Has anyone ever done this experiment before? quantum entanglement

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility and implications of conducting quantum entanglement experiments, specifically involving electrons and photons, with a focus on the idea of sending particles from Earth to the moon. Participants explore the potential outcomes of such experiments and question the validity of the proposed methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes an experiment involving entangled electrons, suggesting that measuring one electron on Earth and another on the moon could reveal new insights into entanglement and its implications for time.
  • Several participants challenge the practicality of sending an electron to the moon, citing environmental interactions that would disrupt the electron's state.
  • Another participant suggests that similar experiments can be conducted on Earth, emphasizing that the same physics applies without the need for long-distance measurements.
  • There is mention of a proposed experiment involving entangled photons aboard the International Space Station, highlighting the differences in experimental challenges between electrons and photons.
  • Multiple participants express confusion about the purpose of the proposed experiments, questioning what new information could be gained compared to existing experiments that have already demonstrated entanglement.
  • Some participants note that entanglement has been extensively measured in laboratory settings, and there are existing kits available for educational purposes.
  • There is a recurring theme of miscommunication, with participants pointing out that the original focus on electrons has shifted to photons, leading to further confusion in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and necessity of the proposed experiments, with some arguing that existing experiments already address the same questions. There is no consensus on the value of conducting the suggested long-distance measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the specific goals of the proposed experiments and the implications of measuring entangled particles over long distances. The discussion reflects a lack of clarity about the differences between experiments involving electrons and those involving photons.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring concepts in quantum mechanics, particularly those curious about experimental approaches to quantum entanglement and the challenges associated with different types of particles.

billllib
Messages
76
Reaction score
2
enangle 2 electrons. Capture 1 electron by using this method http://news.discovery.com/tech/photo-first-lights-captured-as-both-particle-and-wave-150302.htm. Send an electron from Earth to the moon. Have an detector on the moon that measure a property of entanglement and same with on earth. View the entangled particle first on earth. Repeat the experiment view the other detector first would this change the results? Has anyone ever done this before? ( my point is the past can affect the future similar to viewing the sun from a telescope.) Or am i wrong and this is what entanglement is and just proves entanglement is weird?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
billllib said:
Send an electron from Earth to the moon.

Among other issues with this idea, you really can't do that. Interactions with the environment (scattering) would quickly take your electron out of the pure state.

Also, this wouldn't show anything other experiments haven't done before.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Nobody will do an entanglement experiment sending something to the moon. You can do the same experiment here on Earth, in a lab, sending a particle to the other side of the lab table and test the same physics.
 
StevieTNZ said:

But this is an experiment using entangled photons, not the electrons that is in the OP. There is a reason why closing the locality loophole for electrons is more difficult than with photons. Electrons are easily affected by stray fields, and maintaining coherence from here to the moon is practically impossible.

Zz.
 
Do a similar experiment with photons. Use a telescope and capture 1 of the photon assuming possible. View the photon 1 light minute away then quickly view the photon right beside the experiment. This takes 1 minute for the signal to go back to the original photon. Would this not prove ftl or something even stranger?

Or is this already been proven with quantum entanglement?

How was quantum entanglement proven?
 
billllib said:
Do a similar experiment with photons. Use a telescope and capture 1 of the photon assuming possible. View the photon 1 light minute away then quickly view the photon right beside the experiment. This takes 1 minute for the signal to go back to the original photon. Would this not prove ftl or something even stranger?

Or is this already been proven with quantum entanglement?

How was quantum entanglement proven?

There's no reason you have to do that. You can do this experiment just as well going from one side of a lab to another. The speed of light isn't that fast in the scheme of the kind of time intervals that can be measured if you're clever.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to show here, and I'm not sure what you mean by "proven" in this context. Entanglement is something that has been measured countless times in labs. You can even buy kits off-the-shelf for undergraduate physics labs. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-it-yourself-quantum-spooky-action/[/PLAIN]

ETA: You should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
 
Last edited by a moderator:
billllib said:
Do a similar experiment with photons. Use a telescope and capture 1 of the photon assuming possible. View the photon 1 light minute away then quickly view the photon right beside the experiment. This takes 1 minute for the signal to go back to the original photon. Would this not prove ftl or something even stranger?

Or is this already been proven with quantum entanglement?

How was quantum entanglement proven?

You seem to be ignoring the responses given to you. There are ALREADY experiments with photons that showed the non-locality of this phenomenon. These were done over several kilometers.

So to repeat what e.bar.goum had asked you, what exactly are you trying to measure and show here? What would the extra long distance show that previous experiments can't or hadn't? No one is going to do any experiments when there is no or very little knowledge can be gained from it when compared to previously-done experiments. You haven't shown why experiments that had been done already can't already address the same thing.

Try not to ignore this question. Otherwise, your "experiment" has no merit.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
But this is an experiment using entangled photons, not the electrons that is in the OP. There is a reason why closing the locality loophole for electrons is more difficult than with photons. Electrons are easily affected by stray fields, and maintaining coherence from here to the moon is practically impossible.

Zz.
Oh darn! Thanks for pointing that out -- I must have had a brain fade when I forgot the OP was talking about electrons rather than photons.
 
  • #10
StevieTNZ said:
Oh darn! Thanks for pointing that out -- I must have had a brain fade when I forgot the OP was talking about electrons rather than photons.

It doesn't matter now, because the OP has switched to photons. Sometime in threads like this, I feel as if things are being made up as we go along.

Zz.
 
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
It doesn't matter now, because the OP has switched to photons. Sometime in threads like this, I feel as if things are being made up as we go along.

Zz.
Yes, but you only feel that way because it's true.
 
  • #12
Sorry should have read more carefully.
Thanks for the responses.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 473 ·
16
Replies
473
Views
32K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K