Entanglement for us laymen

Ok obviously there are some sophisticated fysics folks in this forum. I consider myself a somewhat informed layman, so I limit myself to conceptual discussions without any pretention that my ideas are somehow valid, since I have no mathematical backing to them. But heck, it’s still fun. So…
The laymen’s explanation of Quantum Entanglement (QE) is that if a particle splits in two, and the two new particles separate by some distance, they still somehow know about each other, are “entangled”, so changes in one affect similar changes in the other instantaneously…“spooky action at a distance”.
If you’ve ever read Flatland then you know all about points and planes and spheres, etc. A 2D point is a 3D sphere passing through a plane. If we saw two points moving apart, and we were 2D beings on the plane, we might speculate that it’s really a 3D circle (not sphere) passing through. Similarly if we were 3D beings :slight_smile: and saw two spheres moving apart we might speculate that really there’s a 4D (spatial) torus passing through our 3D world.
Couldn’t QE be some form of this? When we observe a single particle, that’s the barest tip of the 4D torus (analog of 3D circle) in our 3D world. When it splits into two identical parts it’s really a 4D torus moving through our 3D world. Meaning, it only appears to be two particles to us 3D beings, but it’s really (in some sense) a single 4D particle passing through.
Thoughts?

Interesting idea Cuthbert. It assumes of course that we live in a 4D universe ( not counting time of course). String theorists have postulated a universe with far more than 4 dimensions but this is all speculative.
One problem with your theory though is that it does not necessarily circumvent the basic quandary with QE. I’m not a physicist but it seems to me that this would not explain how the connection travels instantaneously from one particle to another. Two particles separated on a 2D planes may be connected through a 3D shape but the signal ( if there is one) would still have to travel an even more circuitous route from one particle to the other. The theory also does not explain the nature of the connection any better than we can in a 3D universe. It only offers a possible place for the connection to hide.

Thoughts?
It is an interesting idea, but it does not work. As McGyver already said, if you suppose that a signal is sent to the other particle then it must be instantaneous. I do not see how a 'detour' via another dimension can solve that, except you state that everything is instantaneous connected in this extra dimension. And then, I think you still think 'too realistically' about the particles. QM states that the 2 particles have e.g. no definite spin until they are measured. But if a 4D torus crosses our 3D world, you still seem to think that their cross sections, the particles, have some definite spin, but just do not know in which direction they will be 'projected' during the measurement (it is not fixed yet in which direction the physicist will have his polarisation meter). And then, via the torus, the information in which direction the first particle was measured, the second one is 'turned'? Instantaneously? No, I cannot imagine how that would give a useful model of what is actually happening. Remember, in QM science comes to a principle limit. It cannot predict precise events in the quantum realm, only chance distributions. Physicists have been thinking about a mechanism that would explain the exact event, and the idea of entangled particles was to look for such a mechanism. The experiments all point in one direction: there is no such mechanism, at least not on local level. QM works, but EPR experiments show us that the reason why is not even inaccessible to us, but does not even exist.
Thoughts?
Remember, in QM science comes to a principle limit. It cannot predict precise events in the quantum realm, only chance distributions. Physicists have been thinking about a mechanism that would explain the exact event, and the idea of entangled particles was to look for such a mechanism. The experiments all point in one direction: there is no such mechanism, at least not on local level. QM works, but EPR experiments show us that the reason why is not even inaccessible to us, but does not even exist. There are three methods to approach to QM: a) Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. b) The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory c) " Some physicists, among whom I am myself can not believe that we should once and for all abandon the idea of direct images of physical reality in space and time, or that we should agree with the opinion that a phenomenon in nature like a game case." / Einstein / ===...
There are three methods to approach to QM:
There are at least 4: d) Write incomprehensible posts about it, that do no not invite to have an interesting exchange of thoughts. And BTW a) is a subset of b).

But is there really a signal between the particles? (Remember, it only seems like there are two particles.) For example, when we spin a basketball on a finger, is there a signal telling the left side which direction the right side is spinning? No. It’s just that the sides are moving in a certain way because of the nature of the spinning basketball. (And we should note that even this notion of spinning is really an analogy for some property of the particle. I don’t think the little buggers actually spin like a top, that’s just physicists shorthand for the idea.)
I do have to say though, and I’ll probably get hit by a car crossing the street, but I do like what socratus said though it was just a general comment. The Uncertainty principle always sounded like just a matter of making better instruments. The Copenhagen Interp. struck me as just plain silly, logically possible, but silly. And idea C, which I agree with just because, is that it’s only a matter of time until we find out that QM really is just a reflection of our current ignorance of observational methods and that the underlying reality isn’t a set of dice. But like I said, all three are food for another thread, not necessarily having a direct bearing on the QE example.

There are three methods to approach to QM:
There are at least 4: d) Write incomprehensible posts about it, that do no not invite to have an interesting exchange of thoughts. And BTW a) is a subset of b). There are one more method to approach to QM. =. Animals cannot think abstractly. Humans are able to abstract thought.. What is result of this abstract thought ? The pride of human abstract thinking brought to many paradoxical theories. For example: quark, string, big bang, many electron's theories and more than 14 models of quantum theory. And many (even with PhD in the pocket) take abstract ideas as a real world. ==. .
Thoughts?
Consider the notion of quantum discord (QD). Watch the youtube video here] Also, from the wiki on QD here]
In quantum information theory, quantum discord is a measure of nonclassical correlations between two subsystems of a quantum system. It includes correlations that are due to quantum physical effects but do not necessarily involve quantum entanglement.
Difference between QD and quantum entanglement (QE).
Quantum discord is in some ways different from quantum entanglement. Quantum discord is more resilient to dissipative environments than is quantum entanglement.
This difference could allow a quantum computer to be built. From this article here]
But recent research has shown that quantum computing can be carried out without the delicate entanglement of qubits previously believed to be necessary.
QD as Bohr's notion of non-mechanical disturbance introduced to answer EPR? From this paper here] From the discussion:
The structure of Bohr’s response to EPR is in no way anticipatory of Bell-nonlocality. Rather, Bohr’s argument relied upon the phenomenon of quantum discord, a notion of quantum correlations with no requirement for entanglement, or steering, let alone Bell-nonlocality. It is no coincidence that Schr¨odinger, who coined the terms entanglement and steering, and Bell, whose theorem overshadows all of the 1935 papers, were followers of Einstein, not Bohr.
But is there really a signal between the particles? (Remember, it only seems like there are two particles.) For example, when we spin a basketball on a finger, is there a signal telling the left side which direction the right side is spinning? No. It's just that the sides are moving in a certain way because of the nature of the spinning basketball. (And we should note that even this notion of spinning is really an analogy for some property of the particle. I don't think the little buggers actually spin like a top, that's just physicists shorthand for the idea.)
Sorry, your basketball example does not work. It assumes that particles have a definite value for e.g. their spin. Your picture is e.g that an electron has a spin in the direction / and then might be measured in one of the directions | or -. so the experimenter 'forces' the electron in one of these directions, and we cannot know for sure if we ill measure it ^ or v, or . But that is not the case: the electron has no definite spin at all. The only thing we know is that when we measure it, e.g. as when we measure it in the - direction.
I do have to say though, and I'll probably get hit by a car crossing the street, but I do like what socratus said though it was just a general comment. The Uncertainty principle always sounded like just a matter of making better instruments. The Copenhagen Interp. struck me as just plain silly, logically possible, but silly. And idea C, which I agree with just because, is that it's only a matter of time until we find out that QM really is just a reflection of our current ignorance of observational methods and that the underlying reality isn't a set of dice. But like I said, all three are food for another thread, not necessarily having a direct bearing on the QE example.
Then you think that a majority of physicists is silly. And you show you do not understand QM at all. The EPR experiments show definitely that there are no local variables 'below the surface'. So improving our observational methods will not help. You behave a bit like a 'trisector': a person who does not understand that it is proven that it is impossible to construct an angle that is one third of any give angle (oh, shit, now kkwan will show that it is possible...). They still send in their solutions for the problem, of which they think it is just not found yet. The uncertainty principle follows directly from the wave properties of quantum particles. It is just a consequence of Fourier Transformation]:
Generally speaking, the more concentrated f(x) is, the more spread out its Fourier transform \hat f(\xi) must be. In particular, the scaling property of the Fourier transform may be seen as saying: if we "squeeze" a function in x, its Fourier transform "stretches out" in ξ. It is not possible to arbitrarily concentrate both a function and its Fourier transform.
From the Wikipedia article]. It is the same phenomenon that a radio station has a certain bandwidth: it principally cannot be restricted to just one single frequency on your radio. It has nothing to do with your radio being not precise enough. You remember me a bit of Scott Mayers: because you cannot understand it, it must be false.

No such luck, GdB.
However, here are “somethings” for you to chew on. :cheese:
From this article here]
Cheating the Causal Game

But Brukner’s new findings make things a bit more complicated. "We have shown that there are certain quantum resources that would allow us to go beyond this 75 per cent if the causal relations between us are not well-defined," says Brukner. In other words, if you don’t define your time-ordering, you can win the game more often.
Bold added by me. A more general quantum theory?
All the researchers hope their efforts will help them to formulate a more general quantum theory, in which our familiar causal structure—of dogs barking and families waking—is not assumed, but emerges in the right conditions. "I find this new direction promising because it challenges one of the key paradigms of quantum and classical mechanics: the paradigm of a state evolving in time," says Chiribella. "We are now pushing quantum theory to the extreme limits of what can be conceived by our imagination."
Bold added by me. Also, from this article at the IEP here] From section 6: No Correlation without Causal Explanation
If there is correlation between two event types then there must exist something in the common causal past of the corresponding particular events that explains the correlation. This something is called a “common cause". “Particular event" means an event of a definite space-time locus, a definite piece of the history of the universe, that is the totally detailed state of affairs in a given space-time region. The interesting situation is, of course, when the correlated events are not in direct causal relationship; for example, they are simultaneous or, at least, spatially separated.
What if?
Reichenbach based his common-cause concept on intuitive examples from the classical world with epistemic probabilities. However, as Nancy Cartwright (1987) points out, we are in trouble if the world is objectively indeterministic. We have no suitable metaphysical language to tell when a world is local, to tell the difference between direct and common-cause-type correlations, to tell what a common cause is, and so on. These concepts of the theory of stochastic causality are either unjustified or originated from the observations of epistemically stochastic phenomena of a deterministic world.
Bold added by me. :lol:
No such luck, GdB. However, here are "somethings" for you to chew on. :cheese: From this article here] Cheating the Causal Game
But Brukner’s new findings make things a bit more complicated. "We have shown that there are certain quantum resources that would allow us to go beyond this 75 per cent if the causal relations between us are not well-defined," says Brukner. In other words, if you don’t define your time-ordering, you can win the game more often.
Bold added by me. A more general quantum theory?
All the researchers hope their efforts will help them to formulate a more general quantum theory, in which our familiar causal structure—of dogs barking and families waking—is not assumed, but emerges in the right conditions. "I find this new direction promising because it challenges one of the key paradigms of quantum and classical mechanics: the paradigm of a state evolving in time," says Chiribella. "We are now pushing quantum theory to the extreme limits of what can be conceived by our imagination."
Bold added by me. Also, from this article at the IEP here] From section 6: No Correlation without Causal Explanation
If there is correlation between two event types then there must exist something in the common causal past of the corresponding particular events that explains the correlation. This something is called a “common cause". “Particular event" means an event of a definite space-time locus, a definite piece of the history of the universe, that is the totally detailed state of affairs in a given space-time region. The interesting situation is, of course, when the correlated events are not in direct causal relationship; for example, they are simultaneous or, at least, spatially separated.
What if?
Reichenbach based his common-cause concept on intuitive examples from the classical world with epistemic probabilities. However, as Nancy Cartwright (1987) points out, we are in trouble if the world is objectively indeterministic. We have no suitable metaphysical language to tell when a world is local, to tell the difference between direct and common-cause-type correlations, to tell what a common cause is, and so on. These concepts of the theory of stochastic causality are either unjustified or originated from the observations of epistemically stochastic phenomena of a deterministic world.
Bold added by me. :lol:
Ok, let's say we're in trouble. Do we just deny that we live in an objectively deterministic universe and live in fantasy? Does that change anything? Does it help our condition? Does it improve our future? Lois
But is there really a signal between the particles? (Remember, it only seems like there are two particles.) For example, when we spin a basketball on a finger, is there a signal telling the left side which direction the right side is spinning? No. It's just that the sides are moving in a certain way because of the nature of the spinning basketball. (And we should note that even this notion of spinning is really an analogy for some property of the particle. I don't think the little buggers actually spin like a top, that's just physicists shorthand for the idea.)
Sorry, your basketball example does not work. It assumes that particles have a definite value for e.g. their spin. Your picture is e.g that an electron has a spin in the direction / and then might be measured in one of the directions | or -. so the experimenter 'forces' the electron in one of these directions, and we cannot know for sure if we ill measure it ^ or v, or . But that is not the case: the electron has no definite spin at all. The only thing we know is that when we measure it, e.g. as when we measure it in the - direction.
I do have to say though, and I'll probably get hit by a car crossing the street, but I do like what socratus said though it was just a general comment. The Uncertainty principle always sounded like just a matter of making better instruments. The Copenhagen Interp. struck me as just plain silly, logically possible, but silly. And idea C, which I agree with just because, is that it's only a matter of time until we find out that QM really is just a reflection of our current ignorance of observational methods and that the underlying reality isn't a set of dice. But like I said, all three are food for another thread, not necessarily having a direct bearing on the QE example.
Then you think that a majority of physicists is silly. And you show you do not understand QM at all. The EPR experiments show definitely that there are no local variables 'below the surface'. So improving our observational methods will not help. You behave a bit like a 'trisector': a person who does not understand that it is proven that it is impossible to construct an angle that is one third of any give angle (oh, shit, now kkwan will show that it is possible...). They still send in their solutions for the problem, of which they think it is just not found yet. The uncertainty principle follows directly from the wave properties of quantum particles. It is just a consequence of Fourier Transformation]:
Generally speaking, the more concentrated f(x) is, the more spread out its Fourier transform \hat f(\xi) must be. In particular, the scaling property of the Fourier transform may be seen as saying: if we "squeeze" a function in x, its Fourier transform "stretches out" in ξ. It is not possible to arbitrarily concentrate both a function and its Fourier transform.
From the Wikipedia article]. It is the same phenomenon that a radio station has a certain bandwidth: it principally cannot be restricted to just one single frequency on your radio. It has nothing to do with your radio being not precise enough. You remember me a bit of Scott Mayers: because you cannot understand it, it must be false.Chill out dude. Maybe you've taken one too many punches. We're having a discussion here not a Liberal vs Conservative political debate. Since when does "everyone else thinks it's so, therefore it is so" a good argument? Now of course I'm just a layman, so my opinion on the matter is worth less than 2 cents. But as best I can tell so is yours. To me your entire argument boiled down to "everyone says it's this way, I've learned how to speak QM, so I will now give you the standard reply". Einstein was one person who didn't believe QM. He was pretty good at physics. So I'll take that to mean there's room for discussion. Your explanation of my basketball example just assumes what I'm saying isn't the case...that spin can't be measured therefore.... So that's nothing. I guess I should have known better than to post something speculative for laymen discussion. It's really going to boil down to he said/she said on both our parts.
Chill out dude. Maybe you've taken one too many punches. We're having a discussion here not a Liberal vs Conservative political debate. Since when does "everyone else thinks it's so, therefore it is so" a good argument? Now of course I'm just a layman, so my opinion on the matter is worth less than 2 cents. But as best I can tell so is yours. To me your entire argument boiled down to "everyone says it's this way, I've learned how to speak QM, so I will now give you the standard reply". Einstein was one person who didn't believe QM. He was pretty good at physics. So I'll take that to mean there's room for discussion. Your explanation of my basketball example just assumes what I'm saying isn't the case...that spin can't be measured therefore.... So that's nothing. I guess I should have known better than to post something speculative for laymen discussion. It's really going to boil down to he said/she said on both our parts.
The problem is you first must understand QM in order to criticise it. Your 'The Copenhagen Interp. struck me as just plain silly' and 'it’s only a matter of time until we find out that QM really is just a reflection of our current ignorance of observational methods and that the underlying reality isn’t a set of dice' show you have no idea about QM, and how it is an established scientific theory. Then to use an argument as 'your entire argument boiled down to "everyone says it's this way, I've learned how to speak QM, so I will now give you the standard reply"' and to suggest that your understanding of QM is as good as mine is just plain wrong. Did you understand what I wrote that the uncertainty principle is just a consequence of Q-particles having wave character, and that it then automatically follows from Fourier Transformation? So you even know what Fourier Transformation is, and what is the connection with the bandwidth of radio stations? If not, then please do your homework first, before insulting the people who tell you their thoughts which you asked for yourself. And no, Einstein was just wrong about the status of QM. Ask any physicist, and you will get conformation of it: God plays dice, and the 'spooky action at a distance' really exists. A pity that Einstein did not live long enough to know the conclusive experiments. I'll suggest you ask the same question at a physics forum, and see what reactions you get there.
The problem is you first must understand QM in order to criticise it. Your 'The Copenhagen Interp. struck me as just plain silly' and 'it’s only a matter of time until we find out that QM really is just a reflection of our current ignorance of observational methods and that the underlying reality isn’t a set of dice' show you have no idea about QM, and how it is an established scientific theory. Then to use an argument as 'your entire argument boiled down to "everyone says it's this way, I've learned how to speak QM, . . . . . . .
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. / QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page. 10. by R. Feynman / # I am a professional theoretical physicist and I would like to make a clean theory. And when I look at quantum mechanics I see a dirty theory. / John Bell / # I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics... In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct. / Richard Feynman / ===. It is very nice to know that / GdB / understood the quantum theory. ==..
Ok, let's say we're in trouble. Do we just deny that we live in an objectively deterministic universe and live in fantasy? Does that change anything? Does it help our condition? Does it improve our future? Lois
We are not in trouble because at the macro level, we experience an adequately deterministic universe. However, we cannot assume that the universe is objectively deterministic, because of QM. As such, physicists are now exploring what is the origin and nature of time, space and causality versus what is experienced at the macro level, in their quest to understand what is the ultimate nature of the universe and whether it is objectively indeterministic. If it is not what we intuitively think and experience, we need new physics and theories and from the article here]
A successful theory of quantum gravity would merge quantum theory with Einstein’s theory of general relativity to describe every interaction in the universe that we know about, from the subatomic scale to the cosmological.
We live in interesting times. :-)
However, we cannot assume that the universe is objectively deterministic, because of QM.
This might be true if we want to know the nature of reality, which is interesting academically. But for our practical intents and purposes, assuming determinism is the way to go since indeterminism makes no difference to those. Stephen

QM is very universal theory.

Some claim that QM has something to do with consciousness:
Quantum mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Quantum brain dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_brain_dynamics

Some tried to make parallels between the eastern mystic / spiritual
opinion and quantum physics.
( Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Polkinghorne . … . )

Some believe that God exist only if . . . .
" If He understands Maths and Physics then He exists."
/ Frank Tipler. /
==…
So, in the way to understand QM we can meet many surprising things.
===…

Quantum decoherence explains the collapse of the wave function without reference to consciousness.
From your own link on quantum mind]:

Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales commonly assumed to be too short to control brain function.

Book - The Physics of Consciousness. By Evan H. Walker.
“… indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics.”
/ This book attempts to describe how quantum mechanical processes
may be responsible for the creation of human consciousness. /

Keynote Luc Montagnier,
Nobel Laureate, Pasteur Institute,
Lecture:
“The transfer of biological information through
electromagnetic waves and matter.”

.Quantum biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

Book: Quantum physics meets biology.
/ By Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral /
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Arndt2009a HFSPJ…
==…
Today is possible to speak only about tendency
to understand consciousness on the quantum level.
==…

Dream on, socratus…
Or read this]:

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales (∼ 10e−13 − 10e−20 seconds) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (∼ 10e−3 − 10e−1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.