[Virtual State (OP)]

The key to entanglement is the sharing of the same path, of all possible paths, for a split second. After that happens, the waves will be considered the same wave. Measuring one wave collapses the other because they are the same wave.

We see evidence of all possible paths with interference patterns. We know it is when all possible paths are taken virtually at the same time because the pattern appears when a single particle is used.

Is Entanglement happening when a single particle is interfering with itself? If so, is there group size or complexity that will eventually stop displaying interference? Is this a natural size for an object to remain classical/scalar? What are the requirements to share the same path?

Could there be an entire side to reality that is Virtual/Vector? Is it where all possible paths reside? When I said the entangled waves are the same wave, I meant literally. Non-local waves are virtual and are all possible paths. Virtual/Vector doesn't have single moments/positions.

Is there a connection between Bell Inequality and an interference pattern? Can we test spin on the landing positions of interference? Could we run a Bell Inequality experiment simultaneously by matching the time entanglement started? I suspect Bell Inequality experiments can't be shielded because entanglement is all the same wave. It jumbles up spin tests, so I want to know if it influences the landing position.

Does this mean local particles/scalar volumes are using all possible paths as the degrees of freedom for Entropy?

[evan_au]

Is Entanglement happening when a single particle is interfering with itself?

No; entanglement only happens between two different particles.

If you try to simultaneously measure the state of a photon going through both slits of a dual-slit experiment, you will find that it is in one slit or the other.

This is very different from the situation when measuring the state of two photons from an entangled photon "factory", which really does produce two separate photons at the same time.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion#Applications

[Virtual State (OP)]

What is causing the interference to happen with a single particle? Are you suggesting that interference isn't interference? Is the pattern we see from all possible paths that would not have interfered?

It's all the same wave when interfering, but there is an identifying factor as to when it became part of the universal wave. It sounds like entanglement. I want to know what the requirements are for a wave to enter this state.

[Halc]

What is causing the interference to happen with a single particle?

There is no interference pattern with a single particle. It is measured in one location. The wave function of the photon yields a probability of where that photon might be measured, and that probability curve produces the interference pattern of which you speak.

Is the pattern we see from all possible paths that would not have interfered?

There is not pattern with a single photon, just a dot. There is no path measured, only the final location. You can measure the path taken, but that measurement affects the photon and changes the probability of where it might eventually be measured.

It's all the same wave when interfering, but there is an identifying factor as to when it became part of the universal wave.

Can't make sense of this. A photon is not a wave (nor is it a particle), and there is no 'universal wave'. A photon does have wave-like properties and particle-like properties, either of which can be measured.

[Colin2B]

To add to what @evan_au  and @Halc have said:

The key to entanglement is the sharing of the same path, of all possible paths, for a split second.

This is not the key at all. Entanglement is when 2 (or more) photons or particles are created such that measurements on them are correlated and can be described by a joint wave function. This means that if we have information about the state of one, we can make a correct judgement on the state of the other. By the way, wave function collapse only means that we now know the state of the particle we have measured ie it has collapsed from a probability to a certainty.

Is Entanglement happening when a single particle is interfering with itself?

Again, no, for same reason

Could there be an entire side to reality that is Virtual/Vector? Is it where all possible paths reside? When I said the entangled waves are the same wave, I meant literally. Non-local waves are virtual and are all possible paths. Virtual/Vector doesn't have single moments/positions.

This would be a new theory and you are welcome to post and discuss it there.

Is there a connection between Bell Inequality and an interference pattern? Can we test spin on the landing positions of interference? Could we run a Bell Inequality experiment simultaneously by matching the time entanglement started? I suspect Bell Inequality experiments can't be shielded because entanglement is all the same wave. It jumbles up spin tests, so I want to know if it influences the landing position.

there is no interference pattern.

Does this mean local particles/scalar volumes are using all possible paths as the degrees of freedom for Entropy?

no

It sounds like entanglement. I want to know what the requirements are for a wave to enter this state.

it depends whether you are creating entangled pairs of photons or electrons (or other particles).

@evan_au gave a link to a photon method and there are others which can be found online. The key is that the photons or particles are usually created at the same time and one of the properties of one particle is correlated with that of the other.

[acsinuk]

Think of a photon as a volume of magnetic flux produced by a balanced pair of half magnets rotating around each other and helixing forward.  The 2 halves never touch each other but are entangled or twisted around each other like a magnon spin wave.

[Virtual State (OP)]

We send photons into a BBO and then they share the same path, they were created before that event. Were two entangled atoms created when we entangle them?

There is an interference pattern with particles that were not observed in a double slit. It is odd you want to pretend interference doesn't happen just because we can't measure until it lands. The landing positions indicate interference.

Multiple instances of measurement causes a local/scalar particle to go back to being virtual/vector. We see this with which-way eraser experiments. Measuring is only a snapshot of the position, not which path of all possible paths it is taking.

[Colin2B]

There is an interference pattern with particles that were not observed in a double slit. It is odd you want to pretend interference doesn't happen just because we can't measure until it lands. The landing positions indicate interference.

No one is pretending interference doesn’t happen, it just that you are confusing it with entanglement. They are different things.

[Virtual State (OP)]

I was hoping it had something to do with a natural size matter stops displaying interference. You understand that interference is all possible paths interfering with itself, but don't want that interaction to involve entanglement? We already know entangled waves are the same wave. Why not consider it being used for interference?

[evan_au]

What causes Entanglement?

I'm still thinking about it, but I saw a suggestion that any interaction with the universe causes entanglement.
- If two atoms bump into each other, their states get entangled
- If an atom emits a photon, the atom's state is entangled with the photon's state
- If an atom gets hit by a photon, the state of the atom gets entangled with the state of the photon (and the atom which emitted the photon)

The problem is that the initial states of all these atoms and photons is not known (in the vast majority of cases)
- So the final state after entanglement is unknowable
- If you have a carefully shielded quantum computer, where you have carefully configured the quantum state of one or more qubits - and then one qubit gets hit by a photon, you have lost the state of the qubits, because it has now become entangled with an unknown state, and corrupted your quantum computation.

The useful and interesting things you can (in theory) do with entanglement rely on having a known entangled state - random entanglement with the (unknown) state of the universe corrupts whatever you were trying to do with the entangled state...

[Virtual State (OP)]

Interaction with the Universal Wave is Entanglement.
Wouldn't bumping two particles cause them to share the same path?

Do quantum computers deal with Bell Inequality? I think the Universal Wave is causing it. Is the only way to avoid it with superconduction?

Yes, scalar described light can cause problems.

[Colin2B]

We already know entangled waves are the same wave.

No, we don’t know that and there is no evidence it is true.
You are confusing this with the wave function. The wave function is a description of the probability that a measurement will return a certain value. If we creat entangled particle pairs then they are correlated and can be described by a combined wave function, when we measure one we instantly know the value of the other measurement; this is not interference.
By the way, your speculation on ‘universal wave’ has been moved to new theories, please continue speculative ideas in that part of the forum, thanks.

[Virtual State (OP)]

If they are not the same wave then how does one decohere the other?

[Petrochemicals]

String theory in Gravity. Black holes. But why is entanglement broken and how can it be?

[evan_au]

Is Entanglement happening when a single particle is interfering with itself?

When a single particle goes through a dual-slit experiment, the correct term is "superposition", not "entanglement".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

[Virtual State (OP)]

That is the correct term until we find out they are the same.

[Halc]

That is the correct term until we find out they are the same.

That comment confirms that this thread is not appropriate for the main forum.
I've merged in the universal-wave comment that was split off since it's all in New-Theories now.

Please do not post ideas contradicting accepted physics anywhere except in the lighter-side section of the forum.

[Virtual State (OP)]

How can something be contradictory when we don't have an established reason for why things are the way they are?

[Colin2B]

If they are not the same wave then how does one decohere the other?

It doesn’t decohere it, the other particle is still available to be measured. Coherence is not necessary for entanglement, just correlation. They are not the same wave.

That is the correct term until we find out they are the same.

No, it is the correct term. The 2 things are not the same, please continue your new theory in the correct part of the forum where you have greater opportunities to speculate, thanks.

But why is entanglement broken and how can it be?

Measurement often changes the property you are measuring.

The most important is that the entanglement is not presumed to exist before the measurement. It's only if measured it 'falls out', before that the photon is thought to exist in a so called super position, consisting of all possible polarizations / spins it can take. So in one way it goes back to what a superposition is thought to be.

As @evan_au points out there are situations where we don’t know the likely state of entanglement and as you say, it is difficult to presume it exists, however measurements won’t confirm it, but will return a random distribution of states.
However, if you create 2 entangled photons or particles then you presume the entanglement exists, otherwise you can’t describe them as entangled.
The probability of the state of each particle can be described by a common wave function, however, we don’t know the state until it is measured so we can describe them as being in a state of superposition. There are a number of different interpretations of this, one is that the particles have not yet decided which state they are in, another says that superposition and the wave function describes our state of knowledge of the system. Kip Thorne made an interesting statement in a lecture when talking about many worlds, superposition etc, he said that the outcome of many such ideas behave as if the quantum world is stochastic so we might as well treat it that way.
We could for example consider a pack of playing cards to be in a superposition of 52 states and the top card has not yet decided what its value is.
We can also talk about the entanglement of classical objects. One eg often used is that of a pair of gloves. We can describe the pair with a wave function, a system where there is a 0.5 probability that one is R and 0.5 that the other is L, but not both the same state. We can separate them and that relationship still holds, so if I send one to Evan and one to you when you open yours you will instantly know which one Evan has. So, we can consider the gloves to be in a superposition of states.
Things are more complex with quantum world because measurements often change what we are measuring. Also, the gloves can be a colour eg yellow and we can see (measure) a glove as being right and yellow at the same time, we can’t do that with the quantum world and we often find at times that measuring one property eg handedness may change another eg colour, so quantum probability doesn’t follow classical rules. Also, how we measure can affect what the change is. The best we can do is say that we are not certain of any property until we measure it. This is what Einstein found difficult to accept, he felt there should be a fixed reality so that a particular quantum glove is always right and yellow, however it doesn’t appear so. By the way, these examples are very rough & ready, it gets even more complex, but confusing things which are clearly different eg entanglement and interference, does not help understanding nor move us forward.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Neither wave is going to be coherent after one is measured. What does the availability of being measured have to do with anything? Are you saying it didn't collapse?