Do you believe in Quantum Entaglement?

[sepulchrave]

Just to add to what Leonardo has said, Einstein's main problem with quantum mechanics was that it was probabilistic, not deterministic. Even if we knew all of the microscopic details of a system, we could still not predict the outcome of certain interactions - only predict the probability of various outcomes.

Reality can still be objective regardless of whether it is probabilistic or deterministic.

The issue of objective vs. subjective reality in regards to quantum mechanics is a somewhat separate issue.

While some notable physicists have argued in favour of subjective reality (take, for example, the Wigner's Friend though-experiment), the majority of scientists regard reality as objective.

An object reality, however, does not mean that the principle of superposition always applies; the state of a real system need not always be separable into arbitrarily small subsystems.

[Duke Wellington]

Ok, lets rephrase the question to:

Do you believe that there is no ojective reality?

Prove an objective reality and if you can't you aren't entitled to assume one exists.

[tordy74]

Einstein suspected that those espousing the Copenhagen Interpretation may have rigged the results for Quantum Entanglement. Bell proved mathematically that the results were not rigged and later Clauser set up a machine to show with total certainty that Einstein's version of reality could not be true. The entangled photons in the experiment could not have been rigged (set at the beginning).

[SHaYap]

The problem is the definition of 'existing' rather than 'exists' ~ neither of which is mutually exclusive in relation to 'reality' ~

~

[StarMountainKid]

The problem is the definition of 'existing' rather than 'exists' ~ neither of which is mutually exclusive in relation to 'reality'

The universe on the macro- and micro-scale is continually changing. Is there a moment in time when we can say, "this is the moment when the objective universe exists?" It seems to me, something that is continually changing cannot be said to exist temporally in a specific state that can be defined.

In this sense, I would agree with third_eye, that 'existing' is something different than 'exists'. Therefore, can we state that the universe does not exist, it is, rather, existing?

Does this interpretation make a difference in how we define the existence of the universe?

[SpiritWriter]

Quantum Entanglement = On Earth as it is in Heaven?

[Leonardo]

Einstein suspected that those espousing the Copenhagen Interpretation may have rigged the results for Quantum Entanglement. Bell proved mathematically that the results were not rigged and later Clauser set up a machine to show with total certainty that Einstein's version of reality could not be true. The entangled photons in the experiment could not have been rigged (set at the beginning).

What has this got to do with the existence (or not) of objective reality?

[tordy74]

What has this got to do with the existence (or not) of objective reality?

This is evidence that Einstein's version of objective reality does not exist and subsequently infers that there is no reason to believe in it - hence giving my personal response to the question.

[Leonardo]

This is evidence that Einstein's version of objective reality does not exist and subsequently infers that there is no reason to believe in it - hence giving my personal response to the question.

No, the quote in question only implies that Einstein's 'version of reality' regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation (i.e. that the results had been rigged) was false. It speaks nothing of any actual reality relating to determinism vs non-determinism, or classical physics vs quantum theory.

[tordy74]

No, the quote in question only implies that Einstein's 'version of reality' regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation (i.e. that the results had been rigged) was false. It speaks nothing of any actual reality relating to determinism vs non-determinism, or classical physics vs quantum theory.

Agreed.

[Duke Wellington]

The problem is the definition of 'existing' rather than 'exists' ~ neither of which is mutually exclusive in relation to 'reality' ~

~

True, the reality we are experiencing exists.

The real question is does it disappear when we aren't looking?

[Duke Wellington]

No, the quote in question only implies that Einstein's 'version of reality' regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation (i.e. that the results had been rigged) was false. It speaks nothing of any actual reality relating to determinism vs non-determinism, or classical physics vs quantum theory.

The theory shows Einstein's reality is impossible but only proves non-locality.

Determinism is falsified by the uncertainty principle. The reason why the path for a thrown stone can be calculated is because with a trillion, trillion, trillion atoms involved its easy to lose sight of it being the average path taken. If it were a single atom repeatedly thrown that path would be here, there and everywhere.

[Rlyeh]

True, the reality we are experiencing exists.

The real question is does it disappear when we aren't looking?

A better question, why would it care?

[Leonardo]

Determinism is falsified by the uncertainty principle.

That's true only for a universe explored using the equations derived out of quantum theory - not for classical physics because uncertainty does not apply in classical physics.

This is why I argued previously that it is possible that multiple 'versions' of reality exist simultaneously - because we have different, and distinct methods of exploring that reality and 'existence' is a concept built entirely around our ability to explore it.

An analogy to this would be the difference between liquid water and ice. While we might say they are the same thing (H₂O) we can only explore one using the equations of fluid dynamics, while the other can only be explored using solid-state physics (I know this isn't entirely true, nor accurate, but I am simplifying the situation in order to express the point I am making.)

Edited December 23, 2014 by Leonardo

[taniwha]

how do we know ? If we are not there to observe the falling tree making a noise , how do we know !

What we do know is that trees dont fall down if we arent there to observe them

[Duke Wellington]

That's true only for a universe explored using the equations derived out of quantum theory - not for classical physics because uncertainty does not apply in classical physics.

This is why I argued previously that it is possible that multiple 'versions' of reality exist simultaneously - because we have different, and distinct methods of exploring that reality and 'existence' is a concept built entirely around our ability to explore it.

An analogy to this would be the difference between liquid water and ice. While we might say they are the same thing (H₂O) we can only explore one using the equations of fluid dynamics, while the other can only be explored using solid-state physics (I know this isn't entirely true, nor accurate, but I am simplifying the situation in order to express the point I am making.)

Classical mechanics is also non-deterministic as it describes averages for vast numbers of atoms.

Just because that average is highly accurate when a trillion, trillion, trillion atoms are involved doesn't mean that arrow hits at the same point every time. You might need a microscope to measure the variation unless you're going to fire the arrow a million times but its there. Things work off probabilities not determinism.

Edited December 23, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Leonardo]

Classical mechanics is also non-deterministic as it describes averages for vast numbers of atoms.

That is only when examining the classical solutions through a quantum prism. Classical physics is deterministic because there is no randomness in the results of equations made using classical models. It is this randomness (or lack of) which is how something is concluded to be non-deterministic or deterministic in physics.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Leonardo

[tordy74]

No, the quote in question only implies that Einstein's 'version of reality' regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation (i.e. that the results had been rigged) was false. It speaks nothing of any actual reality relating to determinism vs non-determinism, or classical physics vs quantum theory.

One of Einsteins lesser known quotes: "No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit quantum mechanics"

Correction :The quote implies that any definition of reality, deterministic or not, classical whatever would be so. The fact that the properties of the photons may have been rigged at the onset of the experiment applied to all definitions of objective reality.

[Duke Wellington]

That is only when examining the classical solutions through a quantum prism. Classical physics is deterministic because there is no randomness in the results of equations made using classical models. It is this randomness (or lack of) which is how something is concluded to be non-deterministic or deterministic in physics.

Classical Mechanics was invented by man before he could do extreme tests giving him the illusion his science was correct.

Shoot a trillion individual atoms at a target and a million will be miles off. Shoot an object made out of a trillion atoms and the combined average for them all is the path taken. Classical mechanics tells you that path. Classical mechanics is only revealed to be wrong when we start getting down to a few thousand atoms at which point there is so few of them that it doesn't take long before the microscopic object is miles off its target.

Then we talk about probabilities of where that object will fly as we have realised deterministic mechanics is babble.

[Leonardo]

Classical Mechanics was invented by man before he could do extreme tests giving him the illusion his science was correct.

Classical physics is "correct science". It doesn't matter that it is not quantum mechanics, they are simply two different, but equally correct, ways of describing our universe.

[sepulchrave]

Then we talk about probabilities of where that object will fly as we have realised deterministic mechanics is babble.

I think you are confusing chaos with randomness.

Classical physics is always deterministic, but it is typically chaotic when we are dealing with more than 2 mutually interacting objects.

Quantum mechanics is also chaotic, but seems to also be probabilistic (on a single particle scale).

[SHaYap]

True, the reality we are experiencing exists.

The real question is does it disappear when we aren't looking?

When we are not looking , by definition we too disappear from the equation ~ so in a way , yes ...

I look at it by way of the old Zen ( I know the mathematicians hates this but put the maths aside for a moment ) story :

When you are standing by the banks of the river ~ the river is ever the 'same' river

When you are knee deep in the very same river ~ the river is never the same river ~

or

you can't cross the 'same' river twice

~

the river is constantly flowing ~ evolving ~ it is never the same river ~ it is impossible for the river to remain the same river and still remain being 'the' river ~

~ I look at 'reality' the same way

~

[Duke Wellington]

Classical physics is "correct science". It doesn't matter that it is not quantum mechanics, they are simply two different, but equally correct, ways of describing our universe.

As that space rocket approaches light-speed you realise your Newtonian physics is babble. Classical Mechanics is most certainly not 'correct science'

[Duke Wellington]

I think you are confusing chaos with randomness.

Classical physics is always deterministic, but it is typically chaotic when we are dealing with more than 2 mutually interacting objects.

Quantum mechanics is also chaotic, but seems to also be probabilistic (on a single particle scale).

Classical mechanics makes reality appear deterministic because of the vast number of atoms involved. It is anything but.

[tordy74]

Lets do a thought experiment.

Lets say Einstein and Bohr decide to play a game of cards for the nature of reality

Bohr is the dealer and deals 2 cards. Einstein wagers that both the cards are same colour red. Wrong, they are black. Einstein loses lets say 10 times in a row on these terms.

Einstein then changes the rules to wager that opposite colours win. Wrong and Einstein loses another 10 times in a row on the new rules.

Einstein says that the deck is rigged

Bell who is the referee decides to change the sequence of events of the game and tells Einstein not to tell Bohr which game he is going to play untill after Bohr has delt the cards. Now Bohr, since can never predict which rules Einstein is going to play by, can never stack the deck correctly.

If they then continue and Einstein wins as many times as he loses then reality has an objective existence.

If Einstein loses, then he is forced to accept that at the basic scheme of things reality has no objective existence.

Einstein lost.

Thanks to BBC Horizon.

Edited December 24, 2014 by tordy74