The discussion centers on the concept of entangled photons, particularly focusing on a recent experiment that claims to demonstrate entanglement between two photons that have never interacted or shared a common past. The conversation explores the implications of this finding for our understanding of quantum entanglement, touching on theoretical, conceptual, and experimental aspects.
Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the implications of the experiment and others contesting its significance. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the findings or the nature of entanglement in this context.
Participants discuss various interpretations of entanglement and the implications of the experiment, but there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and criteria for entanglement, as well as the assumptions underlying the claims made.
windscar said:If you commit the "sin" of assuming light is at rest, space-time would contract to zero, and time would slow down indefinetly. So, light would observe itself as being everywhere it was, is, and will be at the same time! It would be as though it was everywhere along it's world line at once. Then the photons would see themselves as being A1 and B1 or A2 and B2 at the same time they are just A1, A2, B1, and B2. This is because when the wavelengths match up, they amplify their intensity as if they joined into one particle. So from the photons frame of reference, they are the same particle at the same time they are not. To the photon, time has no meaning, and it is as there is no time that the particle passes through. So then the particles could share histories that are completely independent from each other...
OH PLEASE windscarwindscar said:...entanglement... is something that can only be explained using the Special Theory of Relativity.
If you commit the "sin" of assuming light is at rest, ...
I am not surprised at all by these result, and find it has further confirmation of one of my theories.
DrChinese said:I don't need to "prove" particles don't carry a history with them any more than I need to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. It is a fact that no known history is present in any particle beyond a few basic observables (position, momentum, etc.). No such history has ever been observed! You cannot distinguish a photon created 5 minutes ago with one creates 5 billion years ago as far as anyone knows.
As to how an electron is created: this can be done in particle accelerators and can be done by decay of a neutron. Where do you think these new electrons were "hiding" before their creation?
Of course A2 and B2 do not share a common past, as the term is normally used.
Perhaps not common sense, but mathematics certainly, perhaps you would care to show us how these 'results' verify your theory before this thread gets locked, which would be a shame since you've hijacked the Doc's thread. And the actual quote if I remember correctly goes as follows;windscar said:You can't use common sense to understand theoretical physics, but you must develop a new type of uncommon sense. Er, it went something like that, and was said by Einstein
Do you recall a reference where someone used that as coming from Einstein?Hootenanny said:And the actual quote if I remember correctly goes as follows;
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
According to http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html, the "common sense is the collection of prejudices..." quote from Einstein can be found in E. T. Bell's Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences, 1952. A google book search shows this book which says the quote can be found on p. 42 of Bell's book, so someone could look up the context if they're interested.RandallB said:Do you recall a reference where someone used that as coming from Einstein?
Thanks, “The Expanded Quotable Einstein” (2000) by CalapriceJesseM said:According to ...the "common sense is the collection of prejudices..." quote from Einstein can be found in E. T. Bell's Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences, 1952.
ueit said:1. Now, the electron's position in the PDC crystal A might be influenced by the field of the electrons/quarks in the PDC B.
2. A neutron is a complex system containing three charged particles (quarks). The electron that is generated in this way will depend on how these quarks are positioned, and this in turn depends on the surrounding fields. Therefore your electron would not be in a pristine state.
3. Please then specify what exactly the "normal" use of a common past is for you.
I know that the photons originated in some charged particles, and I know that those particles interacted as a consequence of them being charged. This qualifies as a "common past" for me.
Attached is a copy of page 42 to put his use of the quote in context – which I find rather pointless. Got lucky and found an old first edition (I doubt there is a second edition beyond). I doubt the author just made it up – but the book gives no reference and my guess he only heard it through the grapevine from a verbal source that did make it up.JesseM said:According to http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html, the "common sense is the collection of prejudices..." quote from Einstein can be found in E. T. Bell's Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences, 1952. A google book search shows this book which says the quote can be found on p. 42 of Bell's book, so someone could look up the context if they're interested.
Demystifier said:Even the free Schrödinger equation describing non-interacting particles contains entangled solutions. So, I do not understand what is so strange about entangled particles not sharing the common past?