Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So, I recently read the following article:

and I have some questions on some of the things it discussed, as well as some theories of my own.

My Theories

  • I also was starting to think about entanglement, and I eventually came up with the consensus that entanglement is when one thing's superposition is dependent on another thing's superposition or (collapsed) wave function.

  • If that is correct, then wouldn't every atom elementary particle be entangled with every other elementary particle in the universe because of the fact that two things can't be in the same space. As soon as the wave function of one of the elementary particles collapses, we are given information about every other particle in existence, because we know that all other particles can't occupy that space anymore. If this keeps happening we would get some sort of ripple effect among the particles.

Does this make sense or am I completely off my rockers here?

Now the way I eventually came to thinking about "quantum observation" is that if information about a thing's position/status is persistent (it survives from at least one instance of time to the next), then it has been observed. It's kinda like the example in the article where if we don't know where the cat is, we can work off the assumption that it's everywhere at once. As soon as information is recorded about that cat's position, that assumption is no longer valid because information has been provided to narrow down the field of possibilities. (Basically Shrödinger's cat, with a quantum twist). It all boils down to human uncertainty, and the equations we work with are tailored to work with the most specific information, even if that information isn't necessarily one value.

Again, does that make any sense at all? (I hope so haha)

Other Info

  • Overall, I'm brand new to quantum mechanics, and have almost no physics background. (You'll know why in a moment.) Some of these are probably crazy to anyone who knows what they're talking about, but it's my first try at understanding these concepts. I'd love to get guidance and get better with this topic as I go on.
  • I learn best when I'm given concrete examples and analogies, and then am allowed to branch off from there to understand the more abstract topic, once I have the concrete stuff under my belt.
  • I'm only a freshman in high school, so I don't speak calculus yet. Please avoid throwing big equations at me, but if you think I'd benefit from seeing them, please bear that in mind and provide some explanation along with them.
share|cite|improve this question

closed as too broad by BMS, John Rennie, Danu, Valter Moretti, Neuneck May 30 '14 at 8:08

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I am not the one voting for "close" but unfortunately this is not possible to be answered here as is, that is why you got one. First off you are asking too many questions, and the format here is one question at a time. Secondly it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics without mathematics. It is just another science fiction scenario. I would suggest taking the physics courses and maths to calculus and differential equations, if you are really interested. – anna v May 30 '14 at 5:22
Andrew, even after the edit you're basically asking for a beginners guide to entanglement and that's just too broad a question. In any case all but the most superficial answers would be unintelligable. If you really want to pursue this you need to go off and learn the basics of QM. It actually isn't that hard, though you will need calculus (seems like a good excuse to learn it :-). – John Rennie May 30 '14 at 15:09