Science Einstein wrong, spooky action at distance is real - One step closer to the warp drive

I am admittedly trying to figure out what all they are talking about here, so I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me, but the basic gestalt I am gathering is that this test proves that photons can become entangled at a distance, and that the act of measuring them effects their behavior. Further, the "action" that occurs is transmitted through the quantum entanglement at a speed faster then light. In order to prove this they had to add the human element of "free will" into the procedure, as even a computerized random number generator would be manipulated by the phenomenon. Spooky stuff.

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/einsteins-principle-local-realism-big-bell-test-05998.html

Global Experiment Challenges Einstein’s Principle of Local Realism: BIG Bell Test

A Bell test, named for the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell, is a randomized trial that compares observations against the philosophical worldview of local realism, in which the properties of the physical world are independent of our observation of them and no signal travels faster than light. On November 30, 2016, more than 100,000 people contributed to the so-called BIG Bell Test. Using internet-connected devices, volunteers generated more than 90 million binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to 12 labs, where experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles and superconducting devices. The results are reported in the journal Nature.

The BIG Bell Test was an incredibly challenging and ambitious project,” said Dr. Carlos Abellán, a researcher at the Institut de Ciencies Fotoniques at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology in Spain.

“It sounded impossibly difficult on day zero, but became a reality through the efforts of dozens of passionate scientists, science communicators, journalists and media, and especially the tens of thousands of people that contributed to the experiment during November 30, 2016.”

In a Bell test, pairs of entangled particles such as photons are generated and sent to different locations, where particle properties such as the photons’ colors or time of arrival are measured.

If the measurement results tend to agree, regardless of which properties we choose to measure, it implies something very surprising: either the measurement of one particle instantly affects the other particle (despite being far away), or even stranger, the properties never really existed, but rather were created by the measurement itself.

Either possibility contradicts local realism, Einstein’s worldview of a universe independent of our observations, in which no influence can travel faster than light.

The BIG Bell Test asked volunteers to choose the measurements, in order to close the so-called ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’ — the possibility that the particles themselves influence the choice of measurement. Such influence, if it existed, would invalidate the test; it would be like allowing students to write their own exam questions.

This loophole cannot be closed by choosing with dice or random number generators, because there is always the possibility that these physical systems are coordinated with the entangled particles.

Human choices introduce the element of free will, by which people can choose independently of whatever the particles might be doing.

The BIG Bell Test participants contributed unpredictable sequences of zeros and ones (bits) through an online video game.

The bits were routed to state-of-the-art experiments in Brisbane, Shanghai, Vienna, Rome, Munich, Zurich, Nice, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Concepción Chile and Boulder Colorado, where they were used to set the angles of polarizers and other laboratory elements to determine how entangled particles were measured.

The participants contributed with 97,347,490 bits, making possible a strong test of local realism, as well as other experiments on realism in quantum mechanics.

The obtained results strongly disagree Einstein’s worldview, close the freedom-of-choice loophole for the first time, and demonstrate several new methods in the study of entanglement and local realism.

Each of the 12 labs carried out a different experiment, to test local realism in different physical systems and to test other concepts related to realism.

“Our team explores the Bell’s inequality with partial perfect randomness input,” said researchers from the CAS Center for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Center in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics at the University of Science and Technology of China (CAS-USTC).

“Analyzing the random numbers contributed by the volunteers, we may find the human random number are not perfectly random, and tend to produce patterns. However, the human generated randomness is highly attractive because of the element of human free will.”

“True randomness, which is not controlled by hidden variables, exists in between the human choices. Remarkably, it is able to say how well the hidden variable would have to control the human choices.”

“This is made possible by using a special type of Bell inequality, the measurement dependent local (MDL) inequality.”

In the experiment, a 780 nm pump laser focused on a periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate (PPKTP) crystal to create photon pairs at 1560 nm via spontaneous parametric down conversion. The down-converted photon pairs interfere at the polarizing beam splitter (PBS) in a Sagnac based setup to create entangled pairs.

The entangled state is adjusted to be a special non-maximum entangled state for the inequality.

“The photon pairs are then sent to two measurement stations that are 90 m away for measurement. This spatial separation makes sure the measurement in Alice’s lab will not affect that in Bob’s lab, and vice versa,” the scientists said.

“The random numbers contributed by the participants control the Pockels cell to set the measurement basis for each pair of photons.”

“The photons are finally detected with superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors.”

The violation of the MDL Bell inequality gives the bound of the input human randomness to rule out local realism. With around 80 Mb random numbers contributed by the volunteers, the MDL Bell inequality violation is decided to be l = 0.10 ± 0.05.

“Although there are numerous Bell test experiments, the ‘free will’ loophole is still not closed,” said Professor Jian-Wei Pan, a researcher at CAS-USTC.

“This experiment is a very interesting and important try. In the future, with the help of space station, one may close both ‘collapse locality’ and ‘free will’ loopholes in one experiment.”
 
So if humans are experimenting with quantum entanglement, does this mean that any kind of alien intelligence anywhere in the universe, and especially anywhere far beyond the minuscule portion of one minor galaxy where human radio waves have already penetrated, that happens to be monitoring quantum entanglement at that particular moment would be aware that some other species is now intelligent enough to be researching such things?

Though I'm guessing that a distant species merely being able to tell that some other species somewhere else far away in the universe is experimenting with quantum entanglement does not mean they'd have any way of telling where in the universe that research is taking place let alone would it give them a way to travel to Earth. And I'd imagine that there are probably thousands of other species scattered across the universe that are at around the same development level as humans who are concurrently discovering how to do things with quantum entanglement at about the same time, so one more species (ours) joining the quantum entanglement experiment party probably isn't that big a deal.
 
If I recall correctly, quantum teleportation was already proved long time ago, what this test did was trying to close the "free-will-loophole"
The free will loophole states that "free will" is not truly a random number, this implies that quantum entanglement test cannot be truly verified for a lack of a true random factor.
There is just a problem here, china has already tested this last year by using the color of light from stars so far away, it takes 600 years for them to hit out planet, for particles to predict this, they should take into account data that is 600 years old.
Surprisingly, the particles still managed to react faster than light making the right choices simultaneously.
We really don't understand how this works, but it is really interesting and I'd truth, slaps open a door for endless possibilities.
 
Okay, here goes, tried to make this approachable. The only thing to know is a bit about vectors, but even then, in this case, you can just consider them like sequences of numbers.

In quantum mechanics, you represent the state of particles as vectors, for example [1 0] or [0 1]. You can imagine the first vector as denoting the state of a particle which has an "up" spin of 1, and a "down" spin of 0, and the second vector denoting the state of a particle with an "up" spin of 0, and a "down" spin of 1. You can also relate the state [1 1] as a particle with "simultaneous" up and down spins of 1 (which you may have heard about in certain articles, but this is a digression, doesn't matter much for entanglement).

You represent the state of a multi-particle system as a tensor product: for example [0 1] ⊗ [1 0] = [0[1 0] 1[1 0]] = [0 0 1 0] for an example two-particle system, for which the first particle has state [0 1] and the second has state [1 0].

What makes entanglement interesting, is that the state of two entangled particles cannot be written as a tensor product of two individual states. The most entangled state, for example, is [1/√2 0 0 1/√2]. There are no two states [a b], [c d] such that [a b] ⊗ [c d] = [a[c d] b[c d]] = [ac ad bc bd] = [1/√2 0 0 1/√2].

This is why we call this entangled two-particle state "inseparable": because you cannot describe it as the state of each of its individual particles, you can only describe it in terms of the system, which may offer some intuition into why the particles are able to affect each other in an "instantaneous" fashion.


The reason one (currently) cannot use this to send instantaneous information is that when we measure our [1/√2 0 0 1/√2] entangled state, we collapse it (turn it into) with probability 1/2 to the [1 0 0 0] state, and probability 1/2 to the [0 0 0 1] state. Nature basically flips a coin and gives us one of the two states back with equal probability. Once we have collapsed the state, our measurements will only give us whatever that first result was (hence the name collapse), but any measurements performed on the entangled particle by my buddy on Mars will also give them that same state.

The problem is two-fold: first of all, my buddy on Mars may measure his particle and see the result [0 0 0 1] (example), but he has no idea whether he got the result because I collapsed the entangled state with my own measurement, or whether he just got it by himself collapsing the state and nature giving him that result. And even if I tried to circumvent that by agreeing with my buddy: "I'll collapse the state in exactly two months, you measure it right after, that way we're certain I'm collapsing it and you're measuring the aftermath", there's still no way for me to control which result nature is going to give me, and by proxy to him.

The only thing we can do is verify the effect of entanglement and confirm its existence by sharing our observations (which is what all of the past experiments have been doing), later when my buddy takes the shuttle back to earth.


There are quite a few oversimplifications here and there, but I think that explains the gist of it, from the mathematical side anyways. It's not easy material, but I hope it helped your understanding in some way!
 
Get some of that FTL shit on our servers, stat!
 
What's the point you're making by rotating the second hole in that last part? That the needle can come out the other side in a way that wouldn't normally be possible?
It's all about probability. If the second hole is rotated 45° for example, then 50% of second needles come through it one way and 50% the other – this result is the easiest to explain, but not that surprising.
The surprising result is the probability for all angles other than 0°/45°/90°/...: The probabilities look like if measuring the first needle (which rotates it a bit) immediately rotated the second needle by the same amount.
Here's what experiments find for various angle differences between two measuring devices (to translate this chart into needle-speak, divide angles by two, since I used 90° for opposite orientations, while normally it's 180°):
zCAMO.png

(Correlation 0 = 50%-50% random split between results; correlation 1 = results always the same)
Mathematical models that consider the needles as independent give the red results, mathematical models than incorporate the "spooky action at distance" (="rotating" the second "needle" after the first passes through a measuring "hole") give the blue results.
Reality? Also blue.
 
Can someone explain this like they were explaining to someone that doesn't understand this kind of science beyond knowing it exist? I got migraines trying to understand this, i hate being dumb
No, the whole point of this thread is to point and laugh at people who can't even pretend that they're smart. Sorry.
 
Is there any actual evidence that quantum states are affected by our observation of them? Is this something that can even be tested?
Obviously not, by the definition of the word "test". You cannot observe an unobserved state.

Because it seems to me that another distinct possibility here is that our minds are simply not up to the task of adequately interpreting what we're looking at, with the obvious explanation being that reality at the quantum level is so alien to the way that our minds evolved to process information.
I'm more inclined to think that the whole enterprise of quantum mechanics is a mathematical construct. Yes, it is immensely successful at predicting how things work (so quantum mechanics is real), but its mathematical operators (like the wavefuction or sum-over-paths) might not warrant an ontological status.

Heisenberg's matrix mechanics has the right idea -- just shut up and calculate.
 
Obviously not, by the definition of the word "test". You cannot observe an unobserved state.

So could you theoretically somehow do this with a camera, record it, and then watch the recording to keep it from being observed, or is that in and of itself still observation? Or would watching the recording (that you somehow got without being there) of it give you a different thing each time?
 
Back