CWingfield

Thanks, Strange. So, would it be correct to think of entanglement as an ever spinning coin that never shows heads or tails unless measured?

I have been thinking about the best way to describe my question about this, and may have a somewhat clearer question. Let's say we have two entangled particles, both showing "heads". What happens when I take one of the particles and flip it to "tails"? Does it's entangled pair also flip to "tails"? If it also flips, at what speed does this occur - the speed of light or nearly simultaneously?

Thank you both for your responses. As a final question about this, where does the current scientific majority stand on whether or not we will ever be able to reconcile the classical and quantum realms? Do most think eventually we will see how they work together, or do most think we will never be able to reconcile the differences, and they more or less stand apart?

Let me try putting it a different way. If tomorrow all of a sudden entanglement stopped occurring, do we have any idea what would change, if anything? For instance, If i ask the same question about gravity, then the response is that things start flying apart. It may be that we don't currently know, may never know, or it doesn't have any real effect whatsoever. I was just curious if there was any speculation about it.

Yes, I agree that purpose is the wrong word. I guess I was wondering more about the "Why" of entanglement. As, I doubt entanglement happens for no good reason, I would assume that it serves some important "functional role" in life/universe. Of course, I may be assuming way too much (it wouldn't be a first). Do we having any current hypothesis on the "Why" of entanglement? I did just last night read a really great article in space.com that was a quick question and answer session with a experimental quantum physicist and a theoretical quantum physicist. Had I been able to read this article before I made the original post, it would have explained nearly everything - leaving no need for the original post. I think it has done the best job of describing in layman's terms what we currently know about quantum science. They were able to cram a lot of easily digestible information in a rather short article. Two things from the article I found fascinating that I hadn't known was that, not just particles, but atoms can become entangled, and how quantum science affects our perception of free will.

Very informative, Swansont. Thank you for the answer. Do we currently know what the overall purpose of entanglement is? Or is it more of a "we can see it and measure it, but just don't yet understand why it is happening" sort of thing?

I am sorry for being dense. What is it about the measurement that breaks the superposition? I see, thank you MigL. I guess a followup question would be: Is there any way to just tell that two particles are entangled without having to measure one end or the other? More or less, would there be anyway to just tell if the two are entangled just by the connection itself, or is the connection more or less invisible? As a secondary question, is it possible for a particle to be entangled with more than one particle?

I have a question about how we measure entangled particles. As I understand it, once we measure entangled particles - the connection is severed. I was wondering: Is it the act of severing the connection that allows us to know that the particles were indeed entangled, or is it more the byproduct of the measurement? To put it another way: could it be like trying to operate with a machete when you need a scalpel. Can our current "tools" be refined, or will it always be that we break the connection no matter how fine-tuned the measurement device is? I guess the real question is: What is it about how we currently measure entanglement that severs the connection, and could that possibly change in the future?

Everyone did an excellent job keeping it simple enough for me to understand. I do realize there is much more to the black hole formation. However, these simple explanations can go a long way is helping at least understand the basics, as we currently know them. It is too bad black holes aren't visually detectable, via Hubble or the like. That accretion disk must be something to behold. I would imagine it looking like a crashing wave with a constant undertow keeping it perpetually rolling in place. Thank you all again for your information.

Thank you all for your informative responses. So, if I understand correctly, the pull is always the same. However, there is just so much matter a black hole can "process" at one time, therefore it will shoot the excess out one end or the other. I apologize for the simplicity of that statement, I am just trying to wrap my head around it.

I am having a hard time finding an answer to a question. So, I figured I would try the "scientific crowd-sourcing" route in hopes to find it. The question is: Does the the draw or pull of matter/gas into a black hole fluctuate or does it pretty much remain static? I am not referring to the size of the black hole, but rather just the inflow of material into said black hole. Perhaps this question can only be answered using long term observation?

As I understand it, an electron is hard to get a good read on because it is appearing/disappering very quickly and also appears to be jumping orbits indiscriminately. I was wondering if there was any possibility that electrons could be in stationary orbits around a nucleus, which acting something like our sun, was throwing out flares in all directions. Once these flares hit an orbiting electron it would briefly "light it up" (something like an aurora borealis, for lack of a better example) allowing us to see/read the electron for the brief time it was "lit up". Now I am more than likely misunderstanding how an electron/nucleus interact, as well as seeing patterns where they don't exist. However, the notion did strike me and I was curious to know more about the possibilities.

Alas, I have one final hail mary to throw at this notion before I place it in permanent cold storage... Through the Higgs Boson, a Dr. Joseph Lykken has discovered the potential (inevitability?) for a second universe to be created and then consume our universe from within. This is set to occur much further down the road once our universe has reached a mature state. I wonder if, instead of being completely consumed from within, our universe might be able to able to eject (or rather birth) this newly created universe. My thinking was: If our universe were a living thing (just humor me for a bit here), it would seem possible that, as a living thing, it could reproduce. If it could reproduce, it would seem possible that a second universe could spawn within our own universe. Since sceintists have only scratched the surface of the information the Higgs Boson could provide, it makes me wonder if it could contain the information needed to prove a living universe. Again, I know this is a reach. However, it is the best that this muggle to science will be able to do. Either it will bear fruit or rot on the vine.

Let me say that, in my defense, I very well knew that this notion was going to be on the edge of scientific possibility and that I was going to do it no favors in trying to explain it to this crowd (I must say, though, I was prepared for much more venom coming my way for my scientific naivety - so, I do appreciate everyones' collective restraint). Which is why I kept paring it back almost to an outline (yes, sadly there is even more, but the main points are here). However, this seemed important enough on the .0000000001% chance it could be right, that I might as well post it. Now, I am not vain enough to think I have the answers to much of anything, let alone the universe, but, for whatever reason, this notion resonated deep within my core. It is just something I can't explain, as most other ideas I come up with tend to be rather vanilla and centainly don't resonate. I felt that in order for this to be proved right, it would have to resonate to the core of a person wired very differently than I am. For again, I am no scientist. I could no sooner prove this, than I could flap my arms and fly to the moon. Does that person even exist? No idea. If they do not, that is fine. There is no harm in trying, and I will have to chalk up the deep resonance as just a missed frequency. - Side note: As I figure the question will come up as to how it could even be proved. I was wondering if you could look for traces of a DNA/RNA-type pattern to explain the order and structure of the expanding universe (again - if even possible to do). However, this is just a guess, I can't pretend to really know how to prove it.

Understood. From now on, I will simply refer to it as a notion. I will also accept my sentence, happily. Now, I think I can further clarify this notion, though in a crude and simple way. Sam sees me as using metaphors to describe this notion. I prefer to see it as seeing patterns. Here is a pattern I see. If you were to look at an atom in the human body, at a very crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in water, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into an artery. If you look at a random star in the universe, at a crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in dark matter, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into a black hole.