Quantum Entanglement?

misterCope

Does anybody have a firm grasp on this idea? Firm enough to bring it down to a level that I might understand it a little more completely? I get the idea of it, but I feel as though there is much more that I could know about it.

Here's my limited (possibly erroneous) understanding:

If an atom is split and the two halves are taken far from each other, be it into the next room or across the universe, whatever happens to one half of the atom happens to the other half, instantaneously. As far as I know, there are two theories about this. 1: the atom halves are communicating (which would mean that there is a way for information to travel instantly), or 2: the atom halves are still connected to each other, or entangled. The most interesting part about this is that, before the big bang, everything was one (I think I read once that the entire universe was the size of a marble or something). If the theory is true, that means that everyone and everything is connected, not just on a religious or philosophical level, but on a real, actual level. We are not just figuratively connected, but literally connected.

So, if anyone has a firmer grasp on this than me and would like to illuminate/correct, I'd sure be appreciative. Thanks so much!

Dakini

It sounds like you've done a pretty good job of boiling it down. I haven't encountered the part about everything being entangled, due to all matter being super-compressed before the Big Bang, though.

It has interesting implications for certain aspects of human intuition, like when people who are emotionally very close, or even people who were physically one, like identical twins, know when something very bad or very good is happening to their loved one.

lobster

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Richard Feynman (probably)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

misterCope

lobster said:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

That's kind of what I figured.

My brain! :eek2:

sova

This enhanced my understanding of the topic, and really just made me want to be more diligent in not neglecting meditation,


http://rense.com/general69/holoff.htm

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.

Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.

As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.

When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.

According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.

Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

Pretty much truth

Florian

I would say that this implies that extension is an illusion of some sort. Score one for the Buddha.

lobster

Guys if like me you are that fish in the aquarium [lobster confession: all fish eaten in my tank, sorry fish, so delicious, better luck next life]
then you might be interested in my quantum gate soup [no fish were harmed]
http://qgate.soup.io/
This is more for those interested in quantum computing . . . not even sure what that is . . .

tmxxine is a more general site and has been closed down but will be around for a while . . .
http://tmxxine.tumblr.com/
much of the info is now part of qgate

Florian

I would recommend the writings of the physicist Ulrich Morhoff. He is part of Sri Aurobindo's group and a leading exponent of the 'Pondicherry' interpretation of QM. His blog is excellent. I know of nobody else talking so much sense on the topic.

poptart

separateness is an illusion

At last science is catching up with ancient wisdom.

Victorious

Pitty you can not "Awesome" an entire Thread.

Thanks.

Citta

Papanca.

Victorious

Florian said:

I would recommend the writings of the physicist Ulrich Morhoff. He is part of Sri Aurobindo's group and a leading exponent of the 'Pondicherry' interpretation of QM. His blog is excellent. I know of nobody else talking so much sense on the topic.

Do you have a link? I would rather not guess.

Florian

Sorry. I couldn't find it at the time. It's...

http://ujm.thisquantumworld.com/wp/

David

The middle way doesn't just pertain to sentient beings but even what comes together to form sentient beings. The absolute truth covers us all.

Every sub atomic particle has Buddha nature... Even the ones that have yet to arise.

Stephen Hawking says everything could have come from nothing but he still admits that nothing is actually something. To me, this seems to be purposely misleading. We can't just go ahead and change the definition of such a word as "nothing".

What he really implies to me is that the potential has always been there but that potential doesn't take up any space.

Just because it doesn't take up any space doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If conditions are right, it will manifest as emptiness is form.

Sorry to go off track there... I am no expert on QM but I am fascinated by it.

Zero

misterCope said:

If an atom is split and the two halves are taken far from each other, be it into the next room or across the universe, whatever happens to one half of the atom happens to the other half, instantaneously. As far as I know, there are two theories about this. 1: the atom halves are communicating (which would mean that there is a way for information to travel instantly), or 2: the atom halves are still connected to each other, or entangled. The most interesting part about this is that, before the big bang, everything was one (I think I read once that the entire universe was the size of a marble or something). If the theory is true, that means that everyone and everything is connected, not just on a religious or philosophical level, but on a real, actual level. We are not just figuratively connected, but literally connected.

Mathematics is an alternative language... when we speak of mathematical concepts in say the english language, we are translating and losing the essence of the mathematical language - the understanding is the maths, the concepts are understood within the mathematical framework - the maths itself is a specific objective language allowing more focused discussion and investigation of concepts.
QM is a mathematical concept - it does not translate to classical concepts - our day to day perception and consequently our day to day language used to navigate day to day issues is incompatible.
It is also not a straightforward concept in application (by straightforward, I mean 'classical') - it is subject to agreed interpretations and applications - it is therefore limited by the scope of these interpretations - the results and propositions most often do not carry across even within QM interpretations, let alone the QM:Classic divide - the base technique is experimentally proved (but then only as the results are so accurate as to render them acceptable or in this case almost irrefutable by classic standards rather than because they make classical sense!)
Entanglement is a product of superposition however superposition is a theoretical consideration of sorts existing within a theoretical medium of considerations.
Even without QM, it is not illogical to suggest that everything is connected - much depends on the specific definition of connected, however even in a broad sense I suppose the 'universe' itself in say a classical model implies connection.

Gui

It has to do with time, which is an illusion.

Florian

@ourself - I think the word you're looking for is 'unmanifest'.

David

Florian said:

@ourself - I think the word you're looking for is 'unmanifest'.

I'm not sure it is... The unmanifest would be pure potential but when conditions are right it manifests or is revealed.

When I said "as emptiness is form", I mean "because emptiness is form".

Nature does not allow for a complete vacuum... Potential particles are pulled out of space itself to prevent it.

David

Some will say the Buddhas teachings were not meant to represent how nature works but consciousness. One thing the teachings of no-self tells us however, is that the border between the inner world and the outer is an illusion.

Florian

Yes. I think this may be the most difficult and yet most basic thing for physicists to grasp about mysticism, that its ontology and psychology are inextricably intertwined.

DairyLama

misterCope said:

So, if anyone has a firmer grasp on this than me and would like to illuminate/correct, I'd sure be appreciative. Thanks so much!

I think it's worth remembring that our everyday world operates according to Newtonian mechanics, not Quantum mechanics.

So don't worry about your particles getting tangled up.