@metal-brain saidWhat Schrödinger discovered is that the Schrödinger equation predicts entanglement.
From the link below:
Quantum entanglement was discovered by Schrödinger and later studied by Einstein and other scientists in the last century.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180516102307.htm
It says "discovered", not predicted.
Schrödinger did NOT predict quantum entanglement. Wikipedia is wrong again.
@kazetnagorra saidDiscover and predict are two different things.
What Schrödinger discovered is that the Schrödinger equation predicts entanglement.
Where in the equation does it predict QE? Show us.
@metal-brain saidIt predicts quantum entanglement if you solve the Schrödinger equation for multiple interacting particles.
Discover and predict are two different things.
Where in the equation does it predict QE? Show us.
1 edit
@kazetnagorra saidWhat is your source of information?
It predicts quantum entanglement if you solve the Schrödinger equation for multiple interacting particles.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Schrodinger-equation
I see nothing that would predict QE. I think you fell for a myth.
@ogb saidDid you say layman?
Aspect's experiment-- OK I read the article but obviously didn't understand much. It mentioned light traveling with "information" or without "information" ..this is beyond my level of comprehension..can someone explain (in layman's terms) ? TY.
Time travel and quantum entanglement.
When Einstein said an object traveling faster than light would go backwards in time he wasn't telling us how to travel back in time. He explained the impossibility of reaching light speed, but went a step further by imagining what would happen if an object somehow managed to travel faster than c... which he also believed was impossible.
Personally, I think he was right.
Quantum entanglement is just plain weird. Two entangled particles behave as though they are side by side and physically connected. It's like you turning the door knob of your front door, and as you do so the door knob on the house across the street turns, as though the two are physically connected. The effect is instantaneous, but there's nothing to suggest any thing is traveling faster than light.
Whatever is happening here, it doesn't involve anything traveling through space... or time.
@lemon-lime saidI have a problem with describing it as " instantaneous". Nothing is instantaneous. Even light has a limited speed.
Did you say layman?
Time travel and quantum entanglement.
When Einstein said an object traveling faster than light would go backwards in time he wasn't telling us how to travel back in time. He explained the impossibility of reaching light speed, but went a step further by imagining what would happen if an object somehow managed to travel faster than c... which he al ...[text shortened]... light.
Whatever is happening here, it doesn't involve anything traveling through space... or time.
@metal-brain saidLemon lime is right, this is the point Einstein, Podolski and Rosen were trying to make when they invented their thought experiment. Two observers each make an observation on two parts of an entangled system. Because the two parts of the system must produce consistent results to whatever the experiment is, and the measurements can be made at the same time in a shared frame of reference, it is as if a signal has been sent instantaneously.
I have a problem with describing it as " instantaneous". Nothing is instantaneous. Even light has a limited speed.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou have a problem with many common English and layperson terms as well as scientific concepts and terms. Before you can handle the scientific concepts and terms, you must first learn to handle the common English and layperson terms.
I have a problem with describing it as " instantaneous"
@deepthought saidNo, QE is NOT "instantaneous".
Lemon lime is right, this is the point Einstein, Podolski and Rosen were trying to make when they invented their thought experiment. Two observers each make an observation on two parts of an entangled system. Because the two parts of the system must produce consistent results to whatever the experiment is, and the measurements can be made at the same time in a shared frame of reference, it is as if a signal has been sent instantaneously.
Nothing is instantaneous.
What part of my statement do you not understand?
@metal-brain saidI'm afraid it is. The experiment has been performed and the predictions of Quantum Mechanics hold up. Two observers, arbitrarily distant from one another, who make observations on an entangled system will find that their results are correlated and that it is as if there were an instantaneous signal transferred between the two particles.
No, QE is NOT "instantaneous".
Nothing is instantaneous.
What part of my statement do you not understand?
There isn't a really satisfactory interpretation of this. The Copenhagen Interpretation deals with this by claiming there is no contradiction since correlation does not, of itself, entail causation. The Many Universes interpretation deals with it neatly at the expense of rather a lot of universes. Local hidden variable theories are ruled out and global hidden variable theories are rather contrived.
@deepthought saidLemon lime did not say "as if".
I'm afraid it is. The experiment has been performed and the predictions of Quantum Mechanics hold up. Two observers, arbitrarily distant from one another, who make observations on an entangled system will find that their results are correlated and that it is as if there were an instantaneous signal transferred between the two particles.
There isn't a re ...[text shortened]... cal hidden variable theories are ruled out and global hidden variable theories are rather contrived.
Nothing is instantaneous.
6 edits
@metal-brain saidAs usual, you just angrily argue the toss over irrelevant and extremely trivial semantics in a completely vain attempt to 'win' the argument over something you understand nothing about as opposed to any kind of intelligent or constructive reason, such as to learn something new for once. Just because "as if" wasn't said, doesn't mean it couldn't have been implicitly meant. And even if it wasn't meant, so what? For all we know it is actual and not merely just 'as if' and you have said nothing to disprove this possibility because, exactly as Deepthought just correctly said, "There isn't a really satisfactory interpretation of this". Either way, you make no point.
Lemon lime did not say "as if".
@metal-brain saidThere are plenty of "sources of information" for that. Any quantum physics textbook will do, really. Try Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.
What is your source of information?
https://www.britannica.com/science/Schrodinger-equation
I see nothing that would predict QE. I think you fell for a myth.