Quantum entanglement hinting at the nature of reality?

[serp777]

Citing a recent post from Dr. Chinese, it seems like quantum entanglement experiments are showing something beyond the current standard model.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637454
If particles can be entangled to other particles that only existed in the past, it seems that it shows that entangled particles are connected by the moment in time they were entangled. If this was true, it would explain how photon 1 can still be entangled with photon4, even after measurement, because photon 4 would be entangled with photon 1 in the past. It would also explain how particles still maintain entanglement across vast distances in space, because in the past, there was no space between them the instant they were entangled.

 

[serp777]

No responses? I'm curious of other explanations.

 

[Demystifier]

Entanglement is NOT beyond the standard model. The standard model includes entanglement.

 

[ZapperZ]

Citing a recent post from Dr. Chinese, it seems like quantum entanglement experiments are showing something beyond the current standard model.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637454
If particles can be entangled to other particles that only existed in the past, it seems that it shows that entangled particles are connected by the moment in time they were entangled. If this was true, it would explain how photon 1 can still be entangled with photon4, even after measurement, because photon 4 would be entangled with photon 1 in the past. It would also explain how particles still maintain entanglement across vast distances in space, because in the past, there was no space between them the instant they were entangled.

This also makes very little sense. You made assertion without showing how physically valid such a thing is.

On the other hand, I can point to you evidence whereby just ONE single interaction can already destroy the single-particle coherence, and thus, ruin the original state before the interaction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1498616&postcount=55

So how do you propose to maintain the original entanglement after such an interaction?

Zz.

 

[serp777]

Although entanglement is not beyond the standard model, the explanations for how and why are, which was clearly missed here. I'm talking about the mechanisms, so thanks for moving this thread prematurely. Zapperz, I can also point you to evidence where weak interaction doesn't destroy the single-particle coherence, so that's not relevant. Entanglement already tends to not make much sense, and QM isn't very thorough in explaining why it happens.

My assertion is based on Dr. Chiense's post, "A future context affects the past (since the decision to entangle 1 and 4 is made after 4 is detected) !" The only way a future context can affect the past is if entanglement connects them in time. I didn't show how it was physically valid, Dr. Chinese did when he cited the entanglement experiment.

At least this explanation makes more sense than hidden variables, or non locality.

 

[ZapperZ]

Although entanglement is not beyond the standard model, the explanations for how and why are, which was clearly missed here. I'm talking about the mechanisms, so thanks for moving this thread prematurely. Zapperz, I can also point you to evidence where weak interaction doesn't destroy the single-particle coherence, so that's not relevant. Entanglement already tends to not make much sense, and QM isn't very thorough in explaining why it happens.

My assertion is based on Dr. Chiense's post, "A future context affects the past (since the decision to entangle 1 and 4 is made after 4 is detected) !" The only way a future context can affect the past is if entanglement connects them in time. I didn't show how it was physically valid, Dr. Chinese did when he cited the entanglement experiment.

At least this explanation makes more sense than hidden variables, or non locality.

Sorry, but you might want to look Exactly under what situation do you get such a weak interaction. Would you consider a TYPICAL photon-electron interaction as a weak interaction? Which one do you think is more overwhelmingly common? You are talking as if decoherence is uncommon!

Zz.

 

[cryptist]

At least this explanation makes more sense than hidden variables, or non locality.

Well, that's your opinion..

 

[serp777]

Well, that's your opinion..

Luckily we have you to point out the obvious

 

[DrChinese]

Although entanglement is not beyond the standard model, the explanations for how and why are, which was clearly missed here. I'm talking about the mechanisms, so thanks for moving this thread prematurely. Zapperz, I can also point you to evidence where weak interaction doesn't destroy the single-particle coherence, so that's not relevant. Entanglement already tends to not make much sense, and QM isn't very thorough in explaining why it happens.

My assertion is based on Dr. Chiense's post, "A future context affects the past (since the decision to entangle 1 and 4 is made after 4 is detected) !" The only way a future context can affect the past is if entanglement connects them in time. I didn't show how it was physically valid, Dr. Chinese did when he cited the entanglement experiment.

At least this explanation makes more sense than hidden variables, or non locality.

It is true that we don't understand the mechanism of entanglement, much like we don't understand the mechanism of the uncertainty principle or the mechanism of many standard fundamental theoretical constructs (how about virtual particles?).

And it is similarly true that as best we can tell, there is some element of spacetime that allows such photons to be somehow connected through a series of relationships that violates the normal bounds of macroscopic behavior.

However, I am not sure I really understand your question. The cited article is fully in keeping with the standard model. The only thing that is different is that a lot of people are not aware of this side of the model. So the experiment highlights what QM predicts and confirms it.

I like to say that a free particle in space in a sense occupies almost the entire observable universe. That is because there is some probability, no matter how small, that it could be found anywhere eventually. While this statement is accepted by most, most physicists don't see it as practical or useful to think of particles in those terms because they usually act more localized. So I would apply the same analogy to one's view of quantum spacetime as applies to entanglement. In other words, most entanglement experiments do not exploit this aspect of time and space. Even though it is quite real.

 

[DrChinese]

Luckily we have you to point out the obvious

Hey, I like to be the one who is master of the obvious.

 

[joerng2003]

This also makes very little sense. You made assertion without showing how physically valid such a thing is.

On the other hand, I can point to you evidence whereby just ONE single interaction can already destroy the single-particle coherence, and thus, ruin the original state before the interaction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1498616&postcount=55

So how do you propose to maintain the original entanglement after such an interaction?

Zz.

Does this mean that particles interacting with each other counts as a measurement thus collapsing the wave function? I have always worked under the assumption that the physical world; that is those particle combinations that we can see touch hear and so on are a result of the constant collapsing of the wave function that happens all around us. I consider there to be several realities in that humans are not the only things that are perceiving the world, I always believed that particles are perceptive, interactive and reactive also.

 

[ZapperZ]

Does this mean that particles interacting with each other counts as a measurement thus collapsing the wave function?

How else do you make a measurement? The system must interact with something else.

Zz.

 

[rcttsoul2]

serp777
From what I can gather from these posts, you are tring to figure out a way or to build a device that can send messages to the past?

 

[bhobba]

It is true that we don't understand the mechanism of entanglement, much like we don't understand the mechanism of the uncertainty principle or the mechanism of many standard fundamental theoretical constructs (how about virtual particles?).

To me if the axioms of QM imply it then you understand it. If not then you don't understand anything because where would you draw the line - do we understand the energy levels of the hydrogen atom? Do we understand why a free particle has wavelike solutions? Precisely what is meant by 'understanding' in an axiomatic theory? In geometry do we understand why the angles of a triangle add up to 180%? - its a direct consequence of the parallel postulate.

I say we don't 'understand' the axioms but understand deductions from those axioms. That is not to say the axioms can't be presented in a way that makes them seem reasonable and natural and is the way I like to present QM - but in the final analysis the axioms are accepted without an underlying explanation.

Thanks
Bill