Thread: EPR and QM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1129112125.htm

first put forward in 1935 by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in a thought experiment. The three researchers wanted to use it to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is not consistent with a local reality of physical systems that is experimentally observable. The EPR situation refers to two systems in a state of quantum entanglement, where measuring one system instantaneously effects the results of the measurement on the other -- an incomprehensible fact to our traditional way of thinking, where physical laws exist regardless of whether systems are observed or not.

The breakthrough in the quantum state discovered and created by Prof. Oberthaler and his team lies in the quantum entanglement of continuous variables

In simple words, the EPR was to share that evidence, proves that QM is a JOKE.


This thread offer EVIDENCE that energy is what 'entangles' mass between point.

What is that 'energy' since QM is wrong?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1129112125.htm



In simple words, the EPR was to share that evidence, proves that QM is a JOKE.


This thread offer EVIDENCE that energy is what 'entangles' mass between point.

What is that 'energy' since QM is wrong?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkfVdrtLcRs"]Trololo 10 hours - YouTube[/ame]

idiots dont read

but others already comprehend the implications

This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5198979

how old is that pub?

and some are just realizing how obsolete their education really is

where it gets sad is to observe the goofs that are still in the educational system, not yet degree'd but are often the most ignorant because they just can step out of the box to be honest with themselves!

In 1935 Albert Einstein and two colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) developed a thought experiment to demonstrate what they felt was a lack of completeness in quantum mechanics. This so-called "EPR Paradox" has led to much subsequent, and still ongoing, research. This article is an introduction to EPR, Bell's Inequality, and the real experiments that have attempted to address the interesting issues raised by this discussion.

One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is that not all the classical physical observables of a system can be simultaneously well defined with unlimited precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observables that give qualitatively different, but nonetheless complete (maximal possible), descriptions of a quantum mechanical system. These sets are sets of "good quantum numbers," and are also known as "maximal sets of commuting observables." Observables from different sets are "noncommuting observables".







http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...nequality.html

EPR is by whom?

And shares that QM is ........ a joke?!?!?

What about the machine the guys built? Didn't it test those entanglements and show the spooky action? Sorry for not communicating better. The bar is not exactly high in this thread. Please spill the beans in your next post and tell us all the secrets of the universe. You're holding out on us, Bishadi, why? I know you're a fast enough typist that it wouldn't put a dent in your day to just.... SPIT it all out right here in this thread!

Tell us why Avogrado's number is invalid. Don't ask questions, because we don't know the answers. You have the answers. Spill it.

Tell us how this machine I'm talking about gave false results and convinced the world of the validity of quantum mechanics, but didn't fool you. Spill it! All ears, brother.

Originally Posted by MAYTAG

What about the machine the guys built?

which one?

Didn't it test those entanglements and show the spooky action?

still doing it. Do you fall down? What is making you fall down?

What is making you respond?

Sorry for not communicating better. The bar is not exactly high in this thread.

especially when you are posting a spin-cycle like a maytag.

Please spill the beans in your next post and tell us all the secrets of the universe.

what secrets? Do you know what makes you alive? How about a simple item like what is the size of a photon at the 95.5mhz?

You're holding out on us, Bishadi, why?

i aint holding out. People like you are just too lazy to work.

I know you're a fast enough typist that it wouldn't put a dent in your day to just.... SPIT it all out right here in this thread!

Tell us why Avogrado's number is invalid.

mol/count dont include the energy. Basic. The energy is not addressed, hence the figures are wrong.

Tell us how this machine I'm talking about gave false results and convinced the world of the validity of quantum mechanics, but didn't fool you. Spill it! All ears, brother.

what machine

you rant bunches but say little

and you still have my answers!!!!!!

ps...... it was Einstein that shared the ERP which is the genius basically stating QM is a joke. i just know how to read to comprehend what the EPR means. Can you tell my why you dont comprehend it?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

which one?

still doing it. Do you fall down? What is making you fall down?

What is making you respond?

especially when you are posting a spin-cycle like a maytag.



what secrets? Do you know what makes you alive? How about a simple item like what is the size of a photon at the 95.5mhz?



i aint holding out. People like you are just too lazy to work.



mol/count dont include the energy. Basic. The energy is not addressed, hence the figures are wrong.



what machine

you rant bunches but say little

and you still have my answers!!!!!!

ps...... it was Einstein that shared the ERP which is the genius basically stating QM is a joke. i just know how to read to comprehend what the EPR means. Can you tell my why you dont comprehend it?

Ahh, it was the 80s? They (Charles Bennett I suppose) built the machine which would test the entangled particles on opposite ends quickly enough so that any interaction between them must be faster than light. According to QM, the two entangled particles would have opposite quantum states, but the quantum state of neither exists until it is measured. Either particle can have either state, but they can not have the same state. By checking one, "the probability wave collapses" (garbage I know) on the OTHER and it was always found to have the opposite state. By testing enough of them quickly enough, supposedly they were able to determine that the particle's states were not already decided upon losing contact with one another, but *snapped* into existence upon measurement.

Why did this convince the world of the validity of QM? We all want to go along with Einstein, especially since QM is allegedly infinitely more complex and certainly less approachable than any classical physics.

How do those results square with your opinion of QM? Remember that I am not attacking you, I simply want to learn. So there is no need to tell me I'm an idiot. I already know I do not know these things, that is why I am asking.

I was always taught that whatever causes gravity can not act instantaneously... that if the sun were to suddenly disappear, it would take the 8 minutes that would take something traveling at c to get here from the sun for the earth to leave its orbit for a tangent. So this is different to me from entanglement, which apparently allows messages to be sent instantaneously regardless of distance.

I can't comprehend the size of a photon. Naturally, the more energy, the more massive, but the word "size" is misleading here because "size" can refer to either volume or mass. I assume you are referring to mass since a photon's volume would be impossible to measure.

If only energy calculations are missing from the Avogrado's number, wouldn't it be simple to use a c^2 as the conversion factor? The ratios stay the same among elements and chemistry is not exactly overturned by this. Most literature I have read lately equates mass and energy so I fail to see how that would change Avagrado's number. It is based on a conversion to grams which are units of mass which are designed to ignore the energy of the mass. Einstein gave us the conversion factor and I do not see A's # changing because of this. Please explain further and give the new, correct number of carbon 12 atoms in 12 grams of carbon.

Originally Posted by MAYTAG

Ahh, it was the 80s? They (Charles Bennett I suppose) built the machine which would test the entangled particles on opposite ends quickly enough so that any interaction between them must be faster than light.

are you talking about Bob and Alice?

thanx for the laugh

According to QM, the two entangled particles would have opposite quantum states,

qm describes. Entanglement is a property of nature.

but the quantum state of neither exists until it is measured. Either particle can have either state, but they can not have the same state. By checking one, "the probability wave collapses" (garbage I know) on the OTHER and it was always found to have the opposite state. By testing enough of them quickly enough, supposedly they were able to determine that the particle's states were not already decided upon losing contact with one another, but *snapped* into existence upon measurement.

all crap

it is like claiming an electron collapses when recombined with the atom it was borrowed from

Why did this convince the world of the validity of QM?

it didnt.

the problem, with qm is the direction of imposed by planck/heisenberg. (energy is not based on speed (c))

We all want to go along with Einstein, especially since QM is allegedly infinitely more complex and certainly less approachable than any classical physics.

completely irrelevant commentary

How do those results square with your opinion of QM?

qm sucks, always has. Just because we can build from it dont mean it is right and that fact is something you need to get over.

Remember that I am not attacking you, I simply want to learn. So there is no need to tell me I'm an idiot. I already know I do not know these things, that is why I am asking.

good as i hate slapping people around

You asked what is wrong with qm and i have told you more than once. Energy is incorrectly defined and it starts with planck (1901 pub on distribution of energy)

I was always taught that whatever causes gravity can not act instantaneously..

see what i mean. You were taught something that is inconsistent with nature, qm and the 'community' all in one swoop

. that if the sun were to suddenly disappear, it would take the 8 minutes that would take something traveling at c to get here from the sun for the earth to leave its orbit for a tangent.

that is just stupid

put a magnet next to another and tell me if one can pull the other without even touching it.

do the sun and earth have magnetic fields? What are them fields to cosmology?

So this is different to me from entanglement, which apparently allows messages to be sent instantaneously regardless of distance.

entanglement is for transmitting messages. It is a property of light (em) and using it may be what the idiots want to use it for.

I can't comprehend the size of a photon.

do you tune in your radio?

whats a microwave oven heating the h2o with? What size? When you learn that, then your next statement will be retracted

Naturally, the more energy, the more massive, but the word "size" is misleading here because "size" can refer to either volume or mass. I assume you are referring to mass since a photon's volume would be impossible to measure.

Thanks Bishadi, I will begin to investigate the development of the Planck Constant.