they will quantumentangle. Like electrons in your body are qe
a reply to: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The term instantaneous, would only imply, that an entangled particle, is physically the same object as its entangled partner, and that when you move one of the particles, 'you are not actually moving it'. Please explain how a reality might exist that this is physically hypothetically and/or theoretically possible?

Quantum mechanics is such a description. There is some debate on exactly how quantum mechanics should be interpreted

If it is not instantaneous, then you MUST ADMIT, that there is some physical structure, some means as to how the information or influence occurs. I am not saying you must know how it occurs or what the structure is, but you must admit that 'there is some reason' why it occurs at the speed it does, and not infinitely faster or slower. This is admitting there exists truth, that you are ignorant of the full enlightenment of. Do you understand this? This is Newton saying, I know a phenomenon of gravity exists, but I dont know everything about it. That which Newton did not know about gravity, were hidden variables, of his knowledge.

I don't understand why you're making such a distinction here about whether it's instantaneous or not, because it's interesting either way. I disagree that if it's instantaneous it's the same particle. This is an argument that you have decreed what is and is not possible for nature to do, and you're not in any position to make such a decree since you're not god.

But yes we've made advances in answering Newton's questions about the cause of gravity, though we aren't completely finished with the answer. I don't think we have the complete answer on the correct interpretation of QM either.

The fact you do not know everything about entanglement, is the fact that there are variables hidden from your knowledge. If you were to know that knowledge, there would be no hidden variables.

I think you are using that term "hidden variables" in a way in which it's not typically used so I'd advise against that. If you mean we aren't sure of the correct interpretation of QM, and therefore our knowledge is incomplete in that respect then it would be more clear to say that, then to refer to "hidden variables".

I am trying to argue what nature, or your experiments have told you to tell yourselves. How do you know that when an entangled pair of particles are created, 2 particles with opposite states arent created? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT, ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT THERE.

See, this is what I mean by saying it comes down to an interpretation of quantum mechanics. My understanding of the many worlds interpretation is that they are. The Copenhagen interpretation says they aren't. We haven't figured out a way to prove which of these interpretations are correct.

Many-worlds interpretation

The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation, every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which do not interact with each other.

Even non locality would be local.

non-locality is an odd descrition of something that's local.

No, this sort of argument is silly. Please answer my questions, importantly, how you know that when an entangled pair of particles are created, 2 particles with opposite states arent created?
QM says, 2 particles with superposition states, meaning each being both head and tails, exist, and that when we measure them they are definite and opposite. And then they measure, and say, yes they are definite and opposite, information must have traversed them instantly, how do you know, when you create 2 particle pairs, 2 entangled particles, they are not opposite states the entire time, and that when you measure them, you measure that they are opposite states?

As I said and posted a paper explaining, the MWI says entanglement is local, but even though the MWI has a fully local explanation, it has other issues.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Don't have time to read all the walls of text.

Nor a physics textbook I bet.

But briefly 2 QE particles need not have different states. Place 2 particles in the same magfield for some time and they will quantumentangle. Like electrons in your body are qe

Decoherence of entanglement in the body happens so quickly that it's probably not relevant to biological processes according to Max Tegmark:

The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^[-13]-10^[-20] seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules.

So I don't know why people even consider the entanglement in say human tissue when decoherence happens so rapidly as to make it mostly irrelevant to anything I can think of.

Lol done enough physics at the uni
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Quantum mechanics is such a description. There is some debate on exactly how quantum mechanics should be interpreted

No quantum mechanics does not give a description as to how information can transfer between two particles instantly or 10,000 times the speed of light. Can you tell me in a sentence what the description is, is it like; There is a field that exists that connects the two particles, like the EM field is the force carrier between electrons, and this entangled particle field carries the force or information 10,000 times the speed of light, or it carries the information instantly. Is that the QM description?

I don't understand why you're making such a distinction here about whether it's instantaneous or not, because it's interesting either way. I disagree that if it's instantaneous it's the same particle. This is an argument that you have decreed what is and is not possible for nature to do, and you're not in any position to make such a decree since you're not god.

Because the only way something can be 'truly instantaneous' if it is 'the same object, attachment in some way. You are not even thinking at all. Even we would agree in past arguments, that if you had a pole, a single object, and you drew a dot at both ends, and twisted the end you were holding, is that a transfer of information instantly? You twisting your wrist, also twists the other end? It must be something like this, if anything, that like I have tried to ask prior, all my questions are very important, about the nature of a photon, when it is created, if it is like a circle which expands circumference and area, for if it is as such, then perhaps it is like if you touch one part of that circle, like the circle is the pole bent into a circle, the entire circle can be impacted, for it is as if a connected object.

Also the other reason I thought that entanglement could actually be true, may have to do with the fact of the earths movement through space. I thought to ask and consider the differences between an extremely dense planet, and an extremely not dense planet, and if 'space', fields and what not, travel through the planet, the not dense one, if more space travels through the planet, perhaps that has something to do with why less dense planets warp space less, but also I am wondering how the space might be effected in the way that a planet rotates, revolves, and orbits and all its movements, are very relatively but very regular, And so when any event or experiment dealing with light is done, depending on if light emits as I have described above, as a circle or not, that might also have something to do, our entanglement experiments, with the fact that the earth is spinning and traveling very fast, so that maybe when light is triggered on one end of the entangled, because the earth is moving linearly and spinning, maybe we are thrusted onto greater areas of the light, or it sends reverberations through material, or something, like traces of the information light pick up are left off on material because the material moves through the light and this is how particles not measured yet can contain imprints or information, that was left onto its partner.

I think you are using that term "hidden variables" in a way in which it's not typically used so I'd advise against that. If you mean we aren't sure of the correct interpretation of QM, and therefore our knowledge is incomplete in that respect then it would be more clear to say that, then to refer to "hidden variables".

Just because you think something, doesnt mean its right. I am very weary of what you think, I am questioning your beliefs, I can not so religiously accept them. I do not think smart men are infallible, especially book smart ones.

See, this is what I mean by saying it comes down to an interpretation of quantum mechanics. My understanding of the many worlds interpretation is that they are. The Copenhagen interpretation says they aren't. We haven't figured out a way to prove which of these interpretations are correct.

Dont ever use the many world interpretation when speaking to me again please. You have brought it up at least 3 times. Dont say, you dont tell reality how it is, it tells us, and then use the many worlds interpretation, you do realize some guy was like "dude, what if we just think of an idea that has nothing to dow wth reality or logic or conservation of energy or physical things, but we just like made up a wish that a little girl would make up playing pretend, and say that reality tells us what is rational and logical", "thats so crazy it just might work", "yea, mann hahh,, like there are angels everywhere, there are infinite of you in infinite realities, its sooo crazy dude, yea, I think I heard about that once, astral traveling, there are like many worlds, ohh no this is it, every time, every pico second, planck length and planck second, all energy doubles, and there is just infinite worlds, every electron doubles every second, and maintains its structure into infinite reproducing worlds, its so imaginative", "yea I think thats true, but dont forget, first there was nothing", "yes, of course, im not an idiot"

non-locality is an odd descrition of something that's local.

um, exactly, thats my point, its a human description, made up. Even something you call non local, has entirely local, reasons for occurring. These are the types of points I am trying to prove to you, you, or your interpretation of science, has blown everything out of proportion, created all these rules and trap doors and bad habits, and now you believe the hall of smoke and mirrors you have scribbled in your sketch pad to be true reality as it is ("wah wah no scientist says they know all of reality" as I pull the string on your back).

What I meant with that statement, is, things that you think and call non local, have entirely local functions, as to what is really going on. You just have faith, that there is no physical reason why a single particle at point A can cause an interaction with particle at point B? 'well thats what science tells us'. No. Science tells us that we are ignorant as to what is going on. That does not mean nothing is going on. You think spooky action at a distance really is magic? No physical reason why things occur? WE dont know the reason why, you think that means there is no reason? Not reason in like, feelings, like the electron felt like going to the mall and that as his reason. REason, like the reason the ball drops is gravity, the reason ice freezes is temperature, the reason buildings stay up etc. the reason stars work is etc. the reason entanglement is something that can occur is ________. "it just is, that is just something we must accept, that there may be no reason, that without me thinking at all, I can say with confidence, when a particle is at point A, and its entangled particle is measured, these separate particles, can interact and influence one another, potentially instantly, this is just something I must have faith in"

originally posted by: ImaFungi
No quantum mechanics does not give a description as to how information can transfer between two particles instantly or 10,000 times the speed of light. Can you tell me in a sentence what the description is, is it like; There is a field that exists that connects the two particles, like the EM field is the force carrier between electrons, and this entangled particle field carries the force or information 10,000 times the speed of light, or it carries the information instantly. Is that the QM description?

See the reference to Yanhua Shin's paper "quantum entanglement" below, or better yet see the paper.

Because the only way something can be 'truly instantaneous' if it is 'the same object, attachment in some way.

Not exactly the same but in some sense not separate entities, again see the reference below.

Also the other reason I thought that entanglement could actually be true, may have to do with the fact of the earths movement through space.

I think you'd be spending your time better taking a physics course and actually doing some experiments, rather than denying experimental results of experiments you don't understand and then making seemingly irrelevant suppositions, or at least I don't see the relevance of the Earth's movement through space with regard to entanglement experiments.

Just because you think something, doesnt mean its right. I am very weary of what you think, I am questioning your beliefs, I can not so religiously accept them. I do not think smart men are infallible, especially book smart ones.

I never suggested otherwise and I don't assume any one person is right, but at least I can admit some people who have specialized in a field for years or decades know more about it than I do. Before I can show that they are wrong about something I have to close a very large gap in my personal ignorance of not having worked in that field for decades. You on the other hand can deny the results of experiments that people perform, experiments you don't even understand, and when I point this out you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues. No, my reading comprehension is fine; you basically suggested the experimenters don't know what they are doing, but it's apparent this observation is made from complete ignorance since you've never even tried to do the experiment and you're obviously not really familiar with it.

Dont ever use the many world interpretation when speaking to me again please. You have brought it up at least 3 times.

I never said I liked it myself, in fact I said I didn't like it, but your questions insist on having some kind of locality and if the answer to your question is that interpretation provides the locality you seek, why shoot the messenger? It's not my personal favorite. But if you don't like that interpretation, the other popular interpretations are non-local.

um, exactly, thats my point, its a human description, made up. Even something you call non local, has entirely local, reasons for occurring.

Again you are speaking from ignorance here. What I can say is these concepts are subtle and physicists work hard to communicate the subtleties and exact conditions related to their usage of terminology, efforts which you cavalierly discard without even understanding all the subtle meanings in these definitions.

In any case, we don't have all the answers. Here's an excerpt from the ending of the book Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics by Amir D. Aczel

Possibly a way to understand entanglement is to avoid looking at relativity theory altogether, and not to think of two entangled entities as particles “sending a message” from one to the other. In a paper entitled “Quantum Entanglement,” Yanhua Shih argues that because two entangled particles are (in some sense) not separate entities, there is even no apparent violation of the uncertainty principle, as EPR had suggested.

Entangled particles transcend space. The two or three entangled entities are really parts of one system, and that system is unaffected by physical distance between its components. The system acts as a single entity.

...to truly understand what entanglement is and how it works is for now beyond the reach of science.
For to understand entanglement, we creatures of reality depend on “elements of reality,” as Einstein demanded, but as Bell and the experiments have taught us, these elements of reality simply do not exist. The alternative to these elements of reality is quantum mechanics. But the quantum theory does not tell us why things happen the way they do: why are the particles entangled? So a true comprehension of entanglement will only come to us when we can answer John Archibald Wheeler’s question: “Why the quantum?”

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think you'd be spending your time better taking a physics course and actually doing some experiments, rather than denying experimental results of experiments you don't understand and then making seemingly irrelevant suppositions, or at least I don't see the relevance of the Earth's movement through space with regard to entanglement experiments.

The earths movements are important potentially, because every time we measure light, we are measuring it using atoms that are moving (in at least 4 different ways, rotating, revolving around sun, revolving around galaxy, traveling with galaxy through space) relative to light, which when created propagates in all directions. I skimmed a few papers by that guy you mentioned, and he even right off the bat speaks about light radiating in spheres, as I assumed. Something he also has no problem speaking of which I hate, is speaking of 1-d things and 2-d as if they are or can be real. I am of the judgement that they cant, try and give me one argument as to how something that is 2-d can exist in the universe, if you disagree with me.

I never said I liked it myself, in fact I said I didn't like it, but your questions insist on having some kind of locality and if the answer to your question is that interpretation provides the locality you seek, why shoot the messenger? It's not my personal favorite. But if you don't like that interpretation, the other popular interpretations are non-local.

Saying "uhhhh...hmmmm......its....ummmm....its non local". Is not the same as saying "it might be non local because non local means ____________________". "It might be non local in the way that the term non local means ___________________"

And then give me a single theory (Qm...qm is the theory....I am asking for a sentence as to a general expression of how a crude example of what non locality means, how it possible can function as a real thing that functions and occurs) as to how non locality can possibly function as a real that that functions and occurs.

Would you say the influence the moon has on earth is non local? (dont answer this with 'see mann, you dont even understand dudeeee", I am not saying I think the moon is non local or not, I am seeing what you say, I can not say I have a thought on the matter until you answer my question, because as of yet, I do not have a settled understanding of your understanding of the term non local, and what you mean by when you use it. The term was invented to describe something that was thought was impossible, and for good reason. You think it is possible, I am asking, how can it possibly be possible. I am suspending disbelief, and saying 'ok yes, non locality, ok! instant information, yes! entanglement, right on! though, please, give me one tiny sliver of a piece of concept as to how non locality can possibly mean something or function as an existing phenomenon that works and has a way of working and a reason for working physically.

um, exactly, thats my point, its a human description, made up. Even something you call non local, has entirely local, reasons for occurring.

Again you are speaking from ignorance here. What I can say is these concepts are subtle and physicists work hard to communicate the subtleties and exact conditions related to their usage of terminology, efforts which you cavalierly discard without even understanding all the subtle meanings in these definitions.

Possibly a way to understand entanglement is to avoid looking at relativity theory altogether, and not to think of two entangled entities as particles “sending a message” from one to the other. In a paper entitled “Quantum Entanglement,” Yanhua Shih argues that because two entangled particles are (in some sense) not separate entities, there is even no apparent violation of the uncertainty principle, as EPR had suggested.

Entangled particles transcend space. The two or three entangled entities are really parts of one system, and that system is unaffected by physical distance between its components. The system acts as a single entity.

...to truly understand what entanglement is and how it works is for now beyond the reach of science.
For to understand entanglement, we creatures of reality depend on “elements of reality,” as Einstein demanded, but as Bell and the experiments have taught us, these elements of reality simply do not exist. The alternative to these elements of reality is quantum mechanics. But the quantum theory does not tell us why things happen the way they do: why are the particles entangled? So a true comprehension of entanglement will only come to us when we can answer John Archibald Wheeler’s question: “Why the quantum?”

Ok, I am asking for an idea, as I did above. QM doesnt tell us why they happen, I am asking you 1 theory as to why/how the smartest people working on this stuff might think entanglement happens.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The earths movements are important potentially, because every time we measure light, we are measuring it using atoms that are moving (in at least 4 different ways, rotating, revolving around sun, revolving around galaxy, traveling with galaxy through space) relative to light, which when created propagates in all directions.

We do see a slight blue shifting of the CMB (Cosmic microwave background) in one direction, and a slight red-shifting in the opposite direction, due to the motion of the Earth through space (which includes of course the motion of the sun since the Earth orbits the sun), but the CMB is an external reference frame. Entanglement experiments done in an Earth reference frame may not use such an external reference frame.

If an effect such as you mention was taking place, we might expect to see variations every 12 hours (in 24 hour cycles due to Earth's rotation) since every 12 hours there is maybe 1000 mph or so, depending on the observer's latitude, either added or subtracted from the Earth's motion through space, though the CMB red/blue shift observations are made from satellites so aren't subject to this timing of the Earth's rotation. In any case we don't see these cycles in entanglement experiments, at least not that I'm aware of.

I skimmed a few papers by that guy you mentioned, and he even right off the bat speaks about light radiating in spheres, as I assumed.

What is the problem with that?

Something he also has no problem speaking of which I hate, is speaking of 1-d things and 2-d as if they are or can be real. I am of the judgement that they cant, try and give me one argument as to how something that is 2-d can exist in the universe, if you disagree with me.

It would be better to cite a specific example of what you have a problem with than to speak in generalities. I know the full moon is a 3D object but to me it looks 2D to my naked eye and in photographs. The first time I saw the moon through a telescope, I remember thinking that it looked different, like a 3-D object, because there was enough detail to see craters and their shadows as 3-D features.

Saying "uhhhh...hmmmm......its....ummmm....its non local". Is not the same as saying "it might be non local because non local means ____________________". "It might be non local in the way that the term non local means ___________________"

As I said the exact usage is subtle and depends on complex factors so any oversimplification will be incomplete, but with that in mind, here is a simplified description of the concept of locality:

Quantum nonlocality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling

Our intuitive understanding of correlations between events relies on the concept of causal influences, either relating directly the events, such as the position of the moon causing the tides, or involving a past common cause, such as seeing a flash and hearing the thunder when a lightning strikes. Importantly, we expect the chain of causal relations to satisfy a principle of continuity, i.e., the idea that the physical carriers of causal influences propagate continuously through space at a finite speed. Given the theory of relativity, we expect moreover the speed of causal influences to be bounded by the speed of light.

So if that describes locality (they even used your moon example!), influences which are bounded by the speed of light, then non-locality would involve influences exceeding the speed of light, which that paper argues are likely infinitely fast in the case of entanglement (instantaneous). Again these descriptions are neither formal nor complete. Here is a somewhat more formal explanation in the context of relativity:

Locality

Locality is one of the axioms of relativistic quantum field theory, as required for causality. The formalization of locality in this case is as follows: if we have two observables, each localized within two distinct spacetime regions which happen to be at a spacelike separation from each other, the observables must commute. Alternatively, a solution to the field equations is local if the underlying equations are either Lorentz invariant or, more generally, generally covariant or locally Lorentz invariant.

And then give me a single theory (Qm...qm is the theory....I am asking for a sentence as to a general expression of how a crude example of what non locality means, how it possible can function as a real thing that functions and occurs) as to how non locality can possibly function as a real that that functions and occurs.

I just did in the quote from the book, which is saying the same thing mbkennel referred to as Hilbert space without mentioning Hilbert space. This is a repeat of the sourced quote above:

"Entangled particles transcend space. The two or three entangled entities are really parts of one system, and that system is unaffected by physical distance between its components. The system acts as a single entity. "

Would you say the influence the moon has on earth is non local? (dont answer this with 'see mann, you dont even understand dudeeee", I am not saying I think the moon is non local or not, I am seeing what you say, I can not say I have a thought on the matter until you answer my question, because as of yet, I do not have a settled understanding of your understanding of the term non local, and what you mean by when you use it. The term was invented to describe something that was thought was impossible, and for good reason. You think it is possible, I am asking, how can it possibly be possible. I am suspending disbelief, and saying 'ok yes, non locality, ok! instant information, yes! entanglement, right on! though, please, give me one tiny sliver of a piece of concept as to how non locality can possibly mean something or function as an existing phenomenon that works and has a way of working and a reason for working physically.

The speed of gravity is hard to pin down exactly in experiment but it's apparently also the speed of light (though we can't measure it as accurately as we can the speed of light, so there's some margin for error). So assuming the speed of gravity actually doesn't exceed the speed of light, an assumption consistent with experiment, this would make such a gravitational influence as that between the Earth and moon "local".

Ok, I am asking for an idea, as I did above. QM doesnt tell us why they happen, I am asking you 1 theory as to why/how the smartest people working on this stuff might think entanglement happens.

It's an interesting question and if I personally knew any quantum entanglement researchers, I'd ask them, but, I don't. If someone else does maybe they can answer, but if not, reading papers by the researchers is the best we have, (if you can handle comments about light radiating in spheres, but I still don't see why this bothers you).

a reply to: ImaFungi

Im going to make this easy we dont know how they know what the other particle is doing we are trying to figure that out. now there are so many ideas how this could be possible problem is proving whos right and whos wrong. You have some that believe there is different dimensions to space and as long as things are one unit they still can detect the other regardless of distance. I always look at this as the twins scenario. It been reported for example that one twin can tell something happened to their other twin regardless of how far they are apart.Their actually is considerable documentation which shows indeed their may be something to this.

Then we have worm holes just like we could link two blackholes together no matter how far we move them they would be connected. Still a cool idea though not sure i like the idea of mico black holes crisscrossing the galaxy seems a bit adhoc to me.

Than we have a possibility of a hidden variable something so small we just cant observe it but would just be another characteristic like spin of a particle. This is basically some sort of faster than light communication. think of this like every particle registers its information in like a catalog that all particles have access to.

Next id say time independent meaning are particles can actually communicate back in time at the point where they were connected. See this as their frames of reference are permanently linked regardless of location.

Than their is a many worlds interpretation which i wont go into because of your disdain for this as well as i think it was stupid also.

Now their are alot more but most are a variation of one of these or even a combination. Bottom line is we dont know how its done and when someone figures it out this discovery will surpass every other one to this date. ill tell you i tend to lean towards more of a dimensional thing we perceive the particles as being separated but thats only because we are stuck viewing it from our 3 dimensional world. Much like if we were to try to perceive a 4th dimensional creature in a 3d world we would only see parts of the whole. Perhaps everything in the universe is truly connected we just cant see it.

Now why dont we discuss this well im reluctant to because when dealing with science speculation is useless though can be fun. So when you ask someone here how on this point you get people that will feed you BS based off whatever they believe this opens up pseudo science and thats why physics doesnt come right out and speculate at least not in public. you will see these discussions in papers however as a scientists develops an idea how it could be possible than tries to show why its possible but even that it is possible isnt proof.

Not to continue with a huge wall of text but might i make a suggestion before you try to figure out what you believe take the time to learn what we know.

originally posted by: dragonridr
So when you ask someone here how on this point you get people that will feed you BS based off whatever they believe this opens up pseudo science and thats why physics doesnt come right out and speculate at least not in public.

Yes there's nothing wrong with saying we don't know certain things about QM but what we do know is certainly strange and interesting enough without introducing quantum quackery. Unfortunately that is all too rampant, since the quackery proponents say "see science doesn't know everything about QM therefore anything I make up could be true".

It doesn't work that way when some of the claims contradict things we do know, like the rapid decoherence of entangled particles inside the human body contradicts claims of a major role of entangled particles in human tissue, as I pointed out to Nochzwei. There's also the claim in the movie "what the bleep..." that quantum mechanics allows us to summon the spirit of a Lemurian warrior who has been dead for 15,000 years, and so on, so I agree the pseudoscientists don't need any speculative encouragement, they seem to be speculating wildly already without any help, and in the absence of real science in many cases.

The logic can go something like this:

Quantum woo

1. I want magic to exist.
   
2. I don't understand quantum.
   
3. Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.

Thanks for sharing those ideas, and I've wondered if there could be some kind of extra-dimensional explanation too. Whatever the real explanation is, it could be a little strange to explain a seemingly strange experimental result. Let's hope the woo masters don't take the speculative ideas and write even more science fiction posing as real science. I think we have enough already.

originally posted by: [post=18434848]Arbitrageur Quantum woo

1. I want magic to exist.
   
2. I don't understand quantum.
   
3. Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.

Thanks for sharing those ideas, and I've wondered if there could be some kind of extra-dimensional explanation too. Whatever the real explanation is, it could be a little strange to explain a seemingly strange experimental result. Let's hope the woo masters don't take the speculative ideas and write even more science fiction posing as real science. I think we have enough already.

Hey beware tommy bearden is listening in threateningly

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If when EM radiation is created, it looks like this: O ..... And that circle, expands in area and circumfrence. That is 1 photon, the circle as a whole expanding, anywhere along its circumference would be measured as '1 photon', and the nature of how this circles circumference increases, is that it does so as a wave.

So, when a beam of these are sent in a certain direction, they are expanding circles being sent in a linear direction. When they are split to make entangled beams, or entangled photons, what is happening, is the circle being broken, potentially what happens in double slit. potentially the circle snaps back together, or where it was split catches up, or has some delay.

Now I merely offered as a possible thing to note, is the extreme fact that all the molecules of the planet are moving in multiple collective directions. And if the EM field is not coupled fundamentally to the molecules, but instead coupled fundamentally to itself, in the sense of the field existing independent to the molecules, in space somehow, then it may be important to consider the spinning, rotating, revolving, linear motion through space and time of the collective molecules of an area of experiment, and how the EM field and space is reacting to this molecules as the molecules are constantly interacting with this field while traveling in space, and then caused to interact gain in a novel way during experiment.