Talk:Quantum entanglement

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!

Schrodinger called entanglement Voodoo

Quantum mechanics Nobel prize winner Erwin Schrodinger criticized quantum entanglement as ritual magic where a savage “believes that he can harm his enemy by piercing the enemy’s image with a needle”. This needs be inserted into Wikipedia. Here is the source to insert: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/ See Section 2. Paragraph 8. Schrodinger's Letter to Edward Teller, June 14, 1935, quoted in Bacciagaluppi 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the cited source says. Schrodinger was writing about a particular interpretation, not quantum entanglement in general. Your edits are disruptive and misleading - if you start this up again you'll just get blocked again. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, you don't get a free pass to re-introduce disruptive material simply by repeating here what you've already wrongly asserted multiple times in edit summaries. Expiry of your block is not an opportunity for you to keep pushing your edit onto the page. You need to seek consensus here first, and only after you have obtained consensus should you edit the page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Intro it says According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which do not recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. That is where the excellent Schrodinger reference should be inserted into Wikipedia. Schrodinger is clear, measuring one particle has no effect on the other, it is Voodoo. Erwin Schrodinger criticized quantum entanglement as ritual magic where a savage “believes that he can harm his enemy by piercing the enemy’s image with a needle”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, that is not what Schrodinger was writing about. Trying to force this into the article by edit warring isn't going to work. - MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You just don't want any talk of entanglement being compared to Voodoo, which it is. Schrodinger is right.

References

So where do you propose this Schrodinger quote be added ? It should not be censored. Where do you want it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere. It does not refer to what you seem to think it refers to. We cannot add your mistaken interpretation anywhere in the article. MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia includes the quote by Schrodinger. Is Wikipedia better than the Stanford Encyclopedia ? Schrodinger's quote is pertinent to entanglement and must be included in Wikipedia. You pick where, go ahead, do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Schrodinger was commenting on a specific idea, expressed in a statement by Bohr. Since we don't discuss Bohr's statement it would make no sense to discuss the reply. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a bad excuse. That particular idea of Bohr is still widely used in the mass media, a particle having an instant "effect" on another is how entanglement is usually presented. Schrodinger's quote is extremely important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to write to the mass media to complain. That's not a reason for us to add a misleading quote to Wikipedia's article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote is not misleading at all. It directly refers to one particle instantly affecting another. Wikipedia needs correct errors in the mass media by not censoring the excellent quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not about entanglement in general, and your text claimed it was. That is what 'misleading' means. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It is about the usual mainstream presentation of entanglement, where measuring one particle instantly affects the other. Schrodinger's quote refers to that, which is the usual mainstream presentation. Schrodinger calls it ritual magic. That's why his quote definitely belongs in Wikipedia. It belongs there in the Introduction where the "effect" is questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the Stanford Encyclopedia says. Stating the same incorrect claims repeatedly won't get your proposed change into the article. MrOllie (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie: Schrödinger's quote is about a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics and about a philosophical stance as to what constitutes "elements or reality" that might be affected by a quantum measurement. The Schrödinger who invented Quantum steering did not consider entanglement per se as "voodoo" (which the contextfree quote might suggest). I don't see what useful purpose the quote (even with context) could serve in the article on entanglement. --Qcomp (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both MrOllie and Qcomp. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Stanford considers the Schrodinger quote as important enough to put in their Stanford Encyclopedia, but Wikipedia wants to ignore it. Wikipedia readers would like to see it and should not be deprived of seeing it and interpreting it for themselves. I have a PhD in Physics and I love the quote. He was talking about one particle having any "effect" on another particle at any remote distance and he was right, it is Voodoo. Schrodinger came up with his Cat to show the absurdity of superposition, and he called entanglement Voodoo. Schrodinger was no fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC), edited on 04:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can add the quote later on in the article, where voodoo interpretations are compared to non-voodoo ones. Roger (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Non-Voodoo way: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356746254_Bell_tests_explained_by_classical_optics_without_quantum_entanglement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Unusable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Is_Physics_Essays_a_reliable_source. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Astronomy Journals publish nothing but big bang fairytales, so what is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not here to argue against the scientific mainstream, that is not the role of an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Quantum crankery and Big Bang denial coming from a Tampa, Florida IP sounds familiar. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, entanglement (an Abstract Framework) is not required as long as there are no interactions with the clock.

Interestingly from Oxford uni, entanglement is not required as long as there are no interactions with the clock.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063507

In addition, already in 2010 they wrote; their new idea is that DNA is held together by quantum entanglement.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/06/28/91041/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

Feel free to edit, anybody? Kartasto (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Those ideas do not sound like they have enough maturity to end up in an encyclopedia article. Is there any reception? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about entanglement between system and clock in the Page-Wootters mechanism for time. It's not about entanglement in general. It might belong in the Page-Wootters mechanism article, if that existed, and after the community evaluated its relevance. Not here, and not now. Tercer (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Molecular Quantum Entanglement

"Connor M. Holland et al., On-demand entanglement of molecules in a reconfigurable optical tweezer array.Science382,1143-1147(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.adf4272"

I also added to the Turkish Wikipedia that I had translated from English before.

would this be ok?

If you can please give a prompt answer, I will do both changes immediately

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We should have a secondary source, that is still a primary source. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Press release churnalism, also unreliable. Please direct any followup to the article's associated talk page, other interested editors will not find this on my user talk. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that the posts bearing my signature above were copy and pasted here by Uralunlucayakli and were originally made on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Add a few sentances on the nobel prize of 2022 related to entanglement and bell tests

There were many experimental results between the work of Chien-Shiung Wu and the modern work in the early 2010s from Zeilinger's group and others. In particular, the Nobel Prize winning experiments of Aspect, Clauser are nowhere mentioned here. It feels that the Nobel prize related to quantum entanglement deserves mentioning in this section.

Perhaps it is enough that it is included in the Bell test page, but it feels like there should at least be a cross link to the Bell test page to highlight the results. 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry meant to say that it is mentioned in the History, but not in the notable experimental results section. I think more that things should be shuffled around in the article page to keep it consistent. Either it is historically relevant or it is experimentally relevant. Perhaps both? 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)