3 ms·

Complex solution for a simple problem. I'll sound naive, but I think that quantum entaglement is a very simple thing: it's a link, like an edge in a mathematica

Complex solution for a simple problem. I'll sound naive, but I think that quantum entaglement is a very simple thing: it's a link, like an edge in a mathematical graph, between two particles. The length of the link is 1. Not nanometers or something else, just 1. The particles rapidly change their state, but they are synchronized via this link and at any moment they are in the opposite states. Measuring one particle is done by bombarding it with another particle, which stabilizes its state, and also the other particle, via the link. In other words, our world is just a mathematical graph that appears to have continuous properties at scale.

Grieverheart 7y ago
Sorry to burst you bubble, such statements should always be supported by actual mathematics, to be taken seriously.
axilmar 7y ago
My own theory is that there is no entanglement and no link between the particles, it is just that the particle states are affected the moment they are created. I also think that light is not a wave and that light particles are not fired in a straight line in the double slit experiment; they are fired at an angle, and then they bounce off the slits and create the interference pattern; and when we put a detector in front of the slits, it only serves as creating new light particles that do not have this angle in them and they go straight ahead, making the diffraction pattern disappear. And it's not that quantum math is wrong; it's right, but my intuition says that any system can be described by statistics. As for quantum mechanics applications, all the applications mentioned (from clocks to computers to anything the article and other articles mention) are not based in any QM specific property. None of those applications are actually dependent on entanglement and on collapsing the wave function, and entanglement cannot be used for any application despite what they write in articles because it would violate the principles of relativity. And none of those applications would cease to exist if light was not an actual wave and photons simply moved in wave patterns. Let the downvotes begin!

Grieverheart 7y ago

Sorry to burst you bubble, such statements should always be supported by actual mathematics, to be taken seriously.

axilmar 7y ago

My own theory is that there is no entanglement and no link between the particles, it is just that the particle states are affected the moment they are created. I also think that light is not a wave and that light particles are not fired in a straight line in the double slit experiment; they are fired at an angle, and then they bounce off the slits and create the interference pattern; and when we put a detector in front of the slits, it only serves as creating new light particles that do not have this angle in them and they go straight ahead, making the diffraction pattern disappear. And it's not that quantum math is wrong; it's right, but my intuition says that any system can be described by statistics. As for quantum mechanics applications, all the applications mentioned (from clocks to computers to anything the article and other articles mention) are not based in any QM specific property. None of those applications are actually dependent on entanglement and on collapsing the wave function, and entanglement cannot be used for any application despite what they write in articles because it would violate the principles of relativity. And none of those applications would cease to exist if light was not an actual wave and photons simply moved in wave patterns. Let the downvotes begin!