Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

On quantum ***entanglement

So first, an aside. This idea is important for explaining exactly what I'm talking about:

The speed of electricity is debated amongst scientists. Why? Because you could consider electricity to be either the motion of electrons, or the energy that is exchanged between said electrons.

If you go the motion of electrons route then electricity is just above super sonic speeds.

If you go the energy route then electricity is as fast as light is.

And people debate about which should be used because while the energy may be faster, the thing responsible for actual work being done is the motion of the electrons.

[Note: very much like this concept, it is possible for current to lead voltage on the way to the load or vice versa even though you need both current and voltage to have workable electricity.]

Now, in regard to quantum **entanglement, perhaps this is exactly why it appears that sub-atomic particles can be in two places at one time yet still act as if it were a single particle!

For instance, if you take your hand and place it on the wall, did the energy that you used to move your hand reach the wall before your physical hand did?

Assuming it did, perhaps there is no way to notice because your hand is so big compared to a subatomic particle (SAP)

On a quantum scale, perhaps the energy of a SAP arrives at the destination way before the actual SAP does because at that size there is less "resistance" in the fabric of space-time between the point of origin and the destination.

So maybe you are seeing both the physical SAP and the energy of the SAP. Or rather, the "concept" of the SAP.

Perhaps both things, and the idea of things, are of a tangible substance it's just that outside of the quantum world they are inseparable.

Like we see a tree and the idea of a tree as the same thing but they aren't. They are inseparable to the point of being basically the same thing but we know that ideas and physical things are not the same thing.

So imagine seeing both a real tree and the idea of a tree at the same time right next to each other.

Maybe that is what quantum entanglement is 🤷🏽‍♂️
Speed of an electric signal in a wire is variable, depending on dielectric constant and other details. If we call the speed of light in a vacuum C, then the speed in a conductor can be as low as .5C or as high as about .99C.

In Cat 5e twisted pair ethernet cable, it's about .64C.
In RG6 Belden coax, about .83C

For more examples, see the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor

[quote]If you go the motion of electrons route then electricity is just above super sonic speeds.[/quote]
No. The drift velocity of individual electrons in the conductor is on the order of one cm per minute. Obviously drift velocity has very little influence on signal propagation.

[quote]And people debate about which should be used because while the energy may be faster, the thing responsible for actual work being done is the motion of the electrons.[/quote] No, the thing responsible is electric fields in the conductor and between conductors. Electric fields can exist in a vacuum when the nearest conductors are light years away.

[quote]Now, in regard to quantum superposition, perhaps this is exactly why it appears that sub-atomic particles can be in two places at one time! [/quote] You lost me here. Whenever you [i]measure[/i] a particle, thereby interacting with it, it's in one place. While it's propagating, all bets are off and it can seem to be in two places at once (check out the famous double slit experiment), but as soon as you measure it, it's all in one place. That's demonstrated by, among other things, the famous photoelectric effect for which Einstein won his Nobel prize.
Eternity · 26-30, M
@ElwoodBlues I haven't got any solid references or at least I don't know of any.

This is just me musing; I'm no physics major. I just like to ponder the "how it works" aspect of quantum physics is all.

My disinterest in math holds me back from ever getting too deep.
@Eternity I did major in physics as an undergrad, a long time ago. And entanglement wasn't a big topic. In defense of my physics dept, it was before Aspect's experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment

Here's a pretty good article without any actual math
https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/
It underlines that info cannot travel faster than C, and it introduced me to GHZ state entanglement, which I was unaware of.
@Eternity A bit more about quantum weirdness. That article talks about complementary measurements. This means you can't always measure enough stuff to arbitrary accuracy. Heisenberg's uncertainty is usually presented as "product of uncertainty in position & momentum cannot be less than h" where h is Planck's const. But there can be many more pairs of properties that exhibit the same uncertainty, for example energy & time. Any two properties whose product has the units of Planck's const will have that uncertainty.

And you may notice that QM people talk alot about measuring this and measuring that. Here's why. Ultimately QM is a set of tools for calculating the probability of measuring this or that. QM doesn't tell you how a 'wavicle' travels; it only tells you the probability of measuring various things about it such as location xor time xor energy after it interacts with measurement equipment.

This is a big change for physics and not a happy one. Mechanics & relativity tell you how objects travel. You can calculate what happens at all times. It's deeply unsatisfying to say "I can measure the energy of a particle to extreme accuracy, but I don't know how it got there or exactly when." I want to know what happens all along; not merely at the endpoints. Also QM assumes fundamental randomness - effects without causes. The QM universe is non-deterministic. This troubles some folks.

Einstein was really annoyed by fundamental randomness and not knowing what happens "in between" during propagation of particles, and he spend decades on "hidden variable" theories that would show the apparent randomness is due to other hidden effects we don't yet know about. Neither Einstein nor anybody so far has succeeded with hidden variable theories, but that doesn't make them impossible. Bell's theorem is opaque to me, but it seems to say that there will always be an experiment to show that fundamental randomness and hidden variables will make different predictions in certain circumstances.

So there you have it: QM is a set of tools which makes far and away the most accurate predictions of what it can predict (some measurements), and is silent and/or mysterious on a lot of stuff we really wonder about.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Multiple approaches to this. Now think of electricity as a wave. eg sign wave.
@DeWayfarer and this for the last time i DID NOT MEAN THAT FOR ANY HERE ON THE THREAD. i will say sorry once more but not twice. do you want to talk about dc and ac current. i thought that they were the same and they are not. dc breakers are made different from ac breakers for the spark gap. and that is me trying to change the subject. understood[image deleted]
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@markansas stick to the topic

[quote]On quantum ***entanglement[/quote]

Quantum physics is apart of "On quantum ***entanglement".
@DeWayfarer thank you i am learning the way here.
ServantOfTheGoddess · 61-69, M
I have no idea whether you are right or even on the right track but you sure are smart 😲
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1yIApZtLos]this is kinda close
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Eternity · 26-30, M
@SW-User well no one knows exactly what or why yet so yours is just another way of looking at it
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment