“Quantum entanglement.” Who would have thought that Richard’s experience of infinitude could be experimentally demonstrated. Absolutely no separation between this body and that body 100 trillion+ light years away.
The actual experience of the infinitude of space and time is to be ‘everywhere all at once’, because all time and all space are right here . . . . Anywhere is everywhere and everywhere is anywhere. It does not make sense to use local words to describe infinitude.
So what is “it” really? (Insert “electricity”, “water”, “physical bodies” etc).
If the very experiments are showing that “locally” , as in atomically, there is a state of “infinite possibilities” which “collapse” into particles we observe, then Richard was correct to challenge what a “tunneling electron microscope” is actually showing. It’s showing the collapsed particles.
Indeed the Large Hadron Collider which keeps discovering new “sub-atomic particles” is itself finding what? If the natural state of the universe is a “everywhere all at once” flux of infinitude, then there is no device which can measure it (because it would need to be bigger than infinity, which is impossible).
Perhaps the only “device” we have that will ever perceive “it” is apperceptive consciousness.
So it shows Einsten was wrong with his theory, that nothing can travel faster than light!
It also shows that whatever light is, it is a phenomenon that can interact with itself instantaneously across infinite distance. EDIT: Actually this hasn’t been shown, how would one even prove that?? “infinite distance” lol. we could try across the solar system say, once we have such space-faring ships … but not right now.
So what is light??? Thats the question . It can hardly still be considered to be particles that ‘communicate’ to each other can it??
Yes, hardly infinite distance. Maybe mathematically, but not empirically. From what I gathered, these Nobel laureates managed 50-odd years ago to successfully design an experiment that measured quantum entanglements at a distance of about 3 meters. More recently, about 5 years ago a quantum entanglement was demonstrated at a distance of over 1,200 km. That’s seems to be the current record.
Yin et al. used the Micius satellite, which was launched last year and is equipped with a specialized quantum optical payload. They successfully demonstrated the satellite-based entanglement distribution to receiver stations separated by more than 1200 km. The results illustrate the possibility of a future global quantum communication network. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aan3211
To appreciate the significance of that feat and of those distances, one can try to conceive of how infinitismally small these “particles” are compared to the distances they affect. These commenters on a related stackexchange question offer some perspective:
. . . you can never test at infinite distances, so the best you can do is test at very large distances. When someone says “large”, you should always ask “large relative to what”? In the case of these experiments, all of the natural length scales associated with the particles (wavelengths, etc.) are microscopic, so doing an experiment over 100 km is a truly enormous distance – probably billions of times bigger than any other relevant length scale. So while this isn’t infinite distance, it’s very nearly as good!
I think we are getting a bit carried away by the news, by its multiple interpretations depending on the sources and by our own actualist interpretations regarding the actual world and what Richard said about apparently related things… I don’t particularly like the explanation in the video shared at the beginning compared to brief ones like these:
Not to say that there are physicists indeed interpreting entanglement in a more radical way; but beyond interpretations it is always necessary to first understand the facts as well as possible… And it seems to me that this is one of the [many] cases in which great efforts (multiple readings, construction of previous/additional knowledge) must be made to understand the facts in ways that are not too far off the mark…
My sort of high level not too carried away interpretation is …
If we do this thing to get these things called entangled photons (awesome analogy with ripped dollar bill!), then measure them, an expected outcome would be that the graph of agreements vs degree separation of the measurements , would be a straight diagonal … but instead it’s a little squiggly.
But I need to learn a bit more about why the squiggle and what it means. There’s bound to be a simple video out there explaining without the math …
Hmm so the obvious thing that come to mind here is that the probabilities of each of these 8 events is not equal. The Z+ and X+ ones are but the Z+ and Q+ ones are correlated with each other. I don’t understand why it would violate the hidden variable theory, it sounds like it just violates the assumption that these measurements are equally likely … …
Essentially what has been experimentally verified is that it is provably impossible to predict the outcomes of certain kinds of experiments without the configuration of the experiments apparatus itself, as a whole (regardless of distance in space and time), being taken into account.
To summarize at a high level:
you have some source of emissions that emits two ”stream”/ of “something”s
suitably far from this source you have two detectors, one for each “stream”, each which can be rotated 360 degrees. The rotation of the detector affects its output, which is always 0 or 1 for any instance of detection
It is natural to assume that, once the two somethings are emitted, the probability of the detection event on the left depends only on the state of the left something at the source and the rotation of the left emitter (and NOT the rotation of the right emitter). And likewise the probability of a detection event on the right depends only on the state of the right something at the source plus the rotation of the right emitter (and NOT the rotation of the left emitter).
However any model you make with this assumption ^, won’t be able to predict the actual experimental outcome! The fact of what happens denies any such model as being possible.
The only models that predict it (so far) have to include both the rotation of the left and the right emitter.
This is true even if the rotation is only determined after the somethings are emitted!
So you have to abandon some assumption or other. You can throw up your hands and say the “somethings” somehow peer into the future … or you can be less silly and give up a different assumption - for one possible example only, the assumption that the changes of the system can only propagate at the speed of light.
I don’t fully understand all the intricacies yet though …
That’s the one I like but I should say, without meaning to I made it seem like an either/or (either you see the future OR it’s simultaneous) - but I think there are other theories too (which I’m not so familiar with)
Ok it’s even weirder. It’s not per se that rotating one detector affects the results of the other detector. If it did then we could have faster than light communication - which as far as I’m concerned may be possible - but it doesn’t work.
It’s that somehow the two detectors results are correlated in a way that you can’t explain if you treat the measurements independently (with some state defined at time of the ‘something’ emission). Note that apparently whether it’s a deterministic state or a probabilistic one doesn’t matter, it’s the “locality” that matters.
But for some reason you get the weird result only when you look at the combination of measurements of the two detectors. If you look at just one individually it looks the same regardless of what the other detector is doing. And vice versa. But when you then combine the results you find the detections were correlated with each other based on the rotations.
My understanding is that the quantum theory predicts all this and is borne out by experiments. But observing just one detector doesn’t give you any information about the other.
It’s all very strange and I wonder if it isn’t all just a very strange math trick …
The essential idea being that there is these weird results only when we think of objects as being seperate, if they are indeed a single something then the problem of being intuitively weird is irrelevant. Our intuition is simply wrong.