To be fair, the “change one” part is wrong. Two particles that are quantum entangled maintain the same quantum state when separated. But if you change the quantum state of one it doesn’t propogate. They are just in sync.
it's a long distance relationship
Submitted 5 days ago by kali_fornication@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/453f0730-3031-48d5-8b2d-77a7622ac83f.png
Comments
testfactor@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
The analogy that makes most sense to me so far, is this:
You rip a photograph in half and put both halves into envelopes. Now you send one of the envelopes to your friend in Australia. You open the other envelope. Boom! Instantaneous knowledge of what’s in the envelope in Australia. Faster than light!!!In quantum terms, you “rip a photograph in half” by somehow producing two quanta, which are known to have correlated properties. For example, you can produce two quanta, where one has a positive spin and the other a negative spin, and you know those to be equally strong. If you now measure the spin of the first quantum, you know that the other has the opposite spin.
lemonskate@lemmy.world 5 days ago
The important distinction here (and I get it, analogies are always imperfect) is that the photograph analogy has “hidden variables”. That is, each half is fixed at the moment of their separation and you just don’t know what’s in the envelopes until you open one. That’s not how entangled particles work though, and which “half” is which is not determined until the instant of measurement, at which point the state of both are known and fixed.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 4 days ago
My personal example is identical twins. If they’ve had the same experiences, then knowing what one looks like tells you what the other looks like, but ripping the arm off of one doesn’t magically rip the arm off the other.
frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Best theory I’ve heard on quantum entanglement is that it’s actually holographic. What we call two particles are actually aspects of a single entity.
bunchberry@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There is no limit to entanglement as everything is constantly interacting with each other and spreading the entanglement around. That is in fact what decoherence is about, because spreading the entanglement throughout trillions of particles in the environment dilutes it such that quantum interference effects are to subtle to notice, but they are all technically entangled. So if you think entanglement means things are one entity, then you pretty much have to treat the whole universe as one entity. That was the position of Bohm and Blokhintsiev.
frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
The universe is a single entity though, isn’t it? It’s not a container.
Siethron@lemmy.world 4 days ago
She’s dating herself?
ameancow@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s simultaneously less “magical” and more mind-blowing when you understand that this is more likely to point to the universe being more accurately described as an information system on a flat event horizon than an actual 3D space with depth and scale.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 4 days ago
I’m certainly entangled in a mess I never asked for.
A mess some greedy motherfuckers started.
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 4 days ago
But your honour, the atoms in her body were 15 billion years old.
RedSnt@feddit.dk 4 days ago
Is this a draft for scientology’s version of a “new testament”?
how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
Or entanglements is explained via the MWI (Multi World Interpretation) and there is no FTL breach.
T3CHT@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
See also, ‘Purdue decay rate anomaly’ Why do researchers see correlation between nuclear particle decay and solar activity? Or don’t they?
sukhmel@programming.dev 4 days ago
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence
So, can we predict the flares now? I’ve taken a look at Ephraim Fischbach’s articles and it seems that we’re very far from that, so the article you linked is interesting but overstates the facts by a lot. This is what I found the best explanation so far:
Some experiments seem to yield strong evidence of variability of beta-decay rates, but other experiments may show little or no such evidence. Some recent experiments help clarify the situation. In particular, a certain oscillation appears in neutrino measurements made at the Super-Kamiokande Neutrino Observatory and in radon beta-decay measurements made at the Geological Survey of Israel, with identical frequency (9.43 years ⁻¹ ), amplitude and phase, strengthening the case for an influence of neutrinos on beta decays. A review of current experimental information leads us to suggest that 1) beta-decay rates do not change, but 2) the angular distribution of decay products may be anisotropic, and 3) the angular distribution of decay products may be influenced by the ambient neutrino flux. It appears that experiments at standards laboratories tend to be insensitive to direction, and this may be the reason that they tend not to exhibit evidence of variability.
And even this I would take with a grain of salt
thenextguy@lemmy.world 5 days ago
That is not what quantum entanglement means. It doesn’t work like that.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Shhh you’ll upset the quantum mystics that need to believe magic is real!