Record quantum entanglement of multiple dimensions: Two Schrödinger cats which could be alive, dead, - Polidicks

I bet this has to do with that quantum theory that guy posted in General Discussion yesterday

[QUOTE=Saturn V;44383393] is it even possible to understand quantum physics?[/QUOTE] Here's a quote by Richard Feynman [quote]There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.[/quote] [url]http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/general/feynman.html[/url]

Maybe it was God you guys

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)[/url] Didn't the subscribers to the E8 theory or whatever say there would be 240 dimensions and not a single one more? Sorry if I'm terribly confused here, but it would be so interesting to see them hit a hard limit of entanglement at 240 dimensions. I really don't understand anything, I just remember hearing this guy talk about e8 and 240 dimensions, is this even in the same kind of thing? it's this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything[/url] that im talking about.

Okay lemme get this straight, can this be done with one photon? Or does it need 2? If it [I]needs[/I] 2 photons, then why? Would it work like, one photon sort of "distorts" the other, and the many different "distortions" are the 101 other states. [I]orrr[/I], I could be completely wrong, which is cool too.

johnnymo is reading the thread prepare your brains

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44385173][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)[/url] Didn't the subscribers to the E8 theory or whatever say there would be 240 dimensions and not a single one more? Sorry if I'm terribly confused here, but it would be so interesting to see them hit a hard limit of entanglement at 240 dimensions. I really don't understand anything, I just remember hearing this guy talk about e8 and 240 dimensions, is this even in the same kind of thing? it's this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything[/url] that im talking about.[/QUOTE] [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/E8Petrie.svg/180px-E8Petrie.svg.png[/img] ?????????????????????????

Maybe we can summon him by saying his name three times? JohnnyMo1 JohnnyMo1 JohnnyMo1

Too much science. Johnny help!

What do they mean when they say 'quantum entanglement in n dimensions'?

[QUOTE=yellowoboe;44385996]Too much science. Johnny help![/QUOTE] Wait my child; the green emperor shall soon bequeath the knowledge to you.

what the hell is a schrodingers cat anyway

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44386032]Wait my child; the green emperor shall soon bequeath the knowledge to you.[/QUOTE] my brain is not ready

[QUOTE=Tasm;44386092]my brain is not ready[/QUOTE]we mortals cannot comprehend the purest form of science

[QUOTE=Krinkels;44386028]What do they mean when they say 'quantum entanglement in n dimensions'?[/QUOTE] The only way I can really explain what I think it means is with the following example. X, Y, and Z are commonly known dimensions used on graphs - Each dimension can be used to ascertain one detail about the location of the coordinate or object within the space. Because of the strange and almost absurd behavior of particles when unobserved, they are believed to exist in all of their possible states simultaneously. Each state is measurable on the XYZ axis, and if they have it existing in n states simultaneously, that means there are an equal number of sets of coordinates that they can get data from. If we can control the pattern of states exhibited in a meaningful way, it would allow us to encode what they call high density data - imagine 100 streams of code being processed at near instantaneous rates - rather than a single 'dimension' entanglement, which only allows the transmission of one stream of data or information. This is all of course to be taken as highly metaphorical given I haven't studied much on quantum mechanics or any of the involved theories.

[QUOTE=Krinkels;44386028]What do they mean when they say 'quantum entanglement in n dimensions'?[/QUOTE] The use of the word dimension is pretty confusing here. As far as I can tell it's the dimensionality of the state space, but all it really means is we have two photons in a superposition of 103 different places and measuring one tells you where the other is.

He has spoken.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44385173][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)[/url] Didn't the subscribers to the E8 theory or whatever say there would be 240 dimensions and not a single one more? Sorry if I'm terribly confused here, but it would be so interesting to see them hit a hard limit of entanglement at 240 dimensions. I really don't understand anything, I just remember hearing this guy talk about e8 and 240 dimensions, is this even in the same kind of thing? it's this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything[/url] that im talking about.[/QUOTE] These dimensions and those dimensions are unrelated. E8 is a symmetry group, and having 248 dimensions basically means the theory has 248 possible symmetries. [editline]28th March 2014[/editline] To be clear, neither in the article posted nor in the E8 theory does "dimension" refer to the number of dimensions we live in, like "three space directions and time."

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44386208]The use of the word dimension is pretty confusing here. As far as I can tell it's the dimensionality of the state space, but all it really means is we have two photons in a superposition of 103 different places and measuring one tells you where the other is.[/QUOTE] how even would a function like that work

JohnnyMo you can tell me how accurate this is but, Imagine you have a USB extension cord. A USB plug has four sides and one pin, and the plug can only be inserted either correctly or upside down (ignoring trying to plug the thing in sideways, because it doesn't look the same anymore when you try). Now, we don't know whether the USB is going in the right way until we either look at, try plugging it in or otherwise observe it. However, assuming the pin on the other end of the cord is on the same side of the plug, we instantly know whether or not we're plugging THAT side in correctly because we observed the other side. Now imagine the same problem with a plug with 103 sides and one pin. We can assume that a plug with so many sides would essentially be circular, and therefore it would look exactly the same in all 103 possible ways to plug it in. Essentially, there are 102 ways to plug it in wrong and the only way to find out which one you're doing is observing the plug itself.

[QUOTE=exhale77;44386260]He has spoken.[/QUOTE] And yet no one understands still :v:

Y'know It would've been hilarious if JohnnyMo came in and just said "i have no fuckin clue man."

ill explain let me consult my abacus real quick

[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;44388909]JohnnyMo you can tell me how accurate this is but, Imagine you have a USB extension cord. A USB plug has four sides and one pin, and the plug can only be inserted either correctly or upside down (ignoring trying to plug the thing in sideways, because it doesn't look the same anymore when you try). Now, we don't know whether the USB is going in the right way until we either look at, try plugging it in or otherwise observe it. However, assuming the pin on the other end of the cord is on the same side of the plug, we instantly know whether or not we're plugging THAT side in correctly because we observed the other side. Now imagine the same problem with a plug with 103 sides and one pin. We can assume that a plug with so many sides would essentially be circular, and therefore it would look exactly the same in all 103 possible ways to plug it in. Essentially, there are 102 ways to plug it in wrong and the only way to find out which one you're doing is observing the plug itself.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kYGTLjc.png[/IMG] i would think that you're on the right track, but i'm not sure if you can equate the situation in that way

[QUOTE=Prez;44389192][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kYGTLjc.png[/IMG] i would think that you're on the right track, but i'm not sure if you can equate the situation in that way[/QUOTE] That picture is a joke I think, but I love how true it seems sometimes :v: You can't really say state x is wrong and state y is right with quants, as long as you don't want to do anything with it. The cat can be dead or alive under the box, and you'll only find out once you look. However, if you don't plan to keep the cat afterwards, it doesn't really matter in what state it is. The cat hereby has two states, while the particles here have 103 states. Could be very useful for computation technology. Afaik, two entangled particles can be extremely far away from each other, but once you change the state of the first, the second changes too. This could allow the transfer of signals to be almost instantaneous, faster than glass fibre cable.

Schrodingers cat is a terrible way to explain QM - itsnonly meant to represent that the microscopic effects of QM can have macroscopic consequences. Personally I think the idea that positrons and other antiparticles can be considered as electrons and other particles going backwards in time. However this brings up this CPT violation issue that not all processess can be considered "reversed" with time and is a theory as to why theres so much matter in the universe compared to antimatter. The article is misleading, I cant really understand why they can put photons into entanglement and from that derive 104 states. Other atoms, sure, just not photons. I think its just an improvement as to the accuracy quantum equipment can change ( and read) a state. Pilotguy, you've kind of got the right idea but its not whats happening in this case. Youre talkng about the collapsing of a wave function. Its why the electron double slit experiment changes depending on wether you observe it or not. As you may know, electrons can be considered waves as well as particles. Due to their nature though, we can't determine exactly where they are or exactly where they are going due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle ( change in momentum * change in position <= h bar / 2) . Because of this, there is a sort of 'probability cloud' of where the electron could be. Because of this, a SINGLE electron going through 2 slits of appropriate size can interfere with itself because of this probability cloud ( the single electron goes through both slits ) , which is why you get an interference pattern past the slits. If you observe the electron , you collapse the probability cloud as you have now determined exactly which slit the electron goes through, which causes a bright spot past the slit, rather than am interference pattern. Sounds crazy, but remember to observe the electron you have to do something to it to see it; hitting it with photons or other electrons can alter or reduce the wavefunction of the electron - collapsing the wavefunction.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44389529]That picture is a joke I think, but I love how true it seems sometimes :v: You can't really say state x is wrong and state y is right with quants, as long as you don't want to do anything with it. The cat can be dead or alive under the box, and you'll only find out once you look. However, if you don't plan to keep the cat afterwards, it doesn't really matter in what state it is. The cat hereby has two states, while the particles here have 103 states. Could be very useful for computation technology. Afaik, two entangled particles can be extremely far away from each other, but once you change the state of the first, the second changes too. This could allow the transfer of signals to be almost instantaneous, faster than glass fibre cable.[/QUOTE] It conforms to the speed of light though, so the information transfer could not be at the speed of light (although it could possibly reach a very close speed). edit: actually that's not entirely true, nevermind.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44389121]And yet no one understands still :v:[/QUOTE] QM, as we see it currently, is not at all intuitive and our understanding is very incomplete.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44389529] Could be very useful for computation technology. Afaik, two entangled particles can be extremely far away from each other, but once you change the state of the first, the second changes too. This could allow the transfer of signals to be almost instantaneous, faster than glass fibre cable.[/QUOTE] There's no way to transfer information between two entangled particles. At least not with our understanding and the math and science that we have now.

my physics teacher studied quantum entanglement for his masters degree, and i could be wrong, but i think i remember him saying to understand entanglement, you would need to understand spin. and to understand spin, johnnymo would need spend the next couple of hours explaining physics on an internet forum [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] correct me if i'm wrong, i'm only doing physics at AS level currently