James, I know it was tested in many experiments. What I'm claiming is that there is no theory (that I know of ) that explains WHY or HOW it happens. Then why is uncertainty (randomness) a cornerstone in quantum physics? Don't you believe that scientists attribute uncertainty to events in subatomic physics that may not be??? According to my theory, the photons may be entangled with other photons in the universe (two photons may be the same particle in a parallel universe). So even though the results of the experiment appear random (half the photons are polarized at 0 degrees and the other half are polarized at 90 degrees) the photons true "choices" are influenced and determined by their sister particles elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, these sister particles can't be measured. I wouldn't call probability precise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm attempting to ilustrate that if the second electron goes through a field (electric or magnetic), that the properties of the electron will be changed by the energy of the field. This "change in properties" of the second electron will influence the first electron. You don't understand Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. The third dimension would still exist, but since the third dimension would have a constant value, the life form wouldn't be able to perceive it. You see, the brain perceives properties by looking at differences. So for example, if the only colors in the universe where red and blue, we would see both colors. However, if the only color in the universe was blue, we wouldn't see blue because our brain would not have any other color to compare it with. If everything in the same universe was the same height, we wouldn't perceive this height. But then again, why would we have to???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
chroot, Let me spell it out for you: Let's say you have an atom with ten electrons in its orbit. Let's say that the motion and positions of any single electron is dependent on the motion and positions of the all of the other electrons in the atom. If you knew the positions and motions of all the electrons in the atom, and all the other properties of the the atom, it would be possible to calculate (although very hard) the positions of all the electrons at any time in the future. Now for the sake of argument, let's assume that one of the ten electrons in the atom is quantum entangled with an electron in the Andromeda galaxy. Therefore, the properties of that one electron in the atom is influenced by the electron in the Andromeda galaxy. Now for the sake of argument, let's say that the electron in the Andromeda galaxy passes through a strong electromagnetic field that influences it's motion and it's energy. This "change" will be transferred to the electron in the atom which may force the electron to change it's motion. Since all of the electrons of the atom are interdependant on each other, all of their motions and positions will change in an attempt to adjust to the motion and position of the "entangled" electron. The point that I'm trying to make is that the uncertainty in all of the electrons orbits in an atom can be the result of one or more "entangled" electrons, and not the result of randomness. Tom
Once again, physics doesn't answer those kinds of questions. It doesn't answer questions like "why are there two kinds of electric charge." That's for philosophers. No, I believe scientists attribute uncertainty to events in the subatomic world that provide every indication that they are probabilistic. Ohhh..... undetectable sister particles in parallel universes... mmmmm... nice theory. I would. James would. Most other sane people would, too. If you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of heads, and a 50% chance of tails. The probability of each outcome is very precise. It doesn't work that way. A dimension with a constant value doesn't exist. This is a scientific argument... how? That's a big "if." They can't be. The first interaction an entangled particle experiences with another particle serves to collapse the wavefunction, thereby destroying the entanglement. The idea of ten electrons in a neon atom happily entangled with ten atoms in the Andromeda galaxy is absolute rubbish. There is absolutely zero evidence of any sort to support this outlandish claim. You're attempting to explain that the behavior of electrons in atoms is not probabilistic, as it seems -- instead, it's deterministic, and the result of their being quantum-entangled with the electrons in a sister-atom in another galaxy. Do you really not see the absolute utter rediculousness of this argument? - Warren
chroot, You would be right if all matter in the universe was "entangled" or if all the matter in the universe was "unentangled". But since this isn't the case, there must be a reason why some particles are entangled and others aren't. And if there is a reason, you have to ask the questions "why" and "how" to uncover it. And don't forget, the scientists in Australia discovered a way to produce entangled photons with 100% certainty. This fact also suggests that there is a reason these photons are entangled (and that its not a fundamental reason where you can't ask "why" or "how"). Probability is used when you CANNOT come up with a precise answer either because the formula is too complex, there are unknown factors, or there is randomness in the event. Let me ask you, and anyone else who cares to answer, this questions: If you flip a coin, is the chance of it coming up "heads" or "tails" the result of randomness, or can you predict the result if you knew all the factors in the event?? By factors I mean : the weight and shape of the coin, the force exerted by your finger to move the coin away from your hand, the force exerted by your finger to cause the coin to spin, the resistance of the air, the speed and direction of the wind (if it exists), any minute preasure or resistance differences in the air, the distance between your hand and the ground, and the hardness of the ground. If your answer is that the result of a coin toss isn't random but is predictable if all the factors are known, how do you know that the same doesn't apply in the photon polarization experiment, or even in electron orbits??? It has been shown, and proven, that once photons are entangled at creation, they are entangled forever. Now if you want to get technical about it, what if an atom in our galaxy absorbs one entangled photon, while an atom in the Andromeda galaxy absorb the sister photon? Would the entanglement cease to exist, or would there be an entanglement (although weaker) between the two atoms?? Is it possible to entangle atoms, or does entanglement only exist at the subatomic level?? You'll be surprised by the answer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's exactly what I was pointing out to James. If some of the dimensions in the subatomic world don't "stack", then these dimensions, for every practical reason, don't exist in the macro world. It's a logical arguement. If there were dimensions present in the macro world, but their values were constant (they could be one cm wide, or one km wide), then our mind would not be able to perceive them. In other words, just because we only perceive three spatial dimensions doesn't mean that additional spatial dimensions don't exist. Are you claiming that entangled atoms don't exist, or that it's unlikely that a pair of entangled atoms can be in seperate galaxies? Believe it or not, entangled atoms have already been created. Check out this link: In PDF : http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1400.pdf The PDF is called "Experimental Violation of a Bell's Inequality with Efficient Detection" You'll find it interesting. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
Some particles have interacted; some have not. Do you even understand how to create an entangled pair? Answer: bounce them off each other. Some of the particles in the universe have bounced off each other, some haven't. Uh, yeah... they made the photons interact... that's how entanglement happens. The two particles become part of one isolated system, until one of the two interacts with any other particle. No. Perhaps you don't get it, but repeating this statement eighteen times in one thread does not make it true. The coin is random. The air particles constantly bouncing off the coin have probabilistic momenta, so the coin toss is ultimately random, as well. In fact, there is a hypothesis that macroscopic systems do not display quantum superposition (i.e. you never see a coin that is both on heads and tails simultaneously) exactly because billions of air molecules and photons and so forth interact with the coin every second, and each serves to collapse the wavefunction of the coin. Oh? And on which geocities.com website did you read this? The two particles are entangled so long as they are part of one isolated system. The first "measurement" or interaction with an outside particle serves to collapse the wavefunction of both -- and then there is no longer any kind of "entanglement." I have yet to be "surprised" by anything you say, and this didn't do it. Duh. Then James pointed out the term "stack" seems to have no bearings on anyone else's idea of what a dimension is. This leads those of us with an education to assume that you, in fact, don't know what a dimension is. Last I checked, dimensions didn't have a "width." As I've already said, a dimension with a constant value is meaningless. I never, in fact, claimed either. I claimed instead that two entangled particles cease to be entangled when either of the pair interacts with any other particle. The idea that there are entangled particles in the Andromeda galaxy is unsupported; the idea that the entanglement somehow imbues fake randomness in atoms is plain stupid. No shit, Sherlock. What's REALLY interesting is that this article goes directly against everything you believe, yet you provide it to me as if it supported you. The experiment was trying to fill a couple of experimental loopholes that might still give local realists (people like you) a chance. The experiment investigated those loopholes, and found (unsurprisingly to many) that the local realists have even fewer feet to stand on. - Warren
chroot, Then entangled atoms and ions shouldn't exist, right??? Unfortunately, they do. And this illustrates that two entangled particles DON"t cease to be entangled when they interact with other particles. Also, if you were right, then quantum entanglement would serve no practical purpose. However, physicist are planning to use quantum entanglement in future quantum computers. If particles truly cease to be entangled when they interact with other particles, it would be impossible (and inefficient) to ever build a computer that uses quantum entanglement. Don't you agree??? Tom
They certainly exist -- until they interact with the outside world. How hard is this to understand? I see you know as much about quantum computing as you do about physics... - Warren
chroot, You are assumming two things: 1) Quantum entanglement will cease to exist when the entangled particles interact with the outside world. And 2) Quantum entanglement will cease to exist when one of the entangled particles are measured. Unfortunately, both of your assumptions are wrong. Here is a link describing the first LONG-LIVED and MACROSCOPIC quantum entanglement: http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010927/010927-2.html According to your assumptions, this should be impossible. As I stated before, quantum computers are useless unless the quantum entanglement is long-lived (where the entanglement won't disappear as soon as it's measured) and macroscopic (where the entanglement won't disappear as a result of the entangled particles coming in contact with other matter). Tom
No, unfortunately, you're just too stupid to understand the implications of the things I keep saying. Two quantum entities may be entangled. If a sample of 10^12 Cs atoms are prepared in such a way as to exist in a single quantum state, then the entire Cs system behaves as one quantum entity. Similarly, a quantity of superfluid He also exists in a single quantum state. Two such "macroscopic quantum particles" can certainly be entangled. When anything interacts with the either, the entanglement between the two will be gone. Besides, the entire point of quantum computing is not so much an exploitation of entanglement as it is an explotation of superposition. - Warren
Tom, In a quantum computer, you must be very very careful that no measurement of the entangled quantum state is made before the completion of the calculation the computer is performing. If a measurement is made, entanglement is lost and the quantum computer doesn't work. Yes, you need long-lived entanglement which won't collapse spontaneously in the middle of your calculation. You get that by making sure that interactions with the enviroment are minimal during the computation phase. On another point, you gave an example that particles in Andromeda may be affecting particles here - so much so that what is happening here seems random when really it isn't. The problem with this idea is that, so far, all successful theories in physics have been <b>local</b> theories. What is happening "here" doesn't depend too much on what is happening "there" (some distance away). Therefore, we can isolate a system here and derive meaningful physical laws by examining its behaviour. This would be impossible if things were as interconnected as you are imagining might be possible. There would be no reason for one particle near another to have any greater influence on the near particle than on a particle half way across the universe. The study of physics would be impossible. Fortunately for us, physics just doesn't seem to work that way.
So James, what do you think of Bell's claim (as related by lethe in a nearby thread) that his inequalities prove quantum nonlocality? It's not just hidden variables he claims to have disproved. He claims to have proved what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".
James R, Thanks for the explanation. I see your point. But I can argue that just because an entangled particle comes in contact with other matter, it doesn't mean that the entanglement ceases to exist, it may just mean that the entanglement must then "compete" with the energies of the contacted matter (and maybe even other quantum entanglements). Here are three examples that illustrate my point: 1) Let's say that energy transfer from an electron in the Andromeda galaxy to a sister electron in our universe is enough to change the local electrons position in its orbit , but not enough to kick the electron out of its orbit, or out of the atom. In this case, the electrons exact position would appear to be random, but the randomness wouldn't exist at the atomic level or above. Therefore, the study of physics at the atomic level or above would be possible, but at the subatomic level would be very difficult. 2) Let's say that of the 82 electrons in a lead atom, only one of them is quantum entangled. In that case, even if there is sufficient energy transfer as a result of entanglement to kick the local entangled electron out of its orbit, the remaining 81 electrons would each absorb a part of this "entanglement energy", thereby keeping the lead atom stable (the "entanglement energy" would influence the motion of all of the electrons, but not enough to kick any individual electron out of its orbit). 3) Let's assume that all of the 82 electrons of a lead atom are entangled. Let's assume that their sister electrons are each in an atom of their own (82 atoms). Someone could then argue that even though the entire atom is entangled, the entanglement effects of the sister electrons in the 82 atoms averages out to give a very small effect (enough to influence the local electron's positions, but not enough to kick them out of their orbits). Yes, I'm grasping for straws, but you can't say that the examples I provided aren't possible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the effect of each of them would result in uncertainty at the subatomic level but stability at the atomic level and above. Tom
<b>overdoze:</b> Bell has proved "spooky action at a distance" by proving that local hidden variable theories are untenable. However, I don't think that his results rule out the possibility of nonlocal hidden variables. It is hard to see where nonlocal variables might be, though, and the idea seems to buck the patterns in physics established so far. Personally, I prefer not to believe in hidden variables at all - I see no need to invoke them. <b>Tom:</b> <i>But I can argue that just because an entangled particle comes in contact with other matter, it doesn't mean that the entanglement ceases to exist, it may just mean that the entanglement must then "compete" with the energies of the contacted matter (and maybe even other quantum entanglements).</i> You're correct that entanglement is not necessarily destroyed by interaction. In standard quantum physics it is destroyed by a particular kind of interaction - "measurement". Defining what constitutes a measurement is the subject of much speculation in physics. The examples you suggest may be possible, but how would you go about showing that your idea is correct? If your idea is not falsifiable, it just isn't science, as I explained earlier.
thed, No it doesn't. That's the 3 dimensional "shadow" of a Klein bottle. The real thing in 4D doesn't intersect itself.
James, you are of course correct. Please review the title of this thread, the claim that 3D objects can make a 2D surface and look again at the picture. It's maybe weak but I found it funny. th "lego shadows of 4D objects" ed
hmmmm, looks like if the author of the original post had ever done any math, the origins of the uncertainty relations would come into a clear answer, and none of this inane bitching and 'pulled-out-of-my-cut-and-paste-ebook-summary-of-QM-fundamentals' that i just sat here and read would be needed.
"This is incorrect. I've said it a million times -- please just go get yourself a real physics education before embarking on a quest to prove it all wrong. There are indeed experiments which can directly demonstrate the curvature of space, without any other explanations. " Um, I'm sorry if I'm out of place, but I don't remember ever getting a good example of one of these experiments that demonstrate the curvature of space. As a side question: What does curvature of space effect besides gravity? "If you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance of heads, and a 50% chance of tails. The probability of each outcome is very precise." Well, sort of. Probability is only perfectly precise after an infinite amount of time (in theory). The closer to infinity the amount of data is, the more precise it is. If you take only 3 samples, most likely they will not be quite as precise as maybe 3 million samples. "Ohhh..... undetectable sister particles in parallel universes... mmmmm... nice theory." Chroot I wouldn't start terrin' this up so quickly. String theory is quite similar to this statement. "It doesn't answer questions like "why are there two kinds of electric charge."" I think you mean that science does not answer questions about why fundemental properties are how they are. So far we have little reason to believe we have found the most fundemental level. That could be equated to saying we know all there is to know about phisics... obviously quite naive "The coin is random. The air particles constantly bouncing off the coin have probabilistic momenta, so the coin toss is ultimately random, as well." I have to argue with this view chroot. Even taking a probabalistic view, a coin toss is relatively deterministic -- as deterministic as say.... the planets. I remember you yourself saying that the uncertainty principle is undetectable at macroscopic levels. Thus when each individual air particle is random, the average is deterministic. SO, I would have to say your statment is -approximately- wrong. "Last I checked, dimensions didn't have a "width." As I've already said, a dimension with a constant value is meaningless." Check stuff on String theory. I think the String theories take on the Big Bang talk about specific width of a dimention. They said something smaller than planks constant as I recall.
