Space and Quantum Entanglement

The basic premise of QE is that two independent objects that are separated by space can sometimes present the same measured characteristics even though there is no apparent physical interaction.

If space itself is energy or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

Quantum Entanglement

source

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbGCI

Quantum Entanglement is a mysterious property of particles that science cannot yet understand. It is a phenomena. The basic premise of QE is that two independent objects that are separated by space can sometimes present the same measured characteristics even though there is no apparent physical interaction.

Think of two particles that are entangled. When you measure one particle (like ‘spin’), the entangled particle divided from it, will always produce an expected measurement even though Quantum mechanics says that this is impossible to predict. The connection is also not constrained by time. There’s no delay between them, meaning the particles are fundamentally linked somehow. You could have one particle on the other end of the universe react identically and immediately the same way as the entangled twin.

The complex issue here is that Quantum mechanics works under the acceptance that by measuring a particle you alter what it is you are measuring and therefore can never predict what value you are going to get. The idea being you cant know where something is and what value it holds at the same time because the closer you get to one of those answers the further you get from the other (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). By one particle reacting precisely as you would expect it to, it doesn’t make any sense in everything else we have proven. As well as this, it doesn’t permit information to travel faster than light either, which is technically what is happening here.

Src: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/q/quantum_entanglement.htm

Quantum entanglement has already gained quite a bit of attention in the security market. If for instance you had a PC which could read the quantum state of an entangled particle and generate a pass-code using it as well as have another PC do the same with the particle’s twin, you could perfectly protect encrypted information. Hackers could jump onto you’re communications but never be able to crack it because you are sending it encoded based on a specific quantum state. A state only two machines in the world could ever duplicate. A state which is linked and updated immediately on both sides and in normal circumstances is impossible to predict.

Src: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/quantum-cryptography

Article needs a spell check as well.

But yeah, QE, strange stuff.

spooky thread

:-)

evening folks

stumpy_seahorse said:

evening folks

Spooky indeed.

stumpy_seahorse said:

evening folks

Evening stumpy.

Damn I was sure I posted that in Chat :(

Bubblecar said:

Damn I was sure I posted that in Chat :(

Spookier and spookier. This Quantum Entanglement sure is odd stuff.

As for quantum entanglement, I can’t say that I understand it (which doesn’t mean that I do in fact understand it).

Higgs field

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles. As particles pass through the field they are “given” mass and, similar to an object passing through treacle (or molasses), will become slower, and cannot travel at the speed of light because they have mass.

Mass itself is not generated by the Higgs field: the creation of matter or energy would conflict with the laws of conservation. However, mass is “given” to particles from the Higgs field via the Higgs bosons, which contain the relative mass in the form of energy. Once the field has endowed a formerly massless particle the particle slows down because it has become heavier.

If the Higgs field did not exist, particles would not have the mass required to attract one another, and would float around freely at light speed. Also gravity would not exist because mass would not be there to attract other mass.

The process of giving a particle mass is known as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Higgs field

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

The process of giving a particle mass is known as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

more…

?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Higgs field

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

The process of giving a particle mass is known as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

more…

?

>>>The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe.

If space itself is an energy field or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

I should have said Energy = Energy Field, the Higgs Field.

Have we narrowed what the fabric of space is down to either The Higgs Energy Field or Quantum Foam?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Have we narrowed what the fabric of space is down to either The Higgs Energy Field or Quantum Foam?

Come to the quantum foam Luke.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Higgs field

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

The process of giving a particle mass is known as the Higgs effect. This effect will transfer mass or energy to any particle that passes through it. Light that passes through it gains energy, not mass, because it is a wave.

more…

?

>>>The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe.

If space itself is an energy field or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

I should have said Energy = Energy Field, the Higgs Field.

it was more to do with the assertion that because light is a wave it picks up energy not mass. every frigging particle has a wave/particle duality. even photons. so that sentence is crap. imo.

Particles from Quarks to black holes move through the higgs energy field

Electromagnetic energy across the Whole Frequency Spectrum move through the Higgs energy field, radio waves, microwaves, light, ultraviolet, xrays and gamma rays.

Gravity waves move through the Higgs energy Field

anything else?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

?

>>>The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe.

If space itself is an energy field or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

I should have said Energy = Energy Field, the Higgs Field.

it was more to do with the assertion that because light is a wave it picks up energy not mass. every frigging particle has a wave/particle duality. even photons. so that sentence is crap. imo.

My understanding is that waves and particles move the the higgs field.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe.

If space itself is an energy field or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

I should have said Energy = Energy Field, the Higgs Field.

it was more to do with the assertion that because light is a wave it picks up energy not mass. every frigging particle has a wave/particle duality. even photons. so that sentence is crap. imo.

My understanding is that waves and particles move the the higgs field.

My understanding is that waves and particles move through the higgs energy field.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe.

If space itself is an energy field or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

I should have said Energy = Energy Field, the Higgs Field.

it was more to do with the assertion that because light is a wave it picks up energy not mass. every frigging particle has a wave/particle duality. even photons. so that sentence is crap. imo.

My understanding is that waves and particles move the the higgs field.

that wasn’t the point i was making.

Particles from Quarks to black holes move through the higgs energy field

Electromagnetic energy across the Whole Frequency Spectrum move through the Higgs energy field, radio waves, microwaves, light, ultraviolet, xrays and gamma rays.

Gravity waves move through the Higgs energy Field

Anything else?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Space and Quantum Entanglement

The basic premise of QE is that two independent objects that are separated by space can sometimes present the same measured characteristics even though there is no apparent physical interaction.

If space itself is energy or quantum foam, is it this that allows the physical connection between two objects in space.

We’re getting into the field of QM interpretations here, which I prefer to avoid.

There are four alternative ways that I can think of that the two can be connects.

1. By quantum tunnelling – allowing the transfer of information faster than light.

2. By the Copenhagen Interpretation’s probability wave. This links distant objects because it was generated before the two separated.

3. By the interpretation of one observation propagating as an antiparticle back in time to affect the event that ultimately led to the second object.

4. The many worlds interpretation where one observation splits the universe into two, with the second object allocated to the correct universe.

If two particles exist in the higgs energy field (space) then it makes sense that if there is any entanglement, the two particles are communicating their characteristics through the higgs energy field.

Tau.Neutrino said:

If two particles exist in the higgs energy field (space) then it makes sense that if there is any entanglement, the two particles are communicating their characteristics through the higgs energy field.

Is that right or wrong?

Quantum entanglement can be readily understood by considering the superposition of entire spacetimes. One does not need to invoke continued communication between the entangled particles. But bear in mind that entanglement does require either direct or indirect interaction between the particles at some point in their histories.

mollwollfumble said:

We’re getting into the field of QM interpretations here, which I prefer to avoid.

That’s like lamenting that you have to get into atoms and molecules in order to understand chemical reactions.

KJW said:

Quantum entanglement can be readily understood by considering the superposition of entire spacetimes. One does not need to invoke continued communication between the entangled particles. But bear in mind that entanglement does require either direct or indirect interaction between the particles at some point in their histories.

mollwollfumble said:

We’re getting into the field of QM interpretations here, which I prefer to avoid.

That’s like lamenting that you have to get into atoms and molecules in order to understand chemical reactions.

I’d agree with that if the different interpretations were testable. But if all interpretations give the same predictions in the standard model, does it make sense to talk about different interpretations at all?

This graph summarizes what I think about interpretations of QM. This is a poll of 33 theoretical QM physicists. There is nothing like a consistent agreement.

From http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

mollwollfumble said:

This graph summarizes what I think about interpretations of QM. This is a poll of 33 theoretical QM physicists. There is nothing like a consistent agreement.

From http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

Interesting.

Well worthy of study by all Intelligent Scientists, I’m sure :)

mollwollfumble said:

I’d agree with that if the different interpretations were testable. But if all interpretations give the same predictions in the standard model, does it make sense to talk about different interpretations at all?

But do all the interpretations give the same predictions? It seems to me that all the predictions come from the mathematics and not from the interpretations themselves. That is, the interpretations are not making any predictions at all. Thus, the way to assess the different interpretations is by how they explain the mathematics. Doing this may reveal that particular interpretations are contrived.