The criticisms of the Nazi example in this article are at the very least poorly worded but more likely historically misleading. Based on your comments on the talk page you seem qualified to correct the problem, which I hope you will do. Thanks, Audioweevil 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) The trouble is that you can't transmit any useful information FTL. I observe one particle. Another person observes the other particle. It isn't until we compare notes that we know that something odd is going on, and we can't compare notes without normal slower than light communication.
2) If you observe one particle at 1/2 spin, the other one will always be at -1/2 spin. This is due to basic conservation of momentum. The obvious answer is that well, particle one was always at 1/2 spin and particle two was always at -1/2 spin. No mysterious changes, no need to invoke FTL travel or any other weirdness.
This seems to explain perfectly quantum entanglement. However the trouble is that Bell's inequality will give you a situation in which the logical simple answer for what is going on breaks......
Let me know if this makes sense. One thing that needs to be put into the EPR paradox is that there is a simple inituitive logical non-mysterous explanation for it which unfortunately just won't work.......
Roadrunner, thanks for your reply. I understand my misunderstanding about information travel not being FTL, as it is fundamentally no different than a third party sending notes out to distant players in universe. However, what you said about spin doesn't make sense yet:
As I understand from QM, things like spin cannot be known until measured, due to the fact that every particle-wave only has probabalistic properties which are not expressed until measured.
they are measured is one way of looking at things. Einstein didn't like that way of looking at this, and his point in bringing up the EPR paradox was to argue that the idea that objects didn't have a real value until they are measured would bring up a whole bunch of problems.
But if we measure one spin of an entangled particle, does that not mean we then know the spin of the other? Which would mean that "the spin was always there," which is what you said but also seems to violate QM? Or does it just violate my understanding of it?
Similar result when dealing with location. If we measure the location of one particle, can't we determine the location of the other based on conservation of momentum? And if we know the location, we can measure speed and know both, which according to QM is impossible.
So what does QM say to explain this?? Another way to look at it, is that probabilistic location is not possible if conservation of momentum is to hold for the quantum world, else it would mean that locations must always be fixed and not probabelistic in nature. ???
Wodan 16:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind here is that quantum entanglement was intended by Einstein in order to show that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e. the notion that objects don't really have measured values until you measure them) leads to all sorts of problems (and it does). If you use the standard interpretation of QM to explain the quantum entanglement, you start to sound silly.
The trouble is that if you accept Einstein's notion that entanglement shows the standard view of QM is wrong, you can set up a different experiment to show Einstein's alternative is mathematically impossible if QM is correct. So yes you do sound silly when you use the standard intepretation of QM to explain entanglement, but "sounding silly" is better than arguing something that is mathematically impossible.
Roadrunner 01:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Roadrunner, as you probably expected, I do not understand this comment:
I'm not trying to resolve the QM paradox, but simply to understand it. The above makes no sense to me. We can measure a particle's position, and we can measure another particle's velocity. Why then can't we measure them in the context of an entangled pair? What sorts of results do we see that stop this from happening?
I realize the math is almost surely above my knowledge, but as my dad always said; "if one really understands what he is saying, he can explain it in simple terms to somebody who doesn't." So can you please clarify your statement a bit further? What sorts of results do we see that stops the measurement of one particle's velocity and another particle's position. Isn't that indeed something that is done on a regular basis?
Now to see if I understand where things stand correctly. According to QM's accepted position, quantum properties are indetermined. Measuring one entangled particle determines the properties of its entangled pair through instantaneous action at a distance, because these two particle-wave functions are actually representations of a single, higher particle-wave function. This obviously implies that all or nearly all particle-waves in the universe are just expressions of a single massive particle-wave function that describes all matter and energy in the universe with non-local laws.
I realize this sounds "weird," but is my understanding of the standard interpretation of QM correct?
And if it is, and it is indeed so weird, then are there any leading theories with credibility in the science world to make sense of it, such as the hidden local variable theory? Is that still in contention?
Are there any other viable theories which remedy the problems in the last paragraph, and if so, what are they and what problems do they have themselves?
So I guess in summary I have three new questions, as presented by the three previous paragraphs:
Roadrunner 16:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I realize this may be on the fringe of "there is no answer," but I'm only seeking to "catch up" with what is thought to be the position of QM and its problems. Thanks!
Wodan 13:54, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
I think I'm getting closer. You said:
Now there is nothing that keeps you from measuring the momentum of A and the position of the B. Einstein argued that from this thought experiment, we now know the position and momentum of both particles. The standard QM interpretation of the situation is that you don't, that when you measured the position of B, you destroyed the momentum information of the B
Is that because QM says that once you measure the position, the question of momentum is an irrelevent/irrational/imaginary question?
Classically thinking, even if the momentum information is somehow destroyed, knowing the momentum of the entangled particle will reveal the information when it was destroyed. Does QM say that my measuring the position, the concept of momentum was somehow destroyed and it is an invalid inference to determine it by the measured momentum of the entangled particle?
The above is my main question. But you also said:
The weirdness only happens when you have entangled particles. It's actually pretty difficult to get particles to entangle with each other.
Wouldn't every particle be entangled when they at the very least collide? At that point, one's properties (spin, momentum, etc.) are associated with the other particle. In fact, collision would not be necessary, but even electromagnetic interaction, since they change each other's momentum, and should therefore be able to reveal the other's momentum when measured in a classical sense. In this view, every time a particle directly interacts with another particle, they become entangled. Furthermore, if A is entangled with B, and B is entangled with C, then A should be entangled with C through a chain. So in effect, given enough time, every particle should be entangled, especially if the universe was very dense in the begininning.
Also, your statement...
The demonstration that QM is incompatible with local realism is as follows...
This implies that entangled particles communicate with each other at infinite/simultaneous speeds across any distance. Is that the correct consequence of QM non-locality?
Roadrunner 06:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wodan 23:10, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't logged in to Wikipedia in a long time, so it's only now that I noticed your message about the twin paradox. Were you looking for answers to these questions or some earlier ones?
How's it going over there?
Please answer on my talk page if there's anything I should be doing. Otherwise: Hi! Jimbo Wales 20:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:Bowles_Hall.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. If you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, please provide the necessary information. |
-- fbjon4649( talk) 13:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Wodan, thanks for the note. I added a copyright tag to the image page. Every image that is uploaded needs a tag or it will be deleted. The tags are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and there is a link to this page on the image upload form. Please check and make sure I added the correct tag. -- Duk 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I began an article on Silveira v. Lockyer. Temtem 02:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help the site, but it is obvious you have never been there. While that is the correct street address, you posted a picture of the adjacent shopping center. See the talk page for more information. I suggest not putting in addresses into map services and posting it for places you are not familiar with for the above reasons. Thanks. Wodan 03:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've recently filed a request for comment against User:Mlorrey at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mlorrey. Since I saw you were attempting to talk to him at Talk:gun politics in the United States, I was hoping you could certify it. Thanks very much. Meelar (talk) 18:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the block of addresses 141.156.208.64 - 141.156.208.79 is assigned to "Brandy (sic) Campaign". Deh 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Figured I'd ask you, since I'm having a hard time locating them.
Various sources reference the 1989 "Import Ban" as being a GHW Bush Executive Order, and the the subsequent additions in 1998 by Clinton as also being enacted by Executive Order.
Do you have any information on this? I'm looking for the actual text of these orders or legislation, which bans a number of firearms, by name, from import.
Many thanks! -- Kythri 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Bowles Hall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howch e ng { chat} 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AlphaChiSigmaCoatOfArms.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The article Alpha Chi Sigma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Wuh
Wuz
Dat
22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:RallyPoint Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The criticisms of the Nazi example in this article are at the very least poorly worded but more likely historically misleading. Based on your comments on the talk page you seem qualified to correct the problem, which I hope you will do. Thanks, Audioweevil 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) The trouble is that you can't transmit any useful information FTL. I observe one particle. Another person observes the other particle. It isn't until we compare notes that we know that something odd is going on, and we can't compare notes without normal slower than light communication.
2) If you observe one particle at 1/2 spin, the other one will always be at -1/2 spin. This is due to basic conservation of momentum. The obvious answer is that well, particle one was always at 1/2 spin and particle two was always at -1/2 spin. No mysterious changes, no need to invoke FTL travel or any other weirdness.
This seems to explain perfectly quantum entanglement. However the trouble is that Bell's inequality will give you a situation in which the logical simple answer for what is going on breaks......
Let me know if this makes sense. One thing that needs to be put into the EPR paradox is that there is a simple inituitive logical non-mysterous explanation for it which unfortunately just won't work.......
Roadrunner, thanks for your reply. I understand my misunderstanding about information travel not being FTL, as it is fundamentally no different than a third party sending notes out to distant players in universe. However, what you said about spin doesn't make sense yet:
As I understand from QM, things like spin cannot be known until measured, due to the fact that every particle-wave only has probabalistic properties which are not expressed until measured.
they are measured is one way of looking at things. Einstein didn't like that way of looking at this, and his point in bringing up the EPR paradox was to argue that the idea that objects didn't have a real value until they are measured would bring up a whole bunch of problems.
But if we measure one spin of an entangled particle, does that not mean we then know the spin of the other? Which would mean that "the spin was always there," which is what you said but also seems to violate QM? Or does it just violate my understanding of it?
Similar result when dealing with location. If we measure the location of one particle, can't we determine the location of the other based on conservation of momentum? And if we know the location, we can measure speed and know both, which according to QM is impossible.
So what does QM say to explain this?? Another way to look at it, is that probabilistic location is not possible if conservation of momentum is to hold for the quantum world, else it would mean that locations must always be fixed and not probabelistic in nature. ???
Wodan 16:45, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind here is that quantum entanglement was intended by Einstein in order to show that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e. the notion that objects don't really have measured values until you measure them) leads to all sorts of problems (and it does). If you use the standard interpretation of QM to explain the quantum entanglement, you start to sound silly.
The trouble is that if you accept Einstein's notion that entanglement shows the standard view of QM is wrong, you can set up a different experiment to show Einstein's alternative is mathematically impossible if QM is correct. So yes you do sound silly when you use the standard intepretation of QM to explain entanglement, but "sounding silly" is better than arguing something that is mathematically impossible.
Roadrunner 01:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Roadrunner, as you probably expected, I do not understand this comment:
I'm not trying to resolve the QM paradox, but simply to understand it. The above makes no sense to me. We can measure a particle's position, and we can measure another particle's velocity. Why then can't we measure them in the context of an entangled pair? What sorts of results do we see that stop this from happening?
I realize the math is almost surely above my knowledge, but as my dad always said; "if one really understands what he is saying, he can explain it in simple terms to somebody who doesn't." So can you please clarify your statement a bit further? What sorts of results do we see that stops the measurement of one particle's velocity and another particle's position. Isn't that indeed something that is done on a regular basis?
Now to see if I understand where things stand correctly. According to QM's accepted position, quantum properties are indetermined. Measuring one entangled particle determines the properties of its entangled pair through instantaneous action at a distance, because these two particle-wave functions are actually representations of a single, higher particle-wave function. This obviously implies that all or nearly all particle-waves in the universe are just expressions of a single massive particle-wave function that describes all matter and energy in the universe with non-local laws.
I realize this sounds "weird," but is my understanding of the standard interpretation of QM correct?
And if it is, and it is indeed so weird, then are there any leading theories with credibility in the science world to make sense of it, such as the hidden local variable theory? Is that still in contention?
Are there any other viable theories which remedy the problems in the last paragraph, and if so, what are they and what problems do they have themselves?
So I guess in summary I have three new questions, as presented by the three previous paragraphs:
Roadrunner 16:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I realize this may be on the fringe of "there is no answer," but I'm only seeking to "catch up" with what is thought to be the position of QM and its problems. Thanks!
Wodan 13:54, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
I think I'm getting closer. You said:
Now there is nothing that keeps you from measuring the momentum of A and the position of the B. Einstein argued that from this thought experiment, we now know the position and momentum of both particles. The standard QM interpretation of the situation is that you don't, that when you measured the position of B, you destroyed the momentum information of the B
Is that because QM says that once you measure the position, the question of momentum is an irrelevent/irrational/imaginary question?
Classically thinking, even if the momentum information is somehow destroyed, knowing the momentum of the entangled particle will reveal the information when it was destroyed. Does QM say that my measuring the position, the concept of momentum was somehow destroyed and it is an invalid inference to determine it by the measured momentum of the entangled particle?
The above is my main question. But you also said:
The weirdness only happens when you have entangled particles. It's actually pretty difficult to get particles to entangle with each other.
Wouldn't every particle be entangled when they at the very least collide? At that point, one's properties (spin, momentum, etc.) are associated with the other particle. In fact, collision would not be necessary, but even electromagnetic interaction, since they change each other's momentum, and should therefore be able to reveal the other's momentum when measured in a classical sense. In this view, every time a particle directly interacts with another particle, they become entangled. Furthermore, if A is entangled with B, and B is entangled with C, then A should be entangled with C through a chain. So in effect, given enough time, every particle should be entangled, especially if the universe was very dense in the begininning.
Also, your statement...
The demonstration that QM is incompatible with local realism is as follows...
This implies that entangled particles communicate with each other at infinite/simultaneous speeds across any distance. Is that the correct consequence of QM non-locality?
Roadrunner 06:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wodan 23:10, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't logged in to Wikipedia in a long time, so it's only now that I noticed your message about the twin paradox. Were you looking for answers to these questions or some earlier ones?
How's it going over there?
Please answer on my talk page if there's anything I should be doing. Otherwise: Hi! Jimbo Wales 20:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:Bowles_Hall.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. If you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, please provide the necessary information. |
-- fbjon4649( talk) 13:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Wodan, thanks for the note. I added a copyright tag to the image page. Every image that is uploaded needs a tag or it will be deleted. The tags are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and there is a link to this page on the image upload form. Please check and make sure I added the correct tag. -- Duk 18:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I began an article on Silveira v. Lockyer. Temtem 02:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help the site, but it is obvious you have never been there. While that is the correct street address, you posted a picture of the adjacent shopping center. See the talk page for more information. I suggest not putting in addresses into map services and posting it for places you are not familiar with for the above reasons. Thanks. Wodan 03:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've recently filed a request for comment against User:Mlorrey at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mlorrey. Since I saw you were attempting to talk to him at Talk:gun politics in the United States, I was hoping you could certify it. Thanks very much. Meelar (talk) 18:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the block of addresses 141.156.208.64 - 141.156.208.79 is assigned to "Brandy (sic) Campaign". Deh 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Figured I'd ask you, since I'm having a hard time locating them.
Various sources reference the 1989 "Import Ban" as being a GHW Bush Executive Order, and the the subsequent additions in 1998 by Clinton as also being enacted by Executive Order.
Do you have any information on this? I'm looking for the actual text of these orders or legislation, which bans a number of firearms, by name, from import.
Many thanks! -- Kythri 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Bowles Hall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howch e ng { chat} 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AlphaChiSigmaCoatOfArms.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The article Alpha Chi Sigma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Wuh
Wuz
Dat
22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:RallyPoint Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)