From this article here] Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’: At least 10,000 times faster than light
Now, thanks to these Chinese physicists — the same ones who broke the quantum teleportation distance record last year — we know that spooky action at a distance has a lower bound of four orders of magnitude faster than light, or around 3 trillion meters per second. We say “at least," because the physicists do not rule out that spooky action is actually instantaneous — but their testing equipment and methodology simply doesn’t allow them to get any more accurate.
Their paper is here]
Apparently, information in entanglement can be transferred "instantaneously".
Fascinating, isn't it?
:-)
I’m telling you, it’s going to turn out that there’s no such thing as action at a distance, which implies two separate systems. There’s a single system that only appears to be separate in our dimension. In fact they are just parts of the same system, so that an action upon one part naturally effects all other parts, just in a higher dimension. Mark my words
I'm telling you, it's going to turn out that there's no such thing as action at a distance, which implies two separate systems. There's a single system that only appears to be separate in our dimension. In fact they are just parts of the same system, so that an action upon one part naturally effects all other parts, . Mark my words ;)
Hmm......quite possibly true, although "just in a higher dimension" is debatable wrt Occam's razor.
"There's a single system" implies there is only one whole system as such which violates the Principle of locality] for a local theory.
In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. A physical theory is said to be a local theory if it is consistent with the principle of locality. To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes to the idea that entangled particles violate the principle of locality or engage in superluminal communication.
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory, which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of instantaneous communication. The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics, such as the EPR paradox, or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").
In very rough terms:
In very rough terms, the theorem describes a situation that is analogous to two people, each with a radio receiver, listening to a common radio station: it is impossible for one of the listeners to use their radio receiver to send messages to the other listener. This analogy is imprecise, because quantum entanglement suggests that perhaps a message could have been conveyed; the theorem replies 'no, this is not possible'.
Whatever it is, what is the whole system could be the universe itself. :cheese:
From the wiki on Parmenides]
Two views of reality:
Parmenides describes two views of reality. In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful.
Interpretations of Parmenides:
The traditional interpretation of Parmenides' work is that he argued that the every-day perception of reality of the physical world (as described in doxa) is mistaken, and that the reality of the world is 'One Being' (as described in aletheia): an unchanging, ungenerated, indestructible whole. Under the Way of Opinion, Parmenides set out a contrasting but more conventional view of the world, thereby becoming an early exponent of the duality of appearance and reality.
Appearance and reality. Does this mean that we mortals, limited to experiencing reality as only space/time, are not aware of "the one and only one whole" i.e. the universe itself, whereas entangled quantum particles do not have this restriction at all wrt the universe as a whole system?
:lol:
Maybe Parmenides had wisdom for his age but is not so relevant to a discussion of quantum physics?
“Spooky action at a distance” is a problem for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Particles such as electrons and positrons have either an ‘up’ spin or ‘down’ spin. So imagine a gamma ray that interacts with a nucleon and transforms into an electron and a positron, each can be measured as having an ‘up’ spin and a ‘down’ spin, and they then travel to two different laboratories thousands of miles apart.
The Copenhagen interpretation] (CI) says they both exist in a supposition of both ‘up’ and ‘down’ states until their spins are measured when the wave function (describing the states) collapses. If one laboratory measures the spin as ‘up’ then automatically the other measures a ‘down’ spin. According to the CI the second particle must have known instantaneously what the first did in order to adopt the opposite spin.
Other interpretations exist which may require no such instantaneous communication. In the Many Worlds interpretation] for example the measurements by both labs simply determine which world they have ended up in.
That’s the thing that always confuses me: “…until their spins are measured…” I’m sure I’m misunderstanding, but measured to me means measured by somebody. Why in the world would these high falutin’ theories depend on there being an observer. What am I missing?
That's the thing that always confuses me: "...until their spins are measured..." I'm sure I'm misunderstanding, but measured to me means measured by somebody. Why in the world would these high falutin' theories depend on there being an observer. What am I missing?
An Introduction to quantum mechanics] perhaps?
That Wiki article is a reasonable short introduction to the subject. Of particular significance to your question are the bits about the relationship of the essential uncertainty of measurements in the world of the very small, an essential 'fuzziness', and the accuracy of a particular measurement. Both light (photons) and matter (nucleons) are both waves and particles depending on how you measure them. Do an experiment that asks the question, "Is this a particle?" and the answer comes back, "Yes", do an experiment that asks, "Is this same 'object' a wave" and the answer comes back, "Yes", sometimes even when you do both experiments at the same time!
In the Copenhagen Interpretation the observer is required to 'collapse the wave function', and in the case above, that would be to collapse it either into a wave or a particle as appropriate.
I'm telling you, it's going to turn out that there's no such thing as action at a distance, which implies two separate systems. There's a single system that only appears to be separate in our dimension. In fact they are just parts of the same system, so that an action upon one part naturally effects all other parts, just in a higher dimension. Mark my words ;)
So, maybe entangled particles are actually physically connected through a shortcut in hyperspace? I think you're onto something. I see a Nobel Prize in your future... :exclaim:
That's the thing that always confuses me: "...until their spins are measured..." I'm sure I'm misunderstanding, but measured to me means measured by somebody. Why in the world would these high falutin' theories depend on there being an observer. What am I missing?
An Introduction to quantum mechanics] perhaps?
That Wiki article is a reasonable short introduction to the subject. Of particular significance to your question are the bits about the relationship of the essential uncertainty of measurements in the world of the very small, an essential 'fuzziness', and the accuracy of a particular measurement. Both light (photons) and matter (nucleons) are both waves and particles depending on how you measure them. Do an experiment that asks the question, "Is this a particle?" and the answer comes back, "Yes", do an experiment that asks, "Is this same 'object' a wave" and the answer comes back, "Yes", sometimes even when you do both experiments at the same time!
In the Copenhagen Interpretation the observer is required to 'collapse the wave function', and in the case above, that would be to collapse it either into a wave or a particle as appropriate.You missed my point entirely. You're still talking about "experiments" and "observations" and "measurements". Those are human things (or living thing things). Are you saying QM depends on there being a sentient being? What was the universe like before there were beings to experiment, observe, and measure?
That's the thing that always confuses me: "...until their spins are measured..." I'm sure I'm misunderstanding, but measured to me means measured by somebody. Why in the world would these high falutin' theories depend on there being an observer. What am I missing?
An Introduction to quantum mechanics] perhaps?
That Wiki article is a reasonable short introduction to the subject. Of particular significance to your question are the bits about the relationship of the essential uncertainty of measurements in the world of the very small, an essential 'fuzziness', and the accuracy of a particular measurement. Both light (photons) and matter (nucleons) are both waves and particles depending on how you measure them. Do an experiment that asks the question, "Is this a particle?" and the answer comes back, "Yes", do an experiment that asks, "Is this same 'object' a wave" and the answer comes back, "Yes", sometimes even when you do both experiments at the same time!
In the Copenhagen Interpretation the observer is required to 'collapse the wave function', and in the case above, that would be to collapse it either into a wave or a particle as appropriate.You missed my point entirely. You're still talking about "experiments" and "observations" and "measurements". Those are human things (or living thing things). Are you saying QM depends on there being a sentient being? What was the universe like before there were beings to experiment, observe, and measure?
Hi Cuthbert!
Physics is all about
"experiments" and "observations" and "measurements,"
that is all we can deal with. The intellectual constructs we make to understand those results are all too human, "the map is not the territory", however according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (not my interpretation) it does depend on a sentient being to collapse the wave function, in the absence of such beings the universe exists only as a wave function that describes all possible states and assigns a probability to each of them.
"experiments" and "observations" and "measurements,"
that is all we can deal with. The intellectual constructs we make to understand those results are all too human, "the map is not the territory", however according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (not my interpretation) it does depend on a sentient being to collapse the wave function, in the absence of such beings the universe exists only as a wave function that describes all possible states and assigns a probability to each of them.
I realize that quantum physics is probably way over my head, but I've always found such statements about "sentient" beings rather suspect. In fact, it sounds rather mystical.
Define "sentient". For instance, in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, why is the cat's sentience overlooked? What about bugs? Robots?
Basically, the Copenhagen Interpretation sounds ridiculous to me. Why do a bunch of atoms arranged a certain way (e.g. a human brain) collapse the wave function.?
Also, what qualifies as a "measuring device"? Would a tape measure work?
These questions are only as ridiculous as the theory that raises them.
Bottom line: define "sentient".
"experiments" and "observations" and "measurements,"
that is all we can deal with. The intellectual constructs we make to understand those results are all too human, "the map is not the territory", however according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (not my interpretation) it does depend on a sentient being to collapse the wave function, in the absence of such beings the universe exists only as a wave function that describes all possible states and assigns a probability to each of them.
I realize that quantum physics is probably way over my head, but I've always found such statements about "sentient" beings rather suspect. In fact, it sounds rather mystical.
Define "sentient". For instance, in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, why is the cat's sentience overlooked? What about bugs? Robots?
Basically, the Copenhagen Interpretation sounds ridiculous to me. Why do a bunch of atoms arranged a certain way (e.g. a human brain) collapse the wave function.?
Also, what qualifies as a "measuring device"? Would a tape measure work?
These questions are only as ridiculous as the theory that raises them.
Bottom line: define "sentient".
Hi BugRib,
It's all about what we can know, the limits to knowledge.
The theory arises from actual observations, and our trying to make sense of them; the result is and I quote:"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr. or "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." John Wheeler. And these are leading physicists in the field!
If we are confused and shocked it is because QM is the way the world actually works in the realm of the very small and not some other way that we would prefer it to work so that we might understand it better.
If you are the one that wants to know what has happened to Schrodinger's cat then you are the sentient being, and you will not know until you have looked.
The cat might be sentient and would have known already but it wasn't able to tell you.
A tape measure would make a perfectly good measuring device, though not perhaps on the atomic scale where QM operates.
Maybe Parmenides had wisdom for his age but is not so relevant to a discussion of quantum physics?
"Spooky action at a distance" is a problem for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Particles such as electrons and positrons have either an 'up' spin or 'down' spin. So imagine a gamma ray that interacts with a nucleon and transforms into an electron and a positron, each can be measured as having an 'up' spin and a 'down' spin, and they then travel to two different laboratories thousands of miles apart.
The Copenhagen interpretation] (CI) says they both exist in a supposition of both 'up' and 'down' states until their spins are measured when the wave function (describing the states) collapses. If one laboratory measures the spin as 'up' then automatically the other measures a 'down' spin. According to the CI the second particle must have known instantaneously what the first did in order to adopt the opposite spin.
Other interpretations exist which may require no such instantaneous communication. In the Many Worlds interpretation] for example the measurements by both labs simply determine which world they have ended up in.
Consider relational quantum mechanics (RQM). From the wiki here]
Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system.
And Zero Worlds Interpretation (ZWI):
David Mermin has contributed to the relational approach in his Ithaca Interpretation. He describes "correlations without correlata", meaning that relations have more concrete existence than the objects being related. Another label that expresses the relational sentiment is "Zero Worlds Interpretation", which emphasizes the absence of any description of the underlying reality, while providing a nice counterpoint to the famous Many Worlds Interpretation. The name "Zero Worlds" has also been popularized by Garret.
Occam's razor to eliminate MWI?
Parmenides was wiser. The one and only one universe would not contravene Occam's razor per se.
:cheese:
RQM and quantum cosmology:
The universe is the sum total of all that is in existence. Physically, a (physical) observer outside of the universe would require the breaking of gauge invariance, and a concomitant alteration in the mathematical structure of gauge-invariance theory. Similarly, RQM conceptually forbids the possibility of an external observer. Since the assignment of a quantum state requires at least two "objects" (system and observer), which must both be physical systems, there is no meaning in speaking of the "state" of the entire universe. This is because this state would have to be ascribed to a correlation between the universe and some other physical observer, but this observer in turn would have to form part of the universe, and as was discussed above, it is impossible for an object to give a complete specification of itself. Following the idea of relational networks above, an RQM-oriented cosmology would have to account for the universe as a set of partial systems providing descriptions of one another. The exact nature of such a construction remains an open question.
Copenhagen interpretation:
RQM is, in essence, quite similar to the Copenhagen interpretation, but with an important difference. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the macroscopic world is assumed to be intrinsically classical in nature, and wave function collapse occurs when a quantum system interacts with macroscopic apparatus. In RQM, any interaction, be it micro or macroscopic, causes the linearity of Schrödinger evolution to break down. RQM could recover a Copenhagen-like view of the world by assigning a privileged status (not dissimilar to a preferred frame in relativity) to the classical world. However, by doing this one would lose sight of the key features that RQM brings to our view of the quantum world.
Relational solution to EPR:
In RQM, an interaction between a system and an observer is necessary for the system to have clearly defined properties relative to that observer. Since the two measurement events take place at spacelike separation, they do not lie in the intersection of Alice's and Bob's light cones. Indeed, there is no observer who can instantaneously measure both electrons' spin.
Bold added by me.
Is the above explanation convincing?
Or is it that entangled quantum particles can react "instantaneously" because they are related by entanglement irrespective of their distance apart in the universe as perceived by "observers" who are also part of the universe?
:lol:
10,000 times faster than the speed of light?
Isn't that Superman? ;)
We all know he exists. He's been on television.
Superman is a super hero created in comic books.
Entanglement is a known quantum phenomena whereby an entangled quantum particle reacts "instantaneously" to the change of state of the other entangled quantum particle.
"experiments" and "observations" and "measurements,"
that is all we can deal with. The intellectual constructs we make to understand those results are all too human, "the map is not the territory", however according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (not my interpretation) it does depend on a sentient being to collapse the wave function, in the absence of such beings the universe exists only as a wave function that describes all possible states and assigns a probability to each of them.
I realize that quantum physics is probably way over my head, but I've always found such statements about "sentient" beings rather suspect. In fact, it sounds rather mystical.
Define "sentient". For instance, in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, why is the cat's sentience overlooked? What about bugs? Robots?
Basically, the Copenhagen Interpretation sounds ridiculous to me. Why do a bunch of atoms arranged a certain way (e.g. a human brain) collapse the wave function.?
Also, what qualifies as a "measuring device"? Would a tape measure work?
These questions are only as ridiculous as the theory that raises them.
Bottom line: define "sentient".
Hi BugRib,
It's all about what we can know, the limits to knowledge.
The theory arises from actual observations, and our trying to make sense of them; the result is and I quote:"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr. or "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." John Wheeler. And these are leading physicists in the field!
If we are confused and shocked it is because QM is the way the world actually works in the realm of the very small and not some other way that we would prefer it to work so that we might understand it better.
If you are the one that wants to know what has happened to Schrodinger's cat then you are the sentient being, and you will not know until you have looked.
The cat might be sentient and would have known already but it wasn't able to tell you.
A tape measure would make a perfectly good measuring device, though not perhaps on the atomic scale where QM operates.The problem though is that they don't talk as if it's all about measurement. You don't either. You can't say "it's all about measurement by a sentient being" then also say "that's just the way the world works". You can say "as best we can measure that's the way things work" but nothing more. You can't even say "measurements inherently are limited and THAT's the way it is", because that in and of itself is pretty anthropomorphic, i.e. grandiose. That's like me saying, I've driven up and down my block and see only rabbits, therefore the world is full of nothing but rabbits.
The problem though is that they don't talk as if it's all about measurement. You don't either. You can't say "it's all about measurement by a sentient being" then also say "that's just the way the world works". You can say "as best we can measure that's the way things work" but nothing more. You can't even say "measurements inherently are limited and THAT's the way it is", because that in and of itself is pretty anthropomorphic, i.e. grandiose. That's like me saying, I've driven up and down my block and see only rabbits, therefore the world is full of nothing but rabbits.
If you base your knowledge on what you can observe and test and you only see rabbits then all you can say definitely exists in the world are rabbits. Of course you also would have to be a rabbit! You are not saying that is all that can exist, you cannot because your knowledge is limited to what you see.
I was implicitly implying that "as best we can measure that's the way things work" as I was taking for granted that science works by “experiments" and “observations" and “measurements," . Our knowledge is always limited by that which we have discovered thus far, something else may be discovered tomorrow.
We are always ready to 'shift the paradigm' if “experiments" and “observations" and “measurements," demand that has to happen, as did happen in the early half of the twentieth century.
I myself are more of a relativist and therefore, yes kkwan, lean emotionally towards relational quantum mechanics, however I leave it to the QM experts to argue out the relative merits amongst themselves. Most of them are pragmatists and simply apply to rules to make accurate predictions about 'how the world works', without worrying too much which interpretation is a correct description of it. Science has tended to separate out the objective and subjective, the observed and the observer and was required to do so in order to advance, however it was QM that showed that the observer affects the observation of that which is observed and is an a relationship with it. We are part of the world we observe.
I also find the Many Worlds Interpretation extravagant and would apply Occam's (Ockham's) razor, however I don't have the last word and therefore I am not in a position to eliminate it!
10,000 times faster than the speed of light?
Isn't that Superman? ;)
We all know he exists. He's been on television.
Superman is a super hero created in comic books.
Entanglement is a known quantum phenomena whereby an entangled quantum particle reacts "instantaneously" to the change of state of the other entangled quantum particle.
Oh, I'm crushed. I'll bet you think Santa Claus was made up, too!
Oh, I'm crushed. I'll bet you think Santa Claus was made up, too!
Not quite so simply so.
From the wiki on Santa Claus here]
Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle and simply "Santa", is a figure with legendary, historical and folkloric origins who, in many Western cultures, is said to bring gifts to the homes of the good children on 24 December, the night before Christmas Day. However, in some European countries children receive their presents on St. Nicholas' Day, 6 December.
The modern figure of Santa Claus is derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas, whose name is a dialectal pronunciation of Saint Nicholas, the historical Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra. During the Christianization of Germanic Europe, this figure may have absorbed elements of the god Odin, who was associated with the Germanic pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky.
Greek bishop and the Germanic pagan god Odin merged into one colorful character.
A positive male cultural icon:
Santa is really the only cultural icon we have who's male, does not carry a gun, and is all about peace, joy, giving, and caring for other people. That's part of the magic for me, especially in a culture where we've become so commercialized and hooked into manufactured icons. Santa is much more organic, integral, connected to the past, and therefore connected to the future.
—TV producer Jonathan Meath who portrays Santa, 2011
And:
Many television commercials, comic strips and other media depict this as a sort of humorous business, with Santa's elves acting as a sometimes mischievously disgruntled workforce, cracking jokes and pulling pranks on their boss.
