Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Can Quantum Particles Really Communicate In The Past?

quantum mechanics

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 DRACO

DRACO

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 30 May 2020 - 04:29 AM

The quantum entanglement and delayed choice quantum eraser variation to the double slit experiment has given very strange results. So if a particle is detected then the pattern is changed. Does the detected particle communicate with its entangled pair in the past? or there is another explanation to it?


  • Thoth101 likes this

#2 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 12:48 AM

The quantum entanglement and delayed choice quantum eraser variation to the double slit experiment has given very strange results. So if a particle is detected then the pattern is changed. Does the detected particle communicate with its entangled pair in the past? or there is another explanation to it?

If past, present and future are always going on at the same time then it is simple.



#3 KeshavGulati

KeshavGulati

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 June 2020 - 10:25 AM

The quantum entanglement and delayed choice quantum eraser variation to the double slit experiment has given very strange results. So if a particle is detected then the pattern is changed. Does the detected particle communicate with its entangled pair in the past? or there is another explanation to it?

No one really knows at the moment. Experiments have been performed by which it has been confirmed that quantum entanglement can affect particles instantaneously, thus violating locality and this is exactly the phenomena that made Einstein so uncomfortable. The particle can be communicating back in time, or maybe to another dimension (the many worlds theory).



#4 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 05:21 PM

The quantum entanglement and delayed choice quantum eraser variation to the double slit experiment has given very strange results. So if a particle is detected then the pattern is changed. Does the detected particle communicate with its entangled pair in the past? or there is another explanation to it?

 

I have got to the position that possibly (or probably) the entire field of QM might simply be wrong, and it will end up a dead end branch of science much like string theory. 

 

I don't see that entanglement is actually a 'thing', but in this case, I am sure that the past and the future do not exist, so the claim that some observation is able to communicate with the past, is the result of 'loopholes' in the experimental setups of these experiments.

 

What these tests do not really do is not look too hard for a falsifiable possibility, and they don't really look for it.

 

Plus QM is really failing in any practical sense, it does not yield anything useful, it just feels like to me to be mathematicians 'busy work'.

 

Youtuber "Karma Peny" has done some interesting analysis and video's on this subject, and I tend to agree with him.

 

  (for example). 

 

For me local realism is the reason for the results of experiments like the double slit, and I can think of many ways to test the wave/particle duality (making it possibly falsesifiable) that no one appears willing to perform. 

 

Experiments such as the double slip have to be carefully set up and 'tuned', in order to get the desired results, and that to me is a big problem. Why does slight variations in experimental setup 'break' the experiments?

 

Lastly, progress in the field of quantum mechanics has stalled! For at least the past 50 years, no new progress or understanding has come from it.  

 

For me it is a bit like big bang cosmology, where you start out with a conclusion and you work backwards to try to confirm that conclusion, by interpreting observations and developing experiments that 'tend to' support that conclusion, (IF you do not look into it too hard). 

 

I'm just trying to look at it scientifically, the scientific method is what I have done here, I am not trying to prove a model correct, I am seeking tests and observations and considering that the conclusion of 'action at a distance' is not the ONLY possible conclusion.  

 

Science is supposed to look at how a model could be wrong, and to determine if it is a dead end or requires further study, fine tuning experiments and math manipulation to support a conclusion is not good science, but it is what is done when studying quantum mechanics. 

 

https://www.youtube....6JiGdEL1M8EThGw

 

This guy has done some good video's on the subject.. 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: quantum mechanics