we have to define what this means once and for all I get all kinds of thoughts of what the this means , actually but what I want is an absolute definition what does particle entanglement really mean entanglement to me for now means that , a particle at some far off distance from another affects another discuss further
come on people with no response so far are a bunch of you saying that there is no definitive , definition of entanglement ?
Particle entanglement occurs when two or more particles are described by the same wavefunction, and the wavefunction is a superposition of the multi-particle eigenstates.
Now be fair, 'thinking' soul here is a fine worded definition as it applies to "physics and math" (from the Boss) now if a thinking person is interested in conversing in observational arenas, then this is not the right section but if you want to see physics and other scientists work, then the internet is the bomb to search, "seek and employ"........... (song 'seek and destroy') this link has a list of pubs to look thru, some with contact folk to discuss directly what their evidence is and math to go with what they represent http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/gershon/rand_scat.html here is a search tool with a list of 'entanglement' pubs http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all: entanglement/0/1/0/all/0/1 in each, there should be a PDF link to read the actual papers, the math, data, and comments. (gives you a chance to be really scientific as well observe the actual works, ooosually before they make the news media) (each have a list of references; often the best resources) In this section of the forum, bring in the pub, the comments and the math to discuss because this (entanglement) as a conversational topic, is not the easiest to dwell in, especially in this section. I consider this the "check out counter"; show the numbers (money) or no purchase. So be fair within this section and remember the bosses don't play unless you intend to 'pay'. my 2 cents
We? Who is we? Somebody asks a plainly worded question about a mainstream science matter. Then you claim there is no point responding. Then you do respond. (?) You respond by insulting the questioner by using the deadly woo-woo slur, claiming that Quantum Physics is crackpot science, claiming that asking a question about Quantum Physics is engaging in pseudoscience, and climax by claiming that asking a plain question about mainstream science is trolling. It will sure teach me a lesson if nobody, not even JamesR righteous Administrator, agrees with you. It will sure teach me a lesson if JamesR, Righteous Administrator, refuses to give a plain answer to the question of what is entanglement. But, how will you feel if JamesR, for example, does provide a courteous and correct answer without insults and slurs? I have a pyschic feeling coming over me. I predict that JamesR will give a polite and correct answer in post 5. Now I will crawl back into my cave and only come out again some time after post 5 and see if i see my woo-woo crackpot pseudoshadow.
No, I’m not claiming that. ‘Thinking’ has been spamming the forums with multiple quantum entanglement threads in an effort to link this legitimate area of science to crackpot woo-woo pseudoscience like astrology (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2191634#post2191634). 'Thinking' isn't intersted in listening to and learning any real science, so there's no point trying. That is what I was trying to say.
Agreed completely. Not only the above but because the fact is that it HAS been explained to him to some degree. And even in the relatively simple terms that were used, he makes it clear that he does NOT have what it takes to even grasp the meaning of it. Shucks, he doesn't even know what spin is! So why bother casting pearls before the swine, eh? Personally, I've just been ignoring the silly little rugrat for a long time now.
all ghosts aren't spooky, but most are. Thinking, I just logged on thinking so don't throw me in that briar patch of 'no definitive definition'. We lose much by placing our understanding on definitions. What is required here is a description of what entanglement, as a physical process, describes. Clarifying, by quote from William Jefferson Clinton III, when in the process of informing us all, in a spirit intense seriousnress, that, "I did not have sex with that woman", he complained that one of the charges against him contained that old bugaboo of the English language, the ambiguous word word "is". The "description" of entanglement when understood with a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence of knowing what entanglement "is", , thereafter you may find yourself tripping over a major research milestone or two. Using models of EPR (Einstein, Podowlski and Rosen) experiments, Stern-Gerlach experiments, and by imposing the caveat stated by J.S. Bell, that ‘any quantum mechanical model void in elements of non-local force centers is incomplete’, then a comprehensible structure, formed by some bare necessities, can be utilized in forming a basis for ‘entanglement’ process observation. As a first principle a ‘non-local force center’ (non-local meaning simply 'not observed') as postulated in the EPR condition has the effect that measuring particle A (one of a twin pair of photons) determines immediately the measurement of Particle B. Instead of asking, “how can this be so?” one ought to consider the fact that this “spooky force at a distance” is not what is occurring. The spookiness term erroneously objects to any force actually moving from A to B through observable space and time, instantaneously. Take an example of a schoolyard teeter totter that is free to oscillate with the end points of the teeter totter reflecting the measureable angular momentum of each of the twinsi. The total angular momedntum always zero as reflected by the habitual result that A = +1, then B = -1 for the opposite ends of the teeter totter. Now grab one end bringing it to a stop, say A is grabbed at +1. This means that B is -1, at that instant, and the linking of A to B is only, as simply observed, that is that B reacts when A is measured. The term “when” means Now. Spooky is just a word and is harmless tho it may be considered as causitive of a state mental timidity. However, to boost the confidence of the reader at the expense of bursting an ill formed objection, the so called, “nonlocal force centers” have, under precisely determined condition, the ability to be “unambiguously experienced by a physical object" - when the proper conditions are present, say in Stern-Gerlach transition experiments, the up/down trajectory of spin 1/2 particles reflect the manifest result of non-local force centers that ar otherwise unseen and 'non-local magnetic spin properties'. The teeter totter experiment tells us that this spooky domain, an insipid ether bearing of “who knows what” is, from an absence of any other recognizable parameter, the physical label of time. Nonlocal force centers swim in the sea of time as EPR informs us, which might be contrary to ‘standard model’ understandings that time is some kind of shadow stalking space, that then assumes disguises in mathematical cloaks, colored as they are as imaginary numbers, and thereby removing the subject matter from further needed critical analysis - of course this process is discussed by the researchers in tones reminiscent of a sober Bushian pronouncement that the "mission is accomplished". Thinking, the entanglement described above most likely is not a widely used structure, but from my perspective the entanglement written about in the journals dovetails fairly snuggly with the accounts of “entanglement” seen below. As an aside: It has been my experience in this forum that when a person charges another person with scientific heresy by alluding to what you wrote in the form of a question, as “pseudo science” that the chances of that person ever contemplating a real thought is vanishingly small. Rather than responding in a mode that may be confronting, a very good alternative as a tactic to utilize in forum communication is to completely ignore the protestations of such pseudo scientific objections with a loud, albeit rude, silence. It is questions like yours that the giants of physics and science, upon whose shoulders we stand, contemplated postulates and theories that were more than simply scoffed at. The church incinerated Giordano Bruno in public for teaching religion and science concepts that were contrary to scripture as interpreted by the bishops in the church; in comparative modern terms, "scripture" and "standard model" equate. The silent ones of which you speak are, for the most part, simply unfamiliar with the concept, so darst ye not speak harshly of those arriving on different paths. :shrug:
Finally.... care, compassion and the intent of contributing. Thank you Many may not realize, these new 'thinkers'.... our future scientific minds, the new generations WILL exceed our current understanding........ or we are all worthless! Feed them, DO NOT tear them down. Entanglement is the missing link to addressing the sciences. This property of EM shares 2 real truths: first, that no system could possibly be closed. Second, that between mass there is a potential that can be measured, which is based on the energy shared between the mass. These 2 observations share that much can build from there. (especially for the new thinkers, they have more time and fewer road blocks/conditioning) again, Thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! for the quality additions.
I was oblivious of any previous history concerning the Opening Poster. I nonetheless say that it is disturbing and nonprofessional for anyone to resort to derogatory personal insult rather than to plainly state the logical or mathematical source of concern with a post. If some poster says in an Opening Post that they believe that a dropped bowling ball will fall up, rather than down, I personally will either try to explain the years of experimental verification of the down outcome or ignore them. I will not call them by insultive personal slur names. Or slur names that attack ( whether rightly or wrongly ) their degree of science education or understanding. I simply humbly hope that you and others might begin to function in this forum on a basis of representation of science facts and logic rather than on a basis of verbal terrorism. Thank you for your kind attention to my post.
Entanglement may simply be an affect of higher dimensional geometry, whereby seemingly separate particles (from our perspective) are in fact merely parts of just one greater system.
