How entanglement has become a powerful tool

[...]From paradox to inequality

This progress rests on many years of development. It started with the mind-boggling insight that quantum mechanics allows a single quantum system to be divided up into parts that are separated from each other but which still act as a single unit.

This goes against all the usual ideas about cause and effect and the nature of reality. How can something be influenced by an event occurring somewhere else without being reached by some form of signal from it? A signal cannot travel faster than light – but in quantum mechanics, there does not seem to be any need for a signal to connect the different parts of an extended system.

Albert Einstein regarded this as unfeasible and examined this phenomenon, along with his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. They presented their reasoning in 1935: quantum mechanics does not appear to provide a complete description of reality. This has come to be called the EPR paradox, after the researchers’ initials[...]

The Nobel Price in Physics 2022 - How entanglement has become a powerful tool

Right up the ATS alley, innit? Thought I should share.
Have a blast and... errr... discuss?!?



Cheers!

a reply to: Insurrectile

To have a meaningful conversation about ER = EPR you kinda need people who can sling the hash, so to speak. If there is an overwhelming viewpoint skewed in one direction then you get a “wild” possibility/universe at the expense of other possibilities/ideas.

No, ATS is not lacking in either categories and we have had various attempts at explaining QM to pox poli but with limited success (really, there are dozens of threads about this if you look).

Reality is that most people don’t see the world that deeply and let everything slide off their back to deal with “important things” like politics!

We are on the verge of a scientific revolution. Nuclear fusion changes us to a Star Trek society (especially if we get energy transmission and storage down).

Just letting you know that there are a bunch of really smart people here who “get it”. It is just that nothing like an announcement from Lockheed on nuclear fusion or from Boeing on QM shielding from the universe (i.e.,?”anti-gravity”( has happened.

Ao we wait. For the craft to float out of the hangar and this site to meltdown, twice.



PS - Try to think of 2 impossible things daily! And once a week, try to figure out how to implement them!!

Quantum Entanglement in Conscious Biological Evolution?

Hundredth Monkey Effect

Just food for thought and discussion.

Love this field.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Mundreth Hunkey effect. 100 people will see that variation of the term and it will become part of the human collective conciousness.

a reply to: HorrorRoach

Then what?

Will it change the global state of superposition?

a reply to: HorrorRoach

I can actually see that happening.

What a time to be alive! Oh Brave New World!

originally posted by: Insurrectile
Right up the ATS alley, innit? Thought I should share.
Have a blast and... errr... discuss?!?

The few words you wrote isn't much meat to start a discussion, do you think? Like, what are your thoughts on the topic? You don't give us any clue! Not a great way to start a thread.

I've been surprised at some of the seemingly overhyped claims I've seen about various aspects of quantum mechanics.

Apparently I'm not the only one, since Sabine Hossenfelder debunks some of the strange and apparently ill-informed hype involved in what she calls the "quantum bubble" which she says is about to burst. I'm not sure if or when the bubble will burst but otherwise I agree with many of her comments about how some aspects are over-hyped. You can hear her arguments and judge for yourself in this video:

The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst

How much of what you hear about quantum computing is real promise and how much of it is hype? What is the "quantum winter" that so many physicists have been warning of? In this video I sort it out for you.

If you'd rather read the transcript-Quantum Winter is Coming, you can, except some of the statements may not make sense without the animations in the video. She thinks in the "quantum winter" that is coming, there will be "fewer headlines about how quantum computing is supposedly going to revolutionize something or other, which I’d say is a good development."

There are several different quantum technologies, and as a rule of thumb, the fewer headlines they make, the more promising they are...

On the other hand, you have those quantum things that you read a lot about but that no one needs or wants, like the quantum internet. And then there is quantum computing which according to countless headlines is going to revolutionize the world. Quantum computers are promising technology, yes, but the same can be said about nuclear fusion and look how that worked out.

I didn't think much of the government's quantum internet claims either, though their enthusiasm over quantum cryptography (based on entanglement) for special applications is indeed well-founded. While no communication system is "hacker-proof", at least it can let you know when it's being hacked, which is a great feature to have.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

We are on the verge of a scientific revolution. Nuclear fusion changes us to a Star Trek society (especially if we get energy transmission and storage down).

It's not that Hossenfelder doesn't think fusion and quantum computers are real and possible, she just thinks both are overhyped. I made a separate thread about the misleading language commonly used in the scientific community for the political goal of making politicians think we are closer to productive fusion than we are, to try to continue the funding stream. I suppose the researchers are afraid if they tell the truth, the politicians will think the future is too far off and reduce funding, which they might actualy do.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The misuse of the term frequency by Blavatsky is being supplanted by the misuse of the term entanglement.

Surprised?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The misuse of the term frequency by Blavatsky is being supplanted by the misuse of the term entanglement.

Surprised?

Not surprised.

There are actually two levels of overhyping quantum mechanics.

Non-woo overhyping: The quantum computing mentioned in the link in the OP is not woo at all, which like nuclear fusion is possible but may take a long time to be implemented in a significantly useful manner. Even then, quantum computing will still likely be a niche application since it is likely to still require cryogenic support which is not likely to end up replacing the PCs of today which don't require any cryogenics. This is the type of thing Sabine Hossenfelder is opining about.

Woo overhyping or in some cases complete pseudoscience: The "New age" example you mention is but one of many where all kinds of claims are made about quantum mechanics by non-scientists which are completely unsupported by the science (Not what Sabine Hossenfelder is referring to). Rational Wiki has an article about this:

Quantum woo
"If a sentence has the word "quantum" in it, and if it is coming out of a non-physicist's mouth, you can almost be certain that there's a huge quantum of BS being dumped on your head.
—Physicist Devashish Singh, quoting a colleague"

At least quantum mechanics is more mysterious and harder to understand, but "frequency" was not that mysterious so it was odd so many people fell for that term, apparently thinking it was even more important than the number 42.

Kind of reinforces my beliefs of a collective consciousness shared between certain species. a reply to: GENERAL EYES

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The misuse of the term frequency by Blavatsky is being supplanted by the misuse of the term entanglement.

Surprised?

I'm more surprised about the terminology "quantum-hype" popping up in the context of a Noble Price. But that's probably just me waving red flags of authority?

a reply to: Spacemonke

Right on.