PDA

View Full Version : Ep. 140: Entanglement



Fraser
2009-Jul-03, 07:30 PM
One of the most amazing aspects of quantum mechanics is quantum entanglement. This is the strange behavior where particles can become entangled, so they're somehow connected to one another no matter the distance between them. Interact with one particle and the other reacts instantly; even if they're separated by billions of light-years.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/astronomycast/~4/Lemxs4N3vXA

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/astronomycast/~3/Lemxs4N3vXA/)

lonequark
2009-Aug-21, 03:13 PM
is it possible our universe could be a hologram and would that explain quantum entanglement?

damian1727
2009-Aug-23, 10:09 AM
much more so than you might imagine

someone smart would need to turn up to explain it properly but

all the information for a black hole is on its surface.... i read someplace the universe might be the same.... i'd have to look it up

wiki....

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity theories which resolves the black hole information paradox within string theory. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind.[1][2][3]
The principle states that the description of a volume of space should be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region, preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. For a black hole, the principle states that the description of all the objects which will ever fall in is entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, so that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at low energies. Cosmological holography has not yet been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.


so WOW far out man

there is something to this as it seems to be true for black holes....

quite what it means ..?:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Spoons
2009-Aug-24, 01:43 PM
Couldn't you just claim that the two particles are entangled in dimensions other than the three spacial and one time we are familiar with, and that as far as they separate in the familiar dimensions the are still closely tied together in the other dimensions? Then, the information isn't traveling faster than light through our dimensions, just at light speed via the other dimensions.

I mean, this is probably no more speculative than the holographic concept, is it? Or is that basically the same? Forgive me, I haven't read any thorough explanations of the holographic theory, only vague stuff. I don't see how currently either idea is testable though, which really means it's not science, just speculation at this time.

robross
2009-Aug-26, 12:18 AM
Couldn't you just claim that the two particles are entangled in dimensions other than the three spacial and one time we are familiar with, and that as far as they separate in the familiar dimensions the are still closely tied together in the other dimensions? Then, the information isn't traveling faster than light through our dimensions, just at light speed via the other dimensions.

I mean, this is probably no more speculative than the holographic concept, is it? Or is that basically the same? Forgive me, I haven't read any thorough explanations of the holographic theory, only vague stuff. I don't see how currently either idea is testable though, which really means it's not science, just speculation at this time.


I watched a lecture online recently, I *think* it was by Leonard Susskind, (but I may be wrong,) and he made some great points that might apply here.

He was commenting on the difficulties we get into when we try to interpret these quantum-mechanical events using our everyday language and experiences. In essence, metaphors are only useful up to a certain point. Like the whole particle/wave duality of matter. You can describe a photon as either, but really, it's neither. It is its own reality, that our human brains have not evolved to understand at a fundamental level. His point was that in these cases we should not get too hung up on our descriptions of these events. What *is* important is the *mathematics* that evolve from the observations that can be used to develop testable theories. We may not understand at a fundamental level how the QM world really works, but we can describe it with equations, and that is probably the best we can do with our current brains.

Spoons
2009-Aug-26, 12:43 AM
I suppose this is all a very new field of study really. Given time I imagine we'll end up developing better language for it. It's probably also the case that I myself need to learn the correct applications of language to the concepts.

I may look up that lecture when I get home this evening. Sounds quite interesting. Thanks robross.