Message boards :
SETI@home Science :
two entangled quantum, one drop in a bleck-hole, what will see the other's status?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Albert Hu Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 7 Credit: 72,898 RAC: 0 |
There are two quantum in entangled state, one drop into a black-hole, and the other is out of black-hole. Now, if we observer the outside one, we will know the status of inside one. Record the variable relate to time. The question is that the variable of inside is equal the outside? |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
Didn't Einstein hypothesize that this is impossible. As I recall he made the same statement but took them to opposite sides of the the universe. One wouldn't be able to tell the state of the other because nothing travels faster than the speed of light. So the first would still be waiting for years to reach to changes in the second. Also because of the way the black hole warps/slows time the same improbability occurs In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Didn't Einstein hypothesize that this is impossible. As I recall he made the same statement but took them to opposite sides of the the universe. One wouldn't be able to tell the state of the other because nothing travels faster than the speed of light. So the first would still be waiting for years to reach to changes in the second. Also because of the way the black hole warps/slows time the same improbability occurs Yes, Einstein said it was impossible in 4 dimensional space time. The standard model isn't 4 dimensional. Changes happen instantaneously over the size of the universe. |
Albert Hu Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 7 Credit: 72,898 RAC: 0 |
But the entangled quantum don't waste any time on transfer message. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Isn't it the observer of the first (local) particle the one who now knows the state of the second (remote) particle. In theory both states were undetermined until the observer looked at the local particle and observed it's state. So who uses the knowledge at the other end? and does it constitute data transmission--certainly, if all this were true it would not be useful data since the state could not be chosen by the local observer. Actually it works just as well for me that the states were always set and the observer just sees what the state(s) is (are). The universe itself would be an observer since all matter (energy) affects all other matter/energy--sort of like Schrodinger's cat being an observer itself. Hence there is no "message" that is transmitted. Whether or not information (probably data would be a better word) can escape from a black hole is still being debated and probably depends on your use of definitions--Does Hawking radiation leaking from a black hole constitute information ?? I'll leave to those who are above my pay-grade to comment. Bill |
Albert Hu Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 7 Credit: 72,898 RAC: 0 |
Isn't it the observer of the first (local) particle the one who now knows the state of the second (remote) particle. In theory both states were undetermined until the observer looked at the local particle and observed it's state. So who uses the knowledge at the other end? and does it constitute data transmission--certainly, if all this were true it would not be useful data since the state could not be chosen by the local observer. Does it mean that, we actually don't know the status of two particles until one is observed ? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Isn't it the observer of the first (local) particle the one who now knows the state of the second (remote) particle. In theory both states were undetermined until the observer looked at the local particle and observed it's state. So who uses the knowledge at the other end? and does it constitute data transmission--certainly, if all this were true it would not be useful data since the state could not be chosen by the local observer. That would be correct. But I believe that you can't pick how you disturb one so that it always picks one state to decay into forcing the other into the opposite state. That means you can send binary information FTL across arbitrary distances. Problem is you can't send the individual parts FTL. |
Albert Hu Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 7 Credit: 72,898 RAC: 0 |
Thanks your explains |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Of course we don't know until we look. The question is: is the state truly in limbo until someone looks?--this seems to me to be purely a philosophical explanation of causality if you say yes. How do it know ? that someone has looked. Daddio carries this to it's logical conclusion ?? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Of course we don't know until we look. The question is: is the state truly in limbo until someone looks?--this seems to me to be purely a philosophical explanation of causality if you say yes. Existence may only exist only when examined. Virtual things have real effects on the universe. Everything is only a probability function. At least under the Standard Model. |
Albert Hu Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 7 Credit: 72,898 RAC: 0 |
If the standard model is wrong, what will happen? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
If the standard model is wrong, what will happen? It is wrong. It seems neutrinos have mass. Many of the GUTs predict that. Once the LHC gets going it should find stuff that one of the GUTs predicts and not find stuff that other GUTs predict. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.