http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2006/01jan/holographic.html

 

I remember reading about this a while back. I think it's called Quantum Entanglement. However, this is much more in-depth about it. A very interesting read.

No, really, it's not very in-depth. There's very little real science described, and several mistakes (e.g. insisting that it's instantaneous communication). There's a limit to how well you can describe the science using macroscopic analogies and philosophical comparisons with other phenomena.

There's a limit to how well you can describe the science using macroscopic analogies

Yep. Especially when dealing with quantum effects.

 

Kyrisch: any site which makes such a fundemental mistake as insisting that entanglement allows instantaneous communication cannot really be trusted.

 

Nice picture from The Matrix though.

I think the aim was to dumb it down for the general public... It was an interesting read though. I sort of meant in-depth as in I understood it better than when I was explained to me in quantum mechanical terms.

I thought that Quantum Entanglement does suggest instantaneous communication (or 'transfer of information' to be precise) albeit not necessarily across distances greater than the sub-atomic. Can someone please explain (simply!).

I thought that Quantum Entanglement does suggest instantaneous communication (or 'transfer of information' to be precise) albeit not necessarily across distances greater than the sub-atomic. Can someone please explain (simply!).

 

 

2 entangled particles

 

A B

 

Someone measures quantity Q at A to be a, this means that Q at B must be b.

Someone at B has no knowledge of the A measurement so makes the same measurement and finds that Q at B is b, thus telling him that Q at A is a. Neither can tell anything to the other one about what thye know faster than the speed of light, if the person at A changes Q at A to be b, that will NOT effect B in any way faster than the speed of light.

 

Kyrisch: there is a common saying about QM that goes something like "if you think you understand it, you're wrong"...

Kyrisch: there is a common saying about QM that goes something like "if you think you understand it, you're wrong"...

Ten bucks you don´t have the guts to go into an exam saying "I have no idea about QM, which is great because ...".

I talked about the Bohm interpretation on another thread. It was basically constructed to demonstrate that non-local hidden variable theories are possible. It isn't supposed to be an accurate description of the universe.

 

Although I did post in Speculations, before reading about the Bohm interpretation, about something similar. It was more just sophistry coming from the perspective of "If I had to come up with a data structure to store the universe, how would I design it?"

It almost seems like Bohm was anticipating a Kaluza-Klein type solution as an explanation to non-locality with the hidden variables (dimensions?) being "projected up" onto or into what we perceive as space time.