Quantum Entanglement and Parallel Worlds/Existence

[giodude]

Hey! I'm new to the forums so its nice to be here. I don't have a deep deep background in physics (I plan to self study after I finish my math studies). However, I recently learned about the notion of quantum entanglement. My basic understanding of it is that quantum entanglement (will use QE from now on) suggests that each particle in the universe has an equivalent entangled particle elsewhere in the universe.

My question is, given this notion of QE, doesn't that confirm that somewhere in the universe there is an exact replica of everything that exists on earth? Unless maybe I'm misunderstanding something. My guess would be the misunderstanding comes in the placement of the particles, so while there does exist a replica, the particles are disbursed and therefore don't make up a single object?

Either way, curious to hear what folks in the forum think!

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm new to the forums so its nice to be here.

Welcome!

My basic understanding of it is that quantum entanglement (will use QE from now on) suggests that each particle in the universe has an equivalent entangled particle elsewhere in the universe.

That's not quite what QE means. Quantum systems can be entangled, but there is no requirement that every quantum system must be entangled with some other one. Also, two quantum systems that are entangled don't have to be "equivalent". (For example, an electron can be entangled with a proton--this is in fact the case for a hydrogen atom.)

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Thread level changed to "I".

 

[PeterDonis]

I recently learned about the notion of quantum entanglement.

Can you give a specific reference for where you learned about it? That will help us to gauge your background knowledge.

 

[giodude]

Can you give a specific reference for where you learned about it? That will help us to gauge your background knowledge.

I learned about it from this article and then started doing some research via google searches and discussions with some friends and family that know a bit about it as well. Nothing extensive yet.

 

[giodude]

Welcome!That's not quite what QE means. Quantum systems can be entangled, but there is no requirement that every quantum system must be entangled with some other one. Also, two quantum systems that are entangled don't have to be "equivalent". (For example, an electron can be entangled with a proton--this is in fact the case for a hydrogen atom.)

Thank you!

Oh I see, makes it even more interesting that systems can be entangled and don't have to be equivalent. Will learn more about it and be back when I'm more informed!

 

[PeterDonis]

I learned about it from this article and then started doing some research via google searches and discussions with some friends and family that know a bit about it as well. Nothing extensive yet.

A good QM textbook would be a better source for learning since that would give you (a) a better technical definition of entanglement, and (b) the background in the actual math of QM that allows you to understand the technical definition and its practical implications. Pop science articles don't do a good job of actually explaining these things in a way that lets you build on it to increase your own understanding.

I personally think Ballentine is a good QM textbook to learn from, but there are many of them and everyone has their own preferences.

 

[PeroK]

I learned about it from this article and then started doing some research via google searches and discussions with some friends and family that know a bit about it as well. Nothing extensive yet.

If you see the phrase "spooky action at a distance", you can assume what you are reading is more BS than QM!

Instead of reading scientific journalism (which is not science), you could start here:

http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys304/Handouts/QuantumPhysicsNotes.pdf