Can't Quantum Entanglement be explained as the same particle?

[hankaaron]

Could entanglement just be quantum coherence of the same particle( which has one of two possibles spins) and we are observing classically what is actually a quantum event? That is, what we see as two particles is really one particle acting in a quantum behavior.

 

[Matterwave]

But the entanglement works over long distances, and two detectors will detect 2 clicks, so unless we give up the notion that a particle is a localized point, I don't think this idea is tenable. 2 clicks should represent 2 particles, not one.

 

[TriTertButoxy]

Interesting idea. But no; it is well established that it is two separate degrees of freedom that are quantum mechanically correlated.

But you are alluding to something that's very deep. Quantum mechanics is like a machine that operates outside of space and time, which connects together all degrees of freedom -- no matter how widely spaced they are.

 

[KaneJeeves]

But the entanglement works over long distances, and two detectors will detect 2 clicks, so unless we give up the notion that a particle is a localized point, I don't think this idea is tenable. 2 clicks should represent 2 particles, not one.

But what if when we split a particle, what we're actually doing is creating a torus of sorts in one higher dimension? Perceived from our space it appears to be two particles. Perceived from one dimension higher it appears as a single torus intersecting the plane (for example) at two distinct points.

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if when we split a particle, what we're actually doing is creating a torus of sorts in one higher dimension? Perceived from our space it appears to be two particles. Perceived from one dimension higher it appears as a single torus intersecting the plane (for example) at two distinct points.

Well, the problem with that hypothesis is that it creates more mysteries than it solves. Notably, that we have no experimental basis for higher dimensions, so we'd first have to create that out of whole cloth.

 

[KaneJeeves]

Well, the problem with that hypothesis is that it creates more mysteries than it solves. Notably, that we have no experimental basis for higher dimensions, so we'd first have to create that out of whole cloth.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean what I said isn't the case, or should be so easily dismissed. At one point in the past there was no experimental basis for the atom having a nucleus. Luckily that didn't stop Rutherford. And aren't there theories that involve extra dimensions, so that thinking along those lines isn't exactly "whole cloth"? I also seem to remember reading how Feynman once posited the idea that there was only a single electron in the universe, which explained why they all appear exactly the same.

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean what I said isn't the case, or should be so easily dismissed. At one point in the past there was no experimental basis for the atom having a nucleus. Luckily that didn't stop Rutherford. And aren't there theories that involve extra dimensions, so that thinking along those lines isn't exactly "whole cloth"? I also seem to remember reading how Feynman once posited the idea that there was only a single electron in the universe, which explained why they all appear exactly the same.

Please note that you are now making speculation that isn't based on anything (certainly, nothing that you've cited). Please re-read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to, especially out policy on speculative posts.

If you think you have valid physics to base this on, please make specific citation. If not, this "discussion" will end here.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure, but you're not explaining anything; you're simply coming up with a different mystery. It's no closer to an answer.

And aren't there theories that involve extra dimensions, so that thinking along those lines isn't exactly "whole cloth"?

Well, the extra dimensions are all far smaller than an atom, so the idea of another dimension that's macroscopic is not consistent with that.

 

[KaneJeeves]

Please note that you are now making speculation that isn't based on anything (certainly, nothing that you've cited). Please re-read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to, especially out policy on speculative posts.

If you think you have valid physics to base this on, please make specific citation. If not, this "discussion" will end here.

Zz.

I'm an educated layman as far as physics and the history of science goes, but certainly no physics professional. While I can't provide the basis evidently required in this forum, I certainly thought my idea would at least be met with some kind of intelligent discussion, albeit at the layman's level. Nothing in my post was outright speculative in the sense of being totally removed from any ideas already put forth by others (and I did provide a loose reference to Feynman). Instead I'm met with what I consider very unscientific attitudes. Sorry to have encroached. I'll find another forum.

 

[unusualname]

But what if when we split a particle, what we're actually doing is creating a torus of sorts in one higher dimension? Perceived from our space it appears to be two particles. Perceived from one dimension higher it appears as a single torus intersecting the plane (for example) at two distinct points.

The idea of a projection from a different dimensional space has been thought of, it's called the Holographic Principle, where our reality (the 'bulk') can be thought of as a higher dimensional projection from a lower dimensional boundary.

The problem is to make it mathematically coherent and testable. There are many ways to speculate about unsolved areas of physics, this forum would soon get swamped with crackpot nonsense if vague speculative ideas were allowed to be discussed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I certainly thought my idea would at least be met with some kind of intelligent discussion, albeit at the layman's level. Nothing in my post was outright speculative in the sense of being totally removed from any ideas already put forth by others (and I did provide a loose reference to Feynman). Instead I'm met with what I consider very unscientific attitudes. Sorry to have encroached. I'll find another forum.

Other than putting forth an idea, you have offered no discussion. What is it exactly you wanted to discuss?

I think you were hoping that you could simply inject a single, simple concept that no one else had thought of before, and there would be a flurry of discussion amongst the physicists over this new idea.

Does anyone here think it's plausible? No. No one here can see how your idea makes sense. I've stated why (for example, these postulated extra dimensions are all compact).




Yes, this forum is quite stringent about speculation. That's why it has 250,000+ members. There are other fora with looser restrictions but, as you may find out, that comes with its own pitfalls.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm an educated layman as far as physics and the history of science goes, but certainly no physics professional. While I can't provide the basis evidently required in this forum, I certainly thought my idea would at least be met with some kind of intelligent discussion, albeit at the layman's level. Nothing in my post was outright speculative in the sense of being totally removed from any ideas already put forth by others (and I did provide a loose reference to Feynman). Instead I'm met with what I consider very unscientific attitudes. Sorry to have encroached. I'll find another forum.

You would have understood where you stand had you paid close attention to the rules that you had agreed to. So your complaint is puzzling.

Physics requires an idea that is falsifiable. You offered none. Your idea was nothing more than hand-waving arguments and guess-work that were quite vague, invoking other things on the superficial level. That isn't a science discussion. That's tabloid journalism.

Our policy on such discussion is very clear and should not be a surprise. So yes, maybe this forum has too high of a standards and you should look for others that don't.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your idea was nothing more than hand-waving arguments and guess-work that were quite vague, invoking other things on the superficial level. That isn't a science discussion. That's tabloid journalism.

Mm. I think you're being harsh on a newcomer who made it clear that he's a layperson. It's not like PF rules explicitly require falsifiability of an idea. Accusing him of 'nothing more than handwaving' and 'tabloid journalism' is insult to injury, and unwarranted, IMO. If he wasn't quit before, he sure is now. Which is a shame.