Chinese physicists measure "spooky action at a distance". At least 10.000 times the speed of light. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39894151]Is there a good layman explanation for quantum entanglement out there (that's accurate) or is it one of those things that can't be dumbed down Because even wikipedia has that "10,000 times faster than the speed of light" line in it[/QUOTE] You have two boxes, one has a red ball in in and the other has a blue ball in it. You take a random one and drive a mile away. You look in the box, and see a red ball, and you instantly know that there is a blue ball in the other box. The departure from classical physics you have to keep in mind is that the ball in your box isn't red or blue until you look. You force it to take a stand when you observe it, and so you're actually affecting the other ball from far away.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39894266]You have two boxes, one has a red ball in in and the other has a blue ball in it. You take a random one and drive a mile away. You look in the box, and see a red ball, and you instantly know that there is a blue ball in the other box. The departure from classical physics you have to keep in mind is that the ball in your box isn't red or blue until you look. [B]You force it to take a stand when you observe it,[/B] and so you're actually affecting the other ball from far away.[/QUOTE] I'm going to go on a hunch and guess that's more due to our limited understanding of how things work at the quantum level than physical properties. It just seems unsensible that observing quantum states change it.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39894505]I'm going to go on a hunch and guess that's more due to our limited understanding of how things work at the quantum level than physical properties. It just seems unsensible that observing quantum states change it.[/QUOTE] Please stop. Please.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39894266]You have two boxes, one has a red ball in in and the other has a blue ball in it. You take a random one and drive a mile away. You look in the box, and see a red ball, and you instantly know that there is a blue ball in the other box. The departure from classical physics you have to keep in mind is that the ball in your box isn't red or blue until you look. You force it to take a stand when you observe it, and so you're actually affecting the other ball from far away.[/QUOTE] If someone in the faraway box replaced the blue ball with a red one would yours be blue when you looked? Or are they not entangled or w/e anymore because someone opened the box and fiddled with it?

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39894505]I'm going to go on a hunch and guess that's more due to our limited understanding of how things work at the quantum level than physical properties. It just seems unsensible that observing quantum states change it.[/QUOTE] science isn't always sensible. science is what works, not what is most intuitive.

[QUOTE=Falubii;39894846]Please stop. Please.[/QUOTE] You don't get it. What the Observer Effect basically says is that just because we observe something, the means of which that the object works is changed simply by observing it. If causality states that in order to have an effect, we have to cause something to change. The Observer Effect basically violates causality if we assume that an observation must have no effect when observed and yet still causes a change. Thus, we can conclude that if a change is observed it must have a cause and that every time we observe the object, it changes the object itself. Thus, if we don't know what the state of a particle is until it's observed, we don't know what if it was actually in that state in the first place due to the fact that the math only takes into consideration the observer rather than the fact. What this means is that Quantum Mechanics has more to do with probability and what state a particle could be in rather than what state it actually is in.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39894948]science isn't always sensible. science is what works, not what is most intuitive.[/QUOTE] Contrary to popular belief, science does make sense when you understand it. So if it seems unsensible, then I guess we don't understand it? I think that's what he meant by that. And yeah, if observing means we are changing the state, then it's not observing anymore, is it? Are there any articles about why particles change states and are there any theories/ideas on how to actually observe/check the state without affecting it?

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39895178]Thus, if we don't know what the state of a particle is until it's observed, we don't know what if it was actually in that state in the first place due to the fact that the math only takes into consideration the observer rather than the fact. What this means is that Quantum Mechanics has more to do with probability and what state a particle could be in rather than what state it actually is in.[/QUOTE] No, it's not an artifact of the math. The state of a particle is probabilistic. Bell's theorem shows that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce the observations of quantum mechanics. Either a particle does not actually have a location until a measurement is made, or things have to be able to influence each other faster than light, and the latter contradicts everything we've observed.

this has nothing to do with anything travelling faster than light. Imagine you are standing at the end of a hallway and wave a flashlight around, the circle of light at the other end will be moving faster than how fast you wave your arm around. Thats all this is.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;39896381]this has nothing to do with anything travelling faster than light. Imagine you are standing at the end of a hallway and wave a flashlight around, the circle of light at the other end will be moving faster than how fast you wave your arm around. Thats all this is.[/QUOTE] Uh, no? The distance that your arm travels is less but the speed is same.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39896630]Uh, no? The distance that your arm travels is less but the speed is same.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. The angular speed is the same, but the tangential speed at the end is greater, just as a point on the outside of a merry-go-round is travelling faster than a point at the center. (from a frame of reference off the merry-go-round)

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39891362]Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light. Read the thread before you post.[/QUOTE] The article actually says "faster-than-light communication might be possible with some clever manipulation of entangled particles." which is at least something.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39896642]No it isn't. The angular speed is the same, but the tangential speed at the end is greater, just as a point on the outside of a merry-go-round is travelling faster than a point at the center. (from a frame of reference off the merry-go-round)[/QUOTE] Well yeah, angular is what I meant I guess. For some reason I was thinking from the flashlight perspective, the speed would be the same due to the viewpoint.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;39896936]The article actually says "faster-than-light communication might be possible with some clever manipulation of entangled particles." which is at least something.[/QUOTE] You should still read the thread. It's not as simple as needing clever tricks. It would break down our current ideas. [quote=article]If it turns out that we actually can communicate data via quantum entanglement, we now know that it’ll be much faster than the speed of light[/quote] That's a big "if".

Oh and yeah, I forgot about the point I wanted to make about the article stuff. We can't communicate via quantum entanglement yet as you said because of how quantum mechanics work, but wouldn't changing the particle state be sending the information? Sure, it's meaningless and you can consider it random, but in theory, you are changing the state of the particle so you are sending the info, it's just people on the other end don't know if you did or not, which means information can travel above the FTL speeds. It's like routing UDP packets to null.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39897067]Oh and yeah, I forgot about the point I wanted to make about the article stuff. We can't communicate via quantum entanglement yet as you said because of how quantum mechanics work, but wouldn't changing the particle state be sending the information? Sure, it's meaningless and you can consider it random, but in theory, you are changing the state of the particle so you are sending the info, it's just people on the other end don't know if you did or not, which means information can travel above the FTL speeds. It's like routing UDP packets to null.[/QUOTE] You don't choose the state of the particle. You just measure it. [QUOTE=Block;39888471]Take two boxes. Put an apple in one, a banana in the other. Shuffle the boxes. Take them really far apart, as far as you want. When you open a box and find out it's contents, you instantly know the contents of the other box as well. The knowledge of the fruit-state of both boxes comes in an instant but no instant transmission of classical information has taken place[/QUOTE] And like JohnyMo1 said, the difference to classical physics is that the state isn't actually defined until it's been measured. You still don't get to decide what state the particle turns out to be. It's a pure statistical chance. Another example from Wikipedia [QUOTE]An example of entanglement occurs when subatomic particles decay into other particles. These decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, pairs of particles can be generated so that they are in some specific quantum states. For instance, a pair of these particles may be generated having a two-state spin: one must be spin up and the other must be spin down. This type of entangled pair, where the particles always have opposite spin, is known as the spin anti-correlated case, and if the probabilities for measuring each spin are equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state. If each of two hypothetical experimenters, Alice and Bob, has one of the particles that form an entangled pair, and Alice measures the spin of her particle, the measurement will be [B]entirely unpredictable[/B], with a 50% probability of the spin being up or down. But if Bob subsequently measures the spin of his particle, the measurement will be entirely predictable―always opposite to Alice's, hence perfectly anti-correlated.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not saying you can choose the state, only that by measuring it you are changing it and thus transmitting information. Like if some sort of alien life form would be able to measure/observe the particles without affecting them, they could see that we touch quantum particles at night. Isn't this correct?

[QUOTE=maqzek;39897270]Yeah, I'm not saying you can choose the state, only that by measuring it you are changing it and thus transmitting information.[/QUOTE] What information? It's purely statistical. Think about the box analogy. Surely you wouldn't be able to pass information like that. [QUOTE=maqzek;39897270]Like if some sort of alien life form would be able to measure/observe the particles without affecting them, they could see that we touch quantum particles at night. Isn't this correct?[/QUOTE] Might as well be saying "It could work with magic!" again. The whole idea of measuring something is to interact with it in a way that the result of that interaction will determine the measured value. In classical physics, this effect is so minimal compared to the result that it doesn't usually matter. Doesn't work in quantum systems. You can't just take a magical looking glass and peek at an electron to see what spin state it has. When you measure the spin, you'll only get "spin up" or "spin down", while left unmeasured it can be a mix of these states. If it's a mixed state, it'll have a probability x to be measured up and probability y to be measured down. Once you measure it, you have collapsed the state into either up or down and affected the system. EDIT Read this for more [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)[/url]

[QUOTE=Block;39897367]What information? It's purely statistical. Think about the box analogy. Surely you wouldn't be able to pass information like that. Might as well be saying "It could work with magic!" again. The whole idea of measuring something is to interact with it in a way that the result of that interaction will determine the measured value. In classical physics, this effect is so minimal compared to the result that it doesn't usually matter. Doesn't work in quantum systems. You can't just take a magical looking glass and peek at an electron to see what spin state it has. When you measure the spin, you'll only get "spin up" or "spin down", while left unmeasured it can be a mix of these states. If it's a mixed state, it'll have a probability x to be measured up and probability y to be measured down. Once you measure it, you have collapsed the state into either up or down and affected the system. EDIT Read this for more [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, I get the observer effect, but that's the point I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm not understanding the entanglement itself, but changing one particle affects the other one, right? What is changed isn't important, just the change itself. So using this logic, you can affect something somewhere faster than the light can get there. The measurement is important on the receiving end. Basically a microphone bug that you aren't aware of but is there and is sending information, even without us 'directly' affecting it. I'm heading off to bed, but if you have any other links to explain this in a bit less dense than science research paper format, I'd be happy to read.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39897451]Yeah, I get the observer effect, but that's the point I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm not understanding the entanglement itself, but changing one particle affects the other one, right? What is changed isn't important, just the change itself. So using this logic, you can affect something somewhere faster than the light can get there. The measurement is important on the receiving end. Basically a microphone bug that you aren't aware of but is there and is sending information, even without us 'directly' affecting it. I'm heading off to bed, but if you have any other links to explain this in a bit less dense than science research paper format, I'd be happy to read.[/QUOTE] Again, think about the boxes and the fruit. You don't get to choose what fruit you get because you shuffled the boxes. Once you open your box and find a banana, you know the apple is in the other box. It doesn't matter if you replace the banana with an apple now, the apple at the other end will stay there. When the boxes are left unopened, the fruit-state is unknown. In classical physics, it would be a hidden variable, as in the fruit already is one or the other, we just don't know it yet. In quantum mechanics, it's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem"]truly an unknown[/URL], a mix of both states. Once you open the box and you find out you have a banana in the box, surely you don't think "I made the banana appear in the other box!". It was just the logical conclusion from the starting conditions. In the same way, say you have a hypothetical process that splits a particle into two electrons of up and down spin. As long as you don't have an observer measuring the spin (keeping the spin irrelevant), it'll stay as a mixed state. But when you observe one, the other spin has to be of the opposite or you're breaking conservation laws (since we know that the particle breaks down into two electrons of opposite spins) It's hard to try and explain this stuff in layman's terms because it's not layman's stuff. It doesn't work like the normal everyday world does. Hopefully I haven't made too many mistakes, my QM is rusty.

OMG, holly crap __________________________________________________________ [url=http://www.mmoggg.de/]Buy Wow Gold[/url]|[url=http://www.cheapd3gold.com/]Diablo 3 Gold[/url]|[url=http://www.cheapd3gold.com/]Cheap Diablo 3 Gold[/url]| [url=http://www.cheapd3gold.com/]Buy Diablo 3 Gold[/url] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spam" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=PelPix123;39891921]You know, you theoretically could solve Relativity's problem with quantum entanglement by considering that perhaps two entangled particles are in the same location in certain ways and only appear in fully different locations in our limited perception.[/QUOTE] Isn't this what the theory that states our reality is nothing but a simulation is based on? Much like how a program can have two different characters that are simulated to be miles apart, but in essence, both characters are simulated in the same place by your computer. Pseudoscience is best science. Edit: Ignore the spambot.

[QUOTE=Wadetoms;39897591]removed[/QUOTE] Ummm, what's that crap? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("When you quote spambots, you are helping them spread their shit." - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=download;39886620]I don't think you have any clue about this. You can't change the quantum state of something, it just happens randomly. Doing something non-quantum to it won't be transmitted by entanglement. We need a physics major here[/QUOTE] I never really stated that I know shit about quantum state, all I said is if you can mark a pattern you can use it as data. That's how language works, that's how morse-code works, that's how your computers and a lot more work.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39894874]If someone in the faraway box replaced the blue ball with a red one would yours be blue when you looked? Or are they not entangled or w/e anymore because someone opened the box and fiddled with it?[/QUOTE] Yeah, because they "measured" the other ball they'd collapse the state such that your ball would be fixed.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;39886433]-1000 ping[/QUOTE] hold on guys im anti-lagging really bad. im doing shit before i knew i was going to do it

Wouldn't that also mean you would know who will be where and what he will be doing? Internet Game Jedi

So if two particles are entangled and you do stuff to one of them what happens to the other one?

[QUOTE=Kybalt;39901558]So if two particles are entangled and you do stuff to one of them what happens to the other one?[/QUOTE] Something we can predict e.g. you measure one to have spin up and you immediately force the other to be spin down.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889429]So instead let's discuss how this is impossible because of law #4983? Isn't this equally stupid? The fun is talking about how it COULD be possible and leave actual science and theory testing to real scientists.[/QUOTE] A++ scientific method