story time :Quantum physics, like something out of a sci-fi movie, intriguing

[MEDITATE]

Let me break this down in simpler terms.

1) You can exist in multiple states simultaneously. For example, imagine rolling a six-sided die. In the quantum realm, when you roll the die, you technically get all six outcomes at once.

2) Quantum entanglement allows objects to be connected over vast distances. Let's say you have two identical 10-piece puzzles, one at Location 1 and the other at Location 2, thousands of miles apart. If you rearrange 5 pieces of the puzzle at Location 1 to create a certain picture, the puzzle at Location 2 instantly rearranges itself in the same way, without any physical interaction.

Now, the fascinating part is the process required for this to happen, called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion" (SPDC). It's usually performed on a particle level, not on puzzles, but the concept still applies. And you might wonder, who came up with this intricate process in the first place?

[MiscMathematician]

they're not connected

this is easily explained by two shoes. they're a pair.

if you look at one and it's a right shoe, you know on the other side of the universe the other is a left shoe

they are not connected

[MEDITATE]

they're not connected

this is easily explained by two shoes. they're a pair.

if you look at one and it's a right shoe, you know on the other side of the universe the other is a left shoe

they are not connected

They're linked, meaning connected, so when one particle is altered, the change affects the other particle.

[MiscMathematician]

They're linked, meaning connected, so when one particle is altered, the change affects the other particle.

because they share a property, it does not mean they are connected. one does not affect the other

[Formula0ne]

AP: Create a reply for this post I saw on a forum talking about how correct it is

"Let me break this down in simpler terms.

1) You can exist in multiple states simultaneously. For example, imagine rolling a six-sided die. In the quantum realm, when you roll the die, you technically get all six outcomes at once.

2) Quantum entanglement allows objects to be connected over vast distances. Let's say you have two identical 10-piece puzzles, one at Location 1 and the other at Location 2, thousands of miles apart. If you rearrange 5 pieces of the puzzle at Location 1 to create a certain picture, the puzzle at Location 2 instantly rearranges itself in the same way, without any physical interaction.

Now, the fascinating part is the process required for this to happen, called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion" (SPDC). It's usually performed on a particle level, not on puzzles, but the concept still applies. And you might wonder, who came up with this intricate process in the first place?"

Share some interesting related facts






ChatGPT
Here's a response you could use for the forum post:

"The concepts you're exploring are interesting, but there are a few inaccuracies in how quantum mechanics is being applied here. Let's clarify:

Quantum superposition does indeed allow a particle to exist in multiple states simultaneously, much like your dice example. However, it's crucial to understand that this doesn't translate directly to macroscopic objects like dice in the classical world we observe. The phenomena of superposition is generally observed at the subatomic level, under very specific conditions.

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where pairs or groups of particles interact in ways such that the state of one particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by large distances. However, the example of the puzzles is a bit misleading. Entanglement does not involve physical changes or rearrangements occurring spontaneously in another location as a response to local actions. It's more about the measurement of states being correlated.

The process you mentioned, spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC), is indeed a method to generate entangled photons in laboratories. SPDC involves a photon transforming into two photons of lower energy that are entangled, but it doesn't manifest in macroscopic objects like puzzles.

To add some interesting related facts:

Quantum entanglement was famously referred to by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance," reflecting his skepticism about its bizarre properties.
Experiments with quantum entanglement have recently been performed on satellites, testing entanglement over distances of thousands of kilometers.
Quantum computing relies heavily on principles of quantum mechanics like superposition and entanglement to perform calculations at speeds unachievable by classical computers.
These insights into the quantum world suggest we're only scratching the surface of understanding the fundamental principles of the universe."

[MEDITATE]

because they share a property, it does not mean they are connected. one does not affect the other

yes they are

[MiscMathematician]

Entanglement does not involve physical changes or rearrangements occurring spontaneously in another location as a response to local actions. It's more about the measurement of states being correlated.

thank you ron

[MiscMathematician]

yes they are

"or so we are told"

can you post something actually scientific

[MEDITATE]

"or so we are told"

can you post something actually scientific

this is straight from the department of energy

[MiscMathematician]

this is straight from the department of energy

"linked" is an ambiguous (sensational, indeed) term, means nothing besides having a property between them

it is not a physical link

[MEDITATE]

"linked" is an ambiguous (sensational, indeed) term, means nothing besides having a property between them

it is not a physical link

where did i say physical link? i said in my op that "without any physical interaction." aka no physical link[

[MiscMathematician]

where did i say physical link? i said in my op that "without any physical interaction." aka no physical link[

physical in terms of physics. but intutitively an imaginary string connecting them

they are not communicating. their properties may change and the others they are entangled with do so via symmetry

it is interesting but not useful

[MEDITATE]

physical in terms of physics. but intutitively an imaginary string connecting them

they are not communicating. their properties may change and the others they are entangled with do so via symmetry

it is interesting but not not useful

They are connected and everyone find it usefull in the physics community

[WiseOldApe]

knew thread would get hijacked by wincel and miscmathematician

[Bodhy]

Yeah, the reason entanglement is so weird is that it's weird and non-local. IIRC, the implications of Bell's theorem is that you need to toss either local realism, denial of FTL travel or both.


The 2022 Nobel Prize was won for this. And we've done experiments at quite a large scale. Entanglement isn't something that happens to exist, rather it's a mathematical consequence of quantum physics. It's necessary unless you change the fundamental laws.


Personally, I think it mandates we change our concept of space. I don't think space is a container we inhabit with objective distances. I think it's more like a personal interface we create.

[MiscMathematician]

They are connected and everyone find it usefull in the physics community

i dont know what you mean by connected anymore. I presume you mean they can affect one another, which is not true. This would mean FTL communication at the very least

[MEDITATE]

i dont know what you mean by connected anymore. I presume you mean they can affect one another, which is not true. This would mean FTL communication at the very least

it is true and everyone has it posted

[MiscMathematician]

it is true and everyone has it posted

i know very little about QM and was willing for a debate and to learn if you knew more than me

i think misinformation and sensationalism in science is a problem though. so i always push back and ask questions

[MEDITATE]

i know very little about QM and was willing for a debate and to learn if you knew more than me

i think misinformation and sensationalism in science is a problem though. so i always push back and ask questions

itsnot misinformation, when the dep. of energy says something , means its right

[Formula0ne]

Good thread, I've liked reading all the replies so far.

Post more

[TappingTheZen]

I'll try to clear up the confusion here re entanglement.

Entanglement is the result of conservation laws, and i'll try to explain how.

In 'classical physics', if you have a system of let's say two balls and they collide, and then collide off at an angle, we know total momentum will be preserved; that means that the total momentum of the system before the collision will be the same as the total momentum after the collision. So lets say we have a system of 2 balls, and the total momentum is '10' (picking an arbitrary figurewithout units for explanation purposes only). The balls then collide, and you measure one of the balls, and its momentum is 7, then you know the momentum of the other ball is 3, because the total momentum of the system is 10. It's actually a little more complicated because momentum is a vector quantity with direction, but that doesn't matter for the conceptual understanding.

This seems no problem in the classical regime, right? We expect quantities to be conserved and it doesn't cause any conceptual issues. The 'weirdness' comes in the quantum regime; because now if you have a system of two balls and they collide, you don't know the individual momentum of each, only the total momentum of the system until measurement; but as soon as you measure you know the total momentum will be 10.

The key part here is that a theorem known as bells theorem proves that this isn't just a statement about our ignorance, i.e the particles doesn't 'really have a momentum' thats hidden from us before we measure; the values we measure 'come into being' in some sense when we measure and the 'wave function collapses', yet the two states will always agree... we know if the momentum of the system is '10', and we measure 1 particle, the other is always going to be such that the total adds up to 10. So in this sense, yes they are 'connected' (although this is a bit of a nebulous term), but a better way to say it is something like 'the two particles become a part of the same system, and share a wave function, and thus are correlated'. The interesting thing about this result is that entanglement can occur over vast distances; measure one particle of a system and you'll know the momentum of the other instantly, but there are theorems that prove it can't be used by us to transfer information called the 'no-communication theorem' (although it can be useful in other ways, such as in quantum computing). Bells theorem was confirmed experimentally (Nobel prizes were handed out recently but the experimental work was done in the 70s), which means we have to give up locality in quantum mechanics, or something even weirder (like many worlds).

Here's a video if you want to dig deeper explaining the mathematical result of bells theorem, but visually illustrating the concept:

[MisquePhaggot]

Ive played Steins Gate visual novel im almost an expert in this field

[BraddlesMcGee]

I'll try to clear up the confusion here re entanglement.

Entanglement is the result of conservation laws, and i'll try to explain how.

In 'classical physics', if you have a system of let's say two balls and they collide

Balls Touch = Ghey

[BraddlesMcGee]

People fail to understand the difference between:

1) Reality.

2) Perspectives taken within a human made model, which - in this case - models uncertainty.

People's understanding is not helped by the physicists, aided by a sensationalist and dumbass media, who want to make their field appear spooky and mysterious.

Now let's say I'm modelling coin tosses. A tossed coin can exist in either the Heads or Tails state. But, that is only if I am able to observe the tossed coin. In my model I wish to also account for unobserved tossed coins, so I will have a third state, 5050HT, which means 50 percent Heads and 50 percent Tails.

Gary tosses his coin and shows me that it is Heads, so I assign it state Heads.
John tosses his coin and shows me that it is Tails, so I assign it state Tails.
Brian tosses his coin and doesn't show me because he's a cnt, so I assign it state 5050HT.

Media: Man Has Magical Coin Which Is Both Heads AND Tails At Same Time!

[TappingTheZen]

People fail to understand the difference between:

1) Reality.

2) Perspectives taken within a human made model, which - in this case - models uncertainty.

People's understanding is not helped by the physicists, aided by a sensationalist and dumbass media, who want to make their field appear spooky and mysterious.

Now let's say I'm modelling coin tosses. A tossed coin can exist in either the Heads or Tails state. But, that is only if I am able to observe the tossed coin. In my model I wish to also account for unobserved tossed coins, so I will have a third state, 5050HT, which means 50 percent Heads and 50 percent Tails.

Gary tosses his coin and shows me that it is Heads, so I assign it state Heads.
John tosses his coin and shows me that it is Tails, so I assign it state Tails.
Brian tosses his coin and doesn't show me because he's a cnt, so I assign it state 5050HT.

Media: Man Has Magical Coin Which Is Both Heads AND Tails At Same Time!

This isn't quite correct, because it doesn't account for the result of bells theorem, and it doesn't account for interference patterns observed in, for example the double slit experiment.

Bells theorem tells us that when you flip the coin, the state is not decided until you measure it. It isn't just that you don't know it; it's that the coin is not in a state of heads or tails, but in a superposition of both until we measure it. This is why during the double slit experiment, when you send a single photon through 2 holes, it will take 'both' paths and leave an interference pattern until it is measured.

If we were to take your coin analogy, but combine bells theorem (which has been proven experimentlaly and nobel prizes were handed out in 2022) and the knowledge of interference patterns it would be more like this:

You have quantum 2 coins, coin A and coin B. They are correlated such that whenever you flip coin A, you know coin B will be the opposite result. Now without measuring, you move your quantum coins 1000s of miles apart, and then you decide to 'measure' the state of coin A. As soon as you know the state of coin A, and see it's for example heads, you know coin B would be tails if you observed it, because you know they are correlated in such a way that coin B will always be opposite.
This doesn't sound that crazy, but when you combine bells theorem & interference patterns observed experimentally, there's an added dimension; it isn't that you just don't know coin A's state before you measure it; it's that its really both heads and tails. When you measure it, and cause the wave function to 'collapse' into a state, the other coin will instantly change to the correlated state, and will always be observed to be in the correlated state if measured, despite being 1000's of miles away. This is where the whole 'how did coin B know, information must have been sent FTL' comes from... because bells theorem told us there really was no well defined state of the coin until it was measured, but the moment it was measured both coins assumed the correct correlated states despite being 1000s of miles apart.

[WiseOldApe]

lol @ the meatheads ITT acting as if they understand quantum field theory - stick to hating on randoms on the internet, it's the only thing you're competent in.

Good post otherwise, OP.

[TappingTheZen]

lol @ the meatheads ITT acting as if they understand quantum field theory - stick to hating on randoms on the internet, it's the only thing you're competent in.

Good post otherwise, OP.

Irony of this post is palpable.

[WiseOldApe]

Irony of this post is palpable.

Oh I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about the other meatheads. You're the high IQ meathead with a solid grasp on quantum dynamics. Heard you're a professor in the field.

[TappingTheZen]

Oh I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about the other meatheads. You're the high IQ meathead with a solid grasp on quantum dynamics. Heard you're a professor in the field.

Honestly, this made me laugh a lot, well done - that was funny

[WiseOldApe]

Honestly, this made me laugh a lot, well done - that was funny

Sorry, I mean brofessor. Brofessing quantonium physics