/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14549905]

https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c

whoa..
how does the electron know to have opposite spin to its entangled pair, in the direction that it will be measured?

this is crazy

[Anonymous No.14549998]

>>14549905
Because if you split a pair of gloves and then look at one and it's the right spin glove, you will know what the other glove is before you even look

[Anonymous No.14550000]

Witten has the answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYRHDm5X424

[Anonymous No.14550006]

>>14549998
but in this analogy, the split would happen at the moment of measurement, not creation.

and the other particle would instantly take up the value of the other split glove depending on which way you decide to split the other particle.

[Anonymous No.14550038]

>>14549998
that's an automatic fail on a quantum mechanics exam

[Anonymous No.14550076]

>>14550006
How so?

Any way you measure 1 of the particles, it is discovered to be in state A,

The other particle will always be state B.

What absolutely forces the belief that when you measure particle 1 and it is state A. That particle 2 was not always instate B. And particle 1 was not always in state A?

I know all sorts of delayed choice and stuff, but still, there is no hard core evidence that instead of the particle possessing specific characteristics when split; spooky action at a distance takes place

[Anonymous No.14550093]

>>14550006
Dude trust me, there's no one in the world more than me who wants God and the simulation theory to be real, I just more than anyone hate to believe in something that turns out to be wrong.

I am in a superposition state of belief. I 100% believe in simulation theory, and I 100% believe I not simulation theory; I 100% believe humans are not at a stage to make accurate statements about the most micro world and its determinicies or lack thereof. I wait with the baited breath of a master debator. I am skeptical, I am judgemental, I am opposite of quick to believe, I take in all information cautiously. I read and think most carefully and thoroughly. I mainly look for inconsistencies and errors in others modes of thinking and writing and stateing about the world, and try to call them out for Truths sake. I relate only to the very greats of history, anything less is grotesquely flawed and ogreishly mediocre

[Anonymous No.14550111]

>>14550093
You also 100% believe in sucking my dick.

[Anonymous No.14550124]

>>14549905
It's top down causation, the entangled system defines the nature of its constituents.

[Anonymous No.14550160]

>>14550076
>>14550093
bruh, did you watch the freaking video?
if they had spin up and down from creation, then measuring sideways like pic related would sometimes yield the same direction, which never happens.

secondly the rest of the video explains why it can't be like a game seed with opposite randomness, or any information stored at inception

[Anonymous No.14550424]

>>14550160
Just watched it.

What particle pairs are being referred to, do entangled electrons result in the same results as entangled photons?

How is a particle pair actually made and how is there certainty only exactly 2 are made at a time?

It says they can be made and exhibit the same spin, entangled particles pairs can both be measured as spin up for instance, why is that impossible to be the case?

Why is it impossible that you are missing a complete understanding of the electron, EM field, gravity field, particle pair production methods, and that the weird results are not just artifacts from yes a weird wobbly way fields work, but nothing ultimately physically illogical.

How are entangled electron particle pairs created, give me a quick run down gist; and you are certain the method of their creation is faultless every time? It always creates exactly 2?

And quantum spin is difficult to actually explain, especially when saying the electron doesn't actually spin but does have angular momentum, and quantum spin is a measurement of a quality of rotation.

How is it not known that a slight field vibration at the moment of particle pair production inside andor outside the machine of particle pair production can wobble the field in such a way that the electron pair both have spin up from the get go jump?

[Anonymous No.14551011]

>>14550424
I hope he>>14550160
responds to this post

[Anonymous No.14551115]

>>14550000
Would society collapse with more girls like that or thrive ? Science related question btw

[Anonymous No.14551181]

>>14549998
https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c?t=4m

[Anonymous No.14552167]

>>14551181
That video doesn't explain shit, terrible choice with the spinning body graphics too, the topic is complicated enough that does not visually simplify it. It doesn't get into phsycislly mechsnicslly how particle pairs are made on the smallest scales of understanding, and I doesn't touch uppn possible explanations, can you do that at all


>>14550424

[Anonymous No.14552198]

>>14552167
>i didn't understand the math
kek, what a loser

[Anonymous No.14552234]

>>14550424
>What particle pairs are being referred to, do entangled electrons result in the same results as entangled photons?
yes

>How is a particle pair actually made and how is there certainty only exactly 2 are made at a time?
pair production. from excited crystals or cosmic rays or radioactive decay

>It says they can be made and exhibit the same spin, entangled particles pairs can both be measured as spin up for instance,
no that doesn't happen. due to conservation of momentum.

>Why is it impossible that you are missing a complete understanding of the electron, EM field, gravity field, particle pair production methods, and that the weird results are not just artifacts from yes a weird wobbly way fields work, but nothing ultimately physically illogical.
that's the mystery, how is spooky action possible considering that ftl travel is impossible. whatever the explanation is, it would be extremely weird. like the universe 'knowing' that you would measure the particle in a certain way. or new universes being created depending on what you do.

>How are entangled electron particle pairs created, give me a quick run down gist; and you are certain the method of their creation is faultless every time? It always creates exactly 2?
pair production. from excited crystals or cosmic rays or radioactive decay

>And quantum spin is difficult to actually explain, especially when saying the electron doesn't actually spin but does have angular momentum, and quantum spin is a measurement of a quality of rotation.
doesn't have to be spin. can be other properties.

>How is it not known that a slight field vibration at the moment of particle pair production inside andor outside the machine of particle pair production can wobble the field in such a way that the electron pair both have spin up from the get go jump?
the test is about entangled particles. this just doesn't ever ever happen with entangled particles.

what is the point of these questions?

[Anonymous No.14552440]

>>14552198
In the history a lot of cases of contradiction and impasse and struggle and inequality and incomplete and incongruity with reality, experiment, and observation, is when physicists stuck their head in a notebook, drew endless squiggly lines without looking up, and then happily presented it to reality, who claimed contradiction and incongruity with itself.

Math and math alone cannot perfect an understanding and knowing of Natures Physics

[Anonymous No.14552489]

>>14552234
>pair production. from excited crystals or cosmic rays or radioactive decay
How is it certain only exactly 2 are made every time?
Never any hint of triplets or more (notify the popsci magazines, this would make a great eye catching headlines)

What forces the proof that when 2 particles are formed from either of these scenarios, they are not made two spin ups or two spin downs?
Is it not true to would have no way of knowing?
>no that doesn't happen. due to conservation of momentum
In the video it says 2 top spins are measured a percentage of the time, depending on the angles of the measurement device.
I have a good question;

Imagine a rectangular box, we are going to imagine waves traveling through it.

Now the 2 poles of polarization is up down up down up down;
And left right left right left right.
Light can wave through our box thusly yes.

How many degrees in between that perpendicularity can a wave function?

How fine an angle? In that afforementioned 90 degree angle difference, you would say 90 different angles of degree light can be alligned with;

But is this an inches situation, where you are saying there are 12 degrees of freedom in a foot; and then we consider centimeters. So does a similar situation apply where between the 90 degrees of updown updown up down wave and left right left right left right wave, there are more than 90 possible degrees of orientation, and if so, how many might there be;.

Or might you say something surprising like light can only propagate in a handful of degree orientations?

Will respond to rest after I go get some pizza

[Anonymous No.14552509]

>>14552440
>hand waving intensifies
topkek

[Anonymous No.14552631]

>>14550076
>>14550006
>>14550160
>>14550424
Measurement. Means. Interaction. You cannot measure a particle without an interaction. It changes or not on interaction. That's why. Just grifters trying to mystify science and perpetuating a mythos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6DyYqPKME

"We cannot observe the wave function itself, we can only observe the outcome of the wave function". What is supposedly "updating faster than light" is the information itself. If this is random how does the universe "know" whether the particle is or isn't there, or in a given orientation.

The issue stems from asserting the correlation of entanglement, and keep in mind it is only a correlation, is an update in information that somehow must "travel". That's, well, fucking stupid if you ask me. Yet that's where all this nonsense comes from. She has a red/blue sock mail example that explains this very simply, because once the receiver opens the envelope you know what color the other sock was that wasn't sent.

There's no "action" it's a statement of what you know AFTER THE FACT. The whole mythos comes from fundamentally misunderstanding what is being talked about.

1. Measurement requires interaction
2. Knowing the result of a measurement with given outcomes is not "faster than light" physical information
3. OP's youtube video author is a jackass for perpetuating this shit.

[Anonymous No.14552636]

>>14552631
Anything anyone thinks or claims they "know" where the entanglement measurements are something OTHER THAN the equivalent of the red / blue sock-in-the-mail example is simply, flatly, wrong.

What the physicists were talking about basically involves people so high on their own farts the average member of the public, if truly informed of how asinine their shit was, would've tossed them out of university if they ever explained it clearly. Some of the dipshits really do believe your correlating two facts constitutes "faster than light travel".

[Anonymous No.14552686]

>>14552509
Theoretical physics math that is not accompanied by detailed scale ratioed geometric diagramming has a greater chance of being faulty by relatively nontrivially far.

Reality is Real physical imagery
Reality is Real physical diagrams
To best know Reality is to best know how Reality exactly looks
Reality does not look like letters and numbers
Letters and numbers of math correlate more andor less to the actual diagram, imagery, substance, physicality, mechanicality, architecturality of Reality

A picture can say a thousand words
Or 100 equations.
A video/simulation can say more
I'm not learning latin to hear the music of a Mass

[Anonymous No.14552723]

>>14552636
I didn't read the post you are replying to yet, which was replying to me, but;

It seems a number or large portion of these people actually actually think and believe, that spooky action at a distance does occur.

With bells inequality and quantum delayed choice eraser and those sorts of things, they believe there is hardcore undeniable proof evidence that it is not that;

We cannot know the state of a particle before we measure it. Duh.

They then claim, because we cannot know the state of the particle before measuring, they assume and believe the particle has no state!!!

This is possible, if the EM field is a sloshy choppy field; and when meaursed it torques a definite way;

But this would then require a lateral torquing ftl of the particle, so that they are still physically connected; and if no changes are detected in the space between the particles where they can be interacting and touching, then if this is true it would prove without a doubt the universe is a simulation;


Have these experiments been done with when one particle is measured, the other entangled pair particle is faster than light away, and there are detectors are strong inpenetrable sheets of metal, where if the particles do interact and communicate laterally, that communication might be detected, or prevented by barrier?

[Anonymous No.14552732]

>>14552723
I was replying to myself to add to my points due to text limit. Sorry if that was not clear.

I highly recommend watching sabine's videos. You'll understand it all once you spend some time doing so, trust me.

[Anonymous No.14552766]

>>14552732
Nah she's better than many but still is partially a hack and non absolute Genius. I have detected more than 1 error in her thinking and stating before,that's enough for me to be turned off. I never say know this or that, or this or that mysterious thought of physics is true, i always say; maybe and possibly and could be, to save my reputation with Honor and Truth

[Anonymous No.14552782]

>takes 2 electrons
>makes them spin in opposite directions
>whoa, how do they know...
They don't know anything, they just keep spinning the way you made them spin, Anon.

[Anonymous No.14552793]

>>14552636
>>14552631
>>14552489
>>14552167
>>14550424
>>14550093
>>14550006
given that the 1st orientation is chosen for detector A, and the result is that spin aligns (points outwards). what is the probability detector B will align at the 3rd orientation?

if quantum mechanics is right.
then spooky action occurs, set the particle's spin to vertically down, and from then on its cos^2 60 = 75%.
this is what we actually see.

if classical mechanics is right. then the particle is not vertically down, but probably has opposite randomness. the fact that 1st orientation is chosen in detector A has no statistical relevance in a classical system.

you are all factually, testably, provably wrong.
it does NOT have predefined spin in the begging, like one being up, other being down. because measuring sideways would yield same results 50% of the time which does not happen.

it does NOT have a predefined plan, randomness seed, secret property, etc.

if results repeated themselves / could be replicated a second time, then this device could be used for ftl communication, which would retroactively change the odds and send data across by measuring it in different orientations.
but the fact that you can only know so much about a system and you get to only ask 2 questions is what stops you from communicating faster than light.
in a classical system, the only thing exact repeats of the experiment would do is just reveal the randomness seed / plan of the particles

[Anonymous No.14552813]

>>14552732
Post the Sabine video about entanglement, bells inequality therom paradox or whatever it is, and quantum delayed choice eraser experiment

[Anonymous No.14552818]

>>14552782
But bells inequality experiment and delayed choice quantum eraser experiment *apparently* suggests that cannot possibly be the case

[Anonymous No.14552831]

>>14552766
Regardless, it is a better source to demystify the bullshit than any I've seen otherwise. Take it or leave it.

>>14552793
>given that the 1st orientation is chosen for detector A, and the result is that spin aligns (points outwards). what is the probability detector B will align at the 3rd orientation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6DyYqPKME&list=PLwgQsqtH9H5djIfFhXE6We207beTgUnyL&index=6

The correlations are created locally. You are describing the experiments wrong.

>it does NOT have predefined spin in the [beginning]

Not having access to the wave function and not knowing is not grounds to declare "therefore it does not". That is an argument from ignorance. You just don't know what you're talking about. It's really that simple.

>>14552813
Apparently I fuckin have to because anons need to be spoonfed. Sigh. Not angry at you but angry at the asstards not going to learn like I fucking warned them to.

>>14552818
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5djIfFhXE6We207beTgUnyL

Goddamnit anon no. Just more misunderstanding by people with motivated reasoning. Neither of those is true. The playlist linked has videos on both.

[Anonymous No.14552851]

>>14552793
>it does NOT have predefined spin in the begging, like one being up, other being down. because measuring sideways would yield same results 50% of the time which does not happen.
>>14552793
>because measuring sideways would yield same results 50% of the time?
What convinces you that you know that is a true statement?

A lot of quantum theory is classical;
We are specifically talking about FTL spooky action undetectable communication between 2 particles a trillion miles away apparently with no physical connection between them.
That's not even quantum mechanics; that's; the universe is Gods Computer, and you are a Minecraft character digging it's way to touching pixels and programming code

[Anonymous No.14552862]

>>14552793
You don't even know what quantum spin is, or how a quantum wave exists and moves, or what an EM wave is made of, or what forces it to propagate, or how it consistently propagates

[Anonymous No.14552864]

>>14552851
>We are specifically talking about FTL spooky action undetectable communication between 2 particles a trillion miles away apparently with no physical connection between them.

Being able to infer something from what you get in the mail does not entail anything like that. There is not communication trillions of miles away. It is an asinine reification fallacy by the equivalent of "ancient aliens guy" physicists being quoted in the media for clicks/views.

[Anonymous No.14552876]

Respond to this relavant question

Imagine a rectangular box, we are going to imagine waves traveling through it.

Now the 2 poles of polarization is up down up down up down;
And left right left right left right

Light can wave through our box thusly yes.

How many degrees in between that perpendicularity can a wave function?

How fine an angle?
In that afforementioned 90 degree angle difference, you would say 90 different angles of degree light can be alligned with;

But is this an inches situation, where you are saying there are 12 degrees of freedom in a foot; and then we consider centimeters. So does a similar situation apply where between the 90 degrees of updown updown up down wave and left right left right left right wave, there are more than 90 possible degrees of orientation, and if so, how many might there be;.

Or might you say something surprising like light can only propagate in a handful of degree orientations?

[Anonymous No.14552888]

>>14552864
That's what I have always believed; but it's hard to believe so many people in the suposedly smart field of physics could so easily blindly lead the blind into believing something so simply demystified?

Then again with all the double slit hoopla who knows.

It more and more is seemingly purely like a publicity stunt.

The delayed quantum choice eraser causes you no pause in your confidence? I dont even remember all about it but if any of it is accurate I remember there being some pause for re analysis consideration

[Anonymous No.14552894]

>>14552831

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6DyYqPKME&list=PLwgQsqtH9H5djIfFhXE6We207beTgUnyL
>which sock was in what case was already decided when i sent them
>BUT in quantum mechanics that explanation does NOT work
...
>measuring the wave function is a physical intervention
>such an intervention cannot immediately influence the physical reality in another part of space (as quantum mechanics predicts)
...

>The correlations are created locally. You are describing the experiments wrong.
no. you are wrong

again, if you could repeat the experiment, knowing the outcomes, you could communicate faster than light.

the fact that it is non repeatable experiment is what saves relativity for this case

[Anonymous No.14552900]

>>14552888
>The delayed quantum choice eraser causes you no pause in your confidence? I dont even remember all about it but if any of it is accurate I remember there being some pause for re analysis consideration

No, and Sabine explains this. The key piece of information dropped in clickbait media publication, or by "philosophers", is they already know the result. https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U?t=544

It comes from selectively disregarding some of the particles. Not at all surprising. It's just a more convoluted double slit experiment.

[Anonymous No.14552903]

>>14550000
what a waste of digits

[Anonymous No.14552904]

>>14552894
>again, if you could repeat the experiment, knowing the outcomes, you could communicate faster than light.

And if you knew everything about the universe including the hidden variables you'd be able to do so as well.

That statement is equally as ridiculous as "Well if I were God I could do it".

[Anonymous No.14552907]

>>14552903
rare witten get is not a waste of digits uWu

[Anonymous No.14552922]

>>14549905
>how does the electron know
No such thing. Next you are going to ask how does the electron know the electrical circuit is closed and he can move around it.

[Anonymous No.14552924]

>>14552922
well, how does the electron know to bypass a certain circuit element and go to the next one?

[Anonymous No.14552925]

>>14552876
>>14552831
again it is statistically, and theoretically not self consistent
this is a done case. from here on, the only explanation apart from 'it just werks' is something among the line of everett's many worlds / computer simulation.
stop spewing verifiable fallacies.

>>14552904
>And if you knew everything about the universe including the hidden variables you'd be able to do so as well.
this is completely irrelevant and missing the point. all you need is 1 (one) bit of information to communicate faster than light.

if you were to start the experiment and were knew this:
>given that the 2st orientation is chosen for detector A, and the result is that spin aligns
that would be sufficient knowledge to communicate faster than light, and send a bit (1 or a 0) across to the outer side.
the way the universe remains self consistent in this case is forbidding repeat experiments and forbidding knowing too much in general

[Anonymous No.14552929]

>>14552851
>That's not even quantum mechanics; that's; the universe is Gods Computer, and you are a Minecraft character digging it's way to touching pixels and programming code
Let's run with this thought experiment just for fun;

Let's say a Minecraft character gained conciousness;

What would its limitations be in 'sensing' it's world might be a simulation?
What would the limits be of it's ability to prove to itself that it was?
The physics in it's world are consistent.

It picks up grass, and wonders what the grass is made of?

It can run experiments to try to find it the grass is made of particles? It would find it can't really cut the grass in 1000 pieces (games physics doesn't allow this)

It's physics are very limited, even if It could take heavy things and make them go fast and collide them to break them, and then detect the parts, the physics likely aren't 1:1 logical meaningfully coherent, just a simple programming of; if X and Y is collided with velocity Z show a bunch of flying chunks of stuff to represent collision occured;

Though that is what we see on the screen, to him percieving it in his time and space world it might appear differently.

Anyway, could it dig and dig anywhere and find any hint that the grass and sky and rocks are not real physical entites in the real universe, but representations formulated by programmed language initiated by quantity and quality of electrons interacting with metals and sand?

[Anonymous No.14552934]

>>14552924
He doesn't. An electrical field forces him to move in a direction.

[Anonymous No.14552936]

>>14552934
hmm, so electrical fields are to men as electrons are to women. i see. if the electrical field is the patriarchy, does that make the magnetic field the homosexual version of the patriarchy given how weak it is?

[Anonymous No.14552940]

>>14552925
>this is completely irrelevant and missing the point. all you need is 1 (one) bit of information to communicate faster than light.

Playing semantic games. Again, being able to infer something from what you're sent does not mean the opposite case "became reality" faster than light. It was before you knew it.

Fucking object permanence you goddamn toddler.

[Anonymous No.14552941]

>>14552936
I think you should stop reading too much political stuff, anon.

[Anonymous No.14552947]

>>14552925
Yo
>>14552876
Here I was asking how many possible angles can an EM wave travel in;
Up down up down
And left right left right

Establish the poles:
Humans say there are 90 degrees of freedom orientation in between that polar perpendicularity;

Does Nature use the 90 degrees, between straight up and straight right, system also?

[Anonymous No.14552977]

>>14552941
what's wrong with politics?

[Anonymous No.14553011]

>>14552977
Not politics, but your mind. It clearly can deal with all this politics you have consuning, anon.

[Anonymous No.14553014]

>>14553011
i agree. It can.

[Anonymous No.14553782]

Brb, the gods decree this conversation ought continue towards greater fruition

[Anonymous No.14553916]

How many possible angles can an EM wave travel in;
Up down up down
And left right left right
Establish the poles:
Humans say there are 90 degrees of freedom orientation in between that polar perpendicularity;
Does Nature use the 90 degrees, between straight up and straight right, system also?

[Anonymous No.14553922]

>>14552929
Someone who knows about computers, video games, and simulations respond