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

Quantum Entanglement and extra dimensions?

  1. Jan 15, 2014 #1
    I recently heard one theory of parallel universes simply being extra dimensions (one thing string theory requires I believe). Well I also happened to be thinking about quantum entanglement. It is still unknown how this phenomenon works right? Well I had this idea that I suppose can't be disproved without finding the actual answer to quantum entanglement but I thought I'd gather some opinions anyhow.

    What do you think about split photons being acted on by a property in one of the extra dimensions that string theory requires. In this dimension light is faster (instantaneous) or perhaps it's not even light but many other forces could be faster than light in such a dimension.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 15, 2014 #2

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you think that there is any existing evidence for the idea?

    Do you think that the idea is specific enough to be tested and proven false?

    Do you think that your idea might be considered speculative?

    Do you think you have researched the area sufficiently enough to be coming up with your own hypothesis?

    I might suggest that further study is warranted first. :smile: It might be better to learn about entanglement - a fascinating area by the way - before trying to explain it.
     
  4. Jan 15, 2014 #3

    I think that I'll be learning more about quantum entanglement as I move forward in life but I don't have the time to devote myself to learn everything about it nearly as quick as I could gather thoughts from those who know and understand the area. I'm not a physicist and I don't plan to be a physicist. I'm simply interested in the subject and had a thought occur to me that I wanted to share and gather opinions on.
     
  5. Jan 15, 2014 #4

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your time will be better spent learning than speculating. Try checking out the wiki articles if your time is limited. If that interests you, read an introductory book. I might recommend Amir D. Aczel's book titled "Entanglement".
     
  6. Jan 15, 2014 #5
    Thank you for your concern. However, as previously stated I do plan to learn as I go through life. Speculating isn't all that I'm doing. Again, this thought simply popped into my head as I was reading about Quantum Entanglement.

    If you plan to respond by stating that I should be learning rather than speculating again after the statement I just made then please hold your comment.
     
  7. Jan 15, 2014 #6

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was trying to be gentle because you are new.

    Speculation is inappropriate here. If you have a specific question, please ask.
     
  8. Jan 15, 2014 #7
    Thanks for trying to be gentle but I appreciate bluntness. And seriously speculation is inappropriate? I'll wait for some confirmation before I leave this forum. But in the meantime here is a perfectly specific version of my question.

    What are your thoughts on my thoughts of quantum entanglement and forces acting on the photons via extra dimensions? A specific answer might be "I think that is a completely ludicrous thought and here is why..."
     
  9. Jan 16, 2014 #8
    No, quantum entanglement can not be accounted for classical forces acting in other dimensions.

    Any multi-dimension theory would give you just another hidden-variables theory. There are no hidden-variables theories that can explain quantum mechanics and are at the same time local, realistic, consistent with relativity, and gave the Riemann-like topology of space.
    An example of a hidden-variable theory is the Bohmian interpretation, but it explicitly violates relativity (superluminal motion).

    Postulating higher dimensions will just give you a hidden variable theory.

    Special note about the string theory. It is not a theory that tries to explain quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics. It tries to explain fundamental interactions and particle physics. The strings are already quantum by design. It is not like "vibrating classical strings yield quantum mechanics".

    There were attempts to derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics by postulating nonstandard topology. I.e. we not only have additional dimensions, but also they are non-Riemanian. A simple example might be a space with lots of tiny wormholes - one could call it "foam space". Important: it's classical foam, not quantum foam. The inherent randomness built into the space would give us apparent randomness of the quantum mechanics.

    Another attempt I heard of was a "string concept" (not the same strings as in the string theory) that two entangled particles are connected with a string in a higher dimension. The problem with that approach is that it gives you superluminal communication, not the entanglement.

    The problem with quantum mechanics is that it doesn't really postulate sumerluminal information exchange. It postulates correlation of distant events, which is not the same. All classical theories either give you too little (no FTL information exchange, no correlations) or too much (correlations, but also FTL information transfer).

    One explanation might be that quantum mechanics simply can not be derived from any classical theory, FTL or not, no matter how many dimensions and what topology.
     
  10. Jan 16, 2014 #9

    Cthugha

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, it is part of the rules you agreed to when joining these forums (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380).

    The reason for that is pretty simple. Speculation tends to attract crackpots creating "what if" scenarios for free energy, alien abductions, claims that the world is in fact flat, claims that relativity is wrong and all of science is just a huge conspiracy and so on. It is incredibly hard to define a line which involves a bit of speculation which cannot be abused. As the people around here write their posts in their free time and are not paid for it, the logical thing to do is to keep the amount of work as small as possible by outright banning speculation, so people can focus on what these forums are made for: good and reliable discussions on real physics.
     
  11. Jan 16, 2014 #10

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You like bluntness, eh? :biggrin:

    OK, well this isn't Jeopardy. You cannot turn a statement into a question and expect that now avoids the no-speculation issue (or win $50). Questions should be about elements of established science. That is something you should learn more about before you begin to speculate.

    Now I realize that you don't appreciate someone advising you on how to learn science. By my estimation, you will leave PF rather than listen to what I am saying. However, the blunt truth is that there are thousands of scientific papers written annually on entanglement theory and experiment. You clearly have yet to scratch the surface on the subject.

    Again, there is much fascinating to learn around the subject and around quantum physics in general. The best shortcut if you are pressed for time is to read a good book. There are many here who will be happy to give you some suggestions about books. So my suggestion is that you ask about a good book, buy it, and read a few pages every night as you go to sleep. You won't be sorry. After you gain some understanding about the subject, you will likely have questions about the material. Ask away on that! :smile:
     
  12. Jan 16, 2014 #11

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, this forum is not for speculation or development of new theories. Cthugha has pointed you to our guidelines.

    With that, this thread is now closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Quantum Entanglement and extra dimensions?
  1. Quantum entanglement (Replies: 15)

Loading...