"Since quantum mechanics was first formulated, a string of physicists including Albert Einstein have been uncomfortable with the idea of entanglement – whereby a group of quantum particles have a closer relationship than allowed by classical physics." [emphasis added] Quantum theory survives latest challenge, physicworld.com, 12/15/10.
"[U]ncomfortable"? Let's see. What on Earth could make a self-satisfied scientist uncomfortable? Something that discomfits them, perplexes, confuses, puts them ill at ease? What does that do to so great an intellect as Einstein along with the "string" of other physicists similarly situated. The uncertainty of not knowing, especially being ignorant of how something could possibly work when the genius-mind-wrap can't get itself all the way around what indisputably does work? The problem, as with entanglement, is that the reality, oops, the, uh, existential, yet inexplicable, nature of the phenomenon is, to the scientist mentality, runs counter to reality. Expressed in the linked article as "Quantum theory ... seems to call for entities that can instantly react to an event occurring elsewhere – apparently defying the principle of locality, which forbids communication faster than the speed of light."
Although the linked article doesn't use the term, entanglement was deemed by Einstein to be "spooky action at a distance" which actually sounds better in Einstein's native tongue, "spukhafte Fernwirkung" -- jawohl? The spookiness comes in because entanglement is the phenomenon, attributed to quantum effects, observed in repeated experiments (actually, just demonstrations now), wherein two particles, having emanated from the same source, respond instantaneously to external stimuli applied to either independently, responding in the same fashion at no matter how great a distance that they're apart. This is, to many with a stubborn streak born of the maddening inscrutability of this mystery, a Chinese box that can be solved, a Gordian Knot that can be untied, a Bermuda triangle that can be rounded off, a Lay's potato chip that can be eaten ... alone.
Here we have the latest attempt to put enough of a wrinkle in the usual process to put quantum sinners at ease about their unbelief. Nope. Same old, Same old, Same old, Same old ... with more of the Same in a slightly different shade of Same. A 2003 proposal attempted to isolate two separate theoretical features of entangled particles wherein entanglement would be shown to be based in reality, rather a strictly quantum affair; an experiment designed to test this idea was conducted in 2007, but the results concluded that proposing "instantaneous communication [between two separated photons, units of light energy, was the fundamental basis for observed entanglement] is not enough to explain entanglement and[, therefore,] realism must also be abandoned [as having any basis for truly giving us delirious scientists an out]." The latest iteration of this scratching at the quantum cathedral, uses the measurement of a separate characteristic of photons, orbital angular momentum, the momentum going around an axis in circular fashion, such as the theoretical manner that an electron orbits around a nucleus, in effect, measuring a phantom quality of units of light, since electrons don't actually spin around a nucleus like a satellite, but are considered to be quantumly irresistible to being pinned down to an exact location, such as in a regular orbit). Nevertheless, huffpuff, just recently, this latest go-around, way around, has merely made entanglement the king of you-can't-touch-this-stuff of quantum effects. As one of the researchers said, "The main outcome is really a philosophical result." Philosophical? Exactly. Sort of.
Wake me when they admit that entanglement is just one of the very provable ways that the Deity interacts with His Creation and that it's how, e.g., so many identical twins, anecdotally (there having been, surprisingly, no clinical trials of these rather well known dual responses), have instantaneous reactions to their genetic doppelganger's experiences (due to the genetic particles of each being from the identical DNA molecules) and, e.g., how prayer works (all the particles of every human having an origin in the Creator Who hears prayers).
"[U]ncomfortable"? Let's see. What on Earth could make a self-satisfied scientist uncomfortable? Something that discomfits them, perplexes, confuses, puts them ill at ease? What does that do to so great an intellect as Einstein along with the "string" of other physicists similarly situated. The uncertainty of not knowing, especially being ignorant of how something could possibly work when the genius-mind-wrap can't get itself all the way around what indisputably does work? The problem, as with entanglement, is that the reality, oops, the, uh, existential, yet inexplicable, nature of the phenomenon is, to the scientist mentality, runs counter to reality. Expressed in the linked article as "Quantum theory ... seems to call for entities that can instantly react to an event occurring elsewhere – apparently defying the principle of locality, which forbids communication faster than the speed of light."
Although the linked article doesn't use the term, entanglement was deemed by Einstein to be "spooky action at a distance" which actually sounds better in Einstein's native tongue, "spukhafte Fernwirkung" -- jawohl? The spookiness comes in because entanglement is the phenomenon, attributed to quantum effects, observed in repeated experiments (actually, just demonstrations now), wherein two particles, having emanated from the same source, respond instantaneously to external stimuli applied to either independently, responding in the same fashion at no matter how great a distance that they're apart. This is, to many with a stubborn streak born of the maddening inscrutability of this mystery, a Chinese box that can be solved, a Gordian Knot that can be untied, a Bermuda triangle that can be rounded off, a Lay's potato chip that can be eaten ... alone.
Here we have the latest attempt to put enough of a wrinkle in the usual process to put quantum sinners at ease about their unbelief. Nope. Same old, Same old, Same old, Same old ... with more of the Same in a slightly different shade of Same. A 2003 proposal attempted to isolate two separate theoretical features of entangled particles wherein entanglement would be shown to be based in reality, rather a strictly quantum affair; an experiment designed to test this idea was conducted in 2007, but the results concluded that proposing "instantaneous communication [between two separated photons, units of light energy, was the fundamental basis for observed entanglement] is not enough to explain entanglement and[, therefore,] realism must also be abandoned [as having any basis for truly giving us delirious scientists an out]." The latest iteration of this scratching at the quantum cathedral, uses the measurement of a separate characteristic of photons, orbital angular momentum, the momentum going around an axis in circular fashion, such as the theoretical manner that an electron orbits around a nucleus, in effect, measuring a phantom quality of units of light, since electrons don't actually spin around a nucleus like a satellite, but are considered to be quantumly irresistible to being pinned down to an exact location, such as in a regular orbit). Nevertheless, huffpuff, just recently, this latest go-around, way around, has merely made entanglement the king of you-can't-touch-this-stuff of quantum effects. As one of the researchers said, "The main outcome is really a philosophical result." Philosophical? Exactly. Sort of.
Wake me when they admit that entanglement is just one of the very provable ways that the Deity interacts with His Creation and that it's how, e.g., so many identical twins, anecdotally (there having been, surprisingly, no clinical trials of these rather well known dual responses), have instantaneous reactions to their genetic doppelganger's experiences (due to the genetic particles of each being from the identical DNA molecules) and, e.g., how prayer works (all the particles of every human having an origin in the Creator Who hears prayers).
regards
the physicsworld.com team
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.