[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
Is nature nonlocal?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 2
File: qe.jpg (42 KB, 470x501) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
qe.jpg
42 KB, 470x501
Is nature nonlocal?
>>
>>8210352
My dick is maximally entangled with your sister's butthole.
>>
Have you ever considered that some things are local and some things are nonlocal?
>>
>>8210356
Sure. But the very idea that nature operates nonlocally on a microscopic level is profound in itself.
>>
>>8210368
>nonlocally on a microscopic level
I don't think I've ever had this thought before but isn't everything non-local due to space quantization? Event A takes place in location A, but causes event B in location B. A and B have to be separated by at least one Planck length. Is this non-locality? If it is, how could anything ever be local? Someone smart please make sense of this, I'm way too high to think about this coherently.

Also I did the butthole entanglement shitpost. Sorry. Kind of
>>
>>8210374
I'm not sorry, i still think itsfunny
>>
>>8210374
It's nonlocal if there is nothing mediating between the two events.
>>
>>8210383
Ahhhhh youre right. the boson interacts with electron 1 in space A, then travels to B to interact with electron 2. Forgot about that. So then the only difference in a non-local interaction is the lack of a mediator particle? Is it possible that we just haven't found the "quantum entanglement mediator" boson yet? Or has that been ruled out?
>>
>>8210400
Ruled out because whatever the mechanism is that communicates between entangled states is able to do it at space-like separated distances beyond the reach of matter that can travel at sub-light speeds. Some kind of instantaneous action-at-a-distance
>>
>>8210400
>Is it possible that we just haven't found the "quantum entanglement mediator" boson yet?
Inventing a boson to explain quantum entanglement would be like inventing a force to explain inertia.
>>
>>8210410
Im too intoxicated to try to get that joke but Ill still give yoou a kek. Kek.

>>8210406
Faster than c, no shit. I definitely knew that. But thank you anway
>>
>>8210400
No and things can't go FTL and think of them as waves not particles when you deal with wave like behavior and you don't even need entanglement to observe similar phenomena, would you say collapsing a single photon immediately sends that information to all possible locations to tell them they can't exist? You can lense a photon around an entire galaxy and observing it at one side doesn't send FTL information to the other side saying stop existing over there. You would also need infinite energy for the classical eigenstates of position, etc. There are a multitude of interpretations of QM that explain superposition without resorting to non-causality.

God I fucking hate popsci QM.
>>
>>8210501
>you don't even need entanglement to observe similar phenomena, would you say collapsing a single photon immediately sends that information to all possible locations to tell them they can't exist?
That is entanglement.
>>
>>8210591

Entanglement is 2 or more particles you goof, go read a book.
>>
>>8210644
ritard
>>>/b/
>>
>>8210644
If I have two modes that can have 0, 1, 2, ... photons in them, then |0,1> + |1,0> is an entangled state.
>>
>>8210354
dude LOL this remionds me so mcuha of YM LOL ROFL ROLLOLRFLL
>>
Entanglement is a popsci meme. There is no communication between particles.

Keep threads like this in >>>/x/
>>
>>8210837
it's this kind of disingenuous meme posting that ruins science for everyone. local realism is dead as far as consensus physics is concerned, so keep your personal interpretations to yourself you cuck fuck
>>
>>8210400
>>8210501 this so much
>>8210591

I flip a coin you cant see an hold it in one hand. I let you pick and its empty. HOLY SHIB le entangled coin is in the other hand

If you really wont learn the material, id recommend 'the quark and the jaguar' by mann—gell (sp?) as a laymans concept crash course on a lot of shit like this, including what entanglement is and how it can be used generate private cyphers in public for encryption.

I gave you a clue thats the best i can do\10
>>
>>8210861
>I flip a coin you cant see an hold it in one hand. I let you pick and its empty. HOLY SHIB le entangled coin is in the other hand

That is not entanglement. You would represent the state of the coin+hands as a non-entangled mixed state:

|coin, empty> <coin, empty| + |empty, coin> <empty, coin|
>>
>>8210410
>Inventing a boson to explain quantum entanglement would be like inventing a force to explain inertia.
that's how they found the Higgs particle
>>
>>8210859
no fuck you. if you understood it properly you'd know why the measurement trigger completely opposes the assumption that they are/must be entangled and the observation actually ruining the observation is bullshit.
>>
>>8210872
From that incoherent babbling, it sounds to me like you're just too afraid to deal with the consequences. Scared of a little magic in your physics f a m?
>>
>>8210877
> too retarded to understand entanglement meme in laymans terms
it figures...
>>>/x/
>>
>>8210870
If someone gave you the impression the Higgs boson was an explanation for mass, they explained it wrong. Interactions with the Higgs field give mass to some particles that would otherwise be massless, but it's not responsible for all mass, and it's certainly not an explanation for mass.

Mass isn't necessary for inertia, either; photons don't have mass, but they do have momentum and thus inertia. Inertia comes from conservation of momentum, which at the quantum level comes from translation symmetry and Noether's theorem.

The Higgs boson was found not by theorizing it, which happened decades before it was discovered, but by looking for its decay products in particle collisions. The principle is that you look at particles that might have come from a Higgs boson, calculate the mass of what produced them, make a histogram over many events, and look for a peak.
>>
File: ll.jpg (68 KB, 630x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ll.jpg
68 KB, 630x400
>>8210879
>too obstinate and functionally incapable of accepting well established experimental results

Keep fighting the tide my man
Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 2

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at imagescucc@gmail.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.