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.

I will agree that bacteria was a poor choice, that is why I adjusted it to a virus. Therefore, in our own bodies, a virus would be created from a single rogue atom that somehow escaped the bodies immune system. Then, that infected atom will proceed to infect atom to atom within a cell. Now, within the context of our universe, we, as the human race, would be a type of virus in the very beginning stages of spreading out to slowly infect the universe. I would really like to think the human race wasn't a pathogen, and that it was a benefit to the universe. However, the human race seems to have a "rape and pillage" gene hardwired into its collective DNA. Besides the obvious trashing of this planet at ground level, we already have a large amount of junk floating in orbit around earth. When you look at the damage done in the relatively short time of human existence, and then imagine how much damage we could do given trillions of years at our current rate of advancement - it should give pause. I must say though, I had never considered us as cells. In this scenerio, I had always pictured our galaxy as a cell. That certainly will give my mind something to ponder....

Edit: I believe I can clarify this position a little better. This theory has led me to believe that, inside our own bodies, a virus (I know I mentioned bacteria above, but I think a virus would be a better example) begins when our immune systems drop the ball at the atomic level. Then, atom infects atom within a cell and it spreads from there. As a parallel, I see the universe as dropping the ball and allowing the human race to establish itself, and we are seeing the beginning stages of a similar type spreading of the human race out eventually beyond the solar system and out into the universe.

I will agree fully that I am making assumptions. This was the most tenuous part of the theory (and that is saying something), and a part that I considered leaving out altogether. The basis was simply that asteroids main purpose is to keep advanced life in check. They very well may be random strikes, and the human race just got lucky to hang on between strikes. As to why a living universe would not want advanced life to take hold? I view it as almost like a baceria. It is fine if it is contained. The problem occurs when the bacteria begins to spread. If you were to view the human race like a bacteria, we would be a bacteria that has begun to leave our breeding ground and branch out - first to the moon, then Mars, then more planets, then outside of the solar system, etc. If you are looking for proof, you will find none here - as I am not a scientist. My only goal was to lead the discussion in a different direction, and hopefully offer a fresh perspective.

As far as life growing out of hand. Look at our own bodies. How do our own antibodies know where to attack, and why? I am sure signals are sent and received. I would think the universe would care because it is a living being and is designed by nature for self preservation. For an example, let's look at the dinosaurs. By most accounts, they had run amok across the planet - throwing it out of balance. Along comes an asteroid, and sets everything back to sorts. Now, whether that asteroid came by design or chance I do not know. However, the results were the same. Unfortunately, I would see the human race in the same boat, and if (and I mean IF) this theory were right - I could see us potentially have a fleet of asteroids heading our way... Sam - I forgot to respond to the first part of your response. In this scenerio, the planets would all be acting as electrons. I am basically viewing our solar system as a fusion source with viewable objects orbiting around it, and noticing the parallels. Note to the Moderators: Feel free to move this thread to the Specualtions Forum. I now realise that, though the premise is based in Biology, the theory is too outside-the-box for the Biology Forum. I do apologise to the Biology Forum for muddling up your forum with my error in judgement.

Thank you Michel. That is very enlightning. I wonder though - is an atom always an atom. In other words, could there exist a different form of an atom? For the sake of argument, let's say the sun was a nucleus. I was asked where the proton and neutron were in the sun. My question is: Could the structure of the atom itself possily have a completely different structure, in order to get around the scaling issue? In other words, would a nucleus necessarily have to have a proton and a neutron in order to make it an atom? I do not wish wasting anyones time, and I don't want to be difficult or obtuse. I truely would like to learn these things, as I find them fascinating.

Crude? Perhaps. The general premise is: What if the Big Bang was a sperm/egg type event? Everything else led from there. It is for this is the reason I wanted it in the Biology forum. Now, I do realize that this is "out there". However, I am not a scientist, and this is just a theory. It seemed that certain things could line up to make this plausible. However, that is why I wanted it to go forward to the greater minds. If it is completely wrong, so be it.

This theory will certainly require the reader to think differently. It will also stretch the normal perception of time and size. I am putting this forward in the hopes that greater minds than myself will be able to advance the discussion – to one end or another. Abstract Theory: The Living Universe – A Call for the Merging of the Fields of Astronomy and Biology By: Christopher Wingfield This theory first began to take shape as I attempted to visualize an atom in my mind. As I thought about the seemingly endless power and light of a nucleus, the only image that kept re-occurring to me was that of our sun. I took it one step further, and I started to imagine the sun as if it were a nucleus. To wit: If our sun were a nucleus, our solar system would form an atom. [Now, I know it is hard to grasp that you are currently sitting on an electron orbiting a nucleus. However, if you can oblige me this one courtesy, the theory is short, and I know the pain caused will be slight.] If indeed the solar system was an atom, it led me to the next question: An atom residing in what? To find that answer, it required me to go back to the start. In the beginning, the universe is described as "an extremely hot and dense state." Next, we have a Big Bang, and there is rapid expansion. The "hot dense state", I would argue, is the exact state of a human egg (for lack of a better example) right before sperm comes into contact with it. A Big Bang, followed by rapid expansion, could be used to describe what happens after sperm initiates contact with the egg. Now, imagine if, at some point during that expansion, you were able to shrink down and take in the view from an electron orbiting around a random nucleus - what the view might look like. I think we are able to take in a similar view every time our sun retreats across the horizon. So, to answer the original question, I feel our solar system is an atom that resides inside a living “host”. To further that point - it is when I tried to visualize what the view might look like from an atom inside my own body that I saw two further parallels. First, I believe that advanced life shouldn’t exist in a healthy universe. In order to keep advanced life in check, the universe turns to its antibodies - in the form of asteroids. While asteroids are unable to destroy all life with a strike, they act as an excellent “reset button” to keep life from advancing too far up the evolutionary ladder. I would think the healthier the universe, the more strikes you would see. Second, much like water/plasma makes up the majority of the mass of the human body, dark matter makes up the majority of the mass of the universe. I believe that dark matter is the “life blood” of the universe. The prevailing scientific opinion is that black holes pull in and crush matter down to a small dense ball. I see it as just the opposite. Though they pull in everything around them, I think black holes act as arteries that eventually open up and turn into veins. Therefore, instead of shrinking down, they will only get larger in size. Finally, if this theory is correct, it would make it so every person could potentially be their own universe, possibly containing countless universes within each. You would also have to take into account the original universe "host" we are currently in, and those around it. The levels and numbers could be quite mind-blowing. Also, as we would currently be riding an electron around a nucleus, that would technically make us all sub-atomic particles. Perhaps, that could help explain some of the quantum mysteries we encounter.