Just for interest,
Quantum entanglement achieved at room temperature in macroscopic semiconductor wafers | KurzweilAI
I was thinking about the entanglement idea..does this mean that if a communication device was created that things like robotics used on other planets could be controlled instantaneously with no time lag like saying stop before a robot falls down a hole or crater?
If aliens did exist and transmitted using this technology we could never receive the information without an entangled receiver...which we cannot make, I assume the entangled parts have to come from the same source unless the universe is entangled (big bang)..but then how would you know what was the entangled part...entangled multiples of the same thing..many worlds.
Probably ok for quantum PC's.
Regards
M. Gregg
Quantum entanglement achieved at room temperature in macroscopic semiconductor wafers | KurzweilAI
I was thinking about the entanglement idea..does this mean that if a communication device was created that things like robotics used on other planets could be controlled instantaneously with no time lag like saying stop before a robot falls down a hole or crater?
If aliens did exist and transmitted using this technology we could never receive the information without an entangled receiver...which we cannot make, I assume the entangled parts have to come from the same source unless the universe is entangled (big bang)..but then how would you know what was the entangled part...entangled multiples of the same thing..many worlds.
Probably ok for quantum PC's.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
No, and I wish I had a link to a presentation by one of the original researchers with an excellent description of the experiments. You have no control over your choice but at the other end the other choice is always the opposite of yours. Not intuitive, find an explanation from a real physicist, but my take is there is no instant remote forcing of causality possible.
Here's a poor equivalent example in the classical mechanics:
Alice and Bob are handed (by a third person C) each an envelope with the possible result of a coin toss (head/tail).
With the envelope in his pocket, A is jumping in a space ship, destination Alpha Centauri, while B remains on earth. After a very long journey, close to the speed of light, 5 something years on earth (much shorter in space ship time, since special relativity applies) A makes it to the destination and opens his envelope. "Head" is written inside. At that very moment, A knows what is written in B's envelope, without being required to ask and get a response 10 years later (back-forth at the speed of light). However, B does not know the same answer without opening his envelope, or waiting for the A message, 10 years later.
Did the A knowledge qualify as "distance spooky action"? Obviously not. Did it contradict in any way the known body of knowledge? Not at all.
Now when it comes to the quantum world it is of course much more complicated. It cannot be explained by any means using common knowledge or our human intuition. That's mostly because the "knowledge" is not that easy to define in terms of "head/tail". Enough to know that a "measurement" result (defined in QM as a Hermitian linear operator, over the state vector space, eigenvalues) have strange properties. As a very simple example, the projection of a unity z axis vector on the x and y axis (always zero in classical mechanics) is +1 or -1. When looking perpendicular to the unity vector axis, the projection result is either -1 or +1 with the same probability, so the average is indeed zero, matching the classical mechanic well known result. Tilt your view, and the probabilities become also tilted (avoiding more math language here) towards +1 or -1. So "head/tail" becomes in QM more like "head with the p probability" and "tail with the 1-p probability".
Just a big QM amateur here, there are for sure more qualified individuals to render a better example and interpretation. Everything else is journalistic BS.
Last edited:
If the result is already known by C whats the point of the experiment.
Ie what is the point of a quantum computer?
If someone already has to know all outcomes before the experiment.
If Schrodinger's cat type experiment is done at a distance where no one knows the outcome and you have an indicator of dead or alive when the box is opened what forces the outcome? looking at the indicator or opening the box<<or are the two the same..
Regards
M. Gregg
Nothing forces it, it's random. If you're the distant observer, when you check your particle, the state of the cat is irrevocably known.
It's QM. Don't try classical reasoning.
Another way to look at it (unfortunately as strange as any other view) is to accept the superdeterminism. To quote Bell, from an interpretation of his theorem mentioned above:
Philosophically I disagree with the absence of free will having anything to do with it. The wording of the quote implies that the choice of the experiment can effect the result, at least by my reading.
Last edited:
^ Isn't, in effect, superdeterminism pre-collapsing all possibilities? In other words, the entire system can be described forwards and backwards from observation of any one state.
I think the quote more says that the eventual choice of the experiment has been known since the establishment of the system.
I think the quote more says that the eventual choice of the experiment has been known since the establishment of the system.
The most common mistake in QM is to take the CM approach and confuse the final QM state of the system under measurement with the measurement results. The measurements result is a state (CM) vs. a set of eigenvalues (QM).
Bell's interpretation is that everything we may think it's our choice (in particular to choose a certain measurement on a system) was in fact decided in advance.
Doesn't seem to me less intuitive, or stranger, than e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation.
What if the rules are not flawless? Rules are set up by those so called "giants". Non giants like me and many others, often have to take those rules as "axioms" because there is usually no other way. Otherwise, we have to know what they know and think logically from ground zero, or we are prone to misinterpretation. (Including some giants misinterpreting the older giants).
The problem as I see it is,
The assumption that brain function is somehow outside of the process.
If we are advanced machines then I don't see how you can be outside the process.
What we think is not controlled in some way..but isn't that the nature of reality.
The control creates reality..
Ie the universe follows rules? we are part of the universe..
The idea that we are separate from the probability and we decide what outcome we expect to find by doing the experiment to test for this or that.
Are we entangled with the experiment..is reality entanglement?
Or are we in some way abstract from the process? Assuming the we bit or "I" exist..are we observing anything at all? Or just being fed information?
Ie if we are put in a vacuum we die there is no choice unless the choice is wear a space suit or don't..
Regards
M. Gregg
The assumption that brain function is somehow outside of the process.
If we are advanced machines then I don't see how you can be outside the process.
What we think is not controlled in some way..but isn't that the nature of reality.
The control creates reality..
Ie the universe follows rules? we are part of the universe..
The idea that we are separate from the probability and we decide what outcome we expect to find by doing the experiment to test for this or that.
Are we entangled with the experiment..is reality entanglement?
Or are we in some way abstract from the process? Assuming the we bit or "I" exist..are we observing anything at all? Or just being fed information?
Ie if we are put in a vacuum we die there is no choice unless the choice is wear a space suit or don't..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.