Grazing Cattle Entanglement
Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated.
For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as is to be expected due to their entanglement.
However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.
Given that the statistics of these measurements cannot be replicated by models in which each particle has its own state independent of the other, it appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.
Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox.
Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realist view of causality (Einstein referring to it as “spooky action at a distance”)[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete. Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[5] in tests where the polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell’s inequality, demonstrating that the classical conception of “local realism” cannot be correct.
In earlier tests it couldn’t be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point (or which test was being performed) could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[6]
However so-called “loophole-free” Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements.[7][8]
Since faster-than-light signaling is impossible according to the special theory of relativity, any doubts about entanglement due to such a loophole have thereby been quashed.
According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don’t recognize wavefunction collapse, dispute that there is any “effect” at all.
After all, if the separation between two events is spacelike, then observers in different inertial frames will disagree about the order of events. Joe will see that the detection at point A occurred first, and could not have been caused by the measurement at point B, while Mary (moving at a different velocity) will be certain that the measurement at point B occurred first and could not have been caused by the A measurement.
Of course both Joe and Mary are correct: there is no demonstrable cause and effect. However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[9][10]
In November 2016, researchers performed Bell test experiments in which further “loopholes” were closed.[11][12]
Entanglement is considered fundamental to quantum mechanics, even though it wasn’t recognized in the beginning. Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[13][14][15][16] neutrinos,[17] electrons,[18][19] molecules as large as buckyballs,[20][21] and even small diamonds.[22][23]
The utilization of entanglement in communication and computation is a very active area of research.
A series of experiments has verified the theorem and showed that quantum entanglement occurs over large distances. Quantum entanglement has profound implications for the outcomes of measurements of quantum systems, for example in quantum computing.
In its simplest form, Bell’s theorem states:[1]
No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Cornell solid-state physicist David Mermin has described the appraisals of the importance of Bell’s theorem in the physics community as ranging from “indifference” to “wild extravagance”.[2] Lawrence Berkeley particle physicist Henry Stapp declared: “Bell’s theorem is the most profound discovery of science.”[3]
Bell’s theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables, such as De Broglie–Bohm theory, etc). Bell concluded:
In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.[4]
Bell summarized one of the least popular ways to address the theorem, superdeterminism, in a 1985 BBC Radio interview:
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will.
Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears.
There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.[5]
Mrs. Submareener and I do this all the time! ;-)
Yikes.
My understanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that it exists at all distance scales, although it's influence has an inverse relation between distance scale and probability. At our reference scale of 1 meter, it might make something 'tunnel' once in the lifetime of the universe -- at 10^-15m, it's the norm.
It's been now proven that even the way that good ol' H2O flows involves tunnel effects, so replete that they manifest themselves at a macroscopic scale.
This was one of the things that took physicists by surprise a century ago -- the fact that the laws of motion itself change as we go down in orders of magnitude.
So it seems to go for 'quantum effects' (as this phenomenon is commonly referred to) like entanglement. Among subatomic particles, it is common. But something the size of a bacteria is around 10^11 larger, so it would seem to be a lot less likely. I question how they measure 'entanglement' here.
Then again, we do hear about how animals and people can be 'connected' somehow. Maybe there is something else there we only get the briefest glimpse of. Who knows?
Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. $:-)
Lying headline. There has been NO experiment on quantum entanglement of living organisms.
A living organism is not a particle of the size that is subject to the effect of quantum physics.
Bahloney
Bahloney
Grazing Cattle Entanglement
Such as resistance to antibiotics?
I blame Schrodinger to some extent. The use of the cat metaphor invited people to interpret the model on a macro-scale.
Between this and that post about quantum computing I think I need that Krell brain boosting machine treatment.
I used to think I was a pretty sharp but I’m starting to wonder.
Might explain identical twins and their “intuition”, or whatever you want to call it, about each other.
I believe this was all talked about “ad nauseum” in Arthur Koestler’s book “Roots of Coincidence”. I remain highly skeptical! Though it did make a great Red Dwarf episode!