Another experiment in quantum entanglement

[shirgall]

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21676733-one-weirdest-bits-physics-proved-beyond-doubt-almost-hidden-no-more

 

 

Ronald Hanson of the University of Delft and his colleagues, writing in Nature, describe an experiment that starts with two electrons in laboratories separated by more than a kilometre. Each emits a photon that travels down a fibre to a third lab, where the two photons are entangled. That, in turn, entangles the electrons that generated the photons. The consequence is easily measured particles (the electrons) separated by a distance that precludes any shifty hidden-variable signalling.

 

Over 18 days, the team measured how correlated the electron measurements were. Perhaps expectedly, yet also oddly, they were far more so than chance would allow—proving quantum mechanics is as weird as Einstein had feared.

 

Though this experiment marks an end to hidden variables, Dr Hanson says it is also a beginning: that of unassailably secure, quantum-enabled cryptography. It was shown in 1991 that the very Bell tests used to probe hidden variables could also serve as a check on quantum cryptography. A loophole-free Bell test, then, could unfailingly reveal if a hacker had interfered with the fundamentally random, quantum business of generating a cryptographic key. So-called device-independent quantum ciphers would, Dr Hanson says, be secure from hackers “even if you don’t trust your own equipment—even if it’s been given to you by the NSA”.

 

I will not quote the last paragraph of the article as it mockingly violates the forum rules.

[A4E]

I was gobbling up information about this and the double slit experiment for a period. The double slit experiment is at the top of interesting things for me.

 

The overwhelming evidence, and also near infinite probability, suggests that we are part of a simulation. And also that the simulation we are a part of could also be within a simulation of its own, and so on...

 

Following this notion, being born in the one true mother universe, (if there is only one), would be equally probable as Barrack Obama admitting that he is partaking in training ISIL forces, and being sceptical to his own involvement in creating this proxy army, but openly asking congress to give him more authority and resources to train those fighters...  Wait... maybe we are in the true mother universe after all.

[Mister Mister]

_{I don't understand what it means to measure "electrons" in a laboratory...what is actually physically going on from a layman's POV?}

[shirgall]

_{I don't understand what it means to measure "electrons" in a laboratory...what is actually physically going on from a layman's POV?}

 

I'm not sure exactly, but... basically, moving electrons from energy level to a higher level requires an amount of energy. Moving from a higher level to a lower level emits that energy. These transactions are in quanta called photons, and those little buggers are responsible for light and other forms of energy. You can figure out where electrons are by firing photons into an atom. If it's absorbed at a certain energy level and not another, you can tell where the electron was. By entangling these two atoms, they managed to get them both at the same energy level without knowing what that level was in advance. I'm glossing over a ton of stuff here, but that's my attempt at a simple description.

[drax666]

I think from my research of qauntam physics and the provable fact that we are merely some one else Sims game. That we are selves will soon create powerful enough computers to creat our own indivual sims game with sentient beings.  This process will continue infinitely and perhaps our consciousness continues forever in this way.

[rosencrantz]

I think from my research of qauntam physics and the provable fact that we are merely some one else Sims game. 

 

How does that follow from QM and what research have you done?

[bitcoin]

I think from my research of qauntam physics and the provable fact that we are merely some one else Sims game. That we are selves will soon create powerful enough computers to creat our own indivual sims game with sentient beings.  This process will continue infinitely and perhaps our consciousness continues forever in this way.

Lmfao. This is probably the funniest thing I have ever read. And I have no idea how serious you are.

[sb23rd]

This subject has always had my interest even years back when I was a broken soul lost in the wilderness slowly on my path to philosophy. Since I'm the self elected leader of the laymen, I'm interested in the more learned view of those here on this vid I came across whilst researching QM. I'm unsure of the maths but his arguments appear solid. It's interesting how the wave particle duality (apparently) is aether by another name. Has anyone here read a book called 'The Secret of Light' by Walter Russell? I'm an atheist and cautious of New Age wisdom and the book had some interesting theories.

 

Actually I may even have stumbled upon this vid when I was lurking this forum.

 

 

[A4E]

 

That video changed my view on black holes as well many years ago. It was never explained to me how black holes worked logically / rationally, so it makes sense that it is probably incorrect, just like dark energy and dark matter. Those theories primary goal seem to have been to back up the preexisting theories of the universe (like the black hole theory).

 

I understand that it can be helpful to make theories, and that I too might have problems making any good theories, but I think emotional investment and other issues with science, is just as prevalent in the cosmology field.

 

 

I posted that video on an ordinary forum many years ago, asking if someone related to the field could debunk him so that I could perhaps go back to believing in the black hole. One such poster wrote "It is easy for an educated person to see what mistakes he is making, but it would take too long to explain them."

[Guest Gee]

This subject has always had my interest even years back when I was a broken soul lost in the wilderness slowly on my path to philosophy. Since I'm the self elected leader of the laymen, I'm interested in the more learned view of those here on this vid I came across whilst researching QM. I'm unsure of the maths but his arguments appear solid. It's interesting how the wave particle duality (apparently) is aether by another name. Has anyone here read a book called 'The Secret of Light' by Walter Russell? I'm an atheist and cautious of New Age wisdom and the book had some interesting theories.

 

Actually I may even have stumbled upon this vid when I was lurking this forum.

 

 

 

Refutation of Crothers by nobel laureatee, Gerard Hooft.

 

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

 

G x

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I think from my research of qauntam physics and the provable fact that we are merely some one else Sims game. That we are selves will soon create powerful enough computers to creat our own indivual sims game with sentient beings.  This process will continue infinitely and perhaps our consciousness continues forever in this way.

Then the sim will have to sim our sims. Gets expensive.

[sb23rd]

Thanks Graham. Lenghy read and slighty dense, the maths equations made my simpleton brain more simple. Titles such as 'nobel laureate' etc don't sit well with me including the use of 'professional scientists' in the link. To me it approaches appeal to authority and ignores merit as though the benefactions of some organizations and their coveted trophies are above or legitimate mans capacity for reason.

 

I don't lean either way here as i lack the necessary mathematical knowledgeable. From an epistemic and ontological view I find it interesting. For example those who approach QM from a platonic foundation or relying more on induction and pure logic. I'm probably missing something but to me drawing conclusions about reality from abstract mathematics alone isn't accurate enough.

[AncapFTW]

Putting aside all of the Simception talk....

 

I wonder if this could allow quantum entangled communications.  After all, if the electrons are entangled afterwords, couldn't that allow devices to communicate with each other without a physical connection, or even having to exchange photons?

 

If it could, encryption wouldn't be needed for communications as much.  Yes, if you used an intermediary (like the Net) you'd have to have it, but it would allow direct connections between computers.

[Guest Gee]

Thanks Graham. Lenghy read and slighty dense, the maths equations made my simpleton brain more simple. Titles such as 'nobel laureate' etc don't sit well with me including the use of 'professional scientists' in the link. To me it approaches appeal to authority and ignores merit as though the benefactions of some organizations and their coveted trophies are above or legitimate mans capacity for reason.

 

I don't lean either way here as i lack the necessary mathematical knowledgeable. From an epistemic and ontological view I find it interesting. For example those who approach QM from a platonic foundation or relying more on induction and pure logic. I'm probably missing something but to me drawing conclusions about reality from abstract mathematics alone isn't accurate enough.

 

I get that but many may not know of Hooft's work.

 

It is an appeal to an authority and I can see what your saying, but I think a differentiation can be made between earned and unearned authority and so isn't ignoring merit as such merit is factored into the work done in order to earn said authority.

 

That you can not decide yourself as you can not understand is good, I can't either and just finished studying physics at a really good university, you might consider applying this universally, which is to say to Crothers.

 

Because if you can't decide because you can't understand and I can't decided because I can't understand (but I defer to the earned authority) can you reject Crothers decision because you believe he doesn't understand either?

Hooft makes a clear case that Crothers is lacking in the knowledge and ability required even to solve undergraduate GR problems and I have to image that constructing a proof that Einstein was wrong and all physicists are wrong would require you to be the single smarted person in the whole of human history.

 

Did you know that Crothers holds a Ph D. in physics? But that the Ph D. is from a made up university?

[rosencrantz]

I wonder if this could allow quantum entangled communications.  After all, if the electrons are entangled afterwords, couldn't that allow devices to communicate with each other without a physical connection, or even having to exchange photons?

 

It seems as of today that this is not possible. Imagine you and your friend both have a sealed letter. You know they both contain numbers that add up to 10. You open your letter and it says 7. Then you know that your friends letter has the number 3 in it. This is a rough idea what entanglement is. For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[Laforge]

Guess for now we still have to make do with http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Subspace_communication

 

[polyb1123]

"If you think you understand quantum theory . . . you don't understand quantum theory." - attributed to Richard Feynman

 

Quantum mechanics is a very difficult topic to engage mainly because, as i see it, it is so theoretically steeped and abstract that one easily becomes bogged down in the mental gymnastics not to even mention the empirical observations can be really tough to interpret. Its not like the easy, by comparison, empirical and theoretical aspects of classical mechanics. IMHO, to even begin to make an understanding of the topic one has to engage in all the math as well as lab work to really begin see the validity of the theoey. It only gets trickier from there and at that point the vast majority of people are left behind because the sheer magnitude of work necessary to get even to that point! Can one circumvent this hurdle? Not really and it doesnt help that thr market is saturated with laymen books on the topic that really can not convey what the theory describes, knowing the math is absolutely necessary. Its kind of like learning about Mandarin Chinese without studyong the characters, the culture the created it, or practicing the spoken aspects of the language. It is a strange and frustrating prospect.

 

If you want to begin to understand QM the most important thing to try to understand is the ole double slit experiment which established the validity of the wave-particle duality. This is key and is not really understood as Feynman pointed out.

 

So please be cautioned on this topic because there is a lot to know and misunderstand! I personally think avoiding the math and theory will only make it worse not to mention that years of study may not be very helpful either. Though a lot of the layman books may be somewhat helpful or more confusing, the topic is nearly impossible to take without the work one has to put into the math and theory to even get to the point of realizing that no one truly understands it. Good luck and please don't try to confuse yourself more without realizing even with the tools of physics one easily walks away more confounded than not! GOOD LUCK!