We totally watched this in my science class last year.
And last semester when I had to retake the class because I suck at science.
[QUOTE=Syphen;19952089]Quantum Entanglement...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk[/media]
It's what the illusive man In mass effects 2 Communication device made use of, Or at least that's what EDI said...[/QUOTE]
Except it doesn't work like that.
First point: the particles have to be created together, meaning they have to have the same SOURCE.
Second point: the "do something to it and the other particle will respond" thing works, but has a major flaw:
Reading it is an interaction too.
Every method known to us that "reads" the status of a quantum particle is already an interaction, the most common one probably being the spinflip via magnetic fields.
So technically, to transmit information, you'd have to read the two particles at the SAME TIME and ONLY A COMPARISON of the gathered data could reveal the success or fail of the transport.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING OUT AND YOU CAN'T INFLUENCE THAT EITHER!
[editline]12:22PM[/editline]
ALSO: They are not "entagled" in the common sense.
They share the same wavefunction. That's all. They lose this "entanglement" as soon as they iteract with a different wave function(particle, EM-wave, whatever)
The experiments they did with protons a year ago worked because they used TRILLIONS of photons, shot one after another to two different "scanners"! and only oneor two actually made it through.
Quantum physics is something totally incredible. It totally changes the insight on the world we live in.
[QUOTE=Killuah;19953180]Except it doesn't work like that.
First point: the particles have to be created together, meaning they have to have the same SOURCE.
Second point: the "do something to it and the other particle will respond" thing works, but has a major flaw:
Reading it is an interaction too.
Every method known to us that "reads" the status of a quantum particle is already an interaction, the most common one probably being the spinflip via magnetic fields.
So technically, to transmit information, you'd have to read the two particles at the SAME TIME and ONLY A COMPARISON of the gathered data could reveal the success or fail of the transport.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING OUT AND YOU CAN'T INFLUENCE THAT EITHER!
[editline]12:22PM[/editline]
ALSO: They are not "entagled" in the common sense.
They share the same wavefunction. That's all. They lose this "entanglement" as soon as they iteract with a different wave function(particle, EM-wave, whatever)
The experiments they did with protons a year ago worked because they used TRILLIONS of photons, shot one after another to two different "scanners"! and only oneor two actually made it through.[/QUOTE]
Eh, Dr. Quantum is easier to understand. But, I understood the basic Principal, so you get an informative.
Ugh, I hate Dr. Quantum... He spews so much bullshit.
I guess it's enough for the average layman... but if you're remotely interested in this kinda stuff, you should ignore everything he says and find out what [b]really[/b] happens.
What.
Still, its interesting.
So... it's magic?
Very interesting!
[QUOTE=rieda1589;19955133]Ugh, I hate Dr. Quantum... He spews so much bullshit.
I guess it's enough for the average layman... but if you're remotely interested in this kinda stuff, you should ignore everything he says and find out what [B]really[/B] happens.[/QUOTE]
Well quantum physics for dummies, works better than saying a lot of stuff a average person doesn't know.
Who was it that said if quantum physics doesn't confuse you, you didn't understand it?
Oh lord I love this stuff
Awesome find!
[IMG]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m261/coolcorky/quantum.png[/IMG]
Disrespectful spandex-wearing old man
That deformed my brain a little.
[QUOTE=lorden;19952064]How does an inanimate object know it's being observed?
Crazy shit. :psyboom:[/QUOTE]
An electron is not an inanimate object. An inanimate object lacks movement or signs of life; electrons are very much moving objects.
[QUOTE=Kastralis;19952682]It's not the objects that knows. It's you that knows.[/QUOTE]
I want to be a quantum scientist now.
Another cool thing to look into is the Schrodinger's Cat Experiment.
I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring up that experiment.
[QUOTE=General J;19960672]I want to be a quantum scientist now.[/QUOTE]
Hope you're good at maths.
I bet when they watched the electrons go through the slit they accidentally breathed on it or something
[QUOTE=Neckbeard;19952107][img]http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/jackiechan_confused1.jpg[/img]
That's just so... :bang:[/QUOTE]
no he made it crazy simple
It's interesting learning the physics behind this stuff at A level.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19962443]I bet when they watched the electrons go through the slit they accidentally breathed on it or something[/QUOTE]
Are you implying they watched the electrons with their eyes?
If i'm not mistaken, experiments like this one are done inside vacuums.
I remember seeing this 2 years ago in Physics class.
Didn't understand this shit then and I still don't now.
Science.
Fuck yeah.
I kind of thought that "Double Slit" meant something like "If a person slits both of their wrists, will they die faster?" or something.
But this is cool too.
Old but still interesting
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zl1S4.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=paul simon;19962733]Are you implying they watched the electrons with their eyes?
If i'm not mistaken, experiments like this one are done inside vacuums.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously the suction of the vacuum did something
[editline]04:29PM[/editline]
I'm purposely being an idiot you know
[QUOTE=Killuah;19953180]Except it doesn't work like that.
First point: the particles have to be created together, meaning they have to have the same SOURCE.
Second point: the "do something to it and the other particle will respond" thing works, but has a major flaw:
Reading it is an interaction too.
Every method known to us that "reads" the status of a quantum particle is already an interaction, the most common one probably being the spinflip via magnetic fields.
So technically, to transmit information, you'd have to read the two particles at the SAME TIME and ONLY A COMPARISON of the gathered data could reveal the success or fail of the transport.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING OUT AND YOU CAN'T INFLUENCE THAT EITHER![/QUOTE]
I never really thought of it like that; Just the act of observing both electrons you are transferring the information.
Either you know your field of quantum mechanics...
Or you're one hell of a troll.
I'll go with the first option.
[B]Edit
[/B]Just did a thought experiment:
Let's say two electrons are created together. You observe the spin of one electron while some other nerd on the other side of the world watches the spin of the other electron, so we assume you don't have any contact with the other nerd.
Since there is no transfer of information, there's a chance that the two electrons are spinning in different electrons until the other nerd tells you about the spin of the other electron.
So were the electrons always spinning in the same direction, or did they achieve the same spin when both were observed, OR were they spinning in different directions until the other nerd revealed to you that the other electron was spinning in the same direction?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.