Quantum Entanglement, Is it really Spooky Action at a Distance ?

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.

You can see it here:


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 - The video showed how many 'hippie type' physicists had some best
selling books on mixing Quantum Entanglement with Oriental Philosophy - I may have read one way back when - yes it's interesting.

But what ocurred to me after the NOVA video, which showed the latest experiment using the whole universe to prove
Quantum Entanglement is an apparent disregard of the 'Observer effect' which supposedly they are trying to consider......

BUT are they considering the fact that in the process of doing the experiment they are causing the entanglement ???

Is Quantum Entanglement occurring if your not looking for it ?

They have shown that doing certain measurements causes one particle to disappear
- Could I surmise that not doing any measurements [no experiment] would completely negate Quantum Entanglement ?

The main and final question is:

Is Quantum Entanglement no more than an illusion caused by a creative observation that is causing it

a reply to: AlienView

Nice! Ill listen to this today.
In exchange check this one out.


If you're unfamiliar with him, Brian Cox is a professor of Particle physics.
For some reason, the volume level in this pod is lower than the other Rogan pods.
But its a great listen if your up for it.

a reply to: AlienView

Ah yes, the observer. A word that is people just love to abuse.

Here is the thing though. The universe is just a bunch of matter quanta interacting with each other according to some rules. The entanglement is a natural part of these interactions. Now if you take a lot of those quantum interactions and look at the average behavior you'll get our nice and cushy macroscopic reality. There is no "observer" involved.

a reply to: AlienView

Its a good question, I think.

A good way to start a brainstorming session.

But ultimately, it may not matter. I know it sounds a little childish, but seriously, we will never know. We will never be able to know without looking. And if we arent looking at something, then, as long as it isn't effecting us then I repeat to you your own question in your OP: "So what?"

The "spooky action" IS occuring...as long as someone is looking at it. Just like the sky is blue, as long as someone is looking at it. For all we know, when nobody is looking, a disco ball lowers down out of the ceiling of the sky and a party begins.

Sorry, if you want the truth, I'm not Actually a scientist... I just took to wearing this lab coat and stethoscope many years ago, and I got addicted to the respect, people suddenly cared about my opinion.

a reply to: AlienView

Yes, very interesting!

Thing is, we are just now observing the quantum reality. What if there's a very smaller scale that we're not familiar with and our tools can't observe or measure?

It can be almost anything. Endless possibilities at this point.

My take is we are on a GTA XV and Aliens are playing us.

And the Quantum Physics are just glitches in the code.

Let me know when we can use all this to open a stargate to some interesting locale. Thanks

The measurement problem is being discussed in this video.

a reply to: AlienView

While the quantum world is batcrap crazy, quantum entanglement is kinda simple, with extra emphasis on 'kinda.'

Imagine if I bumped into you on the street and we both drop our keys, suddenly whenever we unlock our doors, we have to do it at the same time, no matter where we are in the universe. QE has been explored in science fiction as an instantaneous interstellar communication device.

Explaining quantum mechanics is like trying to slam dunk an airplane through a basketball hoop, it's a messed up microcosm.

Quantum computing to Space travel to communication.

That nut ever gets cracked.

The universe is ours.( baring hostile aliens that want to eat us, or has acid for blood, or wants to assimilate us).

Beam me up Scotty.

a reply to: AlienView

Quantum entanglement is an oddity. But it's one of those oddities that seem to make sense on a theoretical and mathematical plane...when taken alone. To me QE proves that faster than light can be a reality. Just not in the sense of travel as we know it. (From point A to point B.) Because QE makes both point A and point B the same point.

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.

a reply to: AlienView

While your question is interesting, if we are to inject metaphysical and/or philosophical (another spooky action close up) properties into quantum observations then it becomes even more mind boggling if we think that in some way our thoughts can affect entanglement or gravity(?) within it. One would have to assume our thoughts can be projected outwards as energy or a force and become part of the whole.

If entanglement has to do with gravity (what's that?) then scientists are now questioning if our measurements of gravitational waves are being done correctly, or repeatable. So, maybe we need to get back to the grass roots of measuring our known reality correctly first.



(Quote from vid: "This whole thing is bogus"...ha ha ha)

If quantum observation is the soup de jour. Is it just mankind that affects the results or can dogs and cats get in on the action?

My animals stare off into space a lot and I don't see anything...wtf!

a reply to: olaru12

This is a result of the flaws in science communication in the gutter press and even some of the more respected public broadcasters who deal with these topics in any way.

No, HUMAN observation, canine observation, feline observation of quantum effects or the double slit experiment (which made the observer effect famous more than almost any other test it was identified in), does NOT produce different results than an unobserved test. TECHNOLOGY used to observe the test DOES.

Our consciousness of what is occurring, does not change what is occurring. Our technological means of recording what happened, is what changes the result. They are very different situations. One is magic and has nothing to do with either this reality or indeed the science being discussed here and the other is simply a poor choice of detection method, which IS whats happening in with the observer effect.

So, spooky action at a distance? Sure. Spooky conscious ability to effect deep physics without moving anything or using technology? No.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So, spooky action at a distance? Sure. Spooky conscious ability to effect deep physics without moving anything or using technology? No.

So no psychokinesis then? Idk...I have a lady friend that favors the craps table and she claims that she can feel the days she can control the dice. She defies the statistical odds. Or perhaps it's just luck.

I prefer to relate quantum to mysticism and majic. Hopeless romantic I suppose!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AlienView

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.

Too bad that this doesn't describe the behavior of scientists all that well in practice in some cases (regarding some subjects), especially when you're talking about particular cliques in the field of quantum cosmology or 'rockstar' physicists whose careers revolve around quantum mechanics (such as Stephen Hawking).

David Berlinski (mathematician, molecular biology) does a better job at that:

"The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is of course preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized… Look, these people are only human, they hate criticism — me too. The idea that scientists are absolutely eager to be beaten up is one of the myths put out by scientists, and it works splendidly so they can avoid criticism."

"We’re asking for standards of behavior that would be wonderful to expect but that no serious man does expect. A hundred years of fraudulent drawings suggesting embryological affinities that don’t exist — that’s just what I would expect if biologists were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular democratic society. Let’s be reasonable… the popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution, and scientists as men who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data, is okay for a PBS special, but that’s not the real world; that’s not what’s taking place…"

The link in there goes to a video concerning what he's referring to there.

Forget all that crap, listen to Diehold on youtube for the real answers to this reality.

Ready for someone to explain and 'prove' I'm right? - Unfortunately no such person exists, or at least exists in a way that will make sense to most - But some might understand this and therefor I challenge you to do so:

"Explained & Debunked: Quantum Entanglement & Bell Test Experiments"

Aimed at the intelligent lay person & unlike most other quantum entanglement videos, this does not miss out vital information in favour of over simplification. We explain the 'spooky action at a distance' quantum effect (in Bell test experiments) that underpins quantum computing. We also explore Einstein's claim that such results can be explained using local hidden variables.

Can you see the problem with physics on the quantum level? - What does it really have to do with the world you live in.
if anything?

Remember the old saying: "If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters they will eventually type out
the Encyclopedia Britannica" ?

Now here is the more logical probability quote from AleinView:

"If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters there is a slight possibility that 1/10 of 1% of the typewriters
will not end-up broken!"


STill there are physicists, besides Einstein who are worth understanding
- For example the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck who said:

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

a reply to: olaru12

I can appreciate that, and I think some consideration for the spiritual and fantastic is necessary to have a healthy version of the human experience.

However, first of all the science and technology forum is perhaps not the best spot to discuss those matters. You see, a clear understanding of physical, testable phenomena and the implications of their existence, as well as theoretical (the definition favoured by the most rigorous logical approach, as opposed to any other) scientific inquiry, are and have always been damaged by cross contamination between the spiritual and the physical. Whether its the Church putting Galileo under house arrest for correctly adopting the Copernican idea of the solar system, rather than continuing along the demonstrably inaccurate geocentrism of the era, whether its lawmakers banning the use of corpses for study of anatomy which resulted in black markets and wise, doctorly types being forced into criminality in order to make best use of their intelligence and capacity to heal the living, or whether its a more modern example, like certain uses of genetic material and the like being banned on ethical grounds, despite the fact that material not animated with soul is not something which REQUIRES ethical consideration currently, the forcing together of science and spirituality is not healthy for either thing.

It was a cancer on the early Church, because all meaningful wisdom pertaining to the physical world, the universe, and so on was crushed and people did not appreciate being held back for all the years of their iron fisted control. Similarly, science was held in abeyance for what amounted to no GOOD reason, when it was in its first major resurgence since the dawn of civilisation, and has been held back in similar manner since, every new step along the road to some kind of deep understanding of the matters pertaining to the universe and the human place within it, every step which sought to gain information was and is being stymied, globally, by powers whose motivations are spiritual, whose understanding of the universe is less than adequate to making them properly qualified to comment, leave alone make law preventing the investigation of scientific matters, the answering of questions by those equipped to examine them.

I say to you, that while I believe it is possible for a mind to comprehend both spirit and science, that they are in no way the same thing, and that they cannot be used for like purpose. Matters best dealt with by examination of the spirit and the soul, are not matters that science will ever or could ever comprehend, because the language of these things, their structure is not logical, nor testable, nor observable in any way that a scientist will ever be able to grasp.

Put another way, the spirit is a thing which exists outside of reality, outside of even the possible multiverse that our own reality is suspended in. For things in the universe, within reality, use science. For things without, use spirit. Never, however, attempt to use the one, to solve a conundrum posed by the other. They are different tools, to be used on totally different elements within this system we call life. Using the one to achieve the work properly done by the other... well, to put it into basic terms, using the wrong tool on your fixings just winds up with damaged surfaces, heads shearing off or rounding, and means that those fixings, be they screws or bolts will never turn. All you do is make the work impossible, if you force the wrong tool for the job, into realms it was not designed for.

a reply to: whereislogic

I think we all know by now that un-sourced quotes, and a youtube video, do not a complete argument make.