Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Number of entangled particles in nature

  1. Mar 18, 2016 #1
    I understand that we can create entangled particles in the lab. But how many (non-locally) entangled particles (such as photons/polarisation or electrons/spin) exist in free nature?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2016 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    All of them.
     
  4. Mar 18, 2016 #3

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That depends on your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    In many worlds: as many as there are particles.
    In collapse interpretations: depends on where exactly you put the collapse and what you count as entangled.
    In other interpretations: depends on details of the interpretations.
     
  5. Mar 18, 2016 #4

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Mar 18, 2016 #5
    Very nice research. Coincidentally I was working on practically the similar thing today. :smile::woot: However, as layman as layman can get. But I find this very nice. Thanks!
     
  7. Mar 19, 2016 #6
    So if space is made of entanglement...what does that mean ? Does it mean that a particle in the universe is entangled with all of the other particles in the universe ?
     
  8. Mar 19, 2016 #7
    Perhaps we could say, any particle is lost in the universal entanglement until a physicist get it out of there - in order to observe it entangling back...
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2016
  9. Mar 19, 2016 #8

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is.

    Everything is excitations in an underlying quantum field so are entangled.

    This isnt just speculation either. That electrons are 'entangled' with the EM field is responsible for spontaneous emission.

    Strictly speaking pure states dont really exist, but of course are absolutely necessary for theory like points don't really exist but are absolutely necessary for geometry.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  10. Mar 19, 2016 #9

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A very tentative speculation : might ever increasing entanglement be related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
     
  11. Mar 19, 2016 #10
    If all or very many particles in the unverse are entangled, does that mean that by measuring, say, a property of a particular particle, the properties of its entangled co-particles collapse into a different value (non-locally)?
     
  12. Mar 19, 2016 #11

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Entangled systems are not separate. QM is not non-local - you have been reading too many pop-sci accounts.

    Systems are becoming entangled and un-entangled all the time.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  13. Mar 19, 2016 #12
    Do I really have to become a physisist to be able to understand some basic aspects of quantum mechanics?
     
  14. Mar 19, 2016 #13

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  15. Mar 19, 2016 #14

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, but QM does require thinking about physical systems in an unfamiliar and more mathematically abstract way. You do have to form at least a qualitative understanding of what we're talking about when we say "operator" and "vector in Hilbert space" and how these concepts relate to the observable properties of stuff around us.
     
  16. Mar 19, 2016 #15
    - as Dr Henry P. Stapp said in "Mind, Matter and QM" : "How is quantum theory related to reality?" - according to him, it's the second of the "four basic questions concerning the nature of nature".

    (The first question is "How is mind related to matter?" and the other two are about relativity.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2016
  17. Mar 19, 2016 #16

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    When I said ".... relate to the observable properties of stuff" I was deliberately using the wording I did to avoid bringing up this question about "reality". Many people (myself included) find that question interesting and important, but there is little point in taking it on until you understand how quantum theory works as a mathematical tool for predicting the results of observations.

    It's fair to say that much of OP's confusion in this thread and some others is the result of trying to relate what quantum theory says to reality before he knows what quantum theory says.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2016
  18. Mar 19, 2016 #17

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    QM is a theory about observations that appear in an assumed common sense classical world. That's how its related to reality. Now the question is how such a world is explained by a theory that assumes it from the start. That is the central mystery of QM - not this mind stuff.

    QM is weird - but not as weird as some try to make out.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Number of entangled particles in nature
  1. Entangled particles (Replies: 3)

  2. Entangled particles (Replies: 2)

Loading...