0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have gotten so far as learning about the Bohr/ Einstein debate regarding the behaviors of entangled particles, and see that Bohr's theory seems to be the prevalent theory at this point.
Quote from: SpaceMonkeyI have gotten so far as learning about the Bohr/ Einstein debate regarding the behaviors of entangled particles, and see that Bohr's theory seems to be the prevalent theory at this point.I've heard about that debate but never read it. What did you use as a source for the debate? I'd like to read the exact same thing so that we have common reference material to go by.
It's like this. You have one 'photon' that you split into two, sort of using a beam splitter that can be likened to a half transparent mirror. Those two 'new photons are correlated in a rather weird way through their spin (polarization). It doesn't matter for this which one you measure, the other will have a opposite spin. And doing the experiment several times you will find no order to what that first spin will be, once you measure it. The only thing you can be sure of is that no matter the first ones spin ('up' or 'down') the other photon must have a opposite spin. So you can not predict the first ones spin, and it doesn't matter for this complementary principle which way you find it to be. That's sort of weird, isn't it? Like they were able to 'communicate' instantly? And yeah, that is a spooky action at a distance.==Ahh Bohr, is it? Well Bohr is the father of quantum physics as I understands it, at least one of the really prominent ones, and where he and Einstein debated was just around what this 'spookiness' meant. I think Einsteins thesis there was that quantum physics was incomplete, whereas Bohr's was that this actually just was the way things was, on a quantum scale.
It's like this. You have one 'photon' that you split into two, sort of ...
Quote from: yor_onIt's like this. You have one 'photon' that you split into two, sort of ...No "sort of". A photon cannot be split into two, period.
I agree that a photon is not split into sub-particles with separate properties from a photon, but rather into two photons with the combined energy and momentum of the original, but is in fact split via the process.
A photon cannot be split into two, period.
Nonlinear optical materials can do some odd things when the electric field intensity gets up around 108 V/m (eg from an intense laser). These effects were not discovered until after the invention of the laser.One of those things is to turn a single photon into ..
I really don't know Spacemonkey One of the things I really wished I could understand though. It's about statistics this one, and even though you should have a 50% correlation of the spin being either up or down, in your first measurement, I don't think you can find a correlation to how it will fall out in each single case. Let's assume that you could though? as per chaos theory, finding some hidden parameter (periodicity of 'ups' coming) defining it. Then it should be different I think. But as it seems to be it's like having what's called a 'fair coin'. Defining it as each flip of such a coin is impossible to define beforehand. That's your 'photon' before a measurement, alternatively existing in a 'super position' of 'up' and 'down', forced into a outcome by your measurement.=you could try this one if you like? Dr. Bertlmann's socks discussed. and then to check the idea of it being 'ftl' signals you might look at How Quantum Entanglement Transcends Space and Time==I don't agree on this questioning Einsteins ideas of locality though, or 'local causality', though. To me it seems more of a question how you define it. 'Locality', in my view is what relativity is about, it's what defines any experiment you do, you using your (local) clock and ruler, and there is no other way to do a experiment that makes as much sense to me. That's one reason why I'm questioning the ideas of 'universal common containers' also. Because, if you can find a way to define this universe differently than through Victorian means, you might be able to find how locality actually hold true for a entanglement too. It's about 'what' connects to 'what', and how it can do it to me. Weird thoughts
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htmThis might not be a bad place to start looking at the refutation of EPR, and the subsequent "proof" of Bell's Theorem.