Difference between revisions of "Entangled"
(→Where do We go from Here?) |
(→Where do We go from Here?) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Context== | ==Context== | ||
This characteristic of [[Quantum Mechanics]] was first noted by Schrödinger and Einstein in the early days of the development of Quantum theory.<ref>Anton Zeilinger, ''Dance of the Photons'' p. 243 ISBN 978-0374239664</ref> Very few physicists worried about this until John Bell published a paper defining [[Reality|Local Realism]] in a way that could be tested.<ref>John Bell, ''On the EPR Paradox'' Physics 1 (1964) 195-200 https://journals.aps.org/ppf/pdf/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | This characteristic of [[Quantum Mechanics]] was first noted by Schrödinger and Einstein in the early days of the development of Quantum theory.<ref>Anton Zeilinger, ''Dance of the Photons'' p. 243 ISBN 978-0374239664</ref> Very few physicists worried about this until John Bell published a paper defining [[Reality|Local Realism]] in a way that could be tested.<ref>John Bell, ''On the EPR Paradox'' Physics 1 (1964) 195-200 https://journals.aps.org/ppf/pdf/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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"<ref>Einstein, Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical | ||
| + | Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), | ||
| + | 777-780</ref>. 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.<ref>Aspect, A. , Dalibard, & Roger, G. (1982). Ecperimenlal Test of Bell's | ||
| + | Inequali/ies Using Time-varying Analyzers, Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804-1807. </ref> | ||
==Where do We go from Here?== | ==Where do We go from Here?== | ||
Revision as of 12:14, 12 August 2024
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]
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.[6]
"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.[7] 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.
- ↑ Einstein, Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777-780
- ↑ Aspect, A. , Dalibard, & Roger, G. (1982). Ecperimenlal Test of Bell's Inequali/ies Using Time-varying Analyzers, Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804-1807.
- ↑ 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
