Leaderboard

Theories without a logical basis or evivence to support said logic are best left unsaid until further proof is found

Since the source of our plentiful oxygen is water-based photosynthesis, there must have been anaerobic life that preceded aerobic life.

And yet you don't say what this fundamental interaction is, AGAIN. Do you see how hard it would be to figure out what you're talking about? Are we going to have to figure out the right questions to ask in order to gain information from you? This is beginning to sound like you learned SOME bits of science, but made things up to fill the gaps in your knowledge. VERY bad form, since the explanations derived this way make sense only to you. You need to use mainstream science and the scientific method when discussing ideas like this, to make sure your concepts match observation. What does a 4th spatial dimension do, exactly? Do you have any evidence for dimensions above the 3 we observe? And why would light behave differently in higher dimensions? Why don't we observe it behaving in a way that supports your idea?

Yes, what then? In my opinion they are intimately related. Let's take an example. Imagine a very weak photon source, emitting about one photon every minute. All around it, but at a distance of one light second (=300,000 km) we have photon detectors. Now according to Maxwell (no photons, just waves) every minute a circular wave front expands into space. According to QM however, we only have a 'probability wave', and the photon is detected at only one detector. At the moment of detection, I know immediately that none of the others will detect a photon. So the event 'measuring a photon' and 'not measuring a photon' are entangled. If behind every detector would stand a human observer, one could send a message to all the others when measuring a photon and tell them that at timepoint 5:09h she knew that nobody else had measured a photon, based on the fact that she already had measured it. So the entanglement follows directly from the wave character of the probability distribution. The power of real entanglement experiments (also known as EPR, or Bell experiments) is that we have positive measurements on both sides, not just a lack of a measurement. But they are expressions of the same phenomenon. So, what then? No. We do not need realtime measurements. If two detectors at a great distance of each other are in the same inertial frame they just can make their measurements, notice the exact time of measurement, and then later compare their measurements. There is no faster-than-light communication. See here. The mathematical theory of QM is unambiguous: entanglement must exist. Do not forget, it was theoretically derived before it also was measured. So there is no problem to solve. The only problem is that we, humans, cannot picture this based on our daily concepts.

Hey, name's 8link. I'm a high schooler in the US and my main preferences in science are in physics and biology (Even though I know very little about each subject compared to u ppl). I hope to learn a lot from u.

I don't know how it is done for photons but I can describe an example that gives entanglement (this way is very impractical to do, but...). If you take an atom of helium and shoot away the nucleus by a high speed neutron, the electrons that formed a pair are then free to go apart, and their spins are entangled. You must NOT use a magnetic field to separate them (otherwise you will get each in a definite state of spin, without entanglement). Instead you must just let them repel each other, then verify that you have exactly one electron on "each side" in some way. But many other processes give entanglements, even if they are not very practical either. For example if you take an atom in a definite excited state, and then wait the fraction of second so that there is 50% chance for it to have come down to the ground state by emitting a photon, then the state of the atom is entangled with the state of the electromagnetic field around (that may contain or not contain the photon).

Perhaps off topic, but oxygen isn't need for animal life. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100416-oxygen-free-complex-animals-mediterranean/ I believe Mars has lots of life, including animals, oxygen using or not. I believe that I saw in one of the first photos of the first Martian landers, perhaps the first lander, a pair of animals like Armadillos, and their eyes were on the lander's camera as it moved. I can't find the photo online though.