Talk:Quantum entanglement

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MAllison5 (article contribs).

Standard error of sign regarding information and entropy.

Short before the sentences:

″The reversibility of a process is associated with the resulting entropy change, i.e., a process is reversible if, and only if, it leaves the entropy of the system invariant. Therefore, the march of the arrow of time towards thermodynamic equilibrium is simply the growing spread of quantum entanglement.[83] This provides a connection between quantum information theory and thermodynamics.″

... all entropy formulas, whether Shannon's or 'von Neumann' tell about possibilities and/or bandwidth. Real data transferred via classic or quantum methods show always the reverse sign, because a single of the many possibilities has been chosen for transfer. In the same way growing quantum entanglement does not increase but reduces entropy. For sure the internal order by entanglement is even the reverse of disorder maximization by thermodynamic equilibrium. If [83] is indirectly cited, it tells simply non-sense. Please drop the sentences above and the reference from the article. Many thanks!

Photosynthesis

Second sentence: "Without such a process, the efficient conversion of light into chemical energy cannot be explained." This is a very strong statement that is not currently supported by reference or consensus. Please comment before I delete it. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, given this reference that cites Fleming, I think the sentence can stay and it simply needs more referencing: https://phys.org/news/2010-05-untangling-quantum-entanglement-photosynthesis.html#:~:text=When%20two%20quantum%2Dsized%20particles,act%20as%20a%20single%20entity. Charles Juvon (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say this ...

If you can't explain it simple, you can't explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsolved problem?

Why is this article listed in the category Unsolved problems in physics? In what way is quantum entanglement considered to be an unsolved problem? —Kri (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Because somebody added the page. You're right, it shouldn't be there, I removed it. Tercer (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis, undue, etc.

This is not a good addition. In addition to the fact that one of the sources is just an arXiv preprint, the others are talking about different things, so combining them like this would be synthesis even if it were warranted to describe a self-declared "minority opinion" in a broad overview like this. For example, Khrennikov is talking about his "Växjö interpretation", which is not the same the ensemble interpretation espoused by, e.g., Leslie Ballentine. And whether they're taken separately or together, these just aren't significant enough to talk about in this article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, saying that "a minority opinion holds that although quantum mechanics is correct, there is no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance between entangled particles once the particles are separated" is just bizarre, this is the majority opinion. It doesn't describe at all the contents of the papers being referenced, though. The sentence "no hidden variables and using the statistical ensemble interpretation" is an oxymoron, the statistical ensemble interpretation is a hidden-variable interpretation (or a hidden-hidden-variable interpretation, because you have hidden variables but are not allowed to talk about them). Tercer (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I simplied the statement to avoid your concerns. Not all researchers believe there can be any communication once the particles are separated. No nonlocality. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed the part about hidden variables, the rest is still there. The idea that there can be communication through entanglement is completely fringe, very few researchers would defend that. Tercer (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I wrote actually "no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance", which is the common central theme of the references cited. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That is also a very unpopular position; a couple of researchers do believe in Bohmian mechanics or collapse models, but they are emphatically not mainstream. Tercer (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I wrote "A minority opinion". 47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is the majority opinion. Tercer (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts minority opinions when well sourced. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, as to where Bell went completely wrong in his work, Bell used "superposition" which is a false concept as Ballentine shows in his Chapter 9, and as Schrodinger also showed with his Cat. It is because Bell used fairytale "superposition" that he derived fairytale "entanglement" with superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance which is nonsense right on the face of it. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC).

That's enough for me, I give up. Tercer (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you give up, then put it back into the article and don't censor it. There are other Physics Fairytales like "entanglement" or the "big bang" fairytale not to mention "black hole" fairytales, for none of these fairytales does Wikipedia allow a word of criticism.47.201.194.211 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"I give up" means giving up trying to explain to you why are wrong, not surrendering and letting you rule the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Then explain how what I said about Bell is anywhere wrong. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Entanglement is not a "false concept" or a "fairy tale", and Schrödinger's cat wasn't a demonstration that it was. Nor does Ballentine say that superposition is a "false concept", in chapter 9 of his textbook or anywhere else. What he rejects (pages 234 ff.) is the idea that a pure quantum state provides a complete and exhaustive description of an individual system. Instead, for him, A pure state describes the statistical properties of an ensemble of similarly prepared systems. A superposition of two pure states is another perfectly valid pure state describing (in Ballentine's view) the statistical properties of a different ensemble. No fairy tales. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

To say as Bell that a pair of entangled particles exists in a superposition until observed, and that then there is an action-at-a-distance between them, is all fairytale, and Balletine doesn't buy it. That's where Bell went all wrong. And those references show that the ensemble interpretation explains observations with no superluminal action-at-a-distance at all, so Quantum computers will never work. Those references definitely belong here in Wikipedia. Please restore them.47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bell actually said that "observable" was so vague a word that it has no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision. You seem to be attributing to him a position very nearly the opposite of what he would have found reasonable. The references were to a smattering of different views, not a single cohesive interpretation. And the leap to "quantum computers will never work" is completely unwarranted. So, no, nothing is going to be restored. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong on all counts, the five references are not a "smattering of different views", you just cannot read them. They all say the same thing, that the observations can be explained by a statistical ensemble interpretation with no superluminal action-at-a-distance. The five references have been in Wikipedia for six months and still absolutely belong there and should not be pulled by a layman like you. Restore them.47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter is actually a theoretical physicist, unlike you, Randy in Clearwater. You really don't know when to quit do you? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Entanglement is a fairytale because there is no such thing as superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance. And Schrodinger came up with his Cat to show that Superposition is a fairytale, because a Cat is certainly not both alive and dead at the same time. Now, Quantum computer schemes rely on both fairytale Superposition and fairytale superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance, and so Quantum computers are fairytales that can never work. Those five references should be restored because they show how observations can be explained by the ensemble interpretation without any of the above fairytales, which is extremely important. Restore them. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Quantum computers have already been built. they work. - MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your article says "the promise of quantum computers". They are not computers and they don't work.47.201.194.211 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest reading more than the first line of the abstract. MrOllie (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you not believe people who have placed all their eggs in the basket of "quantum computers", and do your own thinking. Restore those five references. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Only the 3rd reference (which is identical to the 4th) even begins to come close to the wikipedia definition of a reliable source as arXiv is generally not considered a reliable source. It is not yet clear if the 3rd source is sufficient to say that this is a significant-minority position, which might satisfy WP:PROFRINGE. There is also a lack of consensus as now multiple editors have pointed out, and this is quickly becoming tendetious. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's tendentious for sure, but it's also quite entertaining. I mean, Ballentine — the world's most prominent advocate of the ensemble interpretation — has a whole section of his textbook on quantum computing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've escalated to ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_disruptively_editing_at_Quantum_entanglement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

All 5 references should be restored. They are all published in excellent journals and they all say the same thing, that a statistical ensemble interpretation can explain the observed correlations with no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a distance. That is extremely important and a valid minority opinion. As for Ballentine, I have his 1998 edition and he did not have that section on quantum computing which he added to the 2015 Second Edition, but that does not matter because other researchers and specialists in the ensemble interpretation may see it differently from Ballentine. So Please restore those 5 references they are well published. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC) The Bryan Sanctuary references 28 and 29 are excellent, and should be restored. See him explain it here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeV4pJeQ-tiVGG3-OT6iGvw 47.201.194.211 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, they weren't all "published in excellent journals". One of them wasn't even published in a journal at all. This was explained at the very beginning of this section. You've already been blocked once; if you persist without learning anything, you'll only get blocked again. XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Arxiv is to get preliminary results out there safeguarded and accessible, it warrants inclusion. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Preprints on the arXiv are not peer-reviewed. Consequently, they are not reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Arxiv papers are often included in Wikipedia as initial reports which are followed up by published articles.47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding arXiv explicitly says: "...There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv)." So, no WP does not include initial reports from arXiv until they are followed up by published articles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and the Arxiv reference I cite is indeed followed up by a published article, so include it. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Followed up by" isn't the same as "is". You'll win no friends by making demands. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason you want to censor the following sentence that I wrote into wikipedia is that it is an existential threat to everything you have been pushing for years, but how can science progress with minority opinions censored ?

A minority opinion holds that although quantum mechanics is correct, there is no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance between entangled particles once the particles are separated.[28][29][30][31][32]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.194.211 (talk • contribs)

Those five references must be restored. They show that serious researchers believe that the statistical ensemble interpretation does explain observed correlations of so-called entangled particles with no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance. This minority opinion is extremely important and definitely should be restored. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As Alice asked after she went through the looking-glass, "But how can you talk with a person if they always say the same thing?" XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

How do you talk with someone who wants to censor opposing opinions? 47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Professor Bryan Sanctuary explains his articles in his seminar video series how a statistical ensemble treatment explains the observed correlations with no superluminal action-at-a-distance. The five references should definitely be restored. See https://quantummechanics.mchmultimedia.com/toc/ 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional unreliable sources do not bolster the reliability of an arXiv preprint, and accusations of censorship are not an argument. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Arxiv is just a prelude to his main article which is published in 2006 in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, a perfectly good source. Please restore the five references. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As was already explained, being followed by a journal article doesn't make a preprint reliable. Since you seem to be emphasizing the writings of Sanctuary in particular, I'm curious: do you know him personally? If so, Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest would be relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never met any of the authors of those five references, but I do believe in what they are saying, that a statistical ensemble interpretation can explain correlations with no superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance, because instantaneous action-at-a-distance is pure Voodoo, and most physicists would agree with me in private. That's why those five references deserve at least a one line mention in Wikipedia the way I had added it. Please restore it. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As Tercer pointed out at the beginning of this discussion, the idea that there could be superluminal communication through entanglement is the fringe position. The text you are insisting upon is hopelessly confused about what the majority and minority opinions are. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not understanding what the five references are saying, they are all saying there is no superluminal communication nor superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance, of any sort, between so-called entangled particles once separated. Restore those five references. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Your 'five references' are restating the majority opinion in a slightly different way. They're not in the minority, so it is not appropriate to put a statement in the Wikipedia article claiming that they're in disagreement with the mainstream. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? they are not in agreement with the usual instantaneous action-at-a-distance at all ! 47.201.194.211 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Just about everyone agrees with the No-communication theorem. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and no one is contesting that, so what's your point? 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep. And, on top of that, this article needs less reliance on primary sources, not more. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well sourced primary sources are perfectly acceptable. You guys stop making lame excuses and restore those five references. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The policy that I linked explains quite clearly why that is untrue. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite to the Contrary! You must be one of those 'entanglement' freaks and I hate to tell you that your baby is ugly, there is no such thing as superluminal instantaneous action-at-a-distance, it is all Voodoo, and a fairytale. Restore those five references because they set the record straight. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)