Quantum Entanglement of two dumbbells

[Lazarus]

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT OF TWO DUMBBELLS

 

 

To reproduce Quantum Entanglement with two dumbbells this is what you need to do,

Fire the two 12 inch dumbbells in synchronized rotation at two equidistant cardboard

targets with 8 inch holes in the center. If one target is destroyed the other one will also

be destroyed. If one dumbbell passes through the hole the other dumbbell will also

pass through the hole.

 

 

[swansont]

What does this have to do with entanglement?

[Lazarus]

What does this have to do with entanglement?

Same as particle entanglement. If the targets are 50 miles apart, an observer at

one target knows what the observer at the other target sees.

[swansont]

Same as particle entanglement. If the targets are 50 miles apart, an observer at

one target knows what the observer at the other target sees.

 

No, because in quantum entanglement the state of the particle is not determined until the measurement has been made. For an object such as this, it's in that state the whole time.

[Lazarus]

No, because in quantum entanglement the state of the particle is not determined until the measurement has been made. For an object such as this, it's in that state the whole time.

The dumbells are in a constantly changing mode, vetical, horizontal and

in between. When arriving at the target vertical the target is destroyed.

When arriving horizontally they pass through the hole.

 

How is this any different from particles changing modes?

[swansont]

The dumbells are in a constantly changing mode, vetical, horizontal and

in between. When arriving at the target vertical the target is destroyed.

When arriving horizontally they pass through the hole.

 

How is this any different from particles changing modes?

 

In principle you can measure the dumbbells and predict what their orientation will be at a future time. It's a classical system.

[Lazarus]

In principle you can measure the dumbbells and predict what their orientation will be at a future time. It's a classical system.

In principle if we had the technical ability we could measure a particle and predict what it's state

would be at a future time.

 

I understand what you are saying and really appreciate your responses.

 

Thank you.

[krash661]

hmm, interesting,

I do not know much about quantum entanglement

but what i have came across is interesting.

[beefpatty]

In principle if we had the technical ability we could measure a particle and predict what it's state

would be at a future time.

 

I understand what you are saying and really appreciate your responses.

 

Thank you.

 

You can only predict the probability that it will be in a given state, not deterministically as swansont pointed out.

[swansont]

In principle if we had the technical ability we could measure a particle and predict what it's state

would be at a future time.

Not in quantum mechanics, for entangled particles. They are in a superposition. Once you measure the state, the entanglement is broken.

[Delta1212]

In principle if we had the technical ability we could measure a particle and predict what it's state

would be at a future time.

 

I understand what you are saying and really appreciate your responses.

 

Thank you.

A major difference between classical systems and quantum ones is that you cannot, even in principle, predict the future state of quantum ones except probabilistically, whereas with classical systems you can determine the future state with a fair degree of precision if you know enough about it.

[Lazarus]

Is the time of observation the same for both observers? I can't find

a description ot the experiments that makes it clear to me whether or

not that is the case. They talk about instantaineous communication

but I can't tell if the two observations are made at the same time.

 

If they are, why couldn't the two entities just stay in sync like the dumbbells?

[swansont]

The quantum entanglement experiment has been done such that the time was the same, to within an uncertainty such that they were able to conclude that any communication between the systems would have to occur at 10,000c. The theory, of course, does not claim that this communication is taking place.

[Lazarus]

The quantum entanglement experiment has been done such that the time was the same, to within an uncertainty such that they were able to conclude that any communication between the systems would have to occur at 10,000c. The theory, of course, does not claim that this communication is taking place.

So do you think the oscillations of the two entangled enties

could stay in sync or is that unlikely?

[swansont]

So do you think the oscillations of the two entangled enties

could stay in sync or is that unlikely?

 

Has anyone shown that the individual particles are oscillating when in entangled states?

[Delta1212]

 

Has anyone shown that the individual particles are oscillating when in entangled states?

Even if they were, doesn't the correlation still hold even if the measurements aren't made at the same time?

[swansont]

Even if they were, doesn't the correlation still hold even if the measurements aren't made at the same time?

 

Yes, which is not what you expect from oscillations.

[Lazarus]

Swansont said
"Not in quantum mechanics, for entangled particles. They are in a
superposition. Once you measure the state, the entanglement is broken."

 

Delta1212 said

"Even if they were, doesn't the correlation still

hold even if the measurements aren't made at

the same time?

 

Swansont said

"Yes, which is not what you expect from oscillations."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please clarify for me how the measurements can be

at different times if the first measurement breaks the

entanglement.

[swansont]

Please clarify for me how the measurements can be

at different times if the first measurement breaks the

entanglement.

 

The particles,1 and 2, are in a superposition of states, |A> and |B>

 

You measure particle 1, and get a result. Let's say it's |A>. The other particle will be in |B>, but the observer where 2 is located can measure that particle at any later time and get that result, as long as the particle is not perturbed.

 

If 1 is subsequently measured in a different basis, the answer will not correlate to the measurement of 2, because the entanglement is broken.

[Lazarus]

If the superposition state of the second particle stays

the same after the first particle is measured why couldn't

both particles have stayed in the same superposition

state since they started out?

[swansont]

If the superposition state of the second particle stays

the same after the first particle is measured why couldn't

both particles have stayed in the same superposition

state since they started out?

 

Because there is is experimental evidence that they don't. A superposition allows for interference effects, which have been observed, and wouldn't be there if the system were not in a superposition — you don't get the classical correlations you expect if the states were determined.

[Lazarus]

Swansont,

 

You have incredible patience to field all the questions

that you do. It is appreciated greatly.

 

If I could try your patience again, I would appreciate it

if you would jump over to Speculations and give my

post on a Cosmology Hypothesis some more information

on why it is out in left field,

[swansont]

I'm an atomic physicist, not a cosmologist.