Timeline for Has anyone actually "seen" entanglement?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | user46925 | @RonMaimon : it's a new miscomprehension of the datas todays, in this great grants war. The process claimed ( naturally ) by the localists and causelists has no speed, since it is a causal result. Only non-causelists non-localists need to define a speed for the famous effect. Hence, there is no new constraints on hidden variables theories. We still wait that the nonlocalists produce the promised technologies since they are so sure to have their proofs. 25 years is a lot. | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 9:32 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | I didn't write it, but I think the reason Wiki says the effect travels thousands of times faster than light is because this must be true in a hidden variables theory. In pure QM, nothing travels at all, because its just nonlocal entanglement, without any hidden variables. But the bound on speed makes it clear that any hidden variable theory has to be grossly nonlocal. Perhaps the best phrasing is "If the entangled particles have hidden variables which determine the outcome, entanglement requires that these variables change at least 10000 times faster than light in response to measurement". | |
| Dec 2, 2011 at 20:51 | history | edited | FrankH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added another link explaining entanglement
|
| Nov 27, 2011 at 13:40 | history | edited | FrankH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor edit
|
| Nov 27, 2011 at 13:39 | comment | added | FrankH | @user6328 - I added part of what you suggested here. Thanks for the suggestion. I did not add the second part you suggested since I didn't think it really added any new information. About the wiki article, feel free to make whatever edits you think are appropriate. I do like your suggestion of not even mentioning speed in the wiki article. | |
| Nov 27, 2011 at 13:32 | history | edited | FrankH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Explicitly state there is no communication.
|
| Nov 27, 2011 at 10:24 | comment | added | user6328 | Why not say that there's is no communication between the particles at all after they've been separated. The effect only occurs because before we measure any of the particles we don't know what state their in. Back to the wiki article; saying that the effect "travels at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light" is what I find wrong, the effect "remains after separation regardless the distance" would be better wording. What do you think? | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 18:22 | comment | added | FrankH | @zephyr - Ok. I kind of see your point, but it is very subtle and I cannot think of how else to say that without someone reading hidden variables into it. Any suggestion on wording? | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | user2963 | @FrankH - The part I disliked is this: "Quantum entanglement occurs when you prepare two particles such that one is spin up and the other is spin down, but you don't know which is which." From the rest of your answer I don't doubt that you understand entanglement, I just feel like that sentence may give people the wrong idea (that instantaneous communication does not occur because the particles have a hidden shared property) | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 5:52 | comment | added | FrankH | @fraggle - 1st the word "effect" is only in the wikipedia article not in my answer to this question. I personally don't see how "effect" implies hidden variables, but in any case that word was already used several times in the wikipedia article, so I suggest you take this issue up on that page and make whatever edit you think is more appropriate on the wikipedia page for Quantum Entanglement. | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 5:17 | comment | added | Fraggle | I sort of wonder if the word "effect" is appropriate at all here. | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 4:32 | comment | added | FrankH | @zephyr - sorry, I don't see how I am suggesting hidden variables anywhere - did you mean in my answer to the question or my edit of wikipedia? I would be happy to edit anything I said that suggests hidden variables. | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 4:23 | comment | added | user2963 | @FrankH I think this answer is somewhat misleading as it seems to suggest a hidden variable explanation to the correlation. | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 20:58 | comment | added | FrankH | @Fraggle, Thanks. Wikipedia is not exactly wrong, but it is misleading. So I edited as follows: "Experimental results have demonstrated that effects due to entanglement travel at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light....[22][23] Although the "effect" of quantum entanglement appears to exceed the speed of light, there is no violation of special relativity or causality which declares that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. See EPR Paradox for an explanation about how causality is not violated." | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 20:54 | comment | added | hpekristiansen | There is nothing wrong with the wiki description. It really tells the same as FrankH, it does_not_suggest that information was send thousands of times faster than the speed of ligth. The effect(which is theoretically instantaneously) was measured experimentally to be at least this speed. | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 16:29 | comment | added | Pratik Deoghare | @Fraggle Thanks for pointing wikipedia thing out. It looks like some kind of fraud. | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 15:08 | vote | accept | user6328 | ||
| Nov 24, 2011 at 14:48 | comment | added | Fraggle | Maybe you should clarify the Wikipedia entry "Experimental results have demonstrated that effects due to entanglement travel at least thousands of times faster than the speed of light.[20][21] In another experiment, the measurements of the entangled particles were made in moving, relativistic reference frames in which each respective measurement occurred before the other, and the measurement results remained correlated." | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 14:09 | comment | added | FrankH | You are welcome. It is a common misapprehension about entanglement. Many science fiction stories also claim that entanglement allows faster than light communication, but it just ain't so. I guess that is why it is called fiction. | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 14:01 | comment | added | user6328 | Thanks a lot that's what I thought it was but I read this from Brian Clegg (has a degree in physics from Cambridge University) "It’s possible to link together two quantum particles — photons of light or atoms, for example — in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, faster than light link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science." and I got confused... | |
| Nov 24, 2011 at 13:47 | history | edited | FrankH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added reference
|
| Nov 24, 2011 at 13:39 | history | answered | FrankH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |