"Quantum Entanglement" isn't that hard a concept...

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Beer w/Straw, Dec 16, 2017.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,368
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2017
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    The concept isn't that hard but applying it in any useful way is. Misusing it in movies is quite easy however.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    It has yet to rear its sweet little head in "psychic workshops" and "crystal energy sharing groups".

    Give it time. (or has it ? Entangled relationships? Quantum separations perhaps?)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,056
    Mention Star Wars: the new click bait.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,572
    Feynman said that. My guess, after running through the equations and some of the aspects - such as violations of Bell's Inequality - is that it is still true.
     
  9. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    Is it possible that our mental processes are innately unable to understand it and that it is only the logic of successful model testing that has brought us to a point we will forever be a stranger to?

    Or do we eventually understand everything once we have had time to internalise it?
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    If we understood QM we wouldn't still be discovering "new" properties of quantum systems, we would have predicted them and looked for them experimentally.
    The only real thing we can predict is there are more surprising quantum effects waiting to be discovered. We will encounter them as materials science proceeds apace--I mean, who predicted the quantum Hall effect, or superconducting ceramics?

    However GR is a predictive theory and its predictions have been confirmed repeatedly. This is if you will, the big quantum information gap between GR and QM.
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    My understanding is that QM is highly predictive. I'm guessing you mean that you wish that it was more deterministic and less random?

    Regarding people not understanding it. I think people do understand how it works. They just don't understand why it works as it does. It's makes the accurate predictions, we just don't understand the "why" in many cases.

    Isn't one of the "interpretations" "just shut up and calculate"?
     
  12. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    877
    So to an extent,if a theory is incomplete then we are fooling ourselves(or easily satisfied) if we think we have it sussed?

    .....whereas GR may have come to the end of its road and no comparable surprises are to be expected (not that I am qualified to poncificate ;-) )
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2017
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Then can you explain why the QHE was not predicted, or why perovskite superconductors weren't? Can you explain why research labs are finding unexpected results every year, many of which are hailed as being useful in designing and building quantum computers?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,572
    Even well understood theories have failed to predict many of their consequences, failed to suggest significant phenomena they successfully explained later. Biologists are quite familiar with this.
     
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Once we've discovered some quantum effect, explaining it isn't that hard (finding a Hamiltonian that fits, say). QM explains observations but doesn't predict them. And that's a bit hard to understand I suppose.

    Again, evolution is not a theory that predicts what will evolve or what form it will have, it really only says that lifeforms will evolve whenever a resource is available to exploit. We can't predict what humans will look like in the far future, but we can predict there's a good chance there won't be any, because unless we diversify we will stop evolving and go extinct like any species.

    Well, that depends on what you look at. One surprise, I guess, was that string theory can formulate GR.
    We still aren't sure about the overall shape of the universe, lots of people are busy trying to restrict the kinds of topological structures that correspond to our observations and so on, I'd say the theory is far from being at the end of its useful life. Nobody knows how many solutions the field equations have, for instance, but anyone can check if a given solution is correct.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017

Share This Page