Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…
Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.
The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here
In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.
As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…
So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?
What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…
As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… š
BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”
You would need to set up a fast-than-light message transmitting system to show violation of relativity. Otherwise you might merely have an appearance of no real importance.
Isn’t it obvious? It is an a/mat progressive left wing conspiracy to keep religion out of schools. š
A possible explanation is that the cause of entanglement is coming from a point almost equal distance from both particles.
Hey Neil,
I knew you were going to respond to this. I have to say that I had thought the way you have. However, please read carefully the way the experiment was designed to avoid what we thought was pretty much impossible…
Please let me know, if you spot it.
I’m pretty sure keiths and newton should figure it out…
Shut up! It’s nonsense. Who is going to teach religion? And to whom? Immigrants who can’t understand what is being taught?
Interesting…elaborate please…
I think that we know very little about the nature of reality… I know I do…
Since Einstein was wrong about QM, then I have no problem being wrong… I will speculate my life away…Somebody stop me!
Not sure this is a suitable question for a lay audience.
BTW, what is ‘10.000’ ? Is this the same as ‘10,000’ ?
Entanglement does not allow faster than light communication. At least according to people doing the work.
petrushka,
Yes, that’s my understanding too. And that’s why I am skeptical of the thesis of this topic.
From the OP:
That statement is, I think, wrong. Or, at least, it is misleading.
When there’s a change in one entangled particle, we see a corresponding change in the other particle. The quoted statement is worded so as to suggest that one causes the other. But we do not know that.
do we know anything “causes” anything else?
Often things appear to be correlated and we tend to infer causation at times.
That seems to be about all we can say for certain.
peace
Yes, at least for some meanings of “know” and some meanings of “cause”.
That’s roughly Hume’s view of causation. I disagree.
At least, as used in science, I see “cause” as tied in with what we can cause.
If a scientist finds a way of causing A in the lab, and finds that whenever he causes A, then that also causes B, then he will tend to say that A causes B. Note, however, that the scientist will try to find different ways of causing A. And he will try to find ways of causing A that do not cause B. Only if, after all of this, he/she finds that whenever he causes A, that also causes B — only then will he say that A causes B.
Of course we also use “cause” for things that we cannot directly cause. But these are typically based on implications from what we already know that we can cause.
Of course, we might still be mistaken. But our testing for causation is a lot more thorough than Hume’s idea suggests.
I find this fascinating , just a minor correction, the experiment could not determine whether the effect was instantaneous.
As to why it has not been more widely spread, it does not involve a Kardashian.
just because a correlation between our actions and events outside us appears to be regular and predictable that does not necessarily entail causation by us.
That just tends to be our usual inference.
peace
How very profound.
Presumably you had a point?
As a despicable human being, presumably you are sure that every single one of your ancestors was not an immigrant?
You are very proud of your ignorance.
You are simply not that important. Why should anybody do anything to help you when you refuse to help yourself?
Speculate away. And continue to live off the hard work of others who do more then speculate.
J-Mac,
So, can you transmit information faster then the speed of light?
Yes or no? If so, can you point to somebody actually doing that?
If not, then presumably that answers the question asked in the OP?
My point was that causation is not something you can demonstrate.
The supposed faster than light variety of causation is not special in that regard.
peace
As you said ,it correlates to causation.
š
or so we tend to infer
Yes, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t instantaneous…
If we consider that time and distance don’t exist on quantum level, then it could very well be instantaneous…
BTW: can some please explain to me what’s so fascinating about the kardashin or the royal family?
So…how does one entangled particle effect the other entangled particle exactly?
You do known what entanglement means, don’t you?
Do you know this for a fact? Or it is another of your speculation out of ignorance…
It could be we just donāt know enough yet. But speculating, the distance between entangled particles at a quantum level might not equal the distance we measure at a non quantum level. And what we are measuring is speed at the quantum level between the particles.
Then we have a problem which how we calculate speed . v = d/t.
People are more interested in people than in mathematics.
How’s that replication of the double slit experement affected by consciousness going? Your kids were going to do it in the basement, right?
And that inference correlates positively with what we observe.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm
You may as well ask “how do magnets work”.
What particular interpretation do you subscribe to? Or should I google that too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
I’ve realized that there is a need to clarify few issues:
1.There is a difference between a classical bits of information and qubits of information between entangled particle.
2. There is also a difference between quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation.
“Quantum teleportation is a process by which quantum information (e.g. the exact state of an atom or photon) can be transmitted (exactly, in principle) from one location to another, with the help of classical communication and previously shared quantum entanglement between the sending and receiving location. Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for faster-than-light transport or communication of classical bits. While it has proven possible to teleport one or more qubits of information between two (entangled) atoms,[1][2][3] this has not yet been achieved between anything larger than molecules.
Although the name is inspired by the teleportation commonly used in fiction, quantum teleportation is limited to the transfer of information rather than matter itself. Quantum teleportation is not a form of transportation, but of communication: it provides a way of transporting a qubit from one location to another without having to move a physical particle along with it.The term was coined by physicist Charles Bennett. The seminal paper[4] first expounding the idea of quantum teleportation was published by C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. CrĆ©peau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W. K. Wootters in 1993.[5] Quantum teleportation was first realized in single photons,[6] later being demonstrated in various material systems such as atoms, ions, electrons and superconducting circuits. The latest reported record distance for quantum teleportation is 1,400 km (870 mi)…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
I would really like someone unbiased and knowledgeable to pinpoint the facts of quantum entanglement, quantum teleportation of classical and quantum information speed travel…
CharlieM perhaps?
Sounds reasonable…
After his embarrassing flop with the ocapi “evolution” dazz finally contributed to this blog. He uploaded a picture of himself of what he looks like when he reads 99% of the OPs and comments here…
Can anyone guess what the 1 % of comments left are?
Dazz’s own comments…obviously…
Not in the case of entangled particles apparently. Is that correct??
The more important point is that our inferences at times shape our observations instead of the other way around.
peace
I don’t think anyone is unbiased and the number of folks who are sufficiently knowledgeable about these sorts of things can probably fit in a phone booth.
peace
Never observed one. You?
Then the rest of the times our observations shape our inferences.
Do you insinuate that you can observe faster than light thingy?
I have in the last six months been interested in this stuff. i watched youtube things on the subject and read Einsteins book.
the corrections that might be made and lead to improvement start with the speed of light.
einstein said, at the end, he didn’t know what light was.
Genesis says God created light first, it was universal;no source, and then divided.
so light being a wave/particles is suspect.
So the speed of light is suspect. indeed, it seems, they say other things go the speed of light. On wiki. i’m not sure.
(this matters also because they use the speed to extrapolate backwards deep time).
so mif relativity and e=Mc2 is based on lights speed then there would be room for correction.
this entanglement stuff is shaddy to me but might be bumping into the light speed error.
Anyways genesis should be the start for these things.
Bob,
Do you see a shrink regularly or you are just oblivious to reality?
J-Mac,
I’m afraid the fact of the matter is that you are viewed as a slightly more coherent Bob. If we’re picking teams you are all going to end up on the same side.
Oblivious to reality is an apt description for you and colewd, Bob et al.
You don’t even understand my question regarding interpretation, do you?
Troll 10/10. Would troll again.
hahahaha!
Said I never observed an entangled particle, not sure about faster than light part. Though have observed fast as light thingys.
So, anything new here?
I see there are some new moderators. One of them even has time to help Rumraket with his posts.
Cool.
Yes, a big discovery has been made regarding actual scientific proof of Intelligent Design in biology.
I think so. But I did not know what it was called.
Scientists are observing that sort of thing all the time.
I would say our observations are entangled with our inferences so that we can’t know where one begins and the other ends.
peace
I would be careful when making personal paraphrases of scripture.
When I read Genesis I take it to be saying that God created everything “in the beginning”.
Genesis 1:1 is the only time the word is used in this passage.
peace
Hey phoodoo!
Ever since Sal, you and the like gave up on TSZ, it became a den of vipers who attack the commentators rather than comments or OPs…
J-Mac,
This from the guy who just called Byers mentally ill on another thread.
That discovery had been made long time ago and it was later confirmed by the founding father of the so-called ‘intellectual movement’ Darwin himself:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one…”
Unfortunately, “the intelligencia” could not feel intellectually fulfilled enough with God/ID being the originator of life, so they ignored that fact and continue to pretend that Darwin never wrote it.
Instead, they turned their faith toward random, natural processes of ventology and ascribed them Godlike life creative powers…
Can’t argue with that..
If you think he is not a kook, I’m taking it all back then…
You can enjoy conversing with him for me…
He’s all yours…