Missed this week: quantum entanglement is real

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Tonight's offering in the world of science is...Einstein!

Einstein was the first to realize (and deplore) that one of the weird side effects of quantum physics was entanglement - the idea that two particles could be irreversibly joined in such a way that they could affect each other instantaneously, even at a distance. Even at great distances. An entangled pair of photons, for example, would each have opposite spins, so that if you measured one with an up spin, the other would instantly display a down spin, and if you changed the spin of one, the other would also change. This would happen even if they were light years apart, which would essentially transfer information faster that the speed of light, breaking Eintsein's own rules of relativity. Einstein hated it. He called it "spooky action at a distance."

Needless to say, such spooky action would revolutionize communications and cryptography if it could be harnessed.

Over the years, several experiments have seemed to confirm this spooky action, but always there was the (ever decreasing) possibility that certain convoluted work-arounds might explain it without breaking the speed of light. Last week, it was reported that a new experiment has finally done away with that possibility. The spooky action is real, and the universe just got a tad more strange.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Been following and reading up on quantum research actively for the last few months. Such a broad front of advancements, quantum mechanics, chemistry, computing... exciting times. It's even kick started me to brush up on my math skills.

On another front Einstein is taking a hit on his gravity wave theory as so far they have failed to be detected as they thought they would/should be using fast spinning pulsars for a timing source and measuring the changes gravity waves would be expected to induce in them.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

transfer information faster that the speed of light,

What if there is no "transfer"?

What if both particles are the same? Or maybe both particles are part of something we can't yet detect? This whole idea that particles can seemingly be in two (or more) places at once tests many different limits of knowledge.

For example, what does this experiment do to the concept of "time"? Or "space-time"? Or "cause and effect"?

Also, are we marching to a realization that the universe is totally pre-determined? If so, what happens to the theory of evolution that depends on random chance?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As I understand it, this newest study was to try and reduce some of the pre-determined counters to spook action at a distance. Of the articles I have seen lately, they have studies using particles from quasars at the furthest edges of the galaxy to try and make sure they could never have "met". They are using random devices to measure to assure that no bias of a machine or researcher can color the interaction.

But we can't transfer information beyond the speed of light. As I understand it, changing the spin breaks the entanglement and that and why it works for encryption.

I must admit though, the more I read of it the more I accept the thought of pre-determinism. Or. I still like the idea that we are 2-D beings living in a 3-D hologram. What we see at the quantum level are the pixels of our hologram. Since they live simultaneously inside and outside the 3-D world, they need not obey the 3-D rules and regulations. Yep, they can have whatever street signs they like and sell lard-laden donuts at their schools.

I fear all these answers science fiction promised us will never happen in my lifetime. We actually seem more confused with each new discovery.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Also, are we marching to a realization that the universe is totally pre-determined? If so, what happens to the theory of evolution that depends on random chance?

I must admit though, the more I read of it the more I accept the thought of pre-determinism.

I think most physicists remain determinists in the classical sense. Einstein thought that any apparent randomness was due only to our imperfect abilities to measure things, and that there must have been some underlying order, or "hidden variables." I think most physicists still think he was right. However, there are certain things that we simply can't explain, even conceptually, without some randomness, such as vacuum fluctuations. Random fluctuations in the very early universe still seems to be the best explanation for why any of us are here at all. So there are some physicists who have accepted that there is at least some inherent randomness to the universe. I believe Hawking is one of them.

As for biology, this would have no impact on evolutionary theory. The idea that evolution depends on random chance is a very common misconception. Evolution - at least in the form that it happens on earth - needs variation, but that variation need not be random.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think most physicists remain determinists in the classical sense. Einstein thought that any apparent randomness was due only to our imperfect abilities to measure things, and that there must have been some underlying order, or "hidden variables." I think most physicists still think he was right. However, there are certain things that we simply can't explain, even conceptually, without some randomness, such as vacuum fluctuations. Random fluctuations in the very early universe still seems to be the best explanation for why any of us are here at all. So there are some physicists who have accepted that there is at least some inherent randomness to the universe. I believe Hawking is one of them.

As for biology, this would have no impact on evolutionary theory. The idea that evolution depends on random chance is a very common misconception. Evolution - at least in the form that it happens on earth - needs variation, but that variation need not be random.

Speaking of biology, take a look for a Ted Talk on biological entanglement. There are scientists who believe some living organisms use entanglement. If I recall correctly, one thought is the homing ability of some birds is due to entanglement. They haven't gathered proof yet, the investigation is early, but it is an interesting and exciting concept.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

How is it on stains?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But we can't transfer information beyond the speed of light. As I understand it, changing the spin breaks the entanglement and that and why it works for encryption.

This is right, I think. I explained that poorly. This is honestly way out of my league. I just find it fascinating. The hopes for sending information would not lie in changing the quantum state, but in how it's measured, coming up with a system for detecting on one end if a measurement has been made on the other end, thus collapsing the wave function. This is supposedly prevented by the "no-communication theorem."

But the theorem's answer to why it won't work is, essentially, "Because that would be against the rules." It's pretty circular, as a matter of fact. It violates causality, so it must be impossible. But that assumes that causality can't be violated. If the "spooky action" is actually the nature of the universe, and not just an artifact of imperfect understanding, then causality is already questioned, so why not try to find a way to turn that entanglement into meaningful information? That is to say, the different parts of a separated quantum state somehow "know" immediately when something has happened, so we ought to be able to find some way to use that knowledge to transmit a message.

At least, that's how it seems to me. Like I said, I barely understand this stuff.