it's a long distance relationship

Comments

• RedSnt@feddit.dk ⁨8⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

  Is this a draft for scientology’s version of a “new testament”?

  source
• thenextguy@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  That is not what quantum entanglement means. It doesn’t work like that.

  source

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Shhh you’ll upset the quantum mystics that need to believe magic is real!

    source
• testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  To be fair, the “change one” part is wrong. Two particles that are quantum entangled maintain the same quantum state when separated. But if you change the quantum state of one it doesn’t propogate. They are just in sync.

  source

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The analogy that makes most sense to me so far, is this:
    You rip a photograph in half and put both halves into envelopes. Now you send one of the envelopes to your friend in Australia. You open the other envelope. Boom! Instantaneous knowledge of what’s in the envelope in Australia. Faster than light!!!

    In quantum terms, you “rip a photograph in half” by somehow producing two quanta, which are known to have correlated properties. For example, you can produce two quanta, where one has a positive spin and the other a negative spin, and you know those to be equally strong. If you now measure the spin of the first quantum, you know that the other has the opposite spin.

    source

    • lemonskate@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The important distinction here (and I get it, analogies are always imperfect) is that the photograph analogy has “hidden variables”. That is, each half is fixed at the moment of their separation and you just don’t know what’s in the envelopes until you open one. That’s not how entangled particles work though, and which “half” is which is not determined until the instant of measurement, at which point the state of both are known and fixed.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• frisbird@lemmy.ml ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Best theory I’ve heard on quantum entanglement is that it’s actually holographic. What we call two particles are actually aspects of a single entity.

  source

  • bunchberry@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There is no limit to entanglement as everything is constantly interacting with each other and spreading the entanglement around. That is in fact what decoherence is about, because spreading the entanglement throughout trillions of particles in the environment dilutes it such that quantum interference effects are to subtle to notice, but they are all technically entangled. So if you think entanglement means things are one entity, then you pretty much have to treat the whole universe as one entity. That was the position of Bohm and Blokhintsiev.

    source
• T3CHT@sh.itjust.works ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  See also, ‘Purdue decay rate anomaly’ Why do researchers see correlation between nuclear particle decay and solar activity? Or don’t they?

  www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…/100825093253.htm?….

  source