a reply to: AlienView
There are somethings about your OP that do not sit quite right...
Just got finished watching an interesting NOVA program called "Einstein's Quantum Riddle".
Showed a history of the debate - Einstein did not like Quatum Entanglement and thought it somehow violated his concept of
the univere of space and time.
And this is the beauty of science. We all know how well respected, nay revered the great Einstein was, and is to this day. His theories paved the way
for the next great era of scientific exploration, and people have drawn inspiration from his incredible insights ever since their publication,
arguably more today than in his own time. But unlike every other system of thought existing on the face of this Earth, the scientific method does not
give a damn what your name is. It will give credit only where it is due, and where it is not, find fault and correct its missteps. Its not a religion,
its a method. That is what allows it to be useful to our species in practical ways, and to all the species at once, not just those who believe in it.
So Einstein didn't like it... Just because Einstein was a legend in his own time, does not mean that his works are sacred. They are not in and of
themselves. The scientific method demands that its own output be picked apart again and again, tested with new methods as they become available, with
new information as it is gleaned from the universe, to ensure that its output is strong enough to be relied upon as the years progress.
It showed how it has been proven, without a doubt [suppossedly] that Quantum Entanglement is a fact.
But what have they really proven? That on a quantum level particles are entangled no matter how far the distance they are separated.
At first this seems fascinating - But so what? - What has actually been proven? - That the fabric [matrix] of the univese is all One?
That's elementary Buddhism and required no science to deduce
And here we come to the part where you start to get things a little bit around your neck. Let me assist you in disentangling yourself from this
thicket of failure.
What you seem to be suggesting, is that those investigating the area of quantum entanglement, have wasted their time because the fact that all things
are one has been "known" for eons. I would argue that no, it has not been known at all, for eons or for any particularly great amount of time. It has
been BELIEVED by many people over a great many years, but there is a large amount of difference between belief and knowledge. Furthermore, that is not
what quantum entanglement suggests, its not the focus and should not be, of the investigations into entanglement that are currently afoot, nor any
which have preceded them.
Quantum entanglement does not, in any way hold that all things are one thing. What it DOES is describe a state where two particles can be made to
behave in such a way, that causing a change to one, will cause a change to the other, across basically any amount of distance, the spooky action that
Einstein was referring to. That, rather specifically, is not the same as all things being one thing. Its two things, being two things, but BEHAVING
like one thing. It is absolutely not ALL things behaving like one thing, and if it were, these experiments would have probably shattered this reality
by now, in a way that we could not help but to notice. Its not one thing in two different places, its not all matter and energy being the exact same,
its not the single electron argument or any other thing. It is very specifically quantum entanglement.
You seem to be conflating things together that cannot be resolved into a single whole. You call belief knowledge, and seem to regard offhandedly the
real knowledge being gained by means other than belief. That is deeply unwise, and guarantees at least some ignorance will creep into your life with
your own permission. I know I have some in mine, but that is despite my efforts, not as a result of my extending a hand toward ignorance and beckoning
it to me.
As for your query about the idea that observing the entanglement creates it...
I think you may have misunderstood the double slit experiment if that is a serious concern for you, either that or you have failed to understand
just how many different methods of assessing the viability of quantum entanglement, have been used over the years to see it working. First, just for
clarities sake, the observer effect is not some mysterious force that happens when humans are attentively looking at a computer screen, or a page of
printed results, or down a scope at an object. The observer effect merely refers to situations where, in order to observe something, a detector of
some kind was designed, whose properties and method of operation changed the state of the area under examination, thus changing the outcome of the
testing. It is not some kind of hand wavy, hippy dippy term to describe some inexplicable difference between a watched pot and an unwatched one.
The experiments which have (not just supposedly, but actually) shown entanglement to be a genuine thing, were designed with the full understanding of
the observer effect, what it is, what it isn't and there was likely a whole section of the action plan for the experiment, entirely devoted to the
task of removing that variable from the experiment. Suffice to say, it is beyond ridiculous to assume that all of the many groups who have studied
this phenomenon, have come up against the observer problem in a way that makes their results useless, especially when you consider just how many
separate methods have come to the precise same conclusions about the existence of entanglement as a very real phenomenon.
In short, Einstein wasn't wrong, but he wasn't absolutely right either, the observer effect isn't magic, and quantum entanglement is not a
philosophy, its an observed phenomena.
edit on 30-1-2019 by TrueBrit because: corrections