The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What's the difference between quantum entanglement and a collision?  (Read 2019 times)

Offline JMLCarter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Could it be reasonable to consider that quantum entanglement is a kind of quantised collision "in progress". If not in what way is it different?

Perhaps consider
a) what would a collision be like if only discrete amounts of energy could legally be exchanged?
b) classical collisions pass momentum, whilst in an entangled system the momentum is conserved, but which member of the system gets what momentum is only defined by a later outside observation/measurement.
c) does there have to be a force involved to establish entanglement?
d) can macroscopic objects perhaps be considered to "observe themselves", forcing near instantaneous resolution of each momentum exchanges.


Basic Background:
In classical particle physics a collision is an exchange of momentum via a force which acts as the means of transmission of the energy.

In classical wave physics waves do not exchange momentum, only re-inforce or cancel in amplitude.

In quantum theory the wave function entity (assuming it's real not just a math construct) is neither a wave nor a particle, but appears to behave like one or the other depending upon how it is observed.


 

Offline JMLCarter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Ok maybe I'm holding back unnecessarily. It is a kind of leading question, leading to an idea that maybe - and it is a unsubstanbtiated long shot - we are looking at space all wrong.

There has always been a tendancy to assume that;

"objects need to be in proximity to interact"
;

(how close depends on which force) and certainly on a human scale this seems self evident and intuitive. However relativity and quantum mechanics have shown us the limitations of human intuition.

I'm wondering if cause and effect haven't been confused. So in fact we could consider that

objects are in proximity by definition if they are interacting... or maybe likely to interact.

If supportable, this may provide a better "understanding" of quantum teleportation, described as "spooky action at a distance". "Interaction defined distance" for want of a better name says the entangled particles are in proximity until compared to/observed relative to some other measure of distance, some chain of particle interactions.

This seems consistent with the philosophy of spatial relationism, now preferred over absolute space. It's good for relativity and QM as it suggests why macroscopic distance (newtonian and also relativistic) is different from distance on a microscopic scale.

I quess we are also going to need zero point energy/vaccum potential to estalish distance in a vacuum. (This is the theorised spontaineous creation and annihilation of particle pairs).

Some potential?
« Last Edit: 29/03/2011 23:58:06 by JMLCarter »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Ok maybe I'm holding back unnecessarily. It is a kind of leading question, leading to an idea that maybe - and it is a unsubstanbtiated long shot - we are looking at space all wrong.

There has always been a tendancy to assume that;

"objects need to be in proximity to interact"
;

(how close depends on which force) and certainly on a human scale this seems self evident and intuitive. However relativity and quantum mechanics have shown us the limitations of human intuition.

I'm wondering if cause and effect haven't been confused. So in fact we could consider that

objects are in proximity by definition if they are interacting... or maybe likely to interact.

If supportable, this may provide a better "understanding" of quantum teleportation, described as "spooky action at a distance". "Interaction defined distance" for want of a better name says the entangled particles are in proximity until compared to/observed relative to some other measure of distance, some chain of particle interactions.

This seems consistent with the philosophy of spatial relationism, now preferred over absolute space. It's good for relativity and QM as it suggests why macroscopic distance (newtonian and also relativistic) is different from distance on a microscopic scale.

I quess we are also going to need zero point energy/vaccum potential to estalish distance in a vacuum. (This is the theorised spontaineous creation and annihilation of particle pairs).

Some potential?

What about gravity?  You cannot define a single proximity - at ranges that gravity interacts EM is useless, at EM ranges gravity tends to be negligible.  Quantum teleportation smacks of scifi when anything other than states is implied - spukhafte Fernwirkung referred to entanglement and  non-locality rather. 
 

Offline JMLCarter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
It's difficult to explain well. The theory is that proximity is relative.

So, two particles experiencing a electromagnetic attraction relative to another "interaction chain" between them that "defines" the distance.

Entanglement is broken by any other interactions. So the concept of distance for two entangled wave-functions would be meaningless as there is nothing against which to measure it.  (This is the main motivation for the theory, to try to account for quantum teleportation.)

Gravity might be a bit more complex to fit in to the theory, due to GR's established curved space-time.
I think we are talking about some kind of distortion effect on a hypothetical "quantum ether".
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums