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)