Analogy and interpretation of quantum entanglement according to Kartazion

[Kartazion]

Analogy and interpretation of quantum entanglement according to Kartazion

Imagine a game of ping-pong. At the center is the singularity, or the source, where there is the net. Each of the players is a particle. Together, they therefore constitute the entangled pair throughout the game. The ball is the packet of information. Let me explain. If one player has the ball, well the other player does not. The state is therefore always opposed. The entanglement corresponds to the current game of ping-pong. But when a player wins or loses the game, or the game in progress, the ball is then in the possession of one of the two players. Here we have the state of measurement. The measure can correspond to an immobilization of one of the two players in his action to play; or by an interruption of an external event on the fragile dexterity that is quantum entanglement.

[studiot]

Please define

5 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

If one player has the ball,

 

[Kartazion]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Please define

Yes it is when the player has the ball in his camp and so he can play it.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes it is when the player has the ball in his camp and so he can play it.

Yes that is the difficulty.

I think there is a period when neither player 'has the ball'

[Kartazion]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think there is a period when neither player 'has the ball'

This corresponds to the speed of the oscillation of information. The information packet is represented by the ball.

This is measured by the thickness of the net when none of the players has the ball.

 

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

This corresponds to the speed of the oscillation of information. The information packet is represented by the ball.

This is measured by the thickness of the net when none of the players has the ball.

 

This is not what I meant.

Let us call the players A and B.

Suppose A strikes the ball.

So at that point A clearly 'has the ball' and B does not.

Now consider an infinitesimal instant after A has struck the ball.

A is not allowed to strike the ball again or in any way further influence its trajectory.

So does A still 'have the ball ?

[Kartazion]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

A is not allowed to strike the ball again or in any way further influence its trajectory.

So does A still 'have the ball ?

No, because the ball goes to player B. If player A no longer has the ball, then the entanglement is terminated.

 

[studiot]

Just now, Kartazion said:

No, because the ball goes to player B. If player A no longer has the ball, then the entanglement is terminated.

 

But does it ?

Certainly not according to the rules.

The next event prescribed in the rules is that the ball must strike the table top in B's court plus a list of things it must not do.

Before this happens, B is not allowed to strike, touch or influence the ball in any way so cannot be said to 'have the ball'.
It is just not his ball yet.

The correct sequence is that A strikes the ball, the ball strikes the table top and then B strikes the ball.

In the period between A striking the ball and the ball striking the table top neither player has the ball.

And if the ball does not strike the table top ie misses or spins back over the net then A looses the point.

So the correct sequence is

1) The ball strikes the table top on B's side and B then 'has the ball' and retains the ball until he strikes it.

2) From B striking the ball to the ball striking the table top on A's side neither player 'has the ball'.

3) If The ball then strikes the table top on A's side, A 'then has the ball', until he strikes it.

and so on.

The middle event, (2) may well take bar far the longest time in a rally.
 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Analogy and interpretation of quantum entanglement according to Kartazion

Imagine a game of ping-pong. At the center is the singularity, or the source, where there is the net. Each of the players is a particle. Together, they therefore constitute the entangled pair throughout the game.

How are they “entangled”?

[Kartazion]

14 hours ago, studiot said:

In the period between A striking the ball and the ball striking the table top neither player has the ball.

Why is entanglement instantaneous? Weren't you who said that instantaneness didn't exist in math?
If they play at lightning speed, well there will always be a transition time. At 299.792 km / s
Sinpmly this corresponds to the speed of the oscillation of information.
 

14 hours ago, studiot said:

And if the ball does not strike the table top ie misses or spins back over the net then A looses the point.

In this analogy nobody loses the game until an outside intervention, namely the measure.
 

14 hours ago, studiot said:

The middle event, (2) may well take bar far the longest time in a rally.

No worries about that. It does not prevent the transition.
 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

How are they “entangled”?

It's an analogy. The entanglement corresponds to the game of ping-pong. If you don't play anymore, then there is no more entanglement.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

 It's an analogy. The entanglement corresponds to the game of ping-pong. If you don't play anymore, then there is no more entanglement.

It's a bad one, then. Entanglement means you can't treat particles as separate, independent entities.

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Why is entanglement instantaneous?

If you measure one particle, you instantly know that state of its entangled partner, because they can be treated as a single entity. There's no reason for there to be a delay.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

 It's an analogy. The entanglement corresponds to the game of ping-pong. If you don't play anymore, then there is no more entanglement.

It's a bad one, then. Entanglement means you can't treat particles as separate, independent entities.

Not only is it a defective analogy, the play is not according to the rules of Table Tennis.

Kartazion please read my careful explanation again.

You have it wrong the situation is not a binary one (either - or)

 

As to the 'analogy' , we have a saying  "It takes two to tango".

A game or the game of ping pong is only one entity, and you need at least two for entanglement, by definition.

[swansont]

If the only thing that's either/or is whether you're playing or not, that's not like entanglement.

One player is always in the act receiving the shot, the other is making or has made the shot. That would be analogous to entanglement. If you identify which player is doing one act, then you know the other player is performing the other act.

So what? Where's the science?

[Kartazion]

 

The game of ping-pong is there to to remedy and fix the Bell's theorem. No more and no less.

Since there is no hidden-variable.

To explain the non-local I use the analogy of a ping-pong ball as an information packet.

That's it.

 

[swansont]

You can't validly use Bell's theorem where it doesn't apply. You have described a classical system, not a quantum one, and Bell only applies to quantum systems.

Again: where's the science? What's the point of doing this (i.e. how will it apply to actual science being done?)

[Kartazion]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Again: where's the science? What's the point of doing this (i.e. how will it apply to actual science being done?)

The misunderstanding of how quantum entanglement works is in the mechanism of transmission of information. since there can be no hidden variable (that's science).
I simply substituted a ping-pong ball for a packet of information flowing between the two entangled particles.
This information packet notifies the opposing particle of the discovery of its state by the measurement.
Here we have the means of explaining how and when a particle has its left spin, that the other will necessarily have it on its right.

 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The misunderstanding of how quantum entanglement works is in the mechanism of transmission of information. since there can be no hidden variable (that's science).
I simply substituted a ping-pong ball for a packet of information flowing between the two entangled particles.
This information packet notifies the opposing particle of the discovery of its state by the measurement.
Here we have the means of explaining how and when a particle has its left spin, that the other will necessarily have it on its right.

 

I don't see how that explanation is unavailable to us in a quantum example, like having two spin-1/2 particles coming from a spin-zero condition, so you know one is spin-up and the other is spin-down.

There is no evidence that there is information transferred, and it's been pointed out that the state information is available instantaneously. i.e. your ping-pong ball has to travel at infinite speed. Is an analogy that violates the laws of physics a good analogy?  

 

[Kartazion]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't see how that explanation is unavailable to us in a quantum example, like having two spin-1/2 particles coming from a spin-zero condition, so you know one is spin-up and the other is spin-down.

 

Not understood.

 

 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no evidence that there is information transferred, and it's been pointed out that the state information is available instantaneously. i.e. your ping-pong ball has to travel at infinite speed. Is an analogy that violates the laws of physics a good analogy?  

I agree with that. I'm working on it.

 

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

 

Not understood.

 

 

 

 

This is polarization entanglement, not spin entanglement.

But the polarization states have to "add" to some value (in this case, if one is H, then the other one is V)

[Kartazion]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

This is polarization entanglement, not spin entanglement.

 

I'm talking about entangled pairs. As usual, you make frills for your spin story as if it were super-complicated. 
So I gave you the example of the simple photon as a hello.
Anyone is capable of entangling photons at home.
To believe you, it looks like it would take 30 years of study to entangle a poor pair of particles.
The complexity is found in the explanation of non-locality.
This story of how the "spooky action at a distance" acts from particle to particle with an action link that cannot be explained.
100 after with all your instruments and your elites you are unable to do better than me who in a simple explanation succeeds.

 

You were always the only one who balked without ever saying a positive review to anyone.

 

Now you can close this thread as you know so well.

 

[Kartazion]

Conclusion, and if we think about it a little, we can understand that the packet of information (the ping-pong ball) gives the power of measurement, and annihilates itself during its destination to the player. The entanglement is over.
The information packet means that the particles can be in 4 possible states; including two superimposed highs and two superimposed low, plus reverse symmetrical top, bottom.
This gives a qubit of 4 states.

This it is speculation.

 

[studiot]

Here is a macroscopic example of entanglement and 'spooky action at a distance'.

Take two balls or marbles, one blue, one red and place them into an opaque bag.
Let you friend take one out, without showing it to you, and hand you the bag.
Your friend then takes his marble to the other side of the room and looks at it.
What colour is his marble ?

The very instant you take your marble out and look at it you know not only the colour of your marble, but also the colour of your friend's marble.
This is true whatever distance your friend travels to, even the other side of the world or if he joins the first human expedition to Mars.

 

Now quantum variables are known to be more complicated than classical macroscopic ones and show additional effects not shown by classical variables.

So it is not suprising that quantum entanglement is more complicated and offers additional effects.

Edited March 23, 2021 by studiot

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

 

I'm talking about entangled pairs. As usual, you make frills for your spin story as if it were super-complicated. 

You've simplified it to the point that it's wrong. And what "frills" are there? Spin is conserved. If you have two particles stemming from a spin-0 state, one will be spin-up, the other spin-down.

 

Making up some story about ping-pong seems far more convoluted.

 

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

So I gave you the example of the simple photon as a hello.

I had given a spin example, and you responded with a polarization diagram, as if you did not know the difference.

 

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Anyone is capable of entangling photons at home.

It happens without intervention by us, so, sure.

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

To believe you, it looks like it would take 30 years of study to entangle a poor pair of particles.

I don't see where I've said anything that would lead you to such a conclusion. 

Efficiency of entanglement in spontaneous parametric downconversion is low, but photons are easy to make

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion"The conversion efficiency of SPDC is typically very low, with the highest efficiency obtained on the order of 4 pairs per 10^6 incoming photons for PPLN in waveguides"

and then you can only have entangled photons if they come from the overlap region of the two cones. So, it's not particularly easy, from a numbers standpoint. Fortunately you're going to have of order 10^15 photons per mW of visible photons.

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The complexity is found in the explanation of non-locality.

Entanglement is not necessarily nonlocal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality#Entanglement_and_nonlocality

 

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

This story of how the "spooky action at a distance" acts from particle to particle with an action link that cannot be explained.
100 after with all your instruments and your elites you are unable to do better than me who in a simple explanation succeeds.

Saying "We don't know" is preferable to making stuff up.

 

 

3 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Conclusion, and if we think about it a little, we can understand that the packet of information (the ping-pong ball) gives the power of measurement, and annihilates itself during its destination to the player. The entanglement is over.
The information packet means that the particles can be in 4 possible states; including two superimposed highs and two superimposed low, plus reverse symmetrical top, bottom.
This gives a qubit of 4 states.

This it is speculation.

 

But we know this is wrong, since the ping-pong ball has to travel at infinite speed. Your example is unphysical. It assumes information is traveling, and you have no basis for that assumption.