Is Quantum Entanglement Real?
Is Quantum Entanglement Real?
NOV. 14, 2014
By DAVID KAISER
FIFTY years ago this month, the Irish physicist John Stewart Bell submitted a short, quirky article to a fly-by-night journal titled Physics, Physique, Fizika. He had been too shy to ask his American hosts, whom he was visiting during a sabbatical, to cover the steep page charges at a mainstream journal, the Physical Review. Though the journal he selected folded a few years later, his paper became a blockbuster. Today it is among the most frequently cited physics articles of all time.
Bells paper made important claims about quantum entanglement, one of those captivating features of quantum theory that depart strongly from our common sense. Entanglement concerns the behavior of tiny particles, such as electrons, that have interacted in the past and then moved apart. Tickle one particle here, by measuring one of its properties its position, momentum or spin and its partner should dance, instantaneously, no matter how far away the second particle has traveled.
<snip>
In his article, Bell demonstrated that quantum theory requires entanglement; the strange connectedness is an inescapable feature of the equations. But Bells proof didnt show that nature behaved that way, only that physicists equations did. The question remained: Does quantum entanglement occur in the world?
Starting in the early 1970s, a few intrepid physicists in the face of critics who felt such philosophical research was fit only for crackpots found that the answer appeared to be yes.
<snip>
The most stubborn remaining loophole is known as setting independence. Dr. Zeilinger and I, working with several colleagues including the physicists Alan H. Guth, Andrew S. Friedman and Jason Gallicchio aim to close this loophole, a project that several of us described in an article in Physical Review Letters.
<snip>
How to close this loophole? Well, obviously, we arent going to try to prove that humans have free will. But we can try something else. In our proposed experiment, the detector setting that is selected (say, measuring a particles spin along this direction rather than that one) would be determined not by us but by an observed property of some of the oldest light in the universe
<snip>
David Kaiser is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches physics and the history of science. His latest book is How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)Cats don't live that long, therefore Schrödinger's cat is dead.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Grey
(1,581 posts)to explain this to us?
jimlup
(7,968 posts)Has an excellent chapter on Bell's theorem. You have to work out some "easy" math and think about it but the payoff is well worth it. After reading this chapter and understanding it and thus grasping the point of Bell's theorem I was absolutely astounded. Bell's theorem, has in my opinion, been verified experimentally.
Einstein attempted to show a flaw in QM by giving an experiment that would yeild a non-sensical result in that information appeared to travel instantly rather than at the speed of light. This paradox is known in physics as the Einstein-Podosky-Rosen or EPR paradox. With the experimental verification of Bell's theorem it does appear that Einstein was wrong: "God really does play dice with the universe".
Even though, as a graduate student in physics, I was taught QM from a calculational sense I held Einstein's view of "hidden variables". This was so fundamental to my thinking that I didn't even realize I held this "hidden variable" viewpoint. After understanding Bell's theorem thanks to Brian Green's book I realized that I was wrong and that there absolutely are no hidden variables. To anyone who has worked to understand the theory to this level, this is deeply disconcerting.
To me Bell's theorem is the most significant result of 20th century physics, even more significant than Einstein's Relativity. I would strongly recommend Brian Green's book to anyone interested in really grasping the significance of this stuff. While I have a Ph.D. in physics, the material in Green's book is accessible to the layperson. If you are interested - it is well worth your time:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)Was my first foray into trying to understand string theory & membrane theory, as a layman, electrical engineer with a bit a college physics, standard model stuff & a bit of relativity. Excellent book. He makes it "easy" to understand (as easy as it can be I guess) for the non-physicist.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)which I actually liked better and that is saying a lot as I liked Elegant Universe a great deal!
It is interesting to be in the field. We don't get to think about it that much. We learn to calculate using QM but really don't get to think about what it really means very often.
caraher
(6,278 posts)I'm teaching upper-level undergrad quantum with lab next spring. We're going to spend a lot less time solving partial differential equations and a lot more time on entanglement and foundational issues than we did when I took that as a junior several decades ago.
There's some research that suggests students who only calculate often leave a course less interested in quantum than when they started.
Springslips
(533 posts)[link:
|polynomial
(750 posts)Quantum space is a wonderful debate with many ideas to weave and relate.
From my view and not being a Physicist the pedagogy of thought experiments are just beginning. Its because of the age of the Internet and the computer with more open minds than the few that have dominated a circle of thought held close to the vest.
It may not be Quantum entanglement, Its tangled semantics, or tangled relations. From my limited knowledge it seems all of quantum with probability is tinker, tweak, toggle, or tease
to tag.
Here it is
nothing in the language of mathematic is satisfied especially equations. I get so frustrated when the language in the past century commonly used says This satisfies the equation . My own thoughts simply replace the word satisfies with Reasoning Into or Out of that gives breadth and depth to a relation that hurl with us through the space time continuum.
The last century dominated with all those who think in the Schrodingers box, some now find it as an amusing ambiguity less than a paradox, like the flat earth mentality that took centuries to conclude its self-evidence. Though, computers did not exist in the early stages of the mathematical equation now formidable, yet can be toggled to tag.
The quantum solution may very well only be able to be solved by the quantum mind, not just the few
CaptainTruth
(6,594 posts)China is working on a QE comm system, ground/satellite. I've been wondering if the US is also working on one, or will we be left behind?
I haven't done a lot of research into QE, but my first thought is that it could be based on a phenomenon similar to quantum tunneling, where a particle can appear to travel faster than light because it "tunnels" through space. A portion of space just doesn't exist for that particle.
Just as a top-of-the-head thought, QE could involve a "force" that doesn't exist in the three large spatial dimensions we normally experience. It might only exist in the multitude of folded-up dimensions (18 I guess?) that membrane theory is based on. (Is it still 22 dimensions? I haven't read much lately.) So for that "force" our space doesn't exist. We observe particle separation in our three large dimensions, but the "force" causing entanglement sees no separation because it doesn't exist in our dimensions.
And I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, just fascinated by the universe. My heroes include Richard Feynman (what a guy! wish I could have met him) & Roger Penrose. I do need to read Road to Reality one day ... it's just so big!