Quantum Mechanics: Entanglement

[Gibsense]

I assume we all know what my beginner's book says. That particles (a pair of Photons say) can be entangled. So, if one is separated from the other then they act in exact synchronisation even if separated by light years. So if something happens to one then the other 'knows'. And it happens instantaneously.

To get the flavour: Einstein called it Spooky action at a distance, I think. Although there is not supposed to be any ability to transfer information (this would break the speed of light limit) it is thought that in the case of black holes losing one of a pair and one escaping might provide something useful (Hawking Radiation).

My point in making this post is not to tell you what you already know but to test an idea:-

But first: As the Universe moves forward in time which view below is the right one?

1. The universe is a "now" that moves forward extending what "already is" into the future in a deterministic way. Only "now" and possibly the past have any existence.
2. The universe is like a 'timewave' moving forward modifying a preexisting 'block universe' at the Quantum level to result in a changing deterministic macro universe.
3. Something else

In the case of number 1 Particles are carried forward in time as simple objects that we describe every day and I have no conjecture to add. The weirdness/spookiness remains.

In the case of number 2 particles are not particles but are strings extending throughout a block universe through time from birth to an interaction event. In this case, the original pairing is not lost by separation even when parted as they are still joined by location in the past and possibly in the future. Maybe

 

[Atlan0001]

The Verse (Turn....) is an ever-renewing renewal project. If goes forward in time in order to go backward in time . . . all at once in exactly the same Verse (thus Uni-Verse (One turn of the wheel(s): to turn; return.... endlessly finite in infinite offset parallel finite (altogether, REALTIME NOW 't=0'))).

 

[promytius]

I thought entangled particles can only share one communication, not swap data, nor in any other sense, communicate any other change than the single current orientation.
In my mind, the Universe is Infinite, but not deterministic; as in any moment there's a boundless amount of either/or actions, such as high state or low state of an electron, you cannot determine future randomness. One might easily conceive of a universe that is alive, as it is always growing and expanding and is quite active. If it were to have sentience, it would be in the now, and therefore would have no interaction with the future. "Future" is a concept, not a reality, or a force, or an energy. It's a mental gymnastic to help us deal with our total expulsion from ever experiencing the future in any way. It is pure conjecture. If we didn't believe in the persistence of reality, we'd never go anywhere without everything we have coming with us. We wouldn't put socks in drawers; it's that simple. The notion of a future helps us organize the present, and is a reflection of a projection of the past onto our logic circuits to reinforce our dependence on things staying where/what there are. Example: I put my socks away yesterday. I "know" they're there today, and "will be there tomorrow," even though the last phrase is imaginary and cannot be proved, as there is no access to the future; it is not an accessible thing or even idea.
The future is something that will be an eternally unknown, imaginary notion.
Regarding entanglement, I've read a lot about what its possibilities may be, in the future, however I have not read much about the practical consequences of the entangled particle's thermal environment being raised; at some point it must 'melt' the entanglement, and I wonder what the ramifications heat might have on real-world use of entanglement.
Thanks.

 

[billslugg]

In entanglement, the two are at exact opposite states immediately, regardless of distance, upon collapse of either one. The state of the one you collapsed is random and was not predetermined ahead of time such that the other one may have simply taken that information with them. No matter which end you look at, all you see is a random number, all you know is the other guy's is opposite. Yes, this is information but no you can't use it for anything. There is no possible way to use the phenomenon to transmit a "yes" or "no" to the other guy. All the other guy ever gets is gibberish and you hold a gibberish mirror image. In other words, you each hear the same noise but his loudspeaker is wired backwards and the sound is 180° degrees out of phase.

Mere timing of the noise cannot work either. You can't send pulses of noise. The other end cannot tell anything until it looks at a photon. But if you look at a photon, you collapse it. You don't know if you collapsed it just now or if the other person had collapsed it last week.

 

[Questioner]

Blundering in as usual,
["experts feel free to correct any following errors"]

The information entangled particles share is 'a complimentary opposite state/aspect of the other'.

Orthogonal geometry is i would say,
dimensions that share systematic distance relationships.
I think that may be true with non-Euclidean geometries as well.
Graph theory has no systematic [distance] relationships, other than sequential traversals.

Entanglement is a sharing, overlapping, joined probability wave/state.

There is some complimentary 'kissing point' of that shared wave state that seems to defy orthogonal geometry.

That conjoined point either stretches to infinity or orthogonal geometry is to some degree illusitory.

The join point releases simultaneously as far as can be determined, but is actually unprovable.

Question, can a superposition decohere withour obsevation?
That seems close to impossible to determine.

If one sets up an automated recording of state(s) when exactly does the decoherence occur?
I suppose that is the Schrodinger's cat question.

Does that imply entanglement is possibly time independent for some bounded temporal interval?

Maybe a clock could be added to the automated detector?

 

[Questioner]

Odd thought,



Does decoherence itself cause awareness and therefore observation?

 

[billslugg]

The two particles stay entangled until the instant either one is measured. Without measuring, we have no idea what it is. Measuring it only tells us its state, not when it achieved that state. You cannot "monitor" a photon to see at what time it decoheres. Any monitoring would decohere it.

 

[Questioner]

Is decoherence a terminal state of a photon?