Zoklet.net

Go Back   Zoklet.net > Science > Math, Science, and Engineering

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:47 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
Yeah, that doesn't answer anything I said. For it to be entanglement, it has to determine the spin of the entangled particles. That's clearly not the case. You can't use the "Oh, you're only looking at two particles" excuse, because not only did you yourself already confirmed we've entangled more than two, but that wouldn't change the definition of entanglement, which requires that all the spin of all the particles be determined.

You are either talking about something which isn't entanglement, or you're contradicting yourself.

If what you wanted was to lie (accusing me of saying that only two particles could be entangled), to get a response from me; congratulations.
I'm going to abandon the argument that all particles in the universe are entangled at this present time.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:51 PM
Oral B's Avatar
Oral B Oral B is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Estes Park. Colorado.
Thanks: 552
Thanked 326 Times in 254 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

This is hard to explain. Without going into a bunch of different experiments and theories, it appears that simply observing the particles causes them to collapse into one given state. They all may be entangled when there are no measurements being taken on them. Actually, a lot of research has indicated that they are. If you want links to specific studies let me know.
__________________
Cooler than yours.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:54 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oral B View Post
They all may be entangled when there are no measurements being taken on them.
What? The definition of entanglement is such that you can't describe one particle without the rest. That doesn't really apply when you're not taking measurements of them.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:56 PM
Oral B's Avatar
Oral B Oral B is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Estes Park. Colorado.
Thanks: 552
Thanked 326 Times in 254 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
What? The definition of entanglement is such that you can't describe one particle without the rest. That doesn't really apply when you're not taking measurements of them.
Somehow I had this confused with quantum superposition. Long day.
__________________
Cooler than yours.

Last edited by Oral B; 06-21-2012 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
Rust (06-21-2012)
  #85  
Old 06-22-2012, 12:23 AM
Danger's Avatar
Danger Danger is offline
Baron
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Thanks: 300
Thanked 309 Times in 215 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oral B View Post
Somehow I had this confused with quantum superposition. Long day.
Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-22-2012, 12:34 AM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

It involves quantum-superposition. As does pretty much every single thing in quantum mechanics. Superposition is a core principle in QM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-22-2012, 12:49 AM
Danger's Avatar
Danger Danger is offline
Baron
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Thanks: 300
Thanked 309 Times in 215 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
It involves quantum-superposition. As does pretty much every single thing in quantum mechanics. Superposition is a core principle in QM.
according to wikipedia it's a form of it.

Quote:
I was wondering whether it were possible that every particle in the
universe is entangled with every other. The argument goes: at the
moment of the Big Bang, this was the case(dubious). Once everything is
entangled, it remains so for the rest of eternity.
Quote:
"Each quantum mechanical system has a Hilbert space associated with
it. The Hilbert space of two systems is the tensor product of the Hilbert
spaces of the two smaller systems. H1*H2=H3. In H3 there will be two
broad categories of states. States that cannot be written in terms of a
simple tensor product (entangled) and those than can (uncorrelated states).

The answer to your question is therefore a qualified yes. Every system is
entangled with every other system to a degree. However each system would
contain a number of uncorrelated states. These uncorrelated, non-entangled
states are by far in the minority.

This makes all calculations that ignore a systems exchange with it's
surroundings approximations. Most of these correlations are ignored
because they are ignoreable."
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-22-2012, 01:04 AM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danger View Post
according to wikipedia it's a form of it.
In the sense that it's an example of superposition of particles (i.e. the particles are in superposition). Superposition is a principle in QM.


As for your quotes, do you understand what they are saying? Because what they are saying agrees with me. Quantum entanglement involves the high correlation of the particles; when they are entangled, the correlation is so high that the spin of one basically determines the spin of another. When they are not, the correlation is low or non-existent. Saying the correlation would so low that it's ignorable is another way of saying they aren't truly entangled in the sense that affecting one necessitates the other.

Last edited by Rust; 06-22-2012 at 01:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-22-2012, 01:29 AM
Cytosine's Avatar
Cytosine Cytosine is offline
Count
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Harperland
Thanks: 350
Thanked 485 Times in 331 Posts
Roll Eyes Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
As for your quotes, do you understand what they are saying?
Rust, let me make this simple for you: he doesn't.
Reply With Quote
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
reject (06-22-2012)
  #90  
Old 06-22-2012, 02:33 AM
Danger's Avatar
Danger Danger is offline
Baron
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Thanks: 300
Thanked 309 Times in 215 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1584v1.pdf "everything is entangled"
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-22-2012, 02:37 AM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement



Right in the abstract...
"We show that big bang cosmology implies a high degree of entanglement of particles in the
universe. In fact, a typical particle is entangled with many particles far outside our horizon. However,
the entanglement is spread nearly uniformly so that two randomly chosen particles are unlikely to
be directly entangled with each other { the reduced density matrix describing any pair is likely to
be separable.
"
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-22-2012, 02:43 AM
ArmsMerchant ArmsMerchant is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Alaska
Thanks: 2,718
Thanked 2,884 Times in 1,759 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazzyass View Post
For instance, we always hear about the uncertainty principle and how observing it seems to change the result.
Actually, I think these are two different critters. The UP simply means that one cannot measure the direction AND velocity of a given subatomic particle at the same time.

The observation thing is much wider in application. The concrete example I was taught--back when dinosaurs roamed the earth--was that , say you go to measure the temp of a glass of water. Stick a thermometer in the glass of water and you will most likely affect the temperature of the water--unless, of course, by some wild-ass chance that the thermometer happens to be exactly the same temperature as the liquid.
__________________
Condemn and you are made a prisoner. Forgive and you are freed. -- ACIM
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:19 AM
crazzyass crazzyass is offline
Archduke
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Thanks: 1,895
Thanked 1,059 Times in 688 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmsMerchant View Post
Actually, I think these are two different critters. The UP simply means that one cannot measure the direction AND velocity of a given subatomic particle at the same time.

The observation thing is much wider in application. The concrete example I was taught--back when dinosaurs roamed the earth--was that , say you go to measure the temp of a glass of water. Stick a thermometer in the glass of water and you will most likely affect the temperature of the water--unless, of course, by some wild-ass chance that the thermometer happens to be exactly the same temperature as the liquid.
Good point, but your second paragraph is actually what I am referring to: people hear that "observation" changes the result and they think consciousness/soul nonsense, when the scientific definition of observation has more to do with instrumentation affecting the experiment.
__________________
"p.s. i better not call Cory something like a filthy liberal, otherwise crazzyass could accuse me of using a slur in an off-topic manner, and ban me" - WAN
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-22-2012, 08:18 AM
reject reject is offline
Grander Duke
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: blah
Thanks: 2,299
Thanked 3,114 Times in 2,108 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Rust, he's trolling you.
__________________
Proud Member of the NAAFA.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-22-2012, 03:53 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post


Right in the abstract...
"We show that big bang cosmology implies a high degree of entanglement of particles in the
universe. In fact, a typical particle is entangled with many particles far outside our horizon. However,
the entanglement is spread nearly uniformly so that two randomly chosen particles are unlikely to
be directly entangled with each other { the reduced density matrix describing any pair is likely to
be separable.
"
Ever hear of the six degrees of separation? What if every particle were entangled to every other particle (indirectly, just like the article says) in the universe by a maximum of six other particles?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-22-2012, 04:09 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by reject View Post
Rust, he's trolling you.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:08 PM
Anders Hoveland Anders Hoveland is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: May 2011
Thanks: 12
Thanked 131 Times in 86 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
How does the information about the state of one entangled particle travel to its corresponding entangled particle if there is no physical or energetic means of information transfer?
It is actually more a matter of perspective. The correlation between past and future is actually not a direct cause-effect relationship, although this is only evident on the scale of subatomic particles. In a way, if you want to see it like this, a random outcome in the present is dependant on the possible future paths a particle would/will take. If a future path would result in a forbidden outcome, the present probability we be reduced to zero.

You might read about the double slit experiment.

With string theory, we can see that particles which are separated by a distance in the present are still linked in the past, and that the present state of one particle can effect another particle through the past interaction. Because the past still exists, just in the past. I also want to mention that all the experiments so far involving quantum entanglement have been over very short periods of time. Periods of time greater than a fraction of a second begin to be problematic for observing the effects of entaglement.

Last edited by Anders Hoveland; 06-22-2012 at 05:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:19 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
It is actually more a matter of perspective. The correlation between past and future is actually not a direct cause-effect relationship, although this is only evident on the scale of subatomic particles. In a way, if you want to see it like this, a random outcome in the present is dependant on the possible future paths a particle would/will take. If a future path would result in a forbidden outcome, the present probability we be reduced to zero.

You might read about the double slit experiment.

With string theory, we can see that particles which are separated by a distance in the present are still linked in the past, and that the present state of one particle can effect another particle through the past interaction. Because the past still exists, just in the past.
So because the universe existed as a singularity in the past, it still exists as a singularity?
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:24 PM
Anders Hoveland Anders Hoveland is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: May 2011
Thanks: 12
Thanked 131 Times in 86 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
So because the universe existed as a singularity in the past, it still exists as a singularity?
In a way, yes. Although this element of physics is very unexplored.
For example, it could be possible that a particle's rest mass might be related to the potential gravitational energy that will be released in the distant future, when all the matter in the universe collapses into a singularity or something.

However, when physicists discuss "entanglement" they are normally not referring to the entire universe being entangled together at some distant point. Quantum entanglement typically only manifests iteself over very short time periods.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:33 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
In a way, yes. Although this element of physics is very unexplored.
For example, it could be possible that a particle's rest mass might be related to the potential gravitational energy that will be released in the distant future, when all the matter in the universe collapses into a singularity or something.

However, when physicists discuss "entanglement" they are normally not referring to the entire universe being entangled together at some distant point. Quantum entanglement typically only manifests iteself over very short time periods.
The universe in singularity form is something to be experienced, not mathematically abstracted.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:36 PM
Anders Hoveland Anders Hoveland is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: May 2011
Thanks: 12
Thanked 131 Times in 86 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
The universe in singularity form is something to be experienced, not mathematically abstracted.
Not sure exactly what that means. Are you planning to view the singularity in person? You will be waiting quite along time for that. And there might not even be a singularity. Everything could just be in a dynamic state of equilibrium.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-22-2012, 05:42 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland View Post
Not sure exactly what that means. Are you planning to view the singularity in person? You will be waiting quite along time for that. And there might not even be a singularity. Everything could just be in a dynamic state of equilibrium.
There was a singularity in the past, so according to you, there still exists a singularity. All it would take to experience it would be to unbind your mind from space-time.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:27 PM
Zanick's Avatar
Zanick Zanick is offline
Sex Cucumber
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bikini Bottom
Thanks: 2,140
Thanked 2,181 Times in 1,477 Posts
Send a message via MSN to Zanick
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Sounds to me like singularity is better thought of as a verb.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Captain Falcon's Avatar
Captain Falcon Captain Falcon is offline
President Of The Fragyard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mute City
Thanks: 1,083
Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
The observation of particles has everything to do with consciousness. Consciousness causes the wave-function to collapse.
Not, not at all. The way "the observer effect" works isn't that it's some magical bullshit that sees us, gets shy and act differently. No, the observer effect is basically that at such a small scale, you can't "look" at a subatomic particle. In the regular world, I can throw a ball and bombard it with as many photons as necessary to see it, it's behaviour will not change. On a quantum level, you only measure things via interaction. For this reason, if you have, say, a detector designed to detect an electron, it's not going to magically tell you there's an electron passing by it, the electron itself has to actually interact with and trigger a response in the detector. By measuring a quantum particle, you will necessarily change it. There's no other way around it.
__________________
"My entire life is a Bad Idea." - General Butt.Naked
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" - 5.56 SS109
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:37 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Falcon View Post
Not, not at all. The way "the observer effect" works isn't that it's some magical bullshit that sees us, gets shy and act differently. No, the observer effect is basically that at such a small scale, you can't "look" at a subatomic particle. In the regular world, I can throw a ball and bombard it with as many photons as necessary to see it, it's behaviour will not change. On a quantum level, you only measure things via interaction. For this reason, if you have, say, a detector designed to detect an electron, it's not going to magically tell you there's an electron passing by it, the electron itself has to actually interact with and trigger a response in the detector. By measuring a quantum particle, you will necessarily change it. There's no other way around it.
Except our eyes don't shoot out photons, and I'm sure photon detectors work in a similar way, they detect photons by receiving them not by bombarding them with other photons.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:49 PM
Cytosine's Avatar
Cytosine Cytosine is offline
Count
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Harperland
Thanks: 350
Thanked 485 Times in 331 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
Except our eyes don't shoot out photons, and I'm sure photon detectors work in a similar way, they detect photons by receiving them not by bombarding them with other photons.
Right and wrong. The detector must receive a photon in order to detect the electron. However, in macroscopic terms, it's like trying to see a golf ball by bouncing a bowling ball off of it. The trajectory will necessarily be changed.

It's not at all what you're saying.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:51 PM
Captain Falcon's Avatar
Captain Falcon Captain Falcon is offline
President Of The Fragyard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mute City
Thanks: 1,083
Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
Except our eyes don't shoot out photons, and I'm sure photon detectors work in a similar way, they detect photons by receiving them not by bombarding them with other photons.
That's not the point, you fucking moron. On a classical scale, your eyes are still (in a way) interacting with the object you're measuring because of the photons bouncing off it and reaching your eyes, but it's not changing anything about it's behaviour on the classical scale in any significant manner. On a quantum scale, actually detecting a particle will require interaction WITH the particle and on that scale, interaction will change their behaviour (i.e. collapse them into a state)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cytosine View Post
Right and wrong. The detector must receive a photon in order to detect the electron. However, in macroscopic terms, it's like trying to see a golf ball by bouncing a bowling ball off of it. The trajectory will necessarily be changed.

It's not at all what you're saying.
this is a good way to put it.
__________________
"My entire life is a Bad Idea." - General Butt.Naked
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" - 5.56 SS109
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-23-2012, 05:05 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Falcon View Post
That's not the point, you fucking moron. On a classical scale, your eyes are still (in a way) interacting with the object you're measuring because of the photons bouncing off it and reaching your eyes, but it's not changing anything about it's behaviour on the classical scale in any significant manner. On a quantum scale, actually detecting a particle will require interaction WITH the particle and on that scale, interaction will change their behaviour (i.e. collapse them into a state)



this is a good way to put it.
So isolate a photon in a vacuum in complete darkness, with detectors that are sensitive enough to be triggered by the presence of the photon's gravity inside the box.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-23-2012, 05:12 PM
Cytosine's Avatar
Cytosine Cytosine is offline
Count
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Harperland
Thanks: 350
Thanked 485 Times in 331 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
So isolate a photon in a vacuum in complete darkness, with detectors that are sensitive enough to be triggered by the presence of the photon's gravity inside the box.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:18 PM
Captain Falcon's Avatar
Captain Falcon Captain Falcon is offline
President Of The Fragyard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mute City
Thanks: 1,083
Thanked 2,864 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
So isolate a photon in a vacuum in complete darkness, with detectors that are sensitive enough to be triggered by the presence of the photon's gravity inside the box.
A) Photons have no mass.

B) No mass = they exert no gravity

C) You're a fucking idiot.
__________________
"My entire life is a Bad Idea." - General Butt.Naked
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" - 5.56 SS109
Reply With Quote
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
crazzyass (06-23-2012)
  #111  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:31 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Falcon View Post
A) Photons have no mass.

B) No mass = they exert no gravity

C) You're a fucking idiot.
Fine. Replace photon with electron.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:33 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
If a photon had no mass it would be unaffected by gravity. The existence of black holes proves that photons have mass and are affected by gravity.
Your science literacy is awful. That would be perfectly understandable if you weren't so confident about the very things you know nothing about, and passed yourself off as if you knew. You don't.

A black hole affects light not because light has rest mass, but because a black-hole bends space-time. The space where light is traveling through is bent, so light falls in:


"Photons (which are the "particles" that make up light) have zero rest mass. To understand why photons "fall" into a black hole, you need to know a bit of general relativity. What general relativity says is that any massive object warps the spacetime around it. You can think of this with a simple analogy. Imagine a stretched rubber sheet that is completely flat. This represents the spacetime when there is no mass. Now, if you put a heavy ball in the rubber sheet, it will cause a distortion in the sheet. This is exactly what happens in space, except that it is in 3 dimensions instead of two.

Further, a photon always travels by the shortest distance between two points. As spacetime is warped, the light appears to bend around a massive object. In reality, it is not that the object is attracting light, but it is just that the photons are traveling by the shortest distance in a curved spacetime.

Around a blackhole, the distortion of spacetime is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the spacetime curves into itself and as a result, light cannot escape from a black hole.
"

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=162
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:38 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
Your science literacy is awful. That would be perfectly understandable if you weren't so confident about the very things you know nothing about, and passed yourself off as if you knew. You don't.

A black hole affects light not because light has rest mass, but because a black-hole bends space-time. The space where light is traveling through is bent, so light falls in:


"Photons (which are the "particles" that make up light) have zero rest mass. To understand why photons "fall" into a black hole, you need to know a bit of general relativity. What general relativity says is that any massive object warps the spacetime around it. You can think of this with a simple analogy. Imagine a stretched rubber sheet that is completely flat. This represents the spacetime when there is no mass. Now, if you put a heavy ball in the rubber sheet, it will cause a distortion in the sheet. This is exactly what happens in space, except that it is in 3 dimensions instead of two.

Further, a photon always travels by the shortest distance between two points. As spacetime is warped, the light appears to bend around a massive object. In reality, it is not that the object is attracting light, but it is just that the photons are traveling by the shortest distance in a curved spacetime.

Around a blackhole, the distortion of spacetime is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the spacetime curves into itself and as a result, light cannot escape from a black hole.
"

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=162
I realized my mistake which is why I deleted my post.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:40 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Good.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:44 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
Good.
I have to ask though, if photons have no mass then how would they have any effect in an observation scenario? You should be able to bombard a particle with photons all day long and cause no change since they are mass-less.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:56 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

No. They have momentum and energy; that's how the photo-electric effect and solar-sails work.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:59 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
No. They have momentum and energy; that's how the photo-electric effect and solar-sails work.
So they have an effective mass but no rest mass (because photons don't technically exist at rest)?
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06-23-2012, 07:00 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821 View Post
So they have an effective mass but no rest mass (because photons don't technically exist at rest)?
They have relativistic mass.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-23-2012, 07:07 PM
TheSexyBeast821's Avatar
TheSexyBeast821 TheSexyBeast821 is offline
C⊙λϥЖĦѮϟΩπ
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The longest location name on Z
Thanks: 134
Thanked 742 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust View Post
They have relativistic mass.
Are photons the universal electromagnetic particle? For example, is it photons at work in a microwave or an x-ray machine?
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-23-2012, 07:12 PM
Rust Rust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,714 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: Quantum Entanglement

They can be referred to as a "particle" of electromagnetic radiation, yes. Yes, X-rays and Microwaves have (or rather have comprised of ) photons.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
entanglement, quantum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Quantum Reality Danger LOL, Internet 4 03-09-2011 05:07 AM
Entanglement - Very chill HTML5 canvas game zuperxtreme Games Poor People Play 2 01-21-2011 01:33 PM
Quantum Confidence EllisD Neurons & Needles 29 09-23-2009 09:25 AM
Quantum Mind Power EllisD Neurons & Needles 9 02-09-2009 03:45 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Hot Topics
Join our Chatroom!
Users: 8
Messages/minute: 0
Topic: "Only rule: be nice or I'll cut your fucking face off, dumbshit"
Users: 27
Messages/minute: 1.6
Topic: "http://codelove.org :: Below is above in 2 codes 1 love. :: wh..."
Users: 18
Messages/minute: 5
Topic: "http://www.literotica...."
Advertisements
Your ad could go right HERE! Contact us!

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.