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

[QUOTE=Swebonny;44390066]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.[/QUOTE] Isn't it like you actually can do that, but it brakes entanglment/particles themselves?

[QUOTE=WhyNott;44390189]Isn't it like you actually can do that, but it brakes entanglment/particles themselves?[/QUOTE] Measurement breaks entanglement, you know know the state of the particle you measured, you therefore know the state of the other particle.

[QUOTE=lifehole;44389142]Y'know It would've been hilarious if JohnnyMo came in and just said "i have no fuckin clue man."[/QUOTE] I almost did because the article and paper are kinda bad. Pretty much zero indication of how he's using "dimension." I had to look for discussion of it elsewhere first.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44390410]I almost did because the article and paper are kinda bad. Pretty much zero indication of how he's using "dimension." I had to look for discussion of it elsewhere first.[/QUOTE] Slightly off topic; you've gotta help me, man. I've got a short lit review due on April 15th about cuprate (mainly YBCO) superconductors and every fucking paper I open is full of very technical jargon that's going over my fucking head. Pointers? How can I best refine my searches?

[QUOTE=WhyNott;44390189]Isn't it like you actually can do that, but it brakes entanglment/particles themselves?[/QUOTE] No, you cannot send information via entanglement. The reason is that it's impossible to copy a quantum state exactly without altering it, but copying it is the only way information could be sent. Let's say Alice has particle A and Bob has particle B and they're entangled. The particle's spin can either be up or down and if Alice measures up, it means Bob has spin down and vice versa. So before the experiment, Bob says, "Measure your particle at noon. If I have measured my particle already when you measure yours, that's a 1. If I haven't that's a zero." So they can send each other messages in binary. So Alice measures her particle at noon and finds it's spin up. But wait, how does she know if it's been measured? There's a 50 percent chance it's in either state. To figure out if it's been measured, she has to go ask Bob, so information hasn't gotten anywhere faster than light. If she could clone the particle a bunch of times right after noon and measure all the clones, she could be pretty sure whether it's been measured already, (a bunch of spin ups or half and half if it hasn't been measured yet) but quantum mechanics doesn't allow that. [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;44390443]Slightly off topic; you've gotta help me, man. I've got a short lit review due on April 15th about cuprate (mainly YBCO) superconductors and every fucking paper I open is full of very technical jargon that's going over my fucking head. Pointers? How can I best refine my searches?[/QUOTE] It's not really anything I've studied so I can't point you to specific sources. Best way I find is to find some nontechnical explanations like wikipedia to learn the jargon from and then go back and try to understand the papers. Also pick up some textbooks on the subject and hunt for the words you don't understand. You don't need to be able to do every calculation to be able to figure out what they're jabbering about. Keep at it, figuring out what the fuck a paper is saying is pretty much the most useful skill. Besides maybe being able to write a coherent paper.

Quantum physics scares me

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;44390601]Quantum physics scares me[/QUOTE] It should.

It doesn't scare me because of Limbo and Darkland Funsies.

''In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and a vial of poison in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive". And the point being that that is how scientific theory works. You don't know if the theory is right or wrong until it is tested and proved.'' [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Schrodingers_cat.svg/800px-Schrodingers_cat.svg.png[/IMG] ''Physics can be divided into two types; classic physics and quantum mechanics. Classic physics explains most physical interactions, like why a ball bounces when it drops. It can also be used to predict physical interactions, like what will happen when you drop a ball. However, there are some physical interactions which it does not explain; for instance, how light can be turned into electricity. Quantum mechanics provides a way for physicists to explain why these things happen.'' ''The Copenhagen interpretation is used to explain what is happening to the smallest part of an atom (a sub atomic particle) without looking at it (observing it or measuring it). Mathematics are used to show how likely something is to happen to the particle. A particle could be described as being 50% likely to be in one place at one time, or 30% likely to be in one place at another time. This could also be expressed as a chart (or wave form). This is very convenient when making quantum physics calculations.'' ''However the only way to be 100% sure of where a particle is is to observe it. Up until the point that you observe it, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that the particle is there and is not there. It is only when you observe the particle that you know if it's there or not there.''

[QUOTE=Supermatic200;44390683]''In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and a vial of poison in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive". And the point being that that is how scientific theory works. You don't know if the theory is right or wrong until it is tested and proved.'' [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Schrodingers_cat.svg/800px-Schrodingers_cat.svg.png[/IMG] ''Physics can be divided into two types; classic physics and quantum mechanics. Classic physics explains most physical interactions, like why a ball bounces when it drops. It can also be used to predict physical interactions, like what will happen when you drop a ball. However, there are some physical interactions which it does not explain; for instance, how light can be turned into electricity. Quantum mechanics provides a way for physicists to explain why these things happen.'' ''The Copenhagen interpretation is used to explain what is happening to the smallest part of an atom (a sub atomic particle) without looking at it (observing it or measuring it). Mathematics are used to show how likely something is to happen to the particle. A particle could be described as being 50% likely to be in one place at one time, or 30% likely to be in one place at another time. This could also be expressed as a chart (or wave form). This is very convenient when making quantum physics calculations.'' ''However the only way to be 100% sure of where a particle is is to observe it. Up until the point that you observe it, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that the particle is there and is not there. It is only when you observe the particle that you know if it's there or not there.''[/QUOTE] This is highly inaccurate.

Here's a video which I think describes the whole "Schrödinger's cat" problem well: [video=youtube;d1tn56vWU_g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1tn56vWU_g[/video]

Ahaha, I thought the whole Schrödinger's cat thing was based on logic instead of quantum mechanics. Probably because the only explanation I ever got was "You don't know if it's dead until you look in the box"

Didn't Schrodinger come up with the cat in a box thing as a metaphor to explain a perceived flaw in quantum mechanics And now people use it as evidence of the opposite for whatever reason

The real question here is: why the fuck does Schrodinger have so many cats?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44392049]Didn't Schrodinger come up with the cat in a box thing as a metaphor to explain a perceived flaw in quantum mechanics And now people use it as evidence of the opposite for whatever reason[/QUOTE] Yes. It was like, "Look what happens when you try to apply this quantum mechanics logic to the real world, it makes no sense!" Now it's kind of used as, "This is what is going on in quantum mechanics, explained with silly kitties. Replace the silly kitty with a subatomic particle and that's pretty much quantum mechanics."

[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;44392430]The real question here is: why the fuck does Schrodinger have so many cats?[/QUOTE] Because Pavlov took all the dogs.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;44383347]explain [editline]28th March 2014[/editline] in small words[/QUOTE] long big science words lots of braingohurthurt math