Quantum Entanglement ?

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

It doesn't explain the process but Strange's link is very interesting and shows you can entangle a boson with fermions.

Rb-85 and Rb-87 are bosons 

[Itoero]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Rb-85 and Rb-87 are bosons 

Mordred's link shows that an electron and photon can get (spin) entangled.https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5555

"In the experiment, the QD is initialized to a pure state via optical pumping, then excited to the jTx i trion state with a laser pulse, where it then decays to the two ground states with equal probability [9]. When the jTx  i state decays, the horizontal (vertical) (H,V ) polarization state of the emitted photon, collected along the z axis, is correlated with the final state (jx+i, jx i) of the QD."

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Itoero said:

Mordred's link shows that an electron and photon can get (spin) entangled.https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5555

"In the experiment, the QD is initialized to a pure state via optical pumping, then excited to the jTx i trion state with a laser pulse, where it then decays to the two ground states with equal probability [9]. When the jTx  i state decays, the horizontal (vertical) (H,V ) polarization state of the emitted photon, collected along the z axis, is correlated with the final state (jx+i, jx i) of the QD."

Polarization of the photon, not its spin.

[hoola]

I have heard before of the vastly faster than c  entanglement mechanism. Another faster than c speed that seems spoken of is the proposed speed of inflation at the big bang. Is there any credible speculation of commonality between these two superluminal speeds?

[Mordred]

Neither violates GR is the only commonality. Though there is truly nothing faster than c in either case in terms of kinematic motion or action.  Quite frankly in my opinion one of the least properly understood aspects of QM by the public is entanglement and what is truly meant by correlations and superpositions of correlation functions. 

The public isn't interested in statistical math terms and their proper usages in entanglement.

 

For example one can derive a correlation function between any two graphs or datatables. Regardless if one relates to the other or not...He can then place them under a superposition ....

Lol give me any two data tables label one "x "the other " Y" and I will give you the correlation value...easily done one of the first chapters in a statistical mechanics book

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

5 hours ago, hoola said:

Another faster than c speed that seems spoken of is the proposed speed of inflation at the big bang. 

To describe inflation happening at more than the speed of light is meaningless.

Expansion (or inflation) is a scaling effect not a speed. The "speed" of expansion/inflation depends on how far apart objects are. There are now (and presumably always have been) objects sufficiently far apart that they are spectating at more than the speed of light.

 

[Itoero]

On ‎1‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 10:38 AM, Handy andy said:

How does the spin of a Boson with integer spin transfer to a fermion with 1/2 spin, Is the spin transferred to 2 fermions?

I have not been able to find any good explanations of how entanglement is carried out other than the pop science stuff, is there a technical link someone could provide to how entanglement is carried out.?

You might find this paper interesting. "A conclusion of the first part of this work (main theorem) could be: in quantum mechanics to interact means nearly always to entangle. We showed that real interactions do necessarily generate entanglement (the inverse result, that it is impossible to generate entanglement without turning on an interaction, is rather trivial).https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0401121.pdf

[Handy andy]

Small question.

When a electron annihilates a non entangled positron gamma rays are given off, with no loss of energy.

When an electron positron entangled pair pop into and out of existence in the quantum world no radiation is given off.

Is it that when a particle pair are generated with a certain amount of +ve energy the entanglement or wormhole has -ve energy that absorbs any radiation that would be given off by an unentangled pair.?

Could entangled particles be connected by a negative energy or hole in space caused by them coming into existence.  

Edited September 13, 2017 by Handy andy

[interested]

On ‎13‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:58 PM, Handy andy said:

Small question.

When a electron annihilates a non entangled positron gamma rays are given off, with no loss of energy.

When an electron positron entangled pair pop into and out of existence in the quantum world no radiation is given off.

Is it that when a particle pair are generated with a certain amount of +ve energy the entanglement or wormhole has -ve energy that absorbs any radiation that would be given off by an unentangled pair.?

Could entangled particles be connected by a negative energy or hole in space caused by them coming into existence.  

It doesn't look like you are going to get an answer so I will have  a bash.

Entanglement does not have any detectable energy, although it takes energy to entangle particles.

I can not find anything on why entangled particles don't give off energy at the quantum level, is it due to negative energy absorbing the radiation?. I don't know 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

electron positrons definitely give of radiation when they annihilate. Why don't particle pairs which exist momentarily not give off energy, when they disappear?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation

Does any one know exactly what dark energy and dark matter is. It has  not been detected, there is lots of speculation on the subject? Could dark energy be viewed as negative energy, or as the result of broken entanglement, which leaves a hole in space perhaps?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, interested said:

Does any one know exactly what dark energy and dark matter is.

"Are" not "is" - they are completely unrelated concepts. 

No one knows what either of them are, just the effects. But the evidence is fairly overwhelming now that dark matter is some sort of matter rather than our description of gravity being wrong. 

[interested]

 

2 hours ago, interested said:

When an electron positron entangled pair pop into and out of existence in the quantum world no radiation is given off.

Why is no radiation given off? any ideas.

What is dark energy, is it negative energy, or in any way connected to entanglement? any ideas.

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, interested said:

Why is no radiation given off? any ideas.

The reason virtual particle pairs can appear is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. They "borrow" the energy equivalent to their mass and then pay it all back when they disappear. So there is no spare energy to radiate. 

[interested]

On ‎17‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:42 PM, Strange said:

The reason virtual particle pairs can appear is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. They "borrow" the energy equivalent to their mass and then pay it all back when they disappear. So there is no spare energy to radiate. 

Beecee posted  the following link on can matter come from nothing.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

and quoted the following from the link.

"Quantum Fluctuations :

The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, doeshappen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur)".

"

Is it forbidden via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or other law that, on occasion energy is not payed back, resulting in an excess of negative energy and real particles?

I understand from the beecee link that negative energy may also be known as dark energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

Is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle an acknowledgement of something that happens without fully trying to explain the cause ?

Could entangled particles be connected via negative energy? When they come into existence they borrow energy from the background and usually pay it back, but not always, leaving both negative energy and particles in existence?

Edited September 18, 2017 by interested

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, interested said:

 Is it forbidden via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or other law that, on occasion energy is not payed back, resulting in an excess of negative energy and real particles?

It's a violation of conservation of energy. i.e. one of those things that's strictly forbidden.

26 minutes ago, interested said:

I understand from the beecee link that negative energy may also be known as dark energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

The only mention of dark energy there is in the "see also" section.

26 minutes ago, interested said:

Is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle an acknowledgement of something that happens without fully trying to explain the cause ?

Depends on what you mean by "cause". Nature behaves this way. Why it does so is not necessarily something we can test.

26 minutes ago, interested said:

Could entangled particles be connected via negative energy?

That basically has no meaning.

26 minutes ago, interested said:

When they come into existence they borrow energy from the background and usually pay it back, but not always, leaving both negative energy and particles in existence?

Energy is conserved in entanglement processes. The particles people use are real, so this is moot. I'm not aware of anybody trying this with virtual particles that have been "promoted" to real particles (which is a difficult experiment in and of itself).

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, interested said:

I understand from the beecee link that negative energy may also be known as dark energy.

Dark energy (if it is energy) must be positive energy to have the effect it does. 

[zapatos]

On 8/30/2017 at 3:12 PM, MigL said:

Let me see if I can clarify...

Take a coin. It is one piece, and described by the same properties, although it has a 'heads' and 'tails'.
I now cut the coin along the plane, so that one piece shows 'heads', and the other piece shows 'tails'.
I now put each piece in an envelope and give you, Interested, one envelope, and Itoero, the other.

Neither of you knows what is in your envelope, but as soon as either of you opens your envelope and you see ' heads' or 'tails', you immediately know that the other has the opposite in his envelope.
No actual information ( or data ) has been sent anywhere ( nor through wormholes ).
And do you think it makes any difference how far apart you and Itoero get ?

Is it true that Itero's envelope could have contained the head OR the tails? Meaning, he opens it and it was heads, but if he had waited five minutes he might have actually have had the tails?

[interested]

I read migls explanation some time ago. thanks again

Swansont : I have read the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated at the quantum level, so I assume you are talking about not being able to violate the first law of thermodynamics, which states energy cant be created or destroyed. On some websites discussing this they talk about the universe having a net energy of zero. Gravity being a one form of negative energy. 

Strange: Are you just talking about the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe being driven by dark energy?. Does a dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe not  violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

What I was trying to ask above and failed to get an answer on could the energy entangling two particles be a form of -ve energy, that would absorb any radiation given off by virtual particles annihilating?

Can an electron and positron become entangled, and if so would they still give of gamma rays on destruction?

I am correct in thinking if negative energy exists, in the form of gravity or some thing out in space, the universe could still have a net energy of zero, without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

 

 

[interested]

On ‎18‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:34 PM, interested said:

I am correct in thinking if negative energy exists, in the form of gravity or some thing out in space, the universe could still have a net energy of zero, without violating the first law of thermodynamics?

 

 

Ok forget the above questions I used google and found answers to my questions, except quantum particle behaviour around 0kelvin. Virtual particles according  to some websites are all entangled and will last longer at almost 0kelvin than they would at room temperature. Virtual particles at this temperature can become real etc.

I suspect google is my best source of information on quantum entanglement of particles at 0 kelvin.  Can anyone string me along, show other wise and make my day? 

Thanks for the input.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Ok forget the above questions I used google and found answers to my questions, except quantum particle behaviour around 0kelvin. Virtual particles according  to some websites are all entangled and will last longer at almost 0kelvin than they would at room temperature. Virtual particles at this temperature can become real etc.

Not sure what you read that would lead you to this conclusion.

[dylrovertson]

Therefore, the quantum entanglement is 1/0 = ±∞. For times ±∞, the energy is "1 or 0". That is, 空 is a program.

[interested]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Not sure what you read that would lead you to this conclusion.

Loads, but would require a speculative thread to be started because I think it may be pure speculation, and I do not argue.

I have to work, so do not have much time to spend studying everything but having read

Mordreds what space is thread, and a lot of other stuff on other science forums.

Various on links on the 2nd law of thermodynamics having been broken at near absolute zero.

And finally a Zero energy universe theory, which in effect does not break the first law of thermodynamics. The early universe came from nothing with quantum fluctuations creating both positive energy and negative energy which sum to zero, etc. When positive energy virtual particles come into existence they are normally instantly absorbed by the negative energy, but at around absolute zero can survive long enough to separate from the negative energy. the negative energy could be the energy required for entanglement.

A zero energy beginning of the universe in no way disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics and still allows for a big bang, and every one is happy.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dylrovertson said:

Therefore, the quantum entanglement is 1/0 = ±∞. For times ±∞, the energy is "1 or 0". That is, 空 is a program.

Sorry, no, that's nonsense.

[Itoero]

If you  bring a system with entangled photons to nearly absolute zero, what happens with the entanglement? Electrons have a rest energy, photons do not. So does this mean that entangled electrons are more prone to survive cooling down to almost absolute zero?

paper studies relation entanglement--temperaturehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505161.pdf

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

If you  bring a system with entangled photons to nearly absolute zero, what happens with the entanglement? Electrons have a rest energy, photons do not. So does this mean that entangled electrons are more prone to survive cooling down to almost absolute zero?

paper studies relation entanglement--temperaturehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505161.pdf

The paper appears to be discussing the temperature of the system that produces the entangled particles, and concludes that temperatures that are high do not allow for entanglement — too much thermal noise to generate coherence. Nothing about cooling the system down after the entanglement.

I don't know how you "bring the temperature down" on two entangled photons. The phrase makes no real sense. In a broader view, cooling something requires an interaction, which could cause decoherence. Or maybe not — it depends on the details.

[Itoero]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

The paper appears to be discussing the temperature of the system that produces the entangle particles, and concludes that temperatures that are high do not allow for entanglement — too much thermal noise to generate coherence. Nothing about cooling the system down after the entanglement.

I don't know how you "bring the temperature down" on two entangled photons. The phrase makes no real sense. In a broader view, cooling something requires and interaction, which could cause decoherence. Or maybe not — it depends on the details.

Can't you use thermalization? Photons contain kinetic energy so the wave energy is formed by kinetic energy (conservation of energy) and kinetic Energy is proportional to the temperature. (gas: E_k=3/2 RT)

So if you lower the temperature via thermalization to nearly absolute zero and the photons remain entangled, then that would show that the entangled kinetic energy no longer has the properties of kinetic energy.