12 replies to this topic

[Kimoflea]

Wow.. How freaky. I've just read an article in the New Scientist (oh yes.. I'm widening my horizons ) that says that our entire view of the universe might be totally and utterly wrong Happy thoughts. It goes into quatum theory, but bypassing that, I'll try and explain. It's a bit wordy, but it brings up some philosophical points that really made me think.. so please read this

You can create pairs of particles called entangled electrons. They have opposite spins, one up and one down, because they are thought to always be opposite. A physicist called John Bell devised a thought experiment where two entangled electrons were seperated, and their spin measured on opposite sides of the world to see what would happen. He calculated an outcome based on three assumptions:

:: Whatever happens to the electrons is real, and is an actual property of them
:: The scientists have free will to measure the electron spin how they want
:: Nothing (no influence) can travel faster than light, so if the experiment is done at the same time, what is done to one electron cannot effect the other.

(This is called Bell's Inequality incase you have the urge to look at lots of maths)

However, in lots of experiments that have been done with quantum theory, this idea has been violated- there's an invisible link between the electrons, so what happens to one makes the other one do the opposite no matter where they are.

In other words, if quantum theory is right, and these things have been measured properly, then one of those assumptions is wrong . If something is faster than light, linking the electrons, that makes Einstein and his relativity theory wrong,  but if nothing can travel faster than light, then there is either no reality or no free will.. everything is predetermined.

That or we're living in the Matrix

[Typhoon]

Care to summarize? Me + Heat = Brainlessness

[Kimoflea]

That WAS summerised.. it was a bloody huge article. Basically, because of a load of experiments done, either something can travel faster than light (impossible because of E=mc^2) or nothing is real, or there is no free will.

[dck]

That was an interesting read...if the article was online can you give me a link?

[Mumei]

There is another option Kim - one I care to subscribe to - and that's there's something else about the universe we don't know

I remember a friend of mine babbling about entangled electrons being one string and that seperating them in the 3 physical dimensions really hasn't seperated them in the higher dimensions (but we were very drunk at the time, and my reading on string theory stopped about 5 years ago - so we're probably using super-hula-hoop theory nowadays LOL)

[Kimoflea]

That was an interesting read...if the article was online can you give me a link?

There will probably be a link at www.newscientist.com but the site's down atm

There is another option Kim - one I care to subscribe to - and that's there's something else about the universe we don't know

I remember a friend of mine babbling about entangled electrons being one string and that seperating them in the 3 physical dimensions really hasn't seperated them in the higher dimensions (but we were very drunk at the time, and my reading on string theory stopped about 5 years ago - so we're probably using super-hula-hoop theory nowadays LOL)

Oh, we know nothing I just believe that the more we try and understand, the more complicated it all gets. I'm sure that's already a theory, but if not, it's copyrighted so don't touch

Edit Analogue- It probably doesn't make sense, lol. That's what physics is all about

[Frizzle]

Who cares? :blink:

[Funnlecake]

well I dont think were in the matrix but I think things can move alot faster then light in other demensions.

[Theclues]

because me stupid I didnt understand some of that (hey im only in year 9!) but I did understand the last paragraph. thats really intersesting. all those years of stupidity beleiving e=mc(wheres the squared button) was right(assuming this article is correct)
and how do u know there are other dimesions Funnlecake?   :blink:

Edited by Theclues, 18 June 2005 - 10:19 PM.

[Bahbuu]

...

matrix

I...

am...

bahbuu...

*does superman thing*

how about that string theory thing... I forgot what it was... lol

[TheWu]

Wow.. How freaky. I've just read an article in the New Scientist (oh yes.. I'm widening my horizons ) that says that our entire view of the universe might be totally and utterly wrong Happy thoughts. It goes into quatum theory, but bypassing that, I'll try and explain. It's a bit wordy, but it brings up some philosophical points that really made me think.. so please read this

You can create pairs of particles called entangled electrons. They have opposite spins, one up and one down, because they are thought to always be opposite. A physicist called John Bell devised a thought experiment where two entangled electrons were seperated, and their spin measured on opposite sides of the world to see what would happen. He calculated an outcome based on three assumptions:

:: Whatever happens to the electrons is real, and is an actual property of them
:: The scientists have free will to measure the electron spin how they want
:: Nothing (no influence) can travel faster than light, so if the experiment is done at the same time, what is done to one electron cannot effect the other.

(This is called Bell's Inequality incase you have the urge to look at lots of maths)

However, in lots of experiments that have been done with quantum theory, this idea has been violated- there's an invisible link between the electrons, so what happens to one makes the other one do the opposite no matter where they are.

In other words, if quantum theory is right, and these things have been measured properly, then one of those assumptions is wrong . If something is faster than light, linking the electrons, that makes Einstein and his relativity theory wrong,  but if nothing can travel faster than light, then there is either no reality or no free will.. everything is predetermined.

That or we're living in the Matrix

Probably not.