Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.
In a landmark study, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands reported that they had conducted an experiment that they say proved one of the most fundamental claims of quantum theory — that objects separated by great distance can instantaneously affect each other’s behavior.
more…
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.In a landmark study, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands reported that they had conducted an experiment that they say proved one of the most fundamental claims of quantum theory — that objects separated by great distance can instantaneously affect each other’s behavior.
more…
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
mollwollfumble said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.In a landmark study, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands reported that they had conducted an experiment that they say proved one of the most fundamental claims of quantum theory — that objects separated by great distance can instantaneously affect each other’s behavior.
more…
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Nice cartoon, and I am one of those dumb ones. I too cannot understand why if you can manipulate something, that you cannot devise a language based on that manipulation which could communicate that language via its manipulation so faster than light across an intervening distance.
because you have to separate the two particles in a classical way. i believe. i.e. “physically” move them then measure.
ChrispenEvan said:
because you have to separate the two particles in a classical way. i believe. i.e. “physically” move them then measure.
ChrispenEvan said:
because you have to separate the two particles in a classical way. i believe. i.e. “physically” move them then measure.
One is here and the other one is way over there, we manipulate the one here. The other one over there changes.
AwesomeO said:
Nice cartoon, and I am one of those dumb ones. I too cannot understand why if you can manipulate something, that you cannot devise a language based on that manipulation which could communicate that language via its manipulation so faster than light across an intervening distance.
Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end?
Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
they have to be together to be entangled in the first place. then you move one and measure it.
or how you entangle them can only be done at lightspeed or less. either way you can’t get FTL information transfer.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/51506-quantum-entanglement.html
ChrispenEvan said:
they have to be together to be entangled in the first place. then you move one and measure it.
Ahhhhh, okely dokely. That has never been made clear in any of the admittedly popular sci dumbing down articles I have read.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end?Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
Such movement travels along objects at about the local speed of sound.
Spiny Norman said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end?Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
Such movement travels along objects at about the local speed of sound.
to clarify, that’s the speed of sound through the material that the stick is made of
note that the speed of sound of a material is proportional to the material’s bulk modulus (or stiffness)
diddly-squat said:
Spiny Norman said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end?Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
Such movement travels along objects at about the local speed of sound.
to clarify, that’s the speed of sound through the material that the stick is made of
note that the speed of sound of a material is proportional to the material’s bulk modulus (or stiffness)
Yarbs. You’ll cause a compressional wave up the stick. It will travel at a few thousand metres per second (actual speed will depend on what the stick is made of, obv).
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
Spiny Norman said:Such movement travels along objects at about the local speed of sound.
to clarify, that’s the speed of sound through the material that the stick is made of
note that the speed of sound of a material is proportional to the material’s bulk modulus (or stiffness)
Yarbs. You’ll cause a compressional wave up the stick. It will travel at a few thousand metres per second (actual speed will depend on what the stick is made of, obv).
Yep, that’s what I said …. added to twice for some reason.
Spiny Norman said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:to clarify, that’s the speed of sound through the material that the stick is made of
note that the speed of sound of a material is proportional to the material’s bulk modulus (or stiffness)
Yarbs. You’ll cause a compressional wave up the stick. It will travel at a few thousand metres per second (actual speed will depend on what the stick is made of, obv).
Yep, that’s what I said …. added to twice for some reason.
So we’re all in agreement …
dv said:
Spiny Norman said:
dv said:Yarbs. You’ll cause a compressional wave up the stick. It will travel at a few thousand metres per second (actual speed will depend on what the stick is made of, obv).
Yep, that’s what I said …. added to twice for some reason.
So we’re all in agreement …
I’ll disagree if it helps the discussion.
Spiny Norman said:
dv said:
Spiny Norman said:Yep, that’s what I said …. added to twice for some reason.
So we’re all in agreement …
I’ll disagree if it helps the discussion.
Sounds like two empty tin cans and a ball of string.
Little bit surprised to see WR ask that, TBH.
dv said:
Little bit surprised to see WR ask that, TBH.
I would say the British are already using this system on their subs
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
Little bit surprised to see WR ask that, TBH.
Why’s that?
Think, man.
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
Little bit surprised to see WR ask that, TBH.
Why’s that?
I consider you to be an astute fellow with a reasonable grasp of science.
dv said:
I consider you to be an astute fellow with a reasonable grasp of science.
Why thank you.
This assessment will now be subject to review.
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:I consider you to be an astute fellow with a reasonable grasp of science.
Why thank you.
That’s why I mentioned thinking.
dv said:
This assessment will now be subject to review.
Witty Rejoinder said:
AwesomeO said:
Nice cartoon, and I am one of those dumb ones. I too cannot understand why if you can manipulate something, that you cannot devise a language based on that manipulation which could communicate that language via its manipulation so faster than light across an intervening distance.
Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end? Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
Stress waves move down the stick at the speed of sound, which is always a lot less then the speed of light.
> they have to be together to be entangled in the first place. then you move one and measure it.
Yes. There’s apparently an extra hurdle that I haven’t yet understood: There needs to be a constant reference frame that relates the two objects after they’ve been separated. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that if there isn’t a constant reference frame then by special relativity you can’t consistently measure how fast the signal propagates.
mollwollfumble said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
AwesomeO said:
Nice cartoon, and I am one of those dumb ones. I too cannot understand why if you can manipulate something, that you cannot devise a language based on that manipulation which could communicate that language via its manipulation so faster than light across an intervening distance.
Probably related to the thought experiment about a really long stick: Doesn’t moving one end cause an instantaneous movement of the opposite end? Someone might be able to explain the physics behind why it doesn’t.
Stress waves move down the stick at the speed of sound, which is always a lot less then the speed of light.
> they have to be together to be entangled in the first place. then you move one and measure it.
Yes. There’s apparently an extra hurdle that I haven’t yet understood: There needs to be a constant reference frame that relates the two objects after they’ve been separated. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that if there isn’t a constant reference frame then by special relativity you can’t consistently measure how fast the signal propagates.
Well it’s clear that I am having serious problems with the source material. I am interested to know how I developed my incorrect understanding therefore I need a quick rundown on time and length expansion and dilation.
Time dilation I’m good with I think. Can someone explain how length expands and/or contracts in GR when an object approaches the speed of light?
relativity has nothing to do with this experiment.
the stick scenario is simply that nothing is infinitely rigid. and a compression wave in a solid is atoms moving. and atoms, being matter, can’t accelerate to lightspeed.
and this may help the contractions. it’s basically geometry…
JudgeMental said:
relativity has nothing to do with this experiment.the stick scenario is simply that nothing is infinitely rigid. and a compression wave in a solid is atoms moving. and atoms, being matter, can’t accelerate to lightspeed.
and this may help the contractions. it’s basically geometry…
Ta JM