Quantum Entanglement - Possible on the Macro Level - Agreed terms assist sensible discussion

[Catastrophe]

https://imgur.com/a/75AeDhx

View: https://imgur.com/a/75AeDhx

https://www.facebook.com/QuantumMind

The argument about entanglement goes back to Einstein. The notorious EPR (Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen) thought experiment of 1935 demonstrated that if quantum mechanics was correct then the determination of the state of one quantum particle could instantaneously and over any distance determine the...

quantum-mind.co.uk

 

[sam85geo]

Einstein's concept that quantum entanglement did not exist was refuted by an experiment proposed by the Irish physicist John Bell which when finally performed demonstrated that one particle could be entangled with another even separated by distance. I.E.: There existed a mechanism that connected one particle's quantum state to another particle's quantum state. The standard example is a two spinning wheels of different colors, if wheel #1 displays color red then wheel #2 displays color green and vice versa, always. Now here's the question: Can such an entanglement mechanism exist/operate on the macro level of our existence? Here's just one puzzling example. A novice to the horse racing scene, bets on a horse with the comment "I just know he'll win"; and he does. This happens 4 times. "Communication" between species? or just random "dumb" luck?. I favor the latter, (and not because my wife would not share her winnings). So what is the physical mechanism of quantum entanglement or "spooky action at a distance"? At the particle level? Is such precluded at the macro level by the nature of biological life?

 

[sam85geo]

Given that our Universe is basically a very complex "machine" that produces things, animate and inanimate. At the quantum level, particles can be entwined as illustrated above. The result of one outcome has always the a same result on the entwined other, Really nifty stuff. However, what is the mechanism causing particles to entwine and can that mechanism operate/exist at the macro level of biological life? Consider a machine on a factory floor, "turn the crank, set the dials" and so many widgets are produced, some "good" and some "bad". The outcome probability of this operation can be monitored/predicted by the binomial statistical distribution. To me this seems analogous entanglement. Of course, extension to biological life of entanglement or mechanical operations, is indeed a stretch. Any opinions, insights and references are welcome.

 

[Patrick fenex]

The ramifications, if possible would be a fundamental revolution in our understanding of nature. Transforming our lives in ways we can't imagine. It would make Hubbles discovery of an expanding universe, (a transcendental paradigm shift in its own right.), seem pale by comparison. The only thing that would be more incredible, more shocking, would be if we could macronize a successful application of the "Star shot initiative". That would allow us to literally colonize the solar system in a decade.

 

[sam85geo]

@ Patrick. Wow, such an outcome and ramifications I never contemplated. I'm trying to see if there might be an "edge" to the grubby, greedy, mundane business of wagering, other than a "fix", a gambler's middle or "dumb luck". I admit that I just might be "barking up the wrong tree" which seems maybe to be the biggest tree in the "forest".

 

[Patrick fenex]

@ Patrick. Wow, such an outcome and ramifications I never contemplated. I'm trying to see if there might be an "edge" to the grubby, greedy, mundane business of wagering, other than a "fix", a gambler's middle or "dumb luck". I admit that I just might be "barking up the wrong tree" which seems maybe to be the biggest tree in the "forest".

I have had ADHD my entire life. As far as I know. When I get excited about my passions, (all things space science), I have a tendency to overdue it. Sometimes, my thought process can be interpreted as disjointed. A non-sequitor if you will. I appreciate everyone patience. Thank you

 

[sam85geo]

I have had ADHD my entire life. As far as I know. When I get excited about my passions, (all things space science), I have a tendency to overdue it. Sometimes, my thought process can be interpreted as disjointed. A non-sequitor if you will. I appreciate everyone patience. Thank you

Thanks Patrick for pointing out some obvious implications of entanglement at the macro level. There was no non-sequitor in your post; I appreciated your feedback which was helpful.

 

[sam85geo]

Report: I've done some "experiments", which might be considered a overt abuse of the term, since my initial post. I tried fitting some equations to gaming numbers, doing some "wack-a-doodle" correlations, and trying to identify gaming machine faults. My conclusion is that on a macro level entanglement doesn't happen; gaming outcomes, in a fair device/equally probable conditions are random. The knowing guess at a race track or that last dollar in a slot machine that goes jackpot, etc. is simply blind random luck, the machinations of cheaters notwithstanding. OK, it costs me a few dollars, but it actually was a fun project. My thanks to Cat and Patrick for their assistance and insights. That's all Folks for this thread.

 

[Catastrophe]

sam85geo, I agree with you. There are situations where electrons can squeeze through where elephants can't.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

Just a late follow up post for general interest. Take a look at web site: worldscienceu.com, course "Probing Gravity's Secrets through Quantum Entanglement" by Mark van Raamsdonk. It's and easy, understandable, short course. with surprising implications for reality.

 

[Atlan0001]

Universe : The 'Big Mirror' mirroring to infinity universes....

We will go out and into the Mirror.
---------------------------
"The only thing bigger than the Universe is our imagination." -- most recently via COLGeek.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

SPAD is one of those brilliant theories without a mechanism.
IMO quantum entanglement is gravitational entanglement.
At some level the universe has lots of nothing between quantum fluctuation.
Traveling through nothing for gravitons gets you from point A to B in no time/space and instant location awareness.
No matter the location of anything in the universe it is right beside everything else in the perspective of a graviton.
Gravity now has a reason for instant communication of location and Spooky action isn't spooky.
Gravity also leaves a wake at C on normal space so we get gravity waves at C.

All JMO but answering a mystery of gravity and spooky action with a simple reason might be the answer.

 

[Atlan0001]

SPAD is one of those brilliant theories without a mechanism.
IMO quantum entanglement is gravitational entanglement.
At some level the universe has lots of nothing between quantum fluctuation.
Traveling through nothing for gravitons gets you from point A to B in no time/space and instant location awareness.
No matter the location of anything in the universe it is right beside everything else in the perspective of a graviton.
Gravity now has a reason for instant communication of location and Spooky action isn't spooky.
Gravity also leaves a wake at C on normal space so we get gravity waves at C.

All JMO but answering a mystery of gravity and spooky action with a simple reason might be the answer.

Darn it, a most necessary ingredient has been going missing (my other gravity bracket -- the simultaneous opposing) and I'm coming up just short of union. I might not have quite understood you to the degree you might wish (though I believe I do), and you may not see it as I'm going to rebrand it, but thank you very much, VPE! If I can, I'm going to have to go back through some posts elsewhere and do some editing to get this completion done. Einstein's best friend, logician mathematician Kurt Godel, was both sort of right and sort of wrong, at the same time, as I see it.
---------------------------
Gravity:
(Light : blue shift)
Infinity (t=1) (constant!) > (past (elastic) (-) > future (elastic) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!)
Infinity (t=1) (constant!) > (pasts (infinities of) (-) > futures (infinities of) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!)
(Light : red shift)
Now (t=0) (constant!) > (future (elastic) (+) > past (elastic) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
Now (t=0) (constant!) > (futures (infinities of) (+) > pasts (infinities of) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
---------------------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[Helio]

At some level the universe has lots of nothing between quantum fluctuation.

Traveling through nothing for gravitons gets you from point A to B in no time/space and instant location awareness.
No matter the location of anything in the universe it is right beside everything else in the perspective of a graviton.
Gravity now has a reason for instant communication of location and Spooky action isn't spooky.

That's an impressive view of it, IMO. Light slows down with denser mediums, but if something can slip through and avoid all the medium it must travel, perhaps there is no time delay, or perhaps it doesn't encounter time at all (spacetime).

My understanding, which is quite limited, is that entangled particles are extremely reliable in producing a given result -- if one is found to be green then the other will be red. This may even be 100% reliable, but I look forward to someone verifying or correcting this view.

Also, if you actively cause the one to turn green, the entanglement is broken, so red isn't guaranteed. Otherwise, we could use entanglement to communicate instantly.

 

[Atlan0001]

That's an impressive view of it, IMO. Light slows down with denser mediums, but if something can slip through and avoid all the medium it must travel, perhaps there is no time delay, or perhaps it doesn't encounter time at all (spacetime).

My understanding, which is quite limited, is that entangled particles are extremely reliable in producing a given result -- if one is found to be green then the other will be red. This may even be 100% reliable, but I look forward to someone verifying or correcting this view.

Also, if you actively cause the one to turn green, the entanglement is broken, so red isn't guaranteed. Otherwise, we could use entanglement to communicate instantly.

You can think "quantum entanglement" and you can look at it, Einstein's mind flights, and think in terms of 'quantum entanglement-like', which is a heck of lot closer to the picture of a certain actuality, right? But you might not say the second, exactly that way. You just give "quantum entanglement" more than one dimensional interpretation. You give it more dimensions than one.

Continuing on into what is started. You take it on up into the macro-verse but picturing quantum entanglement-like structure of the unobservable (it will be unobservable being simultaneous structure in space and time) universe as a quantumly entangled-like 2- and 3-d latticework simultaneity throughout space and, also, throughout time. Though Stephen Hawking never mentioned anything of quantum entanglement per-se, he did present a picture of a "Grand Central Station" of Universe with a single clock having a single hand and a single digit -- always midnight / pre-morning -- always above the center point of the Station. All passing through that Station and under that clock. Physicist and friend of Hawking, Roger Penrose, called it something different, "The table of God," meaning having likeness to the fabled "Horn of Plenty" and "Fountain of Youth." As a lifelong student of history I could see for myself that widening frontiers of space and time (and they are frontiers of both space and time in one) has always been a "fountain of youth" -- meaning a fountain of expanding renewal of energies and life -- for life.

Me, I call it the Big Mirror, mirroring Universe to infinities of universes and travel is always out from any departure point into the infinity of horizons in the Mirror (or as Lewis Carroll once put it in a quantum mechanics related work of fantasy, into "The Looking Glass". We will one day find out, it we ever break out into that vastly greater dimensionality (a multi-dimensionality) than the surface of the Earth (than the entire very entropic closed system -- one world -- dimensionality of the "planet" Earth).

I fight for this picture of grand potential not for myself at my age, but for my children, my grand-children, my great grand children, already living, and hopefully for a few great-great-grand children my wife and I may live to see. I see their universe richly grand in its possible, probable, dimensions and potential possibilities for them. In just seeing it for them, I suppose I see it for my wife and myself too while we live.
--------------------------

We will go out and into the Mirror.....

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Darn it, a most necessary ingredient has been going missing (my other gravity bracket -- the simultaneous opposing) and I'm coming up just short of union. I might not have quite understood you to the degree you might wish (though I believe I do), and you may not see it as I'm going to rebrand it, but thank you very much, VPE! If I can, I'm going to have to go back through some posts elsewhere and do some editing to get this completion done. Einstein's best friend, logician mathematician Kurt Godel, was both sort of right and sort of wrong, at the same time, as I see it.
---------------------------
Gravity:
(Light : blue shift)
Infinity (t=1) (constant!) > (past (elastic) (-) > future (elastic) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!)
Infinity (t=1) (constant!) > (pasts (infinities of) (-) > futures (infinities of) (+)) > Now (t=0) (constant!)
(Light : red shift)
Now (t=0) (constant!) > (future (elastic) (+) > past (elastic) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
Now (t=0) (constant!) > (futures (infinities of) (+) > pasts (infinities of) (-)) > Infinity (t=1) (constant!)
---------------------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.

Your welcome.
I'm always looking for simple mechanisms for what seem complex or impossible problems.
I think nature will follow the most simple route it can.
I have a pretty simple mind so I'm well suited for the job

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That's an impressive view of it, IMO. Light slows down with denser mediums, but if something can slip through and avoid all the medium it must travel, perhaps there is no time delay, or perhaps it doesn't encounter time at all (spacetime).

My understanding, which is quite limited, is that entangled particles are extremely reliable in producing a given result -- if one is found to be green then the other will be red. This may even be 100% reliable, but I look forward to someone verifying or correcting this view.

Also, if you actively cause the one to turn green, the entanglement is broken, so red isn't guaranteed. Otherwise, we could use entanglement to communicate instantly.

I think NASA is working on SPAD communication.
It's a game of % is trying to get it to work but a return of a + % gives a result so i bet SPAD communication will happen one day when the tech is robust enough for the detectors to give that result reliably.

Instant video, computer speed, communication download everything on earth before the click is completed etc.
What a leap that would be.

As for my idea of SPAD and gravity tied together with a simple mechanism for that location awareness.
I might be correct that nature has simple reasons for everything.
But i might be so far from reality that it's totally wrong.
All best guess sort of stuff and reliant on nature being straight forward in it's laws.
Traveling through no time/space for gravity i think is the missing mystery of gravity and underlying nature of the universe JMO

 

[sam85geo]

Just an interesting read recommendation : "Something Deeply Hidden" by Sean Carroll, sub title: "Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime".

 

[Jzz]

Given that our Universe is basically a very complex "machine" that produces things, animate and inanimate. At the quantum level, particles can be entwined as illustrated above. The result of one outcome has always the a same result on the entwined other, Really nifty stuff. However, what is the mechanism causing particles to entwine and can that mechanism operate/exist at the macro level of biological life? Consider a machine on a factory floor, "turn the crank, set the dials" and so many widgets are produced, some "good" and some "bad". The outcome probability of this operation can be monitored/predicted by the binomial statistical distribution. To me this seems analogous entanglement. Of course, extension to biological life of entanglement or mechanical operations, is indeed a stretch. Any opinions, insights and references are welcome.

Michael Crichton wrote a book on similar lines called "Timeline" in which a group of archaeologists are transported back through mapping of their genetic structure.

 

[sam85geo]

I haven't read the book "Timeline"; however, the synopsis of the content reminds me of how I bought into, was seduced by , swayed by a book linking minor defects in a roulette wheel to quantum entanglement. (I did try some experiments; no success). The authors actually "beat the wheel" until they were caught using real-time radio communications with an off site computer. So they wrote a book, and I suspect made more money from book sales than from roulette. Yet quantum entanglement is a fascinating subject and evolving aspect of our world.

 

[Helio]

Michael Crichton wrote a book on similar lines called "Timeline" in which a group of archaeologists are transported back through mapping of their genetic structure.

This reminds of the Assassin Creed games.

 

[Atlan0001]

Macrocosm = macrocosm.

Microcosm = macro-macrocosm.

As E. E. "Doc" Smith would have put it (Chaos Theory and Complexity Science as well), the "Cosmic All" can and does model itself. The best of all models, a working model!
--------------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So, all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it...." -- Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet, by Arthur Canon Doyle.

 

[Jzz]

Reply to Catastrophe in Post #1

The whole quantum entanglement conundrum dates back to the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argument. It illustrated the unexplained connectedness of particles in two different places. The particle in area B seems to know instantaneously, the spin state of the particle in A even when these two areas are spatially separated. Schrodinger found the idea ‘disturbing’; his cat in the box thought experiment was meant to illustrate this. The key question is: “How can two spatially separated entities, communicate so quickly?” Classical physics states that information is carried from one place to another by a signal. Talking, is one example, wherein information is carried (in air) at about 350 m/s. The fastest form of communication is by EM waves, where communications take place at c (300,000 kms.). Almost without exception most of the assumptions in physics rest on the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The inference gained from this is that how long it takes information to travel from A to B depends on the distance between A and B. In the usual case the speed of light is so fast that the times are insignificant. But what happens if the two objects are so far apart that it takes an appreciable amount of time for the speed of light to cover the distance. This is called spatial (or space-like) separation. The unlikely conclusion of the EPR thought experiment is that communications can be made faster than the speed of light.

Bell’s theorem is statistical proof (always supposing that the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics are correct) that many of our notions about the world that are based on common sense are incorrect. Proof of Bell’s theorem lie in the quantum mechanics experiment with polarising filters. (Which I won’t go into here).

My own view is that polarisation is not a property of light but a property of the material that it passes through. An idea or point of view that would considerably skew Bell’s conclusions. In short, my own view is that quantum entanglement does not exist. Thirty years ago there was a lot of hype in the papers that encryption based on quantum entanglement had become commercially feasible, today not much is heard of this path breaking event.

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz, thank you for that exposition. Just one thing . . . . . . " The particle in area B seems to know instantaneously, the spin state of the particle in A even when these two areas are spatially separated."
How is it shown that these particles are connected? How are they identified as connected? How are particles identified as in "this is the same particle that was there, now here, or somewhere else"?

Perhaps your answer is here . . . . . . "In short, my own view is that quantum entanglement does not exist."

I come back to my point: "Electrons go where elephants fear to tread". Even if the case, QE may not scale up to macroscopic utilisation. There again, this may be completely unsubstantiated.

From Wiki Bell's Theorem:
"Bell carried the analysis of quantum entanglement much further. He deduced that if measurements are performed independently on the two separated halves of a pair, then the assumption that the outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half implies a constraint on how the outcomes on the two halves are correlated. This constraint would later be named the Bell inequality. Bell then showed that quantum physics predicts correlations that violate this inequality. Consequently, the only way that hidden variables could explain the predictions of quantum physics is if they violate one of the assumptions of the theorem or are "nonlocal", somehow associated with both halves of the pair and able to carry influences instantly between them no matter how widely the two halves are separated." My emphasis.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

One speculation I read noted that quantum entanglement might be the basis of reality which forms a matrix/ i.e.: stage on which the macro world exists. Since I'm a "sucker" for easy shortcuts, (like cheap gasoline which turns out to be watered), I tried to do some "tests". IMO quantum entanglement is measurable only on the micro level; at the macro level randomness prevails. Just how such works is beyond both my ability to follow and my time to research. However, Cat and Jzz have added excellent clarifications. My thanks to both.