quantum entanglement suggest non local behavior, "entagled observables" may be determined at the source, yes?

Question

Therefore no superluminal action at a distance!, maybe

Answer 1

No, that's not correct. You need to look at how often measurements that have conjugate contributions do *not* match. (recall that a certain measurement of polarization in one direction ("up") requires a completely uncertain measurement in an orthogonal direction (50% "left" and 50% "right")) The key involves measuring a direction which is a superposition of the certain state and the uncertain state. Let me explain more simply.

You should read about Bell's theorem ("Bell's inequality" or "Bell's interconnectedness thoerem"). Bell notes that if you assume locality, then you will expect an UPPER BOUND on an error rate that is LESS than the actual error rate seen in nature.

I will summarize the example given on pages 218-220 of Nick Nerbert's _Quantum Reality_, though the Wikipedia pages below ("Bell's theorem" and the "CHSH inequality") should also help convince you of non-locality.

Imagine that you entangle lots of photons in the up-down direction and send Alice off with half of them and Bob off with the other half. Whenever Alice measures an up, Bob measures a down. They can write down their measurements each time and get a string something like:

Alice: U U D U D D D U U D U . . .
Bob: U U D U D D D U U D U . . .

Clearly, their measurements match 100% of the time.

Now, imagine that Alice decides not to measure up-down polarization and instead rotates her measurement device slightly. Now she's measuring the polarization "mostly" up and down but also slightly left and right. In other words, Alice's "up" is equal to Bob's "mostly up, but slightly left." At this new angle (call it alpha) Alice matches Bob's measurements MOST of the time. It turns out that on average she and Bob disagree 1 time out of every 4.

Now, imagine that Bob was the one who decided not to measure up-down polarization and instead rotates his measurement device by alpha. Imagine in THIS case that Alice left her measurement device in the proper up-down configuration. At this angle, Bob's measurements match Alices MOST of the time, but mismatch 1 time out of every 4.

(All of the above SO FAR can be verified by experiment)

Now, combine the two. Let's say Alice rotates alpha in one direction and Bob rotates alpha in the other direction, so now they're "up" polarizations are a whole 2*alpha off from each other. Again, Alice and Bob's measurements match MOST of the time. Sometimes Alice gets an error and mismatches. Sometimes Bob gets an error and mismatches. However, SOMETIMES they *BOTH* get a mismatch at the SAME TIME and so it APPEARS like they matched. Thus, we expect at **MOST** 2 errors out of every 4 measurements (on average). In fact, because there will be some errors that happen at the same time, we'll expect less than 2 errors out of every 4.

So what happens if you do this in real life? You get 3 errors out of every 4. You get MORE errors than could be expected with the locality assumption. Thus, it MUST be that Bob's measurement has an instantaneous impact on Alice (and vice-versa). If their measurements were independent of each other, then they would get less than (or equal to) 2 errors out of every 4. There is NO WAY independent measurements would get 3 errors out of every 4 on average. It simply can't happen with the locality assumption.

So entangled particles are random UNTIL MEASUREMENT (not predetermined) and measurements are strongly correlated.

(note: I believe that you can make a locality assumption involving having infinite states and be able to provide for a world where 3 errors out of 4 measurements is possible; however, I believe the infinite state assumption is equally as strange as a non-locality assumption. Additionally, I believe the only truly well-formed explanations for non-locality must assume superliminal effects)

Answer 2

Although at first it seems that entanglement allows the transmission of data faster then the speed of light this is not the case because the information cannot be detected.

The argument goes like this when an event creates two particles the wave function of the two particles are entangled. The act of detection collapses both wave functions so that the when the detected particles properties are detected the undetected particles properties instantly become determined even though it is now far away - a spooky action. This would appear to be superluminal. Superlumioal motion is allowed as long as it carries no information which is the case here.

Answer 3

inhabitants growth is something that Doomsday enthusiasts have been speaking approximately for years. It become as quickly as believed that the Human inhabitants ought to no longer exceed 4 billion because of fact there would not be sufficient room in the worldwide for each individual to stay and nevertheless have the skill to consume or perhaps breath. at the instant the inhabitants is around the 6 billion mark and that i for you will nevertheless breath and there remains nutrition. in actuality there is feilds that are being left fallow for the subsequent 300 and sixty 5 days or 2 so a greater robust high quality of nutrition could be produced. We as a spiecis have the skill to think of and plan for destiny activities. No different animal has that skill or a minimum of to the quantity that we've. A squirle case in point isn't storing nuts because of fact it knows wintry climate is coming and has to confirm it has sufficient for the completed wintry climate, like a nut an afternoon. It shops nutrition because of fact that is programed into that is DNA and instincts. i've got those days examine comments, no longer via a single "scientist" yet ones that have been printed via a huge team that genuinely quite researched the situation and got here up with the kind that if we don't strengthen our present day nutrition, housing and challenge-free clinical awareness, that the Human inhabitants can attain approximately 12 billion till now we attain extreme issues. So it takes us approximately 10 years to enhance via one thousand million and that may no longer counting the reality that the worldwide inhabitants is quite actual heavy meaning that there are alot greater previous human beings than youthful ones. genuinely there will be issues that pop up, no person will see them coming and that they are going to be at last delt with. we can proceed to enhance as a human beings and our inhabitants will enhance to boot.

Answer 4

Maybe.

However, this is pretty cutting edge physics. Just conceiving of an
experiment that doesn't in of itself change the results is beyond most.

I knew Heisenberg's Grand daughter. Interestingly, she both hated
computers and had no idea who Schroedinger was.

Answer 5

Whatever is all this about? Is it intended to be funny, or to impress? If it's intended to reveal my ignorance - it's succeeded!