Quantum entanglement thread: I know that there isn't an

>>8692692
Quantum entanglement has been observed and proven?

>>8692692
>Quantum entanglement means faster than light information
Stop. No it doesn't. We have this thread every day.

>>8692707
Yes my friend..in 2015..I know it's shocking but it's true.

>>8692718
Explain you point of view..because instead it's something that brings some sort of information in a way that is more speed than light.

>>8692721
What does it implies? What does it mean for our existence and reality? Cant believe i missed this discovery, you sure its not some popsci memeing?

>>8692724
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

>>8692737
https://www.cnet.com/news/physicists-prove-einsteins-spooky-quantum-entanglement/
Well the implications are immense..it's like every atom and every particells are connected by a sort of net, since this phenomenon is (at least for our technology) instantaneous!!!

>>8692746
This should be the first reply to all these threads.

>>8692749
I thought that idea of everything being connected existed for a long time because of gravity and electric fields that spread infinitely across universe.
What other kind of connectivity are they thinking about? What does that "net" do?

>>8692746
I know that but reality win against theory that are created to try to save other theorys..it's a consequence uncertainty principle but this is a problem about our experiments not of the real phenomenon itself.

>>8692756
Probably you should understand the difference between reality and theory.

>>8692761
>>8692764
You clearly neither understand the content of the theorem nor what entanglement entails.

>>8692692
>information can go faster than light
information is light cuckboy

can we stop having these retarded popsci threads? you guys have no idea what you're talking about, go get a physics masters, you literally can't talk about physics phenomena if you don't know the math behind it

>>8692787
>information is light

wut

>>8692761
The uncertainty principle only holds if light is the same in all reference frames.

If there's a contradiction, we have to find which one is false. In reality, both have been verified experimentally, so for now we can only say that there is no contradiction. We have to discard ftl.

There are models where conservation of energy and mass don't hold but they have their own problems. You can start there if you want to try to incorporate ftl.

>>8692787
Why don't you try to explain you point of view instead of offending? I know what I'm talking about probably you don't know what entanglement is..I'm not talking about the mathematical point of view but of the phenomenon itself..it's demonstrated that it brings information faster than light. You should try to make a difference between mathematic formula (that trying to describe reality) and reality itself.

>>8692802
No. uncertainty principle is determined by the energy that brings a photon. When the photon interact with the electron (if the energy is enough) than electron jump in another orbital level. So when we use light to determine the position of an electron that light ( depending by light frequency) influence the experiment and for this reason we cannot know at the same time the speed (energy) and position of an electron.

>>8692852
Not the guy you're replying to, but

>it's demonstrated that it brings information faster than light
No it hasn't been. Information cannot travel faster than light, even in entanglement.

>>8692760
Well sincerely I don't know the answer to your intresting question but nets (or fields) are our best way to explain all the distance interactions between atoms.

>>8692746
>Wikipedia

Not even once.

>>8692883
And if it's not a sort of information how can you explain the entanglement?

File: light_orbital_angular_momentum.png (287KB, 452x673px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 452x673px

If a photon has extension (i.e. non-zero radius) and it's moving then it has a period of rotation.

Two photons with the same period of rotation will rotate an identical number of times during any interval of time.

The photons only appear to reflect each other's state because of their identical periods of rotation. It's why you can't send information by means of entangled photons. They're not "entangled" in any meaningful sense of the word. They're not connected or communicating. They've just been given the appearance of synchronization.

It's like if I have two identical clocks. The hands of each clock move around the clock-face at exactly the same rate. I "entangle" the clocks by setting their hands to 12 o'clock. The hands of each clock will travel an identical distance around the clock-face during any interval of time because their 'period of rotation' is identical. As long as no force disrupts the 'synchronization' then the clocks will remain 'entangled'.

>>8692883
Everything is information. Everything.

>>8692887
If you'd prefer:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212023.pdf

>>8692896
Thank you good sir

>>8692892
Intresting but entanglement is demonstrated even for other particells not only photons. It's a phenomenon that seems to be instantaneous even at incredible distance.

>>8692907
For other particles you can't communicate using entanglement because you can't pick which state the particle collapses into on measurement. Which is essentially what the no-communication theorem formalises.

>>8692913
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1253.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15759.html

Are you still in 2012?

>>8692913
Probably we can have problems with the experiments but entanglement is real and don't concern only photons.

>>8692942
Neither of those allow you to choose or to know before hand what state the particles will collapse into on measurement, this is the big idea underlaying all of QM.

>>8692955
I'm agree with you but this does not imply that entanglement is not real..only that we cannot interact with particells without influence the experiments.

>>8692973
What the fuck? No one said that entanglement isn't real, just that you can't use it to communicate.

>>8692979
Particells communicate! We cannot (for now?) use that communication..there is a big difference.

>>8693007
We can never use it since we can't know what state the particle will collapse into until we measure it. There's nothing else to it. If you somehow manage to predict, with certainty, which state the particle will collapse into then congratulations, you've broken QM.

>>8693022
I'm not saying that..I'm saying that, even if we can't use that communication, particells communicate in a way that is faster than light. This is a reality and we (as scientists) must accept it.

>>8693033
>I'm not saying that
Are you sure because:
>>8693007
>We cannot (for now?) use that communication..there is a big difference.

Seems to imply that you are.

>>8692790
what do you mean wut?
information is radiation in this context aka the same context we use information when we're talking about the "black hole information paradox". Light is information. You can also refer to this comment: >>8692892


>>8692889
sir did you read the no communication theorem? sr i took so long to reply, ive been avoiding /sci/ like the plague

>>8692877
That's just one example, but without energy conservation in relativity, the wave-particle duality falls apart because the photons have no momentum. You also can't find a time dependence of energy of the photons without wave particle duality.

Remember that the de broglie relation only makes sense if light has momentum, which it doesn't without special relativity.

>>8693040
Well I believe in science and maybe in 1000 years we could even use that kind of communication (who knows?)but my point is that this communication is real.

>>8693046
>maybe in 1000 years we could even use that kind of communication

Nope

>>8693042
I'm completely agree with you but I cannot understand how that prove that entanglement is not a real form of communication.

>>8693041
Obviously I know the no communication theorem but I think it is only a demonstration of our ignorance. Prove me wrong.

>>8693051
Do you know how was human life 2000 years ago? Never say never.

>>8693041
Light and information are not the same thing. Light is simply a conduit. Information can be transmitted without light.

>>8693053
Op claimed that entanglement suggests that there's a reference frame for something moving at or greater than the speed of light.
>>8692761
Said that no communication is used to save other theories bUT it's actually built in to the theory. You can't have one without the other unless you give up something else, like energy conservation. At that point, it's not clear you could have an entangled system to begin with since the system depends on the wave equation which comes directly from relativity and wave particle duality.

>>8693053
How do you suppose this could be used for FTL travel?

Once you attempt to explain this, you will see the problem.

>>8693376
FTL communication*

>>8693348
No communication theorem is about the incapacity of an observer (or 2) to measure the entanglement state or communicate information to another observer..this is only a sort of indeterminacy principles..what I'm saying is that, even if we cannot measure that and we cannot use that, entanglement is real and permit particells to communicate information in a way that is faster than light..there are a lot of experiments proving what I'm saying..my idea is coherent with the wave-particells duality and in reality it depends by it!

>>8693376
I'm not saying that we have or can use entanglement. My point is that entanglement is able to communicate a sort of information in a way that is faster than light. Even if we cannot use that if that is real we have to change many our ideas on the universe.

>>8692707
>Quantum entanglement has been observed and proven?
Alain Aspect have spend most of this life creating experiments to test Bell's Inequalities. So, yest, it has been observed.

>>8693046
>maybe in 1000 years we could even use that kind of communication (who knows?)
>>8693063
>Obviously I know the no communication theorem but I think it is only a demonstration of our ignorance. Prove me wrong.
"Obviously I know the Law of Conservation of Energy but I think it is only a demonstration of our ignorance (and maybe in 1000 we could even use perpetual motion engines). Prove me wrong." Q.E.D.

>>8693471
When we interact with particells we change their energy for this reason the law of conservation of energy (and the no communication theorem) even if obviously true are depending on us..

>>8693490
* remove: are ..substitute with: ..in this particular aspects of physic (QM) is influenced and...
Ps sorry for my imperfect English. It's not my mother language.

Quantum Entanglement is proof God exists

>>8693516
is proof physicists have no fucking clue what they're talking about but that won't stop them from spewing diarrhea out of their mouths

>>8693174
>information can be transmitted without light
?? i thought the point of this thread was to shit on superluminal communication

>>8693547
Information can be transmitted in many ways: light, audio, any kind of waves, contact, molecules and so on..

>>8693533
Why don't you enlighten us then, faglord.

>>8693533
s/physicists/theologians/

>>8693802
Non of which travels faster than light.

What's your point

>>8692692
It is very weird but you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Basically there's a few ways to look at it:

option 1 - no information is actually being transferred. Some argue that entanglement is no different than each of us having different colored balls then when I look at mine I instantly know what yours is no matter where you are. The problem though is in this case the balls each had a distinct color to begin with but that does not seem to be the case with entangled particles and spin.

option 2 - something is transferred but it's not really "information". Some argue that there is some kind of potentially FTL transfer but it doesn't violate relativity because it doesn't violate the no communication theorem. We cannot control which particle will have up spin and which will have down so there's really no way to use it to communicate or send meaningful information, it's more like just random data.

>particells

>>8694789
Why does the universe have laws that seemingly conspire to foil every attempt at communicating information faster than light (which is actually what the speed of light is, the speed of causality). Kinda spooky.

>>8694802
Cause that's just how it be dawg

>>8694802

The universe has laws that stops us from seeing what is behind the curtain in every direction. It IS spooky.

>>8694789
Both options are due to some information that is transferred..1)how could I know the colour of your ball without any information?
2) the fact that we cannot control or know the status of a particle doesn't imply that entanglement is a form of transport of information. Everything is information.

>>8694802
The speed of light is the limit of the macroscopic world but subatomic world has different limit probably..