and what happens to one particle can have an effect on the other one at the same moment, even though these effects can not be used to send information faster than light.
I'm confused, if what happens to one particle happens to another instantaneously, regardless of distance, why can't this be used to send information faster than light?
The information does not need to be transmitted faster than light because the particles where once near each other and left each other at the speed of light or less.
and what happens to one particle can have an effect on the other one at the same moment, even though these effects can not be used to send information faster than light.
I'm confused, if what happens to one particle happens to another instantaneously, regardless of distance, why can't this be used to send information faster than light?
So if you see a change in either particle A1 or A2 simultaneously with a Change in particle [...] You do not need to know the size or type of change ahead of time to simply recognize that "a change" has happened.
I'm confused, if what happens to one particle happens to another instantaneously, regardless of distance, why can't this be used to send information faster than light?
1, Sending no information is itself information.
Sending a zero/0 can be accomplished by sending "any change" to a second entangled particle.
However that's NOT new information to you. You can't send info this way. It's mathematically provable you cannot.
Doing something to the other entangled entity at the source doesn't change the particle at the destination at all. Only observing it will tell you what you will observe in your particle.
No it is not.
But since you don't know what state it was in initially you can't know if there was a change at all. And anyhow. Doing something to the other entangled entity at the source doesn't change the particle at the destination at all. Only observing it will tell you what you will observe in your particle. You can't FORCE it into a state and have the other one comply. That's not what entanglement means.
I see no difference between this and splitting a coin in half, mixing them up and tossing them into the air. When checking one you instantly know what the other is.
If that is happening, then how do you prove entanglement exists at all, except as a consequence of mutually related classical causes?
If that is happening, then how do you prove entanglement exists at all, except as a consequence of mutually related classical causes?
You can make two independent catalogs of measurements for each entangled particle then bring the two together and compare the results. It is found that the resulting statistical correlation is stronger than what can be intuitively explained, or what can be explained by assuming 'hidden variables'.
If that is happening, then how do you prove entanglement exists at all, except as a consequence of mutually related classical causes?
You can make two independent catalogs of measurements for each entangled particle then bring the two together and compare the results. It is found that the resulting statistical correlation is stronger than what can be intuitively explained, or what can be explained by assuming 'hidden variables'. -Noumenon
Well what does that prove. If you bring the two coin halves back together again there is a 100% chance of a correlation.
If that is happening, then how do you prove entanglement exists at all, except as a consequence of mutually related classical causes?
You can make two independent catalogs of measurements for each entangled particle then bring the two together and compare the results. It is found that the resulting statistical correlation is stronger than what can be intuitively explained, or what can be explained by assuming 'hidden variables'. -Noumenon
Well what does that prove. If you bring the two coin halves back together again there is a 100% chance of a correlation.
I just told you in effect that the coin analogy (hidden variables) fails.
Lurker, when particles are entangled you don't know WHICH state EITHER particle is in. So you can't send information, because you cannot assign any states when this "both unknown" (i.e. entanglement) situation exists. Entanglement means you know NOTHING. However, once you 'observe' one particle then you can SEE its state, and you KNOW for sure the other particle must have the opposite state. However that's NOT new information to you. You can't send info this way. It's mathematically provable you cannot.
There is no intuitive analogy to it. It appears as though the two particles or the two photons, exist as one objectAt the water surface the density fluctuations propagate with higher speed, than the speed o surface waves, so they can mediate and "instantaneous" phenomena. This is why so many quantum phenomena are modeled with surface waves so easily (1,2,3,4,..) Of course, these analogies don't fit the anti-aether religion as promoted with many mainstream physics trolls - but who cares... The future is not for these people.
If that is happening, then how do you prove entanglement exists at all, except as a consequence of mutually related classical causes?
You can make two independent catalogs of measurements for each entangled particle then bring the two together and compare the results. It is found that the resulting statistical correlation is stronger than what can be intuitively explained, or what can be explained by assuming 'hidden variables'. -Noumenon
Well what does that prove. If you bring the two coin halves back together again there is a 100% chance of a correlation.
I just told you in effect that the coin analogy (hidden variables) fails.
Tell me why it would fail with coins but not with two polarized photons?
At the water surface the density fluctuations propagate with higher speed, than the speed o surface waves, so they can mediate and "instantaneous" phenomena. This is why so many quantum phenomena are modeled with surface waves so easily
The future is not for these people.
If you don't know the state either is in what proof do you have that they are in both states or superposition? They could just as easily be in the state they were created in when you latere detect one or the other.
For one thing, each experimenter can decide independently which direction to check the polarization, while there is not such multiple concepts of heads and tails.
Because you can observe that the entangled properties are always perfectly correlated at the source and the destination over as many test runs as you'd like to make. If entanglement weren't real then there would be no correlation. (Because you can also make this test with non-entangled entities and you will find no correlation whatsoever.)
If you don't know the state either is in what proof do you have that they are in both states or superposition? They could just as easily be in the state they were created in when you latere detect one or the other.
Because you can observe that the entangled properties are always perfectly correlated at the source and the destination over as many test runs as you'd like to make. If entanglement weren't real then there would be no correlation. (Because you can also make this test with non-entangled entities and you will find no correlation whatsoever.)
If events have a common cause, such as in classical physics, then they are in fact correlated, even if the observer is too lazy or ignorant to realize it.
They could be in the same state when created and detected just like the coin halves. Where is your proof that they occupied both states in transit?
But that's not what happens with entangled photons. Either both pass or don't pass DESPITE the LOCAL chance for each passing is 50% (in real experiments its not quite like that - the pass/don't pass scenarios aren't 100% linked but 'merely' highly correlated)
The standard setup goes like this: Create a pair of (non-entangled) photons of which you know that one is vertically and one horizontally polarized.
Are the filters the exact same distance from one another?
If you change the distance of just one of the slits by a half-wavelength of light, or perhaps a quarter wavelength, and change nothing else about the experiment, then it should be possible to have one photon go through the slit while the other fails to go through.
But if you look at the results from BOTH filters you see that the pass/block events for entangled photons are correlated and those for non-entangled photons are not.
You see, when a transverse wave has reached the point
It doesn't matter where you position the second analyzer or whether you test the second photon billions of years after the first. You can even decide on entanglement AFTER measurement - which is completely unexplainable by local variables.
Here's a simple experiment, very well explained:
http://scienceblo...xperime/
You have already classically entangled the photons, as YOU are the common cause...
2-photon and 3-photon entanglement measured in the above study.
And these experiments have been done. Reality trumps your "can't be" any time.
Photons are probabilistic
@valeriaT, you're an idiot as alwaysA)I'm not lurker and B) I made just two brief posts in this 60 posts long thread. If you believe, I can ruin such a thread just with two posts, then my words have apparently much higher power, than it seems...;-)
if the polarized photons are correlated they either go through a 45 degree offset or not. Why wouldn't they both go through the filter after all both are offset by the same amount,45 degrees.
@noumenon, once one particle is observed in state A you know the other entangled partner has state B. You never have to bring them back together to compare. You KNOW for sure the second one is B.
What do you expect to happen to the other member from the entangled pair and why?
Ergo, I don't need to know what exactly happens when a nuclear warhead goes off in close vicinity to a group of people, to accurately predict that they will be all dead after..
changing one particle has a probabilistic effect on any entangled particle right ?
I say this because the sum of the probabilities of the two still have to remain 1
what I don't get is what are they trying to prove with these experiments?
This would be sending information which even you say is not possible.
It has never been proven that the photons in these experiments are in fact even entangled.
they are no different than two coin halves tossed into the air.
Do the test to see if these photons are even entangled, I say they are not.
When you encrypt something that is placing information in IT
I have done some research on quantum cryptography
Note to everyone: Pressure2 ValeriaT (there are more) is the same personIt isn't. Refused experimentally...
Note to everyone: Pressure2 ValeriaT (there are more) is the same personIt isn't. Refused experimentally...
spewing as much false claims as possible, and usually contradicting confirmed science left and rightThis is not so surprising, because I'm describing the reality from perspective of human observer at the distance scale around one meter. So I must contradict with both quantum mechanics, both general relativity. The general relativity predicts, all massive objects will collapse into pin-point singularities with no mercy. Whereas the quantum mechanics predicts instead, all objects will expand into infinity like quantum wave packets. So when I'm describing the Universe from perspective of quasistable organism, which neither expands, neither collapses, then I must contradict both theories from left and right.
while Q-star continually gives 5 to A&P.
I wounder though if Lite, Q-star and A&P might not be the same person?
What I'm talking about is a mathematical loss of a dimension, with lightspeed creating a mathematical planeI know about these models: the same effects are assumed at the particle horizon of observable Universe, where the space-time becomes time-like and it's losing its spatial dimensions. The same effects occur at the water surface, where 2D light waves are scattering into underwater. After all, the galaxies appear flat as well, or not? But for topologically inverted space-time inside of black hole the same effect occurs reciprocally and both perspectives are separated with many extra dimensions each other (these extra-dimensions appear like the particle cloud forming the galaxy for us). Which is why I don't consider these simplified low-dimensional holographic models seriously.
There is an interesting question, whether we can have very massive black hole separated from its parent galaxy: IMO there is a dynamic equilibrium and such a black hole would start to evaporate, until it would get into new equilibrium. In this way the radiation of black holes at the center of large galaxies is often a consequence of radiative evaporation of the whole galaxy.
water is not really a good analogy IMO. Why would light under water appear 2DLight is the analogy of surface waves. When the initial wavelength of ripples is lower than the size of density fluctuations of the underwater, then they do scatter into longitudinal ones, which are much faster and the wavelength of surface waves increases. When the original wavelength is smaller than this limit, their wavelength decreases instead. This is rather nontrivial behavior, but thelight does the very same, when it's spreading through CMBR noise. The similar effect happens, when the light spreads through system of particles, the wavelength of whose is comparable with the wavelength of light.
You've been watching too many cartoon explanations of the slit experiment.I know, most of these cartoon explanations are mine...;
Maggnus
Dec 14, 2012I'm confused, if what happens to one particle happens to another instantaneously, regardless of distance, why can't this be used to send information faster than light?