Hypothesis of Quantum Entanglement acting up particle/wave duality

[bgrah25]

Pardon my wording as I do not have a solid background in physics, while pondering The effects of observation on a particle changing its state upon observation, and the "theory" that the particle in question went back in time to change its state,

My idea or hypothesis on this was that it might be possible to have different levels of some kind of entanglement and that all particles are entangled on a certain level, when we observe these particles change from wave to particle based on the change that happened with other particles upon observation. Something like a change happening to light when we observe with our eyes. And whatnot

If people could perhaps give maybe elaborate on my thoughts it would be much appreciated

 

[harmonic_lens]

I think what you are verbalizing is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to a certain extent. Basically, the principle is that when you view an electron, because the light must bounce off of it and then to your eye for it to be observed, the electron interacts with an incoming photon of light, hence energizing to a higher energy orbital (or quantum state). Despite this, Heisenberg created an inequality that stipulates that the more we know about an electron's spin (momentum), then less we will know about where it actually is (position).

At least for an electron - a very, very small (but not quantum) particle - what you are saying about the "back in time" is actually just the electron energizing to a higher energy orbital so it may then not be seen.

I do believe, however, that you're on the right track when you talk about the entanglement. Who is to say that the electron we are hypothetically trying to observe is not entangled to other particles, and that by viewing (and hence changing) the electron's position and spin in spacetime, we are actually making physical changes to the universe?

 

[bgrah25]

Thanks, very helpful your answer was, I shall have to research more into all this I'm hoping to take a physics major in university,

I had a thought about the black holes, it seems to me everything in the universe needs to be balanced, I was thinking that perhaps these black holes are used to balance some kind if imbalance in matter or energy in another dimensions or a location in our dimension something along one lines

 

[atyy]

Entanglement can be considered part of the measurement process. Decoherence is one way of understanding part of the measurement process, and decoherence is all about entanglement among 3 systems: the environment, the measurement apparatus, and the system under study.

 

[DennisN]

The effects of observation on a particle changing its state upon observation,

Please note that observation in quantum mechanics means measurement.

, and the "theory" that the particle in question went back in time to change its state,

Which "theory"? Do you have any link?

, when we observe these particles change from wave to particle

An short introduction to the wavefunction is here.

Something like a change happening to light when we observe with our eyes.

What change do you mean? Photons get absorbed by photoreceptor cells.

 

[harmonic_lens]

it seems to me everything in the universe needs to be balanced

haha, your journey is just beginning.

 

[bgrah25]

Does anyone recommend anything I can perhaps read to gain a better understanding of quantum physics?When I wrote about light and our eyes, I don't know the details, but whatever interaction happens when we observe.

Thank you for the explanation on the meaning of observation, I thought they literally meant looking

The theorem was part of the Stephen Hawking Grand Design,

 

[bhobba]

Does anyone recommend anything I can perhaps read to gain a better understanding of quantum physics?

That depends on your mathematical level.

At the level I THINK you are the following by Lenny Susskind will be a good start:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/046502811X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Be warned however it will require some math. That's the horrid part of this stuff for those not into math - physics is written in the language of math.

When I wrote about light and our eyes, I don't know the details, but whatever interaction happens when we observe.

Thank you for the explanation on the meaning of observation, I thought they literally meant looking

The theorem was part of the Stephen Hawking Grand Design,

Don't beat yourself up over that one. Its very common to think observation in QM requires an observer - its semantically just so obvious - until someone points out that's not the case, its almost impossible to break free of. I was caught in it for years and I had read some pretty advanced literature. Slowly however I realized that was simply not the case and things are much simpler without it.

Simply persevere and slowly, but surely, what's going on will be a lot clearer.

But to break what the usual textbooks, and popularisations, tell you you will probably find the following that details the essence of QM helpful:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

As he points out even some people very advanced in QM fail to get it:
'Today, in the quantum information age, the fact that all the physicists had to learn quantum this way seems increasingly humorous. For example, I've had experts in quantum field theory -- people who've spent years calculating path integrals of mind-boggling complexity -- ask me to explain the Bell inequality to them. That's like Andrew Wiles asking me to explain the Pythagorean Theorem.'

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

haha, your journey is just beginning.

Ok, Ok. We all have to start somewhere.

Over the last two years or so I have been regularly posting here I have lost count of the misconceptions I have had to abandon, and I had read a lot of advanced texts.

You never really understand QM the same way as say classical mechanics. But slowly, oh so slowly you become used to it and think back saying - exactly what was my issue. But it takes time, and I don't think it ever actually ends.

Of late for me has come the realisation that QM is actually an approximation to a deeper theory - Quantum Field Theory - and viewing it that way actually makes things easier. I knew of QFT before, even went a bit into its math, but a popularisation I read called Fields Of Colour pointed out, correctly, its actually the best way to view it:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0473179768/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill

 

[DennisN]

Ok, Ok. We all have to start somewhere.

Over the last two years or so I have been regularly posting here I have lost count of the misconceptions I have had to abandon, and I had read a lot of advanced texts.

You never really understand QM the same way as say classical mechanics. But slowly, oh so slowly you become used to it and think back saying - exactly what was my issue. But it takes time, and I don't think it ever actually ends.

:thumbs: I second that.