[CZARCAR (OP)]

just found "entangled swapping" which may suggest the BIGBANG resulted in all being entagled?
Assuming a neutrino [mass] can outrun a photon[massless] then the accelerating entropial edge of the universe would disappear cause the mass is outrunning the massless light which needs to be reflected to see the mass?  atom1 & atom2 are entangled but a2 has exceeded C whereas a1 gets hit with a photon so their entangled interaction suggests a1 photonic shell jump + a2 no photon, & the average= 1/2 exactly & thats exactly where the shell has to be?

[yor_on]

Yep, we can have a lot of fun with this, and still be discussing 'physics' Maybe that's why my shadow grow longer? My mass outrunning the light? And entanglements is a cool idea, but 'swapping how'?

[yor_on]

Assume that mass actually can be faster than light. And at Cerns level of energy too, which isn't that much really, cosmically seen. Kind of spooky action isn't it? Frames of reference will still hold, as light is a constant. And how about 'time travels' here? If we assume that it is a 'instant jump at its creation' then a neutrino the first 18 meters take no 'time' at all? But it can't arrive any faster than that, no matter how you measure it?  What about at nine meters is the instantaneous effect then 'negative'? And how about measuring relative different 'frames of reference'?

I'm sure I can get a headache here.
=

There is also the scenario in which you (A) send something FTL to 'B' Which then 'instantly' responds FTL to you. B's message, according to some views, now arriving earlier than your first FTL transmission )) Meaning that 'B' indeed are a spooky son of a gun, or a woman Depending on your definition of different 'frames of reference' (time slices) and their 'time' relative each other ( Brian Greene loves this

[CZARCAR (OP)]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-world-diamonds.html   No FTL needed.Theres other, earlier entanglement experiments i aint read including the details of this 1....so to not get too confused. also aint sure if only the electrons are entangled or if it can involve atoms but entanglement seems real so with these 2 crystals [c1 c2] with entangled electrons, c1 gets a photon & c2 also reacts then c1+1photon interacts with c2+ 0photon  & the shell has to be @ exactly 1/2 for both c1 & c2. This is just a reason as to why the shell exits where it is as displayed by Bohr's gas experiment?

[yor_on]

A very confusing article Czarcar. In what way was they 'entangled'? Either they were from 'one undifferentiated original' or the assumption is that they were 'identical' although not of the exact same origin? And under that assumption nothing stops me from defining everything as 'entangled', assuming that I find them 'identical' in some property/aspect, although each one of them being unrelated before my inducing some state that I find/believe to be replicated.

"Quantum entanglement in the motion of macroscopic solid bodies has implications both for quantum technologies and foundational studies of the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds. Entanglement is usually fragile in room-temperature solids, owing to strong interactions both internally and with the noisy environment. We generated motional entanglement between vibrational states of two spatially separated, millimeter-sized diamonds at room temperature.

By measuring strong nonclassical correlations between Raman-scattered photons, we showed that the quantum state of the diamonds has positive concurrence with 98% probability. Our results show that entanglement can persist in the classical context of moving macroscopic solids in ambient conditions."

"The vibrations of the second diamond reacted to what happened to the vibrations of the first. Performing the experiment with ultrafast laser pulses enabled the researchers to catch entanglement, which is usually very short-lived in large objects at room temperature.

When zapping one artificial diamond with ultrashort laser pulses they managed to change the vibrations of a second diamond sitting a half a foot away without touching it. They chose diamonds because they are crystals, so it was easier to measure molecular vibrations, and because they are transparent in visible wavelengths. Light from the lasers altered a kind of mass vibration in the diamond crystal called phonons, and the measurements showed they were entangled: "

Or do they mean that they 'created' a entanglement by their laser for two unrelated diamonds, where none was before? Reminds me of the way you find clocks (pendulum) to synchronise in a clock shop actually? So should I now call that a entanglement?

I thought that one belonged to chaos theory?

I'm not sure how they define a entanglement here?
=

To say that, when using a beam splitter or similar to split one 'photon' into two, they are entangled seems reasonable, but this is a new one to me.

[yor_on]

It's a interesting way to view it though. Because thinking like that there is no need for any 'identical origin' to a entanglement. The only definition then existing for a entanglement is if you statistically, or measuring directly, can prove it to change its 'state' to gain a same property.

Which then should mean that I can entangle my telly with my coffee-cup, if I can find a way to replicate what I do on my telly, to what my coffee-cup experience in my measurement. So, from observing entanglements to creating them, everywhere

[Soul Surfer]

There are lots of situations where waves move faster than the speed of light see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light for detailed descriptions.  The cut off waveguide (a good classical analogue for quantum mechanical tunnelling) is probably the simplest to replicate in the lab.  The one important feature of all these processes is that  information cannot be transmitted faster than light and it is information transfer that determines the flow of time

[CZARCAR (OP)]

i read where entanglement requires electrons to have proper mutual polarity & spin to entangle & entangled swapping is real/proven as pursued with quantum computing?

[yor_on]

Can you link it Csarcar? I've seen so many different propositions to what should be considered entanglements and their definitions so I'm quite confused nowadays Once I thought I knew the definition but now?

[yor_on]

This is my (old) definition as I understood it once.

"One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement:

if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function.

So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state."

Einstein and the EPR Paradox. 

Since that I've been introduced to a lot of different concepts, and the one presented by the experiment you linked too? Well, it's definitely new to me. Not that I mind that much, but my headache keeps growing trying to see how all those definitions mean/think, and how they got from the original definition to ... ->

ahem.

[JP]

You're essentially right, yor_on.  A definition of entangled particles is that they cannot be described independently--they are all part of the same wave function.  The other properties such as the effects of measurements come from this property. 

I know its not terribly helpful to hear "learn the math," but entanglement is one case where things are so weird and so non-intuitive that to really get an intuition of what's going on, you need to go to the math build up from there. 

[yor_on]

You're correct JP, and I've looked, that's also why I wonder what a wave function 'really' and I mean 'really really' is

[CZARCAR (OP)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_state    this aint what i read but applies?

[CZARCAR (OP)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[yor_on]

Thanks Czarcar

Assume two particles colliding, as they do it they will become 'entangled' through the definition QM use about then getting a common 'wave function' describing them. As all particles do bump into each other in my body for example, does that make me entangled

[yor_on]

So lets make it simple I like simple..

Entanglements are 'bumps'. The question is how the 'bumps' can correlate over a 'distance'. Einstein didn't find the idea of those 'bumps' being correlated through a common wave function (like a ordinary particle can be 'described', through its wave function.) to then fall out, as in constantly expressing opposite spins, as trustworthy.

Either QM was not describing this in the full sense, which meant that something was missing from the description, or Einstein was wrong in expecting interactions to be locally. That as the particles could be very far away in your measurement of one.

And it all goes back to HUP (Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle) which is a statement of indeterminacy to me, stating that you can't know all parameters/properties simultaneously.

Then we come to more murky stuff. If you have a particle 'A' and a particle 'B' that is entangled in some way, then it is not right, according to some, to state that you by measuring A know B. You need to measure B too. Now this may sound intuitively correct but what it means is that your subsequent measurement on B is the one defining the entanglement here, all as I understands it. Not your first measurement on A.

And if that doesn't give you a headache? Then you have a even thicker head than mine
So what is the wave function in this case? and when does it fall out?

[yor_on]

When it comes to the diamonds it is simpler if we define through inducing a same property. The problem here is how the property 'transmits' as they only induce it on 'A', so to speak? Maybe it is the same phenomena as in that 'clock shop' they used?

Because there was no same wave function for those two diamonds before they induced 'A'. "When zapping one artificial diamond with ultrashort laser pulses they managed to change the vibrations of a second diamond sitting a half a foot away without touching it."

Which introduce yet another twist.

[yor_on]

That is if you don't define them as being 'the exact same'? But that one can never be fully proven as I think of it. And that's the difference between 'splitting light' into two 'photons', from making two bowls out of clay. You might want to say that your bowls are the exact same, but the more complexity that goes into creating those bowls, as their atoms, molecules etc, combined with you being able to prove that you had the exact same procedure, size etc.

Although inducing the same (QM) property in two different, whatever, might be defined as a entanglement, if we assume that it is enough with one property being the same for them? But the inducing of the diamonds made me confused.
=

You could of course turn this reasoning around, and say that as B became entangled with A, when A was zapped 'prove' that they must be 'the exact same', maybe?

[CZARCAR (OP)]

thanx. 1 comment was that the diamonds were probably tested for similarities be4 the experiment, another that entanglement has been effected with a 18km separation in another experiment.
4fun= whats the name for the psychic? phenomena biological twins seem to have more of than nontwins?

[yor_on]

Yep the 18 km worked but that was splitting light transmitted in fibre optics if I remember right. and that one is interesting but not about two macroscopic objects (diamonds) where you by inducing a vibration in A then finds B sitting some way apart (mysteriously) 'entangled'.

Although, I still don't know how/what their definitions for the experimental setup was, and how they saw the entanglement as transferred by? And that one needs to be explained as I otherwise will have to presume that we not only find entanglements in 'bumps', but now also 'teleported' by two objects having a 'exact same? Material? Size? Smell?

I don't know? There is no doubt that entanglements exist, the question is what the he* it means