Difference between revisions of "Entangled"
(→Mathematical View) |
(→Mathematical View) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Mathematical View== | ==Mathematical View== | ||
Hilbert and his minions, including John von Newuman, all held that view that any basic truth must be based on elegant mathematics. Hilbert would reiterate this theme often. in response to Frege's objection to his idea of implicitly defining the primitive terms of geometry by providing a system of axioms for them, Hilbert wrote: <ref>Michael Detlefsen ''Hilbert's Formalism'' JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/23951195 </ref> | Hilbert and his minions, including John von Newuman, all held that view that any basic truth must be based on elegant mathematics. Hilbert would reiterate this theme often. in response to Frege's objection to his idea of implicitly defining the primitive terms of geometry by providing a system of axioms for them, Hilbert wrote: <ref>Michael Detlefsen ''Hilbert's Formalism'' JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/23951195 </ref> | ||
| − | <blockquote>...it is surely obvious that every theory is only a scaffolding or schema of concepts together with their necessary relations to one another, and that the basic elements can be thought of in any way one likes. If in | + | <blockquote>...it is surely obvious that every theory is only a scaffolding or schema of concepts together with their necessary relations to one another, and that the basic elements can be thought of in any way one likes. If in speaking of my points I think of some system of things. e.g. the system: love, law, chimney sweep and then assume all my axioms as relations between these things, then my propositions, e.g. Pythagoras' theorem, are also valid for these things. In other words: any theory can always be applied to infinitely many systems of basic elements. One only needs to apply a reversible one-one transformation and lay it down that the axioms shall be correspondingly the same for the transformed things- This circumstance is in fact frequently made use of. e.g. in the principle of duality, etc. All the statements of the theory of electricity are of course also valid for any other system of things which is substituted for the concepts magnetism, electricity ...provided only that the requisite axioms are satisfied. </blockquote> |
| − | speaking of my points I think of some system of things. e.g. the system | ||
==Alternate Views== | ==Alternate Views== | ||
Revision as of 14:56, 15 January 2025
Contents
Full Title or Meme
When two or more subatomic particles have a shared set of future attributes, they are consider to be Entangled.
Context
This characteristic of Quantum Mechanics was first noted by Schrödinger and Einstein in the early days of the development of Quantum theory.[1] Very few physicists worried about this until John Bell published a paper defining Local Realism in a way that could be tested.[2] Many scientists (and philosophers) have tested the concept of Local Realism, since it appears to be required by relativity, but is is quite clear now that it is a theory that has been conclusively falsified. This does, if fact, prove that quantum mechanics, as understood in the early years, is incomplete. Which is what Einstein claimed in the EPR paper.[3]
EPR Paradox
Quantum entanglement, a phenomenon where two or more particles become correlated in such a way that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of another, regardless of the distance between them, has been a subject Of intense study since the early 20th century. Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen famously challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics with their EPR paradox, suggesting that quantum entanglement could imply "spooky action at a distance"[4]. Subsequent experimental work, such as the Bell test experiments conducted by Alain Aspect and colleagues in the 1 980s, confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out local hidden variable theories and cementing the reality of quantum entanglement.[5]
Problems
A team of four researchers has proved that entanglement doesn’t just weaken as temperature increases. Rather, in mathematical models of quantum systems such as the arrays of atoms in physical materials, there’s always a specific temperature above which it vanishes completely. “It’s not just that it’s exponentially small,” said Ankur Moitra of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the authors of the new result. “It’s zero.” Researchers had previously observed hints of this behavior and dubbed it the “sudden death(opens a new tab)” of entanglement. But their evidence has always been indirect. The new finding, by contrast, has the force of a mathematical proof. It establishes the absence of entanglement in a much more comprehensive and rigorous way. The team made their discovery while exploring the theoretical capabilities of future quantum computers — machines that will exploit quantum behavior, including entanglement and superposition, to perform certain calculations far faster than the conventional computers we know today.. The team made their discovery while exploring the theoretical capabilities of future quantum computers — machines that will exploit quantum behavior, including entanglement and superposition, to perform certain calculations far faster than the conventional computers we know today. [6]
Mathematical View
Hilbert and his minions, including John von Newuman, all held that view that any basic truth must be based on elegant mathematics. Hilbert would reiterate this theme often. in response to Frege's objection to his idea of implicitly defining the primitive terms of geometry by providing a system of axioms for them, Hilbert wrote: [7]
...it is surely obvious that every theory is only a scaffolding or schema of concepts together with their necessary relations to one another, and that the basic elements can be thought of in any way one likes. If in speaking of my points I think of some system of things. e.g. the system: love, law, chimney sweep and then assume all my axioms as relations between these things, then my propositions, e.g. Pythagoras' theorem, are also valid for these things. In other words: any theory can always be applied to infinitely many systems of basic elements. One only needs to apply a reversible one-one transformation and lay it down that the axioms shall be correspondingly the same for the transformed things- This circumstance is in fact frequently made use of. e.g. in the principle of duality, etc. All the statements of the theory of electricity are of course also valid for any other system of things which is substituted for the concepts magnetism, electricity ...provided only that the requisite axioms are satisfied.
Alternate Views
De Broglie-Bohm Theory
AKA thePilot-Wave Theory This interpretation suggests that particles have definite positions and velocities, guided by a "pilot wave." In this view, entanglement arises from the non-local connections between particles and their guiding waves. This theory provides a deterministic explanation of quantum phenomena, contrasting with the probabilistic nature of standard quantum mechanics.
Many-Worlds Interpretation
Proposed by Hugh Everett, this interpretation posits that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually occur, each in a separate, branching universe. In this view, entanglement is a result of the branching of the universe into multiple, non-communicating realities. Each measurement outcome corresponds to a different branch, and the entangled particles exist in a superposition across these branches.
Relational Quantum Mechanics
This interpretation, proposed by Carlo Rovelli, suggests that the properties of quantum systems are relative to the observer. In this view, entanglement is a manifestation of the relational nature of quantum states, where the properties of particles are defined by their interactions with other systems, including observers.
Quantum Bayesianism (QBism)
This interpretation, developed by Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack, views quantum states as representing an observer's subjective knowledge or beliefs about a system, rather than objective reality. In this view, entanglement reflects the correlations in the observer's knowledge about the outcomes of measurements on entangled particles.
Where do We go from Here?
While the future attributes of Entangled particles is shared, that does not at all mean that the values of these attributes can be known in advance. In fact, QM actually states that only the probability of the outcome of any measurement can be known in advance.[8]
"Observing the violation of Bell’s inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. These quantum correlations seem to appear somehow from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space and time that explains them,” says Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.[9] So we seem to be left with the obvious question, which came first: Space-Time or Entanglement?
Non-Locality and Outside Space-Time
- Quantum correlations defy our classical understanding of causality and locality.
- When Alice and Bob’s entangled particles communicate instantaneously, it’s as if information travels outside the usual bounds of space and time.
- However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that information is violating the cosmic speed limit—it’s more about our perception of space and time.
Quantum Information and Spacetime Emergence
Some theories propose that spacetime itself emerges from underlying quantum information.
- In this view, entanglement and quantum correlations are fundamental, and spacetime arises as a consequence.
- Think of spacetime as a cosmic dance floor where particles tango, and entanglement is their intricate choreography.
References
- ↑ Anton Zeilinger, Dance of the Photons p. 243 ISBN 978-0374239664
- ↑ John Bell, On the EPR Paradox Physics 1 (1964) 195-200 https://journals.aps.org/ppf/pdf/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195
- ↑ APS News, Einstein and the EPR Paradox https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200511/history.cfm#:~:text=In%20a%201935%20paper%2C%20Einstein%2C%20Boris%20Podolsky%20and,demonstrate%20the%20innate%20conceptual%20difficulties%20of%20quantum%20theory.
- ↑ A, Einstein, B, Podolsky & N. Rosen, (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777-780
- ↑ Aspect, A. , Dalibard, & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-varying Analyzers Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804-1807
- ↑ Ben Brubaker, Computer Scientists Prove That Heat Destroys Quantum Entanglement 2024-08-28 https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-prove-that-heat-destroys-entanglement-20240828/?mc_cid=94caee8978&mc_eid=ffe1625684
- ↑ Michael Detlefsen Hilbert's Formalism JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/23951195
- ↑ Michael Brooks, How quantum entanglement really works and why we accept its weirdness New Scientist (2024-05-22) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26234921-800-how-quantum-entanglement-really-works-and-why-we-accept-its-weirdness/
- ↑ Nicolas Gisin, Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and ”no many-worlds” https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1011.3440
