Kyrisch Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2006/01jan/holographic.html I remember reading about this a while back. I think it's called Quantum Entanglement. However, this is much more in-depth about it. A very interesting read.
swansont Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 No, really, it's not very in-depth. There's very little real science described, and several mistakes (e.g. insisting that it's instantaneous communication). There's a limit to how well you can describe the science using macroscopic analogies and philosophical comparisons with other phenomena.
5614 Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 There's a limit to how well you can describe the science using macroscopic analogiesYep. Especially when dealing with quantum effects. Kyrisch: any site which makes such a fundemental mistake as insisting that entanglement allows instantaneous communication cannot really be trusted. Nice picture from The Matrix though.
Kyrisch Posted July 24, 2006 Author Posted July 24, 2006 I think the aim was to dumb it down for the general public... It was an interesting read though. I sort of meant in-depth as in I understood it better than when I was explained to me in quantum mechanical terms.
bombus Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 I thought that Quantum Entanglement does suggest instantaneous communication (or 'transfer of information' to be precise) albeit not necessarily across distances greater than the sub-atomic. Can someone please explain (simply!).
Klaynos Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 I thought that Quantum Entanglement does suggest instantaneous communication (or 'transfer of information' to be precise) albeit not necessarily across distances greater than the sub-atomic. Can someone please explain (simply!). 2 entangled particles A B Someone measures quantity Q at A to be a, this means that Q at B must be b. Someone at B has no knowledge of the A measurement so makes the same measurement and finds that Q at B is b, thus telling him that Q at A is a. Neither can tell anything to the other one about what thye know faster than the speed of light, if the person at A changes Q at A to be b, that will NOT effect B in any way faster than the speed of light. Kyrisch: there is a common saying about QM that goes something like "if you think you understand it, you're wrong"...
timo Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 Kyrisch: there is a common saying about QM that goes something like "if you think you understand it, you're wrong"... Ten bucks you don´t have the guts to go into an exam saying "I have no idea about QM, which is great because ...".
bascule Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I talked about the Bohm interpretation on another thread. It was basically constructed to demonstrate that non-local hidden variable theories are possible. It isn't supposed to be an accurate description of the universe. Although I did post in Speculations, before reading about the Bohm interpretation, about something similar. It was more just sophistry coming from the perspective of "If I had to come up with a data structure to store the universe, how would I design it?"
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 It almost seems like Bohm was anticipating a Kaluza-Klein type solution as an explanation to non-locality with the hidden variables (dimensions?) being "projected up" onto or into what we perceive as space time.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now