Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

[Brian]

Thought this was interesting:

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

 

Currently under review prior to publication.

[Karl]

Thought this was interesting:Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 kmCurrently under review prior to publication.

 

I was with it right up to '80 years'.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I was with it right up to '80 years'.

 

Bernard d'Espagnat wrote a very readable article on the fundamental issues in the November 1979 issue of Scientific American:

 

The Quantum Theory and Reality

 

Apparently this experiment leaves very little wiggle room for those people wish to deny what Einstein called, "spook-like action at a distance".  Though they may take some comfort in the penultimate paragraph:

 

Strictly speaking, no Bell experiment can exclude the infinite number of conceivable local realist theories, because it is fundamentally impossible to prove when and where free random input bits and output values came into existence. Even so, our loophole-free Belt test opens the possibility to progressively bound such less conventional theories: by increasing the distance between A and B (testing e.g. theories with increased speed of physical influence), using different random input, bit generators (testing theories with specific free-will agents, e.g. humans), or repositioning the random input, bit generators (testing theories where the inputs are already determined earlier, sometimes referred to as "freedom=of=choice"). In fact, our experiment already excludes all models that predict that the random inputs are determined a maximum of 090 is before we record them, because the inequality Is still violated for a much shorter spin readout (Supplementary Information).

 

No matter how how ultimately irrational such comfort may be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I discovered a problem with the link to the article on d'Espagnat, apparently the apostrophe in d'Espagnat creates a problem with the Wikipedia address. I seem to recall a work around, but can't remember what it was offhand. I will see if I can repair it.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Zhongyongdaoist

[thelerner]

Brian, I'm not grabbing on to a visual here.  I take the paper talking about reaction from a distance.. entanglement?? 

 

How would you describe what's being said visually? 

Edited September 1, 2015 by thelerner

[Brian]

Brian, I'm not grabbing on to a visual here.  I take the paper talking about reaction from a distance.. entanglement?? 

 

How would you describe what's being said visually? 

Imagine two tops suddenly springing into being, one spinning clockwise:

and the other spinning counter-clockwise:

 

These are not "ordinary" tops, though, these are "entangled" tops.

 

Imagine that they are sent spinning off across a vast flat surface and that, at some point later, after they have travelled a significant distance from each other, one of them goes through a device which instantaneously reverses its rotation, so that it now spins counter-clockwise instead of clockwise (just to pick one...)

 

What this experiment demonstrates would be akin to the other top instantly reversing its direction, too -- no physical connection, no external intervention, no "communication," no delay, no slow-down-stop-start-again. -CLICK-

 

Weird, huh?

 

Or imagine two metal balls rolling across a giant sheet of plastic, each with no charge. At a great distance apart, one of them passes close to an electron gun and picks up an negative charge. The other ball instantly (as in faster than the speed of light) develops a positive charge.

 

Now, in the mundane macro world we are used to experiencing on a daily basis, balls and tops don't behave this way. The energetic subatomic world, however, is dominated by this sort of behavior. We have known it for about a century and our experiments are demonstrating it with more and more certitude. Doesn't necessarily mean quantum mechanics (for lack of a better term) is "correct," mind you -- only that it is consistent with reality.

 

The result should be that natural philosophers can move on to the implications and ramifications but it seems illogical and many have a problem with that so experimentalists will probably spend another couple decades trying to "prove" it more convincingly...

[Karl]

Imagine two tops suddenly springing into being, one spinning clockwise:and the other spinning counter-clockwise:These are not "ordinary" tops, though, these are "entangled" tops.Imagine that they are sent spinning off across a vast flat surface and that, at some point later, after they have travelled a significant distance from each other, one of them goes through a device which instantaneously reverses its rotation, so that it now spins counter-clockwise instead of clockwise (just to pick one...)What this experiment demonstrates would be akin to the other top instantly reversing its direction, too -- no physical connection, no external intervention, no "communication," no delay, no slow-down-stop-start-again. -CLICK-Weird, huh?Or imagine two metal balls rolling across a giant sheet of plastic, each with no charge. At a great distance apart, one of them passes close to an electron gun and picks up an negative charge. The other ball instantly (as in faster than the speed of light) develops a positive charge.Now, in the mundane macro world we are used to experiencing on a daily basis, balls and tops don't behave this way. The energetic subatomic world, however, is dominated by this sort of behavior. We have known it for about a century and our experiments are demonstrating it with more and more certitude. Doesn't necessarily mean quantum mechanics (for lack of a better term) is "correct," mind you -- only that it is consistent with reality.The result should be that natural philosophers can move on to the implications and ramifications but it seems illogical and many have a problem with that so experimentalists will probably spend another couple decades trying to "prove" it more convincingly...

I'm presuming you understand this stuff to a degree ? I'm a billion light years from understanding it, but I can see a possibility related to every day things.

 

Couldn't it just be kind of eddy currents rather than some strange quantum coupling ? On a more electromagnetic basis we can lock one motor synchronously with another, so could this not occur with paired particles ? Zero travel time would be needed, one particles spin would impinge directly on the other and thus achieve- what appeared to be-faster than light travel. If you had a very long cable with zero stretch, then you could beat speed light by direct mechanical action, set an electron off at the same time as pulling the cable and wouldn't it be true that the speed of light rule would appear to have been broken ?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

I'm presuming you understand this stuff to a degree ? I'm a billion light years from understanding it, but I can see a possibility related to every day things.

 

Couldn't it just be kind of eddy currents rather than some strange quantum coupling ? On a more electromagnetic basis we can lock one motor synchronously with another, so could this not occur with paired particles ? Zero travel time would be needed, one particles spin would impinge directly on the other and thus achieve- what appeared to be-faster than light travel. If you had a very long cable with zero stretch, then you could beat speed light by direct mechanical action, set an electron off at the same time as pulling the cable and wouldn't it be true that the speed of light rule would appear to have been broken ?

No, an electrical signal travels at the speed of light or less. In your model, the slaved motor awaits the propagation of a current flow through the connecting wire. Not waiting for electrons to travel from one end to the other, mind you, as electron drift speed through a conductor is WAY less than the speed of light, but for the "pulse" to push through, which is still less than the speed of light. Even of you eliminate the conductor and have the signal travel through a vacuum, you are still limited by space-time -- unless you operated outside of space-time...

[Karl]

No, an electrical signal travels at the speed of light or less. In your model, the slaved motor awaits the propagation of a current flow through the connecting wire. Not waiting for electrons to travel from one end to the other, mind you, as electron drift speed through a conductor is WAY less than the speed of light, but for the "pulse" to push through, which is still less than the speed of light. Even of you eliminate the conductor and have the signal travel through a vacuum, you are still limited by space-time -- unless you operated outside of space-time...

 

Right, but I'm not talking about a conductor but about a energy wave already at light speed and thus at zero relative time. In effect it's like a mechanical rod with zero expansion. Push one end and the other moves instantly at the other. It appears to exceed light speed, but it doesn't, there isn't any waiting for a wave to pass from one place to the other because it is the wave itself. The particles aren't independent they are simply part and parcel of the wave itself-just one with a spin induced time delayed mass-like a vortex in water, but instead of water it's energy waves.

 

I'm sure this is a terrible explanation.

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

Right, but I'm not talking about a conductor but about a energy wave already at light speed and thus at zero relative time. In effect it's like a mechanical rod with zero expansion. Push one end and the other moves instantly at the other. It appears to exceed light speed, but it doesn't, there isn't any waiting for a wave to pass from one place to the other because it is the wave itself. The particles aren't independent they are simply part and parcel of the wave itself-just one with a spin induced time delayed mass-like a vortex in water, but instead of water it's energy waves. I'm sure this is a terrible explanation.

Nope, doesn't work that way -- there is a non-zero propagation time for an "energy wave" and that includes the mechanical rod. The rod, you see is not really a solid physical object but an energetic one. You push one end of the mechanical rod and an energetic impulse propagates through the wave at the speed of light -- the rod compresses. Pull the rod and it stretches -- momentarily and not much but enough.

[voidisyinyang]

The debate Karl is trying to have - is has been an actual debate based on the group wave statistics.

 

But that debate has finally been ended.

 

Not by this experiment but by another one I cited in my music article.

 

 

 

Researchers demonstrate quantum entanglement, prove Einstein wrong

What Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance" has been

successfully demonstrated for the first time.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/researchers-demonstrate-quantum-entanglement-prove-einstein-wrong/

[Bud Jetsun]

One may easily perform the double slit at home with a telescope aimed at distant stars, a razor, some foil and a camera with long exposure time.

 

Even one side of the earth to the other seems comparatively insignificant distance beyond what entanglement has already been observed to function.

 

The above article is an example of a clever setup to enable uniquely (previously assumed impossible) exacting results rather than just observe the presense of the phenomena.

 

"Entanglement" is a human observation of Oneness.

 

The 1.3km of the illusion/artifact of distance arises from a human reference perspective limitation. Viewed from infinite perspective reality there can only be oneness. When oneness appears as 'physically separated' this is an illusion given rise by human perception limitations.

 

With each beat of one's heart, electro-chemical processes are generating magnetic fields to control the amazing pump in your chest. These magnetic fields are easily measured when near, however they are never lost, only beyond human tool assisted perception to detect. Every heartbeat carrys energy to all "reaches" of the UNIverse (oneness).

 

With unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

And here I thought that this was the link:

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

 

Quote:

For example, consider the double-slit experiment. In de Broglie’s pilot-wave picture, each electron passes through just one of the two slits, but is influenced by a pilot wave that splits and travels through both slits. Like flotsam in a current, the particle is drawn to the places where the two wavefronts cooperate, and does not go where they cancel out.

De Broglie could not predict the exact place where an individual particle would end up — just like Bohr’s version of events, pilot-wave theory predicts only the statistical distribution of outcomes, or the bright and dark stripes — but the two men interpreted this shortcoming differently. Bohr claimed that particles don’t have definite trajectories; de Broglie argued that they do, but that we can’t measure each particle’s initial position well enough to deduce its exact path.

In principle, however, the pilot-wave theory is deterministic: The future evolves dynamically from the past, so that, if the exact state of all the particles in the universe were known at a given instant, their states at all future times could be calculated.

...

In a groundbreaking experiment, the Paris researchers used the droplet setup to demonstrate single- and double-slit interference. They discovered that when a droplet bounces toward a pair of openings in a damlike barrier, it passes through only one slit or the other, while the pilot wave passes through both. Repeated trials show that the overlapping wavefronts of the pilot wave steer the droplets to certain places and never to locations in between — an apparent replication of the interference pattern in the quantum double-slit experiment that Feynman described as “impossible … to explain in any classical way.” And just as measuring the trajectories of particles seems to “collapse” their simultaneous realities, disturbing the pilot wave in the bouncing-droplet experiment destroys the interference pattern.

 

---Which could be an equally relevant idea for the wave-particle thread on the board....

 

That makes more sense to me than quantum theory.

[Karl]

Well, it is a quantum theory. Nevertheless, I think so too.

 

Well they all are. I remember when the first turbo charges were fitted to cars, after that every damned thing that made things faster was referred to as turbo.

 

Anyway: this is what I was talking about in the beginning. I'm a dumbo who has never read anything about vortex spins at the speed of light, but that's what I had imagined. Hmm maybe this consciousness thing is real after all-I just think it and then a paper appears related to it ;-)

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1656.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

Well they all are. I remember when the first turbo charges were fitted to cars, after that every damned thing that made things faster was referred to as turbo. Anyway: this is what I was talking about in the beginning. I'm a dumbo who has never read anything about vortex spins at the speed of light, but that's what I had imagined. Hmm maybe this consciousness thing is real after all-I just think it and then a paper appears related to it ;-) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1656.pdf

Excellent find, Karl! A consistent (and delightfully math-rich) theory combining quantum physics with relativity to explain how finite "stuff" is created from infinite "nonstuff." Not only that but you managed to materialize it seven years in the past.

 

By Jove! I think he's got it!!!

[Karl]

Excellent find, Karl! A consistent (and delightfully math-rich) theory combining quantum physics with relativity to explain how finite "stuff" is created from infinite "nonstuff." Not only that but you managed to materialize it seven years in the past.By Jove! I think he's got it!!!

 

That's how I roll. Combined with an advanced form of nuclear fusion I have all the doughnuts I could ever eat.

 

[Brian]

Mmmm...

 

Doughnuts.

 

[Karl]

Mmmm...Doughnuts.

 

Hey that's me...

[Nungali]

Sometimes it seems there is a 'boundary'  ( between the world we naturally perceive, the very small {sub-atomic} and the very large {as in astro-physics} )  where the laws and models of physics are 'reversed' or modified (in relation to the world of our direct perceptions) . 

 

As above, so below - but 'reflected'  ?