"I admit— I don't understand this physics article at all." Topic

I suspect the journalist really didn't either.

link

So, what is the significance of this experiment?

Am I still correct in my understanding that quantum entanglement still occurs, and isn't explained or explained away by this experiment, merely that this experiment eliminates some potential causes and/or potential error sources as being factors in determining the cause or process of quantum entanglement? (Heck, I'm barely certain I understand what I just wrote myself.)

Ah well. Bring on the quantum entanglement ansibles, that's what I really want. Or quantum entanglement jump drives/ teleporters. That would be even better.

How do they know which particles are entangled? We ain't never gonna have a warp drive as long as all these particles is tangled up, Mr. Scott.

In short, these teenie tiny particles are monogamous. The loophole that was closed is that it doesn't matter if they are both the same polarity or not. Or maybe I have my news stories confused.

In short, these teenie tiny particles are monogamous.

That's good to know. Particle promiscuity is one of the greatest evils plaguing society. One particle, one opposite, one pair, forever, that's the way it oughta be!

Okay, clearly I still don't understand…

What about gay particales, are they intangled or is gravity still fighting equal rights of sub atomic particals?

Yup. Me neither.

Parzival – You aren't going to get Teleportation. What you do get is faster than light speed communication

A spaceship at Pluto is just under 16000 light seconds away, meaning signal to get there takes about 4h25. If you could use tangles particles – change the spin on one, it changes the other sending a 1 or a 0 – means signals take 1-2 seconds- you could give have near real time conversation.

What this article is saying is they are now sure all particles work like this, not just the observed ones. the double slit experiment has shows that somehow photons know if they are being watched, and only do weird stuff if you don't observe them.

I've always understood the "particles know they are being watched" concept as more a factor of "the action of making observation of subatomic particles possible inherently inputs energy into the situation and thus affects the state of the particle." But I could be wrong about that.

I'm also not clear how you can know whether or not a particle changes it state while "not being observed" without in some way observing that particle. Seems a bit paradoxical.

I've often thought that the particle-state change offered the opportunity for FTL communication, but that seems to violate the assertion by physicists (Hawking being one) that just as matter cannot be transmitted or made to exceed the speed of light under the Law of Relativity, neither can information. No, I don't get that, either.

I'm also not clear how you can know whether or not a particle changes it state while "not being observed" without in some way observing that particle. Seems a bit paradoxical.

Not really, Parzival.

First off, I'm a Biology grad, so much of Subatomic Physics seems counterintuitive to me also.

Many things in our studies are not observed directly. We see them indirectly by artifacts or by effects they have on the things that we can observe.

We have known of the existence of extra-solar planets long before we saw any. We knew that certain encephalopathies suggested infectious agents different from bacteria and viruses long before prions were known. We now have observational proof that Dark Matter exists, but we don't know that it is made of. On a much cruder scale, none of us have ever seen an Imperial Roman Legionary. But we know they existed.

It is physically impossible for us to "see" how a photon or any other such particle behaves. We can only indirectly deduce it's behavior and characteristicts by careful observation. That, and a lot of theorizing.

Yes, of course— I should have thought of that. Mind blank— I was too focused on "observation" being direct rather than based on indirect evidence, etc.. D'oh! Thanks for hitting my "reset button," Bowman.