Quantum Entanglement ?

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Itoero said:

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.

What do you mean "by thermalization"?

Things lose energy because they bounce off other things. That tends to destroy entanglement. Matter can also thermalize be emitting and absorbing radiation from the surroundings. Photons don't do this. Not to mention that the temperature of a system of just two particles is not defined.  

[interested]

Does any one have access to the following article https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012117

"We consider the decay of quantum entanglement quantified by the concurrence of a pair of two-level systems, each of which is interacting with a reservoir at finite temperature T. For a broad class of initially entangled states, we demonstrate that the system always becomes disentangled in a finite time, i.e., “entanglement sudden death” occurs. This class includes all states which previously had been found to have long-lived entanglement in zero-temperature reservoirs. Our general result is illustrated by an example."

I am particularly interested in the possible entanglement of particles before any big bangs at around 0kelvin, ie the first quantum fluctuations, which produced positive energy and negative energy which resulted in the universe we have today. +1 -1 +etc - etc = 0 energy and complies with the first law of thermodynamics, the big bang does not comply with the first law of thermodynamics!

I note on religious forums the big bang and the first law of thermodynamics is cited for evidence of god, for me this is nonsense, if there is a god we are all part of it, if not then there is no god and the religious science forums are deluding themselves yet again.

Why does this science forum have a religious section, are members trying to support religious beliefs? Is this a religious forum?  

Itoero +1 for the interest

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by interested

[swansont]

Always check arxiv

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2611

[interested]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Always check arxiv

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2611

Thanks +1 heres the pdf. It is an interesting analysis, only stretching my mathematical abilities a little.  

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2611.pdf

In this paper we consider the decay of quantum entanglement, quantified by the concurrence, of a pair of two-level systems each of which is interacting with a reservoir at finite temperature T. For a broad class of initially entangled states, we demonstrate that the system always becomes disentangled in a finite time i.e. “entanglement sudden death” (ESD) occurs. This class includes all states which previously had been found to have long-lived entanglement in zero temperature reservoirs.

Does anyone happen to have a more detailed overview of the zero energy universe concept. ? E= 0 = mc² - pV 

ie Can mass be viewed as -ve energy and entanglement and radio waves etc as +ve energy? 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by interested

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 hours ago, interested said:

Does any one have access to the following article https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012117

"We consider the decay of quantum entanglement quantified by the concurrence of a pair of two-level systems, each of which is interacting with a reservoir at finite temperature T. For a broad class of initially entangled states, we demonstrate that the system always becomes disentangled in a finite time, i.e., “entanglement sudden death” occurs. This class includes all states which previously had been found to have long-lived entanglement in zero-temperature reservoirs. Our general result is illustrated by an example."

I am particularly interested in the possible entanglement of particles before any big bangs at around 0kelvin, ie the first quantum fluctuations, which produced positive energy and negative energy which resulted in the universe we have today. +1 -1 +etc - etc = 0 energy and complies with the first law of thermodynamics, the big bang does not comply with the first law of thermodynamics!

I note on religious forums the big bang and the first law of thermodynamics is cited for evidence of god, for me this is nonsense, if there is a god we are all part of it, if not then there is no god and the religious science forums are deluding themselves yet again.

Why does this science forum have a religious section, are members trying to support religious beliefs? Is this a religious forum?  

Itoero +1 for the interest

 

Someone who knows for certain can correct me, but I think it is at least in part to isolate it from the science threads. Since scientific methodology is required in those (almost all others including Speculations) threads, it would be inappropriate to have faith based discussions in them.

[swansont]

17 hours ago, interested said:

 I am particularly interested in the possible entanglement of particles before any big bangs at around 0kelvin, ie the first quantum fluctuations, which produced positive energy and negative energy which resulted in the universe we have today. +1 -1 +etc - etc = 0 energy and complies with the first law of thermodynamics, the big bang does not comply with the first law of thermodynamics!

"Before any big bangs" contains a whole lot of unsupported speculation, and you have presented nothing about why entanglement would be important.

17 hours ago, interested said:

I note on religious forums the big bang and the first law of thermodynamics is cited for evidence of god, for me this is nonsense, if there is a god we are all part of it, if not then there is no god and the religious science forums are deluding themselves yet again.

Why does this science forum have a religious section, are members trying to support religious beliefs? Is this a religious forum?  

 As J.C. has mentioned, one reason is so we can do a better job of keeping religious notions out of scientific discussions.

[interested]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

"Before any big bangs" contains a whole lot of unsupported speculation, and you have presented nothing about why entanglement would be important.

 As J.C. has mentioned, one reason is so we can do a better job of keeping religious notions out of scientific discussions.

I understand. Does this apply to the first law of thermodynamics? If so why is it claimed that all matter appeared in a big bang x billion years ago, when in fact the stuff that exploded did not originate at T=0 in a big bang, it must have accumulated before then, with out breaking the first law of thermodynamics.

Taking your advice I googled zero energy universe including "arxiv" in the search and hey presto, I have a load of technical stuff on zero energy universes. That will give me hours of reading. It is interesting to read "the positive energy from mass and motion of the observed matter in the Universe exceeds in magnitude the negative energy from gravity, the Universe must contain another form of matter whose energy is negative. This form, which cannot be composed from particles, may be the observed dark matter". This is just one of the links I have to read on night shift next week. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6977.pdf

Could decohered entangled quantum particles be the original plasma of Anti matter and matter particles in the universe that resulted in a big bang.? I am going to carry on looking at this, but would appreciate any hints in the correct direction. 

 

[Mordred]

Better to understand the fields gives rise to particle production rather than the descriptive of the last paragraph, this corresponds to the zero energy baseline. The Dirac equations correlate from this baseline to the production of the particle/anti particle pairs.

 Use the katra, particles are field excitations.

Yes entangled states are involved but not on causing production, entanglement arises due to correlations upon pair production, which to preserve numerous conservation under the Eightfold Wayen, ie charge, energy-momentum, lepton number , parity etc provide critical aspects to the entanglement correlation functions.

A collapse occurs when one or the other entangled particle experiences any form of interference.

 

A direction to understand the last is constructive and destructive interference of waveforms. Your QFT creation/annihilation operators for particle production follows the same principle.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mordred

[interested]

Thanks

[Itoero]

On ‎21‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:02 PM, swansont said:

What do you mean "by thermalization"?

Things lose energy because they bounce off other things. That tends to destroy entanglement. Matter can also thermalize be emitting and absorbing radiation from the surroundings. Photons don't do this. Not to mention that the temperature of a system of just two particles is not defined.  

Thermalisation refers to the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium...by exchanging energy trough diffusion. This paper investigates thermalisation of entanglement entropy.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01315.pdf

Edited September 24, 2017 by Itoero

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Thermalisation refers to the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium...by exchanging energy trough diffusion. This paper investigates thermalisation of entanglement entropy.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01315.pdf

How do two photons undergo this process? Your link is describing a completely different scenario.

[Itoero]

On ‎24‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:25 PM, swansont said:

How do two photons undergo this process? Your link is describing a completely different scenario.

Can't you interact with photons without breaking entanglement?

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Can't you interact with photons without breaking entanglement?

Depends on the interaction. But what does it mean to thermalize two photons, i.e. a system that doesn't qualify for any sort of thermal description?

[interested]

I understand Entanglement of field excitations (particles) is less likely to occur at higher temperatures or near any matter or photons that would cause disturbances breaking the entanglement of entangled field excitations resulting in a shorter life time of virtual particles (field excitations that never had enough energy to be a particle in its own right) 

Are quantum fluctuations resulting in field excitations (real particles) more likely to occur at near absolute zero in the vacuum of space, or  near matter or in hot environments. 

Entangled Particles in a hot environment are more likely to decohere than at near absolute zero.

 

[interested]

I guess there will be no answer to the above paradoxial question. 

The following link is on photon entanglement, https://phys.org/news/2017-09-wavelengths-entangled-photons-telecommunications.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

 

 

[Strange]

19 hours ago, interested said:

Are quantum fluctuations resulting in field excitations (real particles) more likely to occur at near absolute zero in the vacuum of space, or  near matter or in hot environments. 

Entangled Particles in a hot environment are more likely to decohere than at near absolute zero.

I don't think virtual particle pairs exist for long enough to be affected by the environment. (But I may be wrong.)

[swansont]

20 hours ago, interested said:

 Are quantum fluctuations resulting in field excitations (real particles) more likely to occur at near absolute zero in the vacuum of space, or  near matter or in hot environments. 

Do you have an example of quantum fluctuations spontaneously resulting in real particles?

[interested]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you have an example of quantum fluctuations spontaneously resulting in real particles?

The big bang is supposed to start with a quantum fluctuation resulting in a very hot expansion of the universe.

The zero energy universe starts with both positive and negative energy out of quantum fluctuations.

All the matter in the universe started out from one or multiple quantum fluctuations which ever way you look at it.

Do you think there is an alternative that does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.  

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

The big bang is supposed to start with a quantum fluctuation resulting in a very hot expansion of the universe.

The zero energy universe starts with both positive and negative energy out of quantum fluctuations.

All the matter in the universe started out from one or multiple quantum fluctuations which ever way you look at it.

Do you think there is an alternative that does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.  

That's an hypothesis, embellished by your speculation, and does not correspond to the conditions of your question ("near absolute zero in the vacuum of space")

[interested]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

That's an hypothesis, embellished by your speculation, and does not correspond to the conditions of your question ("near absolute zero in the vacuum of space")

Sorry I have had a long night 8 till 8. Are you saying the big bang or the zero energy universes are just hypothesis. Or are you saying my answer only applies to the zero energy universe originating at around about zero kelvin. Quantum fluctuations are the origins off all matter according to both theories, are you denying this? 

All quantum fluctuations appear as entangled particle pairs. At very low temperature entanglement lasts longer.

At a high temperature as in the big bang expansion of space, particles would not be entangled, or would at least mainly to have decohered for any explosion to happen.

Virtual particle pairs emit no radiation as they go out of existence, in the absence of any good answers this lead me to believe they must exactly cancel out the wave functions of the opposing entangled particle, regardless of any Heisenberg uncertainty principle. With none entangled particle pairs the wave functions do not cancel and result in the release of radiation and a possible explosion (perhaps FRB's).

When a virtual particle pair appear out of the vacuum of space, (sorry mordred wave functions), they are exact opposites and exactly cancel each other out when they come back together. If they survive longer at very low temperature and are disturbed by other virtual particles, they could decohere and phase shift, therefore no longer cancelling out. When they are brought back together they release radiation.

Thinking of an analogy with sound 

E = 0 when two waves in exact anti-phase to each other collide, when they are phase shifted varying levels of energy still exists, like background noise or radiation. Virtual particles pairs have a total energy of zero when brought back together. Once decohered they are no longer exact opposites and result in radiation like particle anti particle pairs. I tried asking a question above ref entangled electrons and positrons to see if radiation was given off or not, I have come to the conclusion it is not.

I have asked various questions on this thread and have not received answers to all of them, so have used the internet and found answers to my questions, if you disagree with my conclusions please tell me why, they are wrong.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Sorry I have had a long night 8 till 8. Are you saying the big bang or the zero energy universes are just hypothesis. Or are you saying my answer only applies to the zero energy universe originating at around about zero kelvin. Quantum fluctuations are the origins off all matter according to both theories, are you denying this? 

Space existing at zero K prior to the big bang is, AFAIK, an hypothesis of your making.

Quote

All quantum fluctuations appear as entangled particle pairs. At very low temperature entanglement lasts longer.

You seem to have coupled these two statements, yet I don't think you've shown support for that. The conditions under which low temperature supports longer-lasting entanglement has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations.

Quote

At a high temperature as in the big bang expansion of space, particles would not be entangled, or would at least mainly to have decohered for any explosion to happen.

The temperature after the BB was >10^12 K into the quark epoch, so there probably wasn't a whole lot of entanglement 

Quote

When a virtual particle pair appear out of the vacuum of space, (sorry mordred wave functions), they are exact opposites and exactly cancel each other out when they come back together. If they survive longer at very low temperature and are disturbed by other virtual particles, they could decohere and phase shift, therefore no longer cancelling out. When they are brought back together they release radiation.

Speculation on your part. As I stated, the part about surviving at low temperature was not applied to virtual particles, and it is not valid for you to make this extrapolation.

 

[interested]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Space existing at zero K prior to the big bang is, AFAIK, an hypothesis of your making.

You seem to have coupled these two statements, yet I don't think you've shown support for that. The conditions under which low temperature supports longer-lasting entanglement has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations.

The temperature after the BB was >10^12 K into the quark epoch, so there probably wasn't a whole lot of entanglement 

Speculation on your part. As I stated, the part about surviving at low temperature was not applied to virtual particles, and it is not valid for you to make this extrapolation.

 

Due to the lack of answers received ref my questions, I made some guesses, hoping to gain a better response. I am not going to argue in favour of the big bang or zero energy universe. I was just asking questions trying to get sensible answers not an invitation to argue.

[Itoero]

On ‎25‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 9:56 PM, swansont said:

Depends on the interaction. But what does it mean to thermalize two photons, i.e. a system that doesn't qualify for any sort of thermal description?

In the Kondo effect, the resistivity of a metal with a magnetic impurity rises when it reaches 0K. You can reach nearly 0K via thermalization and the kondo effect starts with many body entanglement.  You can also form superconductive materials via thermalization, to form a cooper pair. So you can create electron (not photon) entanglement via thermalization. 

In the kondo effect resistivity rises (so kinetic energy of conducting electrons lowers) while entanglement (correlation energy) rises. Simple conservation of energy states that kinetic energy forms the correlation energy. Superconductivity can also create entanglement. (cooper pair)In Superconductivity, electrons behave like they have no invariant mass( behaves like boson), so a cooper pair is connected with there kinetic energy. When you entangle photons then kinetic energy forms the entanglement since photons can only have kinetic energy.

It seems that entanglement is speed dependent.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Itoero

[swansont]

I understand thermalizing some fermion in a material. But you said thermalizing two entangled photons. If you don't have references, just say so.

[Itoero]

On ‎16‎-‎8‎-‎2017 at 4:11 PM, interested said:

Focusing on quantum entanglement of particles what is the maximum range this can be achieved over. Do the particles need to be in close proximity for it this to occur, or can they be separated by large distances.?

You can create entangled electrons by splitting a cooper pair. The electrons in a pair are not necessarily close together; because the interaction is long range, paired electrons may still be many hundreds of nanometers apart. This distance is usually greater than the average interelectron distance, so many Cooper pairs can occupy the same space. Electrons have spin 1/2, so they are fermions, but the total spin of a Cooper pair is integer (0 or 1) so it is a composite boson. Many hundreds of nanometers is not a large distance tough  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.2455.pdf