The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: ?Quantum entangling cartoon?  (Read 7287 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #25 on: 06/12/2011 16:27:55 »
What is really weird, is that some complaining over the theory of relativity seems to accept QM logic on face value. They don't seem to get that Einstein was a realist after all. He wanted stuff to make sense, and causality chains to exist and be accounted for. He didn't like spooky actions at a distance as entanglements, he wanted an accounting for all we see. Not theoretical, but understandable in classical terms.

And that's what's his 'ensembles' try to do, as I see it. In it he accepts what we experimentally see but he does not try to define QM as causality chains from a classic perspective. Whether he thought of it as existing a 'hidden causality' or not is not important there.  I call it the 'rules of the game', including 'c' and Planck constants as one and the same (constants) even though one is classical, the other QM. And that goes for the conservation laws too, because that's what we build on.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2011 16:33:57 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #26 on: 06/12/2011 16:57:33 »
. . . he wanted an accounting for all we see. . . in classical terms.

Yep.  He didn't accept many features of QM that make it distinct from classical mechanics.  If you think of two entangled particles classically, then they're two separate particles that either can send information faster than light or have some extra internal variables that they each carry which specify how they're correlated.  If you think of them as a quantum state, however, they are no longer separate particles, but rather are two particles described by one quantum state, so they can be correlated through that state, without having to send information or carry around extra variables.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #27 on: 06/12/2011 17:39:10 »
Yeah, and that's one of the hardest nuts there are to crack :) to me. Because it invalidates 'distance', although, depending on how you define information, not 'c' as the constant defining what is 'useful/understandable information' to us.

But if 'c' was considered a pure clock beat, instead of something signifying the combination of a 'clock' creating a distance? That as any distance needs a 'clock' to exist for us, on any conceptual level I can think of.

distances are weird, both in relativity and QM.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #28 on: 06/12/2011 22:34:24 »
It doesn't invalidate distance.  It invalidates our classical idea that two entangled particles can be described as two separate physical objects.  The two measurements are still separated by a physical distance, which behaves in the usual way. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #29 on: 08/12/2011 01:48:31 »
well yeah, that is how I see it. :)

It is two definitions, one macroscopic and one quantum mechanical, but if you want something leading from one to the other? I don't find my assumption weirder than to assume they are connected through a waveform ignoring SpaceTime distances and 'c'.

 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #30 on: 08/12/2011 02:09:21 »
You can see it how you like, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still separated by a distance.  QM may be weird, but it follows rules.  Throwing out distance because they're entangled breaks the rules of QM and relativity!
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #31 on: 08/12/2011 17:23:23 »
I'm not throwing it out JP, I should have wrote 'question' instead of invalidate. Bad choice of words there. And it also depends on from where you look at it. If I look at it from Relativity you find Lorentz contractions, if you look at it from QM you find tunnelings and entanglements. But we have distances, and they work.
=

And that's weird :)
« Last Edit: 08/12/2011 17:25:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #32 on: 09/12/2011 02:30:38 »
Ah, but if you look at it from QM, you find tunneling, entanglement AND Lorentz contractions.  Time and space still exist in QM just as they do in SR.  Two particles undergoing "spooky action at a distance" doesn't change anything about space-time any more than two non-entangled particles do.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #33 on: 09/12/2011 06:52:29 »
Are you telling me that Lorentz contraction is a quantum mechanical effect? That was a new one to me? Not that I mind that much, physics huh :)
=
Or maybe not so new thinking again? Although I haven't thought of it that way.
I've thought of it as a macroscopic effect, coupled to mass, although some might argue there, and relativistic 'speeds/velocities'.

I better get some sleep here :)
==

Had to look again and.

I do have thought of it that way. Strange that I forgot, probably it's because it was you saying that JP :) not me. And as you said it, it became new to me. But I've only considered it as a very weak possibility, in that it should be so incredibly hard to define experimentally. But it makes very good sense existing on a Quantum mechanical scale too, well, as I see it. Although depending on your choice of measuring there, assumably.

Not so hard measuring in 'motion', maybe? Or maybe I'm grossly bicycling in the blue younder there:)

But as I also expect it to be a constant opposite 'mirror' to time dilations, a sort of 'symmetry', I've wondered if it may exist even 'at rest', as in a particle of rest-mass able to be defined as being at rest. But there indeterminacy comes in, and?

So I do hope that was what you meant..
« Last Edit: 09/12/2011 08:49:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #34 on: 09/12/2011 12:27:13 »
What I meant was that QM is a model telling us how particles behave in space and time.  Another model has to define space and time, so you can have norelativistic QM for slow moving particles or relativistic QM for fast-moving particles.  In the latter, Lorentz transformations are obeyed.  If you have entangled particles, it doesn't change anything about the distance because distance is defined by another theory, not by QM.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #35 on: 10/12/2011 05:35:05 »
JP, is there experiments done on relativistically moving particles, proving a Lorentz contraction? That would be a very nice experiment to me, or is it 'time dilations' we can see.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #36 on: 10/12/2011 15:29:20 »
Anything done in particle accelerators indirectly tests Lorentz contractions.  I don't think anyone's specifically tested for only length contraction in QM, but the standard model requires Lorentz transformations in order to work. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

?Quantum entangling cartoon?
« Reply #36 on: 10/12/2011 15:29:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length