Refers to "Theory of the Universe"

quantum entanglement


There are so many good articles on the Internet that help to develop adequate ideas about "entangled states" that it remains to make the most appropriate selections, building the level of description that seems acceptable for a worldview site.

Subject of the article: many people are close to the idea that all the bewitching quirks of entangled states could be explained in this way. We mix black and white balls, without looking we pack them in boxes and send them in different directions. We open the box on one side, look: a black ball, after which we are 100% sure that it is white in the other box. That's all:)

The purpose of the article is not a strict immersion in all the features of understanding "entangled states", but the compilation of a system of general ideas, with an understanding of the main principles. That's the way it's supposed to be about everything :)

Let's set the defining context right away. When specialists (and not discussants who are far from this specificity, even if they are scientists in some way) talk about the entanglement of quantum objects, they mean not that it forms a single whole with some kind of connection, but that one object becomes quantum characteristics exactly the same as the other (but not all, but those that allow identity in a pair according to Pauli's law, so the spin of an entangled pair is not identical, but mutually complementary). Those. this is no connection and no process of interaction, even if it can be described by a common function. This is a characteristic of a state that can be “teleported” from one object to another (by the way, here too, the misinterpretation of the word “teleport” is also common). If you do not immediately decide on this, then you can go very far into mysticism. Therefore, in the first place, everyone who is interested in the issue should be clearly sure what exactly is meant by "confusion".

What this article was started for is reduced to one question. The difference between the behavior of quantum objects and classical objects is manifested in the only method of verification so far known: whether or not a certain verification condition is met - Bell's inequality (more details below), which for "entangled" quantum objects behaves as if there is a connection between objects sent in different directions. But the connection, as it were, is not real, because. neither information nor energy can be transmitted.

Moreover, this relationship does not depend neither distance nor time: if two objects were "entangled", then, regardless of the safety of each of them, the second behaves as if the connection still exists (although the presence of such a connection can only be detected when measuring both objects, such a measurement can be separated in time: first measure, then destroy one of the objects, and measure the second later. For example, see R. Penrose). It is clear that any kind of "connection" becomes difficult to understand in this case, and the question arises as follows: can the law of the probability of falling out of the measured parameter (which is described by the wave function) be such that inequality is not violated at each of the ends, and with general statistics from both ends - was violated - and without any connection, of course, except for the connection by an act of general emergence.

I will give an answer in advance: yes, maybe, provided that these probabilities are not "classical", but operate with complex variables to describe a "superposition of states" - as if simultaneously finding all possible states with a certain probability for each.

For quantum objects, the descriptor of their state (wave function) is just that. If we talk about describing the position of an electron, then the probability of finding it determines the topology of the "cloud" - the shape of the electron orbital. What is the difference between classical and quantum?

Imagine a rapidly spinning bicycle wheel. There is a red side reflector disk attached to it somewhere, but we can only see a denser shadow of blur in this place. The probability that, having put a stick into the wheel, the reflector will stop in a certain position from the stick is simply determined: one stick - one position. Sunem two sticks, but only the one that appears a little earlier will stop the wheel. If we try to stick the sticks completely simultaneously, achieving that there is no time between the ends of the stick that come into contact with the wheel, then some uncertainty will appear. In "there was no time" between interactions with the essence of the object - the whole essence of understanding quantum miracles :)

The speed of "rotation" of what determines the shape of an electron (polarization - the propagation of an electrical disturbance) is equal to the limiting speed with which anything can propagate in nature at all (the speed of light in a vacuum). We know the conclusion of the theory of relativity: in this case, the time for this perturbation becomes zero: there is nothing in nature that could be realized between any two points of propagation of this perturbation, there is no time for it. This means that the perturbation is able to interact with any other "sticks" that affect it without spending time - simultaneously. And the probability of what result will be obtained at a particular point in space during the interaction should be calculated by the probability that takes into account this relativistic effect: Due to the fact that there is no time for an electron, it is not able to choose the slightest difference between the two "sticks" during the interaction with them and does it simultaneously from its "point of view": the electron passes through two slots simultaneously with different wave density in each and then interferes with itself as two superimposed waves.

Here is the difference between the descriptions of probabilities in the classics and quants: quantum correlations are "stronger" than classical ones. If the result of a coin drop depends on many influencing factors, but in general they are uniquely determined in such a way that one has only to make an accurate machine for throwing coins, and they will fall in the same way, then the randomness "disappeared". If, however, we make an automaton that pokes into an electron cloud, then the result will be determined by the fact that each poke will always hit something, only with a different density of the electron's essence in this place. There are no other factors, except for the static distribution of the probability of finding the measured parameter in the electron, and this is a determinism of a completely different kind than in the classics. But this is also determinism; it is always calculable, reproducible, only with a singularity described by the wave function. At the same time, such quantum determinism concerns only a holistic description of the quantum wave. But, in view of the absence of proper time for a quantum, it interacts absolutely randomly, i.e. there is no criterion to predict in advance the result of measuring the totality of its parameters. In this meaning of e (in the classical view), it is absolutely non-deterministic.

The electron really and really exists in the form of a static formation (and not a point rotating in orbit) - a standing wave of electric perturbation, which has one more relativistic effect: perpendicular to the main plane of "propagation" (it is clear why in quotation marks:) the electric field arises also a static region of polarization that is capable of influencing the same region of another electron: the magnetic moment. Electric polarization in an electron gives the effect of an electric charge, its reflection in space in the form of the possibility of influencing other electrons - in the form of a magnetic charge, which does not exist by itself without an electric one. And if in an electrically neutral atom the electric charges are compensated by the charges of the nuclei, then the magnetic ones can be oriented in one direction and we will get a magnet. For a deeper understanding of this - in the article .

The direction in which the magnetic moment of an electron is directed is called spin. Those. spin - a manifestation of the method of superimposing an electrical deformation wave on itself with the formation of a standing wave. The numerical value of the spin corresponds to the characteristic of the superposition of the wave on itself. For an electron: +1/2 or -1/2 (the sign symbolizes the direction of the lateral shift of the polarization - the "magnetic" vector).

If there is one electron on the outer electron layer of an atom and suddenly another one joins it (the formation of a covalent bond), then they, like two magnets, immediately stand in position 69, forming a paired configuration with a bond energy that must be broken in order to again share these electrons. The total spin of such a pair is 0.

Spin is the parameter that plays important role when considering entangled states. For a freely propagating electromagnetic quantum, the essence of the conditional parameter "spin" is still the same: the orientation of the magnetic component of the field. But it is no longer static and does not lead to the appearance of a magnetic moment. To fix it, you need not a magnet, but a polarizer slot.

To seed ideas about quantum entanglements, I suggest reading a popular and short article by Alexei Levin: Passion in the distance . Please follow the link and read before continuing :)

So, specific measurement parameters are realized only during measurement, and before that they existed in the form of the probability distribution that constituted the statics of the relativistic effects of the microcosm polarization propagation dynamics visible to the macrocosm. To understand the essence of what is happening in the quantum world means to penetrate into the manifestations of such relativistic effects, which in fact give the quantum object the properties of being simultaneously in different states until the moment of a particular measurement.

An "entangled state" is a completely deterministic state of two particles that have such an identical dependence of the description of quantum properties that consistent correlations appear at both ends, due to the peculiarities of the essence of quantum statics, which have a consistent behavior. In contrast to macrostatistics, in quantum statistics it is possible to preserve such correlations for objects separated in space and time and previously matched in terms of parameters. This is manifested in the statistics of the fulfillment of Bell's inequalities.

What is the difference between the wave function (our abstract description) of unentangled electrons of two hydrogen atoms (despite the fact that its parameters will be generally accepted quantum numbers)? Nothing, except that the spin of the unpaired electron is random without violating Bell's inequalities. In the case of the formation of a paired spherical orbital in the helium atom, or in the covalent bonds of two hydrogen atoms, with the formation of a molecular orbital generalized by two atoms, the parameters of the two electrons turn out to be mutually consistent. If the entangled electrons are split, and they start moving in different directions, then a parameter appears in their wave function that describes the displacement of the probability density in space from time - the trajectory. And this does not mean at all that the function is spread out in space, simply because the probability of finding an object becomes zero at some distance from it, and nothing remains behind to indicate the probability of finding an electron. This is all the more evident in the case of the pair being spaced apart in time. Those. there are two local and independent descriptors of particles moving in opposite directions. Although one general descriptor can still be used, it is the right of the one who formalizes :)

In addition, the environment of particles cannot remain indifferent and is also subject to modification: the descriptors of the wave function of the particles of the environment change and participate in the resulting quantum statistics by their influence (giving rise to such phenomena as decoherence). But usually it never occurs to anyone to describe this as a general wave function, although this is also possible.

In many sources you can get acquainted with these phenomena in detail.

M.B. Mensky writes:

"One of the purposes of this article... is to substantiate the point of view that there is a formulation of quantum mechanics in which no paradoxes arise and within which all the questions that physicists usually ask can be answered. Paradoxes arise only when the researcher is not satisfied with this "physical" level of theory, when he raises questions that are not customary in physics, in other words, when he takes the liberty of trying to go beyond the limits of physics.. ...Specific features quantum mechanics associated with entangled states were first formulated in connection with the EPR paradox, but at present they are not perceived as paradoxical. For people who work professionally with the quantum mechanical formalism (i.e., for most physicists), there is nothing paradoxical either in EPR pairs, or even in very complex entangled states with a large number of terms and a large number of factors in each term. The results of any experiments with such states are, in principle, easy to calculate (although technical difficulties in calculating complex entangled states are, of course, possible)."

Although, it must be said, in reasoning about the role of consciousness, conscious choice in quantum mechanics, Mensky turns out to be the one who takes " take the liberty of trying to go beyond physics". This is reminiscent of attempts to approach the phenomena of the psyche. As a quantum professional, Mensky is good, but in the mechanisms of the psyche, he, like Penrose, is naive.

Very briefly and conditionally (only to grasp the essence) about the use of entangled states in quantum cryptography and teleportation (because this is what strikes the imagination of grateful viewers).

So, cryptography. You need to send the sequence 1001

We use two channels. On the first one we start up an entangled particle, on the second - information on how to interpret the received data in the form of a single bit.

Suppose that there is an alternative possible state of the used quantum mechanical parameter spin in conditional states: 1 or 0. In this case, the probability of their falling out with each released pair of particles is truly random and does not convey any meaning a.

First transfer. When measuring here it turned out that the state of the particle is 1. This means that the other one has 0. In order to volume at the end to get the required unit, we transmit bit 1. There they measure the state of the particle and, to find out what it means, add it to the transmitted 1. They get 1. At the same time, they check by white that the entanglement has not been broken, i.e. infa is not intercepted.

Second transfer. The state 1 came out again. The other one has 0. We pass info - 0. We add it up, we get the required 0.

Third gear. The state here is 0. There, it means - 1. To get 0, we pass 0. We add, we get 0 (in the least significant bit).

Fourth. Here - 0, there - 1, it is necessary that it be interpreted as 1. We pass information - 0.

Here in this principle. Interception of the info channel is useless due to a completely uncorrelated sequence (encryption with the state key of the first particle). Interception of a tangled channel - disrupts reception and is detected. The transmission statistics from both ends (the receiving end has all the necessary data on the transmitted end) according to Bell determines the correctness and non-interception of the transmission.

This is what teleportation is about. There is no arbitrary imposition of a state on a particle, but only a prediction of what this state will be after (and only after) here the particle is taken out of the connection by measurement. And then they say, like, that there was a transfer of a quantum state with the destruction of the complementary state at the starting point. Having received information about the state here, one can in one way or another correct the quantum mechanical parameter so that it turns out to be identical to the one here, but it will no longer be here, and one speaks of the ban on cloning in a bound state.

It seems that no analogues of these phenomena in the macrocosm, no balls, apples, etc. from classical mechanics cannot serve to interpret the manifestation of such a nature of quantum objects (in fact, there are no fundamental obstacles to this, which will be shown below in the final link). This is the main difficulty for those who want to get a visible "explanation". This does not mean that such a thing is not conceivable, as is sometimes claimed. This means that it is necessary to work rather painstakingly on relativistic representations, which play a decisive role in the quantum world and connect the world of quantums with the macro world.

But this is not necessary either. Let us recall the main task of representation: what should be the law of materialization of the measured parameter (which is described by the wave function), so that the inequality is not violated at each end, and with common statistics from both ends it is violated. There are many interpretations for understanding this using auxiliary abstractions. They talk about the same thing different languages such abstractions. Of these, two are the most significant in terms of correctness shared among the carriers of representations. I hope that after what has been said it will be clear what is meant :)

Copenhagen interpretation from an article about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox:

" (EPR-paradox) - an apparent paradox... Indeed, let's imagine that on two planets in different parts of the Galaxy there are two coins that always fall out in the same way. If you log the results of all the flips, and then compare them, they will match. The drops themselves are random, they can not be influenced in any way. It is impossible, for example, to agree that an eagle is a unit, and a tail is a zero, and thus transmit a binary code. After all, the sequence of zeros and ones will be random on both ends of the wire and will not carry any meaning.

It turns out that the paradox has an explanation that is logically compatible with both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

One might think that this explanation is too implausible. It's so strange that Albert Einstein never believed in a "god playing dice". But careful experimental tests of Bell's inequalities have shown that there are non-local accidents in our world.

It is important to emphasize one consequence of this logic already mentioned: measurements over entangled states will not violate relativity and causality only if they are truly random. There should be no connection between the circumstances of the measurement and the disturbance, not the slightest regularity, because otherwise there would be the possibility of instantaneous transmission of information. Thus, quantum mechanics (in the Copenhagen interpretation) and the existence of entangled states prove the existence of indeterminism in nature."

In a statistical interpretation, this is shown through the concept of "statistical ensembles" (the same):

From the point of view of statistical interpretation, the real objects of study in quantum mechanics are not single micro-objects, but statistical ensembles of micro-objects that are in the same macro conditions. Accordingly, the phrase "the particle is in such and such a state" actually means "the particle belongs to such and such a statistical ensemble" (consisting of many similar particles). Therefore, the choice of one or another subensemble in the initial ensemble significantly changes the state of the particle, even if there was no direct impact on it.

As a simple illustration, consider the following example. Let's take 1000 colored coins and drop them on 1000 sheets of paper. The probability that an “eagle” is printed on a sheet randomly chosen by us is 1/2. Meanwhile, for sheets on which the coins are “tails” up, the same probability is 1 - that is, we have the opportunity to indirectly establish the nature of the print on paper, looking not at the sheet itself, but only at the coin. However, the ensemble associated with such an “indirect measurement” is completely different from the original one: it no longer contains 1000 sheets of paper, but only about 500!

Thus, the refutation of the uncertainty relation in the “paradox” of EPR would be valid only if for the initial ensemble it would be possible to simultaneously select a non-empty subensemble both on the basis of momentum and on the basis of spatial coordinates. However, it is precisely the impossibility of such a choice that is affirmed by the uncertainty relation! In other words, the “paradox” of the EPR actually turns out to be a vicious circle: it presupposes the falsity of the refuted fact.

Variant with a "superluminal signal" from a particle A to a particle B is also based on ignoring the fact that the probability distributions of the values ​​of the measured quantities characterize not a specific pair of particles, but a statistical ensemble containing a huge number of such pairs. Here, as a similar situation, we can consider the situation when a colored coin is thrown onto a sheet in the dark, after which the sheet is pulled out and locked in a safe. The probability that an “eagle” is imprinted on a sheet is a priori equal to 1/2. And the fact that it immediately turns into 1 if we turn on the light and make sure that the coin is “tails” up does not at all indicate the ability of our gaze to mist to influence the objects locked in the safe in an imaginary way.

More: AA Pechenkin Ensemble Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in the USA and the USSR.

And one more interpretation from http://ru.philosophy.kiev.ua/iphras/library/phnauk5/pechen.htm :

Van Fraassen's modal interpretation proceeds from the fact that the state of a physical system changes only causally, i.e. in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, however, this state does not unambiguously determine the values ​​of physical quantities found during the measurement.

Popper gives here his favorite example: a children's billiard (a board lined with needles, on which a metal ball, symbolizing a physical system, rolls down from above - the billiard itself symbolizes an experimental device). When the ball is at the top of the billiard, we have one disposition, one propensity to reach some point at the bottom of the board. If we fixed the ball somewhere in the middle of the board, we changed the specification of the experiment and got a new predisposition. Quantum-mechanical indeterminism is preserved here in full: Popper stipulates that the billiard is not a mechanical system. We are unable to trace the trajectory of the ball. But “wave packet reduction” is not an act of subjective observation, it is a conscious redefinition of the experimental situation, a narrowing of the conditions of experience.

To summarize the facts

1. Despite the absolute randomness of the loss of a parameter when measuring in a mass of entangled pairs of particles, consistency is manifested in each such pair: if one particle in a pair turns out to have spin 1, then the other particle in a pair has the opposite spin. This is understandable in principle: since in a paired state there cannot be two particles that have the same spin in the same energy state, then when they are split, if the consistency is preserved, then the spins are still consistent. As soon as the spin of one is determined, the spin of the other will become known, despite the fact that the randomness of the spin in measurements from either side is absolute.

Let me briefly clarify the impossibility of completely identical states of two particles in one place in space-time, which in the model of the structure of the electron shell of an atom is called the Pauli principle, and in quantum mechanical consideration of consistent states - the principle of the impossibility of cloning entangled objects.

There is something (so far unknown) that really prevents a quantum or its corresponding particle from being in one local state with another - completely identical in quantum parameters. This is realized, for example, in the Casimir effect, when virtual quanta between the plates can have a wavelength no longer than the gap. And this is especially clearly realized in the description of an atom, when the electrons of a given atom cannot have identical parameters in everything, which is axiomatically formalized by the Pauli principle.

On the first, nearest layer, only 2 electrons can be found in the form of a sphere (s-electrons). If there are two of them, then they have different spins and are paired (entangled), forming a common wave with the binding energy that must be applied to break this pair.

In the second, more distant and more energetic level, there can be 4 "orbitals" of two paired electrons in the form of a standing wave with a shape like a volume eight (p-electrons). Those. higher energy i occupies more space and allows several coupled pairs to coexist. From the first layer, the second differs energetically by 1 possible discrete energy state (more external electrons, describing a spatially larger cloud, also have a higher energy).

The third layer already spatially allows you to have 9 orbits in the form of a quatrefoil (d-electrons), the fourth - 16 orbits - 32 electrons, the form which also resemble volume eights in different combinations ( f-electrons).

Forms of electron clouds:

a – s-electrons; b – p-electrons; c – d-electrons.

Such a set of discretely different states - quantum numbers - characterize the possible local states of electrons. And here's what comes out of it.

When two electrons with different spinsoneenergy level (although this is fundamentally not necessary: http://www.membrana.ru/lenta/?9250) pair, then a common "molecular orbital" is formed with a reduced energy level due to energy and bonding. Two hydrogen atoms, each having an unpaired electron, form a common overlap of these electrons - a (simple covalent) bond. As long as it exists - truly two electrons have a common coordinated dynamics - a common wave function. How long? "Temperature" or something else that can compensate for the energy of the bond breaks it. The atoms fly apart with electrons no longer having a common wave, but still in a complementary, mutually consistent state of entanglement. But there is no connection anymore :) Here is the moment when it is no longer worth talking about the general wave function, although the probabilistic characteristics in terms of quantum mechanics remain the same as if this function continued to describe the general wave. This just means the preservation of the ability to manifest a consistent correlation.

The method of obtaining entangled electrons through their interaction is described: http://www.scientific.ru/journal/news/n231201.html or popularly-schematically - in http://www.membrana.ru/articles/technic/2002/02/08/170200.html : " To create an "uncertainty relation" for electrons, that is, to "confuse" them, you need to make sure that they are identical in every respect, and then shoot these electrons at the beam splitter (beam splitter). The mechanism "splits" each of the electrons, bringing them into a quantum state of "superposition", as a result of which the electron will move along one of two paths with equal probability.".

2. With measurement statistics on both sides, the mutual consistency of randomness in pairs can lead to a violation of Bell's inequality under certain conditions. But not through the use of some special, yet unknown quantum mechanical essence.

The following small article (based on the ideas set forth by R. Pnrose) allows you to trace (show the principle, example) how this is possible: Relativity of Bell's inequalities or The new mind of the naked king. This is also shown in the work of A.V. Belinsky, published in Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk: Bell's theorem without the assumption of locality. Another work of A.V. Belinsky for reflection by those who are interested: Bell's theorem for trichotomous observables, as well as a discussion with d.f.-m.s., prof., acad. Valery Borisovich Morozov (generally recognized coryphaeus of the forums of the Physics Department of the FRTK-MIPT and "clubs"), where Morozov proposes for consideration both of these works by A.V. Belinsky: Experience of Aspect: a question for Morozov. And in addition to the topic of the possibility of violations of Bell's inequalities without introducing any long-range action: Bell's Inequality Modeling.

I draw your attention to the fact that "Relativity of Bell's Inequalities or the New Mind of the Naked King", as well as "Bell's Theorem without Assumption of Locality" in the context of this article do not pretend to describe the mechanism of quantum mechanical entanglement. The problem is shown in the last sentence of the first link: "There is no reason to refer to the violation of Bell's inequalities as an indisputable refutation of any model of local realism." those. the boundary of its use is the theorem stated at the beginning: "There may be models of classical locality in which Bell's inequalities are violated.". About this - additional explanations in the discussion.

I'll bring my own model.
"Violation of local realism" is just a relativistic effect.
No one (normal) argues with the fact that for a system moving at the limiting speed (the speed of light in vacuum) there is neither space nor time (the Lorentz transformation in this case gives zero time and space), i.e. for a quantum it is both here and there, however far away it may be there.
It is clear that entangled quanta have their own starting point. And electrons are the same quanta in the state of a standing wave, i.e. existing here and there at once for the entire lifetime of the electron. All the properties of quanta turn out to be predetermined for us, those who perceive it from the outside, that's why. We are ultimately made up of quanta that are here and there. For them, the speed of propagation of interaction (limiting speed) is infinitely high. But all these infinities are different, as well as in different lengths of segments, although each has an infinite number of points, but the ratio of these infinities gives the ratio of lengths. This is how time and space appear to us.
For us, local realism is violated in experiments, but not for quanta.
But this discrepancy does not affect reality in any way, because we cannot use such an infinite speed in practice. Neither information, nor, especially matter, is transmitted infinitely fast during "quantum teleportation".
So all this is a joke of relativistic effects, nothing more. They can be used in quantum cryptography or whatever, nor can they be used for real long-range action.

We look visually at the essence of what Bell's inequalities show.
1. If the orientation of the meters at both ends is the same, then the spin measurement at both ends will always be the opposite.
2. If the orientation of the meters is opposite, then the result will be the same.
3. If the orientation of the left gauge differs from the orientation of the right one by less than a certain angle, then point 1 will be implemented and the coincidences will be within the probability predicted by Bell for independent particles.
4. If the angle exceeds, then - point 2 and the matches will be greater than the probability predicted by Bell.

Those. at a smaller angle, we will obtain predominantly opposite values ​​of the spins, and at a larger angle, predominantly coinciding ones.
Why this happens with spin can be imagined, bearing in mind that the spin of an electron is a magnet, and is also measured by the orientation of the magnetic field (or in a free quantum, spin is the direction of polarization and is measured by the orientation of the gap through which the plane of polarization rotation must fall).
It is clear that by sending magnets that were initially linked and retained their mutual orientation when sent, we magnetic field when measuring, we will influence them (turning in one direction or another) in the same way as it happens in quantum paradoxes.
It is clear that when encountering a magnetic field (including the spin of another electron), the spin necessarily orients itself in accordance with it (mutually opposite in the case of the spin of another electron). That is why they say that "spin orientation arises only in the course of measurement", but it depends on its initial position (in which direction to rotate) and the direction of influence of the meter.
It is clear that no long-range actions are required for this, just as it is not required to prescribe such behavior in the initial state of the particles.
I have reason to believe that so far, when measuring the spin of individual electrons, intermediate states of the spin are not taken into account, but only predominantly - along the measuring field and against the field. Method examples: , . It is worth paying attention to the date of development of these methods, which is later than the experiments described above.
The above model, of course, is simplified (in quantum phenomena, the spin is not exactly the real magnets, although it is they that provide all the observed magnetic phenomena) and does not take into account many nuances. Therefore, it is not a description of a real phenomenon, but shows only a possible principle. And he also shows how bad it is to simply trust the descriptive formalism (formulas) without understanding the essence of what is happening.
At the same time, Bell's theorem is correct in the formulation from Aspek's article: "it is impossible to find a theory with an additional parameter that satisfies the general description, which reproduces all the predictions of quantum mechanics." and not at all in the formulation of Penrose, but: "it turns out that it is impossible to reproduce the predictions of quantum theory in this way (non-quantum).". Clearly, in order to prove the theory according to Penrose, it is necessary to prove that Bell's inequalities cannot be violated by any models other than a quantum mechanical experiment.

This is a somewhat exaggerated, one might say vulgar example of interpretation, simply to show how one can be deceived in such results. But let's put a clear meaning on what Bell wanted to prove and what actually happens. Bell created an experiment showing that there is no pre-existing "algorithm" in entanglement, no predetermined correlation (as opponents insisted at the time, saying that there are some hidden parameters that determine such a correlation). And then the probabilities in his experiments should be higher than the probability of a really random process (why is well described below).
BUT in fact, they simply have the same probabilistic dependencies. What does it mean? This means that there is no predetermined, predetermined connection between the fixation of a parameter by a measurement, but such a result of fixation comes from the fact that the processes have the same (complementary) probability function (which, in general, directly follows from quantum mechanical concepts), is which is the realization of a parameter during fixation, which was not defined due to the absence of space and time in its "reference frame" due to the maximum possible dynamics of its existence (the relativistic effect formalized by Lorentz transformations, see Vacuum, quanta, matter).

This is how Brian Greene describes the methodological essence of Bell's experience in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos. From him, each of the two players received many boxes, each with three doors. If the first player opens the same door as the second in a box with the same number, then it flashes with the same light: red or blue.
The first player Scully assumes that this is ensured by the flash color program embedded in each pair, depending on the door, the second player Mulder believes that the flashes follow with equal probability, but are somehow connected (by non-local long-range action). According to the second player, experience decides everything: if the program is, then the probability of the same colors when different doors are randomly opened should be more than 50%, contrary to the true random probability. He gave an example why:
Just to be specific, let's imagine that the program for the sphere in a separate box produces blue (1st door), blue (2nd door) and red (3rd door) colors. Now, since we both choose one of the three doors, there are a total of nine possible combinations of doors that we can choose to open for this box. For example, I can choose the top door on my box, while you can choose the side door on your box; or I can choose the front door and you can choose the top door; etc."
"Oh sure." Scully jumped up. “If we call the top door 1, the side door 2, and the front door 3, then the nine possible door combinations are just (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,1), ( 2.2), (2.3), (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3)."
"Yes, that's right," Mulder continues. - "Now important point: Of these nine possibilities, note that five combinations of doors - (1.1), (2.2), (3.3), (1.2) and (2.1) - lead to the result that we see how the spheres in our boxes flash with the same colors.
The first three combinations of doors are the ones in which we choose the same doors, and as we know, this always leads to the fact that we see the same colors. The other two combinations of doors (1,2) and (2,1) result in the same colors because the program dictates that the spheres will flash the same color - blue - if either door 1 or door 2 is open. So, since 5 is greater than half of 9, this means that for more than half - more than 50 percent - of the possible combinations of doors that we can choose to open, the spheres will flash the same color."
"But wait," Scully protests. - "This is just one example of a special program: blue, blue, red. In my explanation, I assumed that boxes with different numbers could general case will have different programs.
"Really, it doesn't matter. The conclusion is valid for any of the possible programs.

And this is indeed the case if we are dealing with a program. But this is not at all the case if we are dealing with random dependencies for many experiments, but each of these randomnesses has the same form in each experiment.
In the case of electrons, when they were initially bound into a pair, which ensures their completely dependent spins (mutually opposite) and scattered, this interdependence, of course, is preserved at full big picture the true probability of falling out and in the fact that it is impossible to say in advance how the spins of two electrons in a pair have developed before determining one of them, but they "already" (if I may say so in relation to something that does not have its own metric of time and space) have a certain relative position .

Further in Brian Green's book:
there is a way to examine whether we have inadvertently come into conflict with SRT. The common property for matter and energy is that they can transfer information by moving from place to place. Photons, traveling from a radio transmitting station to your receiver, carry information. The electrons, traveling through the cables of the Internet to your computer, carry information. In any situation where something—even something unidentified—is implied to be moving faster speed light, the surest test is to ask if it transmits, or at least can transmit, information. If the answer is no, the standard reasoning passes that nothing exceeds the speed of light and SRT remains unchallenged. In practice, physicists often use this test to determine whether some subtle process violates the laws of special relativity. Nothing survived this test.

As for the approach of R. Penrose and etc. interpreters, then from his work Penrouz.djvu I will try to highlight that fundamental attitude (worldview) that directly leads to mystical views about non-locality (with my comments - black color):

It was necessary to find a way that would allow us to separate truth from assumptions in mathematics - some kind of formal procedure, using which one could say with certainty whether a given mathematical statement is true or not. (objection see Aristotle's method and Truth, criteria of truth). Until this problem is properly solved, one can hardly seriously hope for success in solving other, much more complex problems - those that concern the nature of the forces that move the world, no matter what relationship these same forces may have with mathematical truth. The realization that irrefutable mathematics is the key to understanding the universe is perhaps the first of the most important breakthroughs in science in general. Even the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians guessed about mathematical truths of various kinds, but the first stone in the foundation of mathematical understanding ...
... people for the first time had the opportunity to formulate reliable and obviously irrefutable statements - statements, the truth of which is not in doubt even today, despite the fact that science has stepped far forward since those times. For the first time, the truly timeless nature of mathematics was revealed to people.
What is a mathematical proof? In mathematics, a proof is an impeccable reasoning that uses only the techniques of pure logic. (pure logic does not exist. Logic is an axiomatic formalization of patterns and relationships found in nature) allowing to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the validity of one or another mathematical statement on the basis of the validity of any other mathematical statements, either pre-established in a similar way, or not requiring proof at all (special elementary statements, the truth of which, in the general opinion, is self-evident, are called axioms) . A proved mathematical statement is usually called a theorem. This is where I don't understand him: after all, there are simply stated but not proven theorems.
... Objective mathematical concepts should be represented as timeless objects; one should not think that their existence begins at the moment they appear in one form or another in the human imagination.
... Thus, mathematical existence differs not only from the existence of the physical, but also from the existence that our conscious perception is able to endow the object with. Nevertheless, it is clearly connected with the last two forms of existence - i.e. with physical and mental existence. connection is a completely physical concept, what does Penrose mean here?- and the corresponding connections are as fundamental as they are mysterious.
Rice. 1.3. Three "worlds" - Platonic mathematical, physical and mental - and three fundamental riddles connecting them...
... So, according to the one shown in fig. 1.3 scheme, the entire physical world is controlled by mathematical laws. In later chapters of the book, we will see that there is strong (though incomplete) evidence to support this view. If we believe these testimonies, then we have to admit that everything that exists in the physical Universe, down to the most the smallest details, and is indeed governed by precise mathematical principles—maybe equations. Here I am just quietly basking ....
...If this is so, then our physical actions are completely and completely subordinated to such universal mathematical control, although this “control” still allows a certain randomness in behavior, controlled by strict probabilistic principles.
Many people begin to feel very uncomfortable with such assumptions; for me and for myself, I confess, these thoughts cause some anxiety.
... Perhaps, in some sense, the three worlds are not separate entities at all, but only reflect various aspects of some more fundamental TRUTH (I emphasized) that describes the world as a whole - a truth about which at present we do not have the slightest concepts. - clean Mystic....
.................
It even turns out that there are regions on the screen that are inaccessible to particles emitted by the source, despite the fact that particles could quite successfully enter these regions when only one of the slits was open! Although the spots appear on the screen one at a time at localized positions, and although each encounter of the particle with the screen can be associated with a certain act of emission of the particle by the source, the behavior of the particle between the source and the screen, including the ambiguity associated with the presence of two gaps in the barrier, is similar to the behavior of a wave, in which the wave When a particle collides with a screen, it senses both slits at once. Moreover (and this is especially important for our immediate purposes), the distance between the fringes on the screen corresponds to the wavelength A of our particle wave, related to the particle momentum p by the former formula XXXX.
All this is quite possible, a sober-minded skeptic will say, but this does not yet force us to make such an absurd-looking identification of energy-momentum with some kind of operator! Yes, that's exactly what I want to say: an operator is only a formalism for describing a phenomenon within its certain framework, and not an identity with the phenomenon.
Of course, it does not force us, but should we turn away from a miracle when it appears to us?! What is this miracle? The miracle is that this seeming absurdity of the experimental fact (waves turn out to be particles, and particles turn out to be waves) can be brought into the system with the help of a beautiful mathematical formalism, in which momentum is indeed identified with "differentiation in coordinate" and energy with " time differentiation.
... All this is fine, but what about the state vector? What prevents you from recognizing that it represents reality? Why are physicists often extremely reluctant to take such a philosophical position? Not just physicists, but those who have everything in order with a holistic worldview and are not inclined to be led to underdetermined reasoning.
.... If you wish, you can imagine that the wave function of a photon leaves the source in the form of a clearly defined wave packet of small sizes, then, after meeting with the beam splitter, it is divided into two parts, one of which is reflected from the splitter, and the other passes through it, for example, in a perpendicular direction. In both, we caused the wavefunction to split into two parts in the first beam splitter... Axiom a 1: the quantum is not divisible. A person who talks about the halves of a quantum outside its wavelength is perceived by me with no less skepticism than a person who creates a new universe with each change in the state of the quantum. Axiom a 2: the photon does not change its trajectory, and if it has changed, then this is the re-emission of the photon by the electron. Because a quantum is not an elastic particle and there is nothing from which it would bounce. For some reason, in all descriptions of such experiments, these two things are avoided to be mentioned, although they have more base value than the effects described. I don't understand why Penrose says this, he must know about the indivisibility of the quantum, moreover, he mentioned it in the two-slit description. In such miraculous cases, one must still try to remain within the framework of the basic axioms, and if they come into conflict with experience, this is an occasion to think more carefully about the methodology and interpretation.
Let's accept for now, at least as mathematical model of the quantum world, this is a curious description according to which a quantum state evolves for some time in the form of a wave function, usually "smeared" over all space (but with the ability to focus in a more limited area), and then, when a measurement is made, this state turns into something localized and well defined.
Those. seriously talks about the possibility of smearing something for several light years with the possibility of instantaneous mutual change. This can be represented purely abstractly - as the preservation of a formalized description on each of the sides, but not in the form of some kind of real entity, represented by the nature of the quantum. Here is a clear continuity of the idea of ​​the reality of the existence of mathematical formalisms.

That is why I regard both Penrose and other similar promystically minded physicists with great skepticism, in spite of their very resounding authority...

In S. Weinberg's book Dreams of a Final Theory:
The philosophy of quantum mechanics is so irrelevant to its actual use that one begins to suspect that all deep questions about the meaning of measurement are actually empty, generated by the imperfection of our language, which was created in a world practically governed by the laws of classical physics.

In the article What is locality and why is it not in the quantum world? , where the problem is summarized on the basis of recent events by Alexander Lvovsky, an employee of the RCC and a professor at the University of Calgary:
Quantum nonlocality exists only within the framework of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In accordance with it, when measuring a quantum state, it collapses. If we take as a basis the many-world interpretation, which says that the measurement of a state only extends the superposition to the observer, then there is no nonlocality. This is just an illusion of an observer "not knowing" that he has entered an entangled state with a particle at the opposite end of the quantum line.

Some conclusions from the article and its already existing discussion.
There are many interpretations at present. different levels elaboration, trying not only to describe the phenomenon of entanglement and other "non-local effects", but to describe assumptions about the nature (mechanisms) of these phenomena, i.e. hypotheses. Moreover, the opinion prevails that it is impossible to imagine something in this subject area, but it is only possible to rely on certain formalizations.
However, these same formalizations can show with approximately the same persuasiveness anything the interpreter wants, up to describing the emergence of a new universe every time, at the moment of quantum uncertainty. And since such moments arise during observation, then bring consciousness - as a direct participant in quantum phenomena.
For a detailed rationale - why this approach seems completely wrong - see the article Heuristics.
So whenever another cool mathematician starts to prove something like the unity of nature of two completely different phenomena based on the similarity of their mathematical description (well, for example, this is seriously done with Coulomb's law and Newton's law of gravity) or "explain" quantum entanglement by special " dimension" without imagining its real embodiment (or the existence of meridians in the formalism of me earthlings), I will keep it ready:)

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that began to be studied in practice relatively recently - in the 1970s. It consists in the following. Imagine that as a result of some event, two photons were born simultaneously. A pair of quantum-entangled photons can be obtained, for example, by shining a laser with certain characteristics on a nonlinear crystal. The generated photons in a pair can have different frequencies (and wavelengths), but the sum of their frequencies is equal to the frequency of the original excitation. They also have orthogonal polarizations in the basis of the crystal lattice, which facilitates their spatial separation. When a pair of particles is born, the conservation laws must be fulfilled, which means that the total characteristics (polarization, frequency) of two particles have a predetermined, strictly defined value. It follows from this that, knowing the characteristics of one photon, we can definitely find out the characteristics of another. According to the principles of quantum mechanics, until the moment of measurement, the particle is in a superposition of several possible states, and during the measurement, the superposition is removed and the particle finds itself in one state. If we analyze many particles, then in each state there will be a certain percentage of particles corresponding to the probability of this state in the superposition.

But what happens to the superposition of states of entangled particles at the moment of measuring the state of one of them? The paradox and counterintuitiveness of quantum entanglement lies in the fact that the characteristic of the second photon is determined exactly at the moment when we measured the characteristic of the first. No, this is not a theoretical construction, this is the harsh truth of the surrounding world, confirmed experimentally. Yes, it implies the presence of an interaction, betraying at an infinitely high speed, exceeding even the speed of light. How to use this for the benefit of mankind is not yet very clear. There are ideas for applications for quantum computing, cryptography and communication.

Scientists from Vienna have managed to develop a completely new and extremely counterintuitive imaging technique based on the quantum nature of light. In their system, the image is formed by light that has never interacted with the object. The technology is based on the principle of quantum entanglement. An article about this was published in the journal Nature. The study involved employees of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) and the University of Vienna.

In the experiment of the Viennese scientists, one of the pair of entangled photons had a wavelength in the infrared part of the spectrum, and it was he who passed through the sample. His brother had a wavelength corresponding to red light and could be detected by the camera. The beam of light generated by the laser was divided into two halves, and the halves were directed to two non-linear crystals. The object was placed between two crystals. It was a carved silhouette of a cat - in honor of the character of the speculative experiment Erwin Schrödinger, who had already migrated to folklore. An infrared beam of photons from the first crystal was directed at it. Then these photons passed through the second crystal, where the photons that passed through the image of the cat mixed with freshly born infrared photons so that it was completely impossible to understand in which of the two crystals they were born. Moreover, the camera did not detect infrared photons at all. Both beams of red photons were combined and sent to a receiving device. It turned out that thanks to the effect of quantum entanglement, they stored all the information about the object needed to create an image.

An experiment led to similar results, in which the image was not an opaque plate with a cut out contour, but a three-dimensional silicone image that did not absorb light, but slowed down the passage of an infrared photon and created a phase difference between the photons that passed through different parts of the image. It turned out that such plasticity also affected the phase of red photons, which are in a state of quantum entanglement with infrared photons, but never passed through the image.

Quantum entanglement, or "spooky action at a distance" as Albert Einstein called it, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects become interdependent. This dependence is preserved even if the objects are removed from each other for many kilometers. For example, you can entangle a pair of photons, take one of them to another galaxy, and then measure the spin of the second photon - and it will be opposite to the spin of the first photon, and vice versa. They are trying to adapt quantum entanglement for instantaneous data transmission over gigantic distances, or even for teleportation.

Modern computers provide quite a lot of opportunities for modeling the most different situations. However, any calculations will be "linear" to some extent, since they obey well-defined algorithms and cannot deviate from them. And this system does not allow simulating complex mechanisms in which randomness is an almost constant phenomenon. It's about about the simulation of life. And what device could allow it to make? Quantum computer! It was on one of these machines that the largest project to simulate quantum life was launched.

If you have not yet been struck by the wonders of quantum physics, then after this article your thinking will certainly turn upside down. Today I will tell you what quantum entanglement is, but in simple words so that anyone can understand what it is.

Entanglement as a magical connection

After the unusual effects occurring in the microcosm were discovered, scientists came to an interesting theoretical assumption. It followed precisely from the foundations of quantum theory.

In the past, I talked about how the electron behaves very strangely.

But the entanglement of quantum, elementary particles generally contradicts any common sense, is beyond any understanding.

If they interacted with each other, then after separation, a magical connection remains between them, even if they are separated by any, arbitrarily large distance.

Magical in the sense that information between them is transmitted instantly.

As is known from quantum mechanics, a particle before measurement is in a superposition, that is, it has several parameters at once, is blurred in space, has no exact value back. If a measurement is made on one of a pair of previously interacting particles, that is, the wave function collapses, then the second immediately, instantly responds to this measurement. It doesn't matter how far apart they are. Fantasy, isn't it.

As is known from Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing can exceed the speed of light. In order for information to reach from one particle to the second, it is necessary at least to spend the time of passage of light. But one particle just instantly reacts to the measurement of the second. Information at the speed of light would have reached her later. All this does not fit into common sense.

If we separate a pair of elementary particles with a common spin parameter of zero, then one must have a negative spin, and the other a positive one. But before the measurement, the value of the spin is in superposition. As soon as we measured the spin of the first particle, we saw that it has positive value, so immediately the second one acquires a negative spin. If, on the contrary, the first particle acquires a negative value of the spin, then the second one acquires an instantaneously positive value.

Or such an analogy.

We have two balls. One is black, the other is white. We covered them with opaque glasses, we can’t see which one is which. We interfere as in the game of thimbles.

If you open one glass and see that there is a white ball, then the second glass is black. But at first we don't know which is which.

So it is with elementary particles. But before you look at them, they are in superposition. Before measurement, the balls are as if colorless. But having destroyed the superposition of one ball and seeing that it is white, the second immediately becomes black. And this happens instantly, whether there is at least one ball on the ground, and the second in another galaxy. For light to reach from one ball to another in our case, let's say it takes hundreds of years, and the second ball learns that a measurement was made on the second, I repeat, instantly. There is confusion between them.

It is clear that Einstein, and many other physicists, did not accept such an outcome of events, that is, quantum entanglement. He considered the conclusions of quantum physics to be incorrect, incomplete, and assumed that some hidden variables were missing.

On the contrary, Einstein's paradox described above was invented to show that the conclusions of quantum mechanics are not correct, because entanglement is contrary to common sense.

This paradox was called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, abbreviated as the EPR paradox.

But experiments with entanglement later by A. Aspect and other scientists showed that Einstein was wrong. Quantum entanglement exists.

And these were no longer theoretical assumptions arising from equations, but the real facts of many experiments on quantum entanglement. Scientists saw this live, and Einstein died without knowing the truth.

Particles really interact instantly, restrictions on the speed of light are not a hindrance to them. The world turned out to be much more interesting and complex.

With quantum entanglement, I repeat, there is an instantaneous transfer of information, a magical connection is formed.

But how can this be?

Today's quantum physics answers this question in an elegant way. There is an instantaneous connection between the particles, not because information is transmitted very quickly, but because at a deeper level they are simply not separated, but are still together. They are in the so-called quantum entanglement.

That is, the state of confusion is such a state of the system, where, according to some parameters or values, it cannot be divided into separate, completely independent parts.

For example, electrons after interaction can be separated by a large distance in space, but their spins are still together. Therefore, during the experiments, the spins instantly agree with each other.

Do you understand where this leads?

Today's knowledge of modern quantum physics based on the theory of decoherence comes down to one thing.

There is a deeper, unmanifest reality. And what we observe as a familiar classical world is only a small part, special case more fundamental quantum reality.

It does not contain space, time, any parameters of particles, but only information about them, the potential possibility of their manifestation.

It is this fact that gracefully and simply explains why the collapse of the wave function, considered in the previous article, quantum entanglement and other wonders of the microcosm occur.

Today, when talking about quantum entanglement, they remember the other world.

That is, at a more fundamental level, an elementary particle is unmanifested. It is located simultaneously at several points in space, has several values ​​of spins.

Then, according to some parameters, it can manifest itself in our classical world during the measurement. In the experiment discussed above, two particles already have a specific space coordinate value, but their spins are still in quantum reality, unmanifested. There is no space and time, so the spins of the particles are locked together, despite the huge distance between them.

And when we look at what spin a particle has, that is, we make a measurement, we sort of pull the spin out of quantum reality into our ordinary world. And it seems to us that particles exchange information instantly. It's just that they were still together in one parameter, even though they were far apart. Their separation is actually an illusion.

All this seems strange, unusual, but this fact is already confirmed by many experiments. Quantum computers are based on magical entanglement.

The reality turned out to be much more complex and interesting.

The principle of quantum entanglement does not fit in with our usual view of the world.


This is how the physicist-scientist D.Bohm explains quantum entanglement.

Let's say we're watching fish in an aquarium. But due to some restrictions, we can look not at the aquarium as it is, but only at its projections, filmed by two cameras in front and on the side. That is, we watch the fish, looking at two televisions. The fish seem different to us, as we shoot it with one camera in front, the other in profile. But miraculously, their movements are clearly consistent. As soon as the fish from the first screen turns, the second one instantly also turns. We are surprised, not realizing that this is the same fish.

So it is in a quantum experiment with two particles. Because of their limitations, it seems to us that the spins of two previously interacting particles are independent of each other, because now the particles are far from each other. But in reality they are still together, but in a quantum reality, in a non-local source. We simply do not look at reality as it really is, but with a distortion, within the framework of classical physics.

Quantum teleportation in simple terms

When scientists learned about quantum entanglement and the instantaneous transfer of information, many wondered: is teleportation possible?

It turned out to be really possible.

There have already been many experiments on teleportation.

The essence of the method can be easily understood if you understand general principle confusion.

There is a particle, for example, an electron A and two pairs of entangled electrons B and C. An electron A and a pair B, C are in different points space, no matter how far. And now let's convert particles A and B into quantum entanglement, that is, let's combine them. Now C becomes exactly the same as A, because their general state does not change. That is, particle A is, as it were, teleported to particle C.

Today, more complex experiments on teleportation have been carried out.

Of course, all experiments are carried out so far only with elementary particles. But you have to admit, it's incredible. After all, we all consist of the same particles, scientists say that the teleportation of macro objects is theoretically no different. It is only necessary to solve a lot of technical issues, and this is only a matter of time. Perhaps, in its development, humanity will reach the ability to teleport large objects, and even the person himself.

quantum reality

Quantum entanglement is integrity, continuity, unity at a deeper level.

If, according to some parameters, the particles are in quantum entanglement, then according to these parameters, they simply cannot be divided into separate parts. They are interdependent. Such properties are simply fantastic from the point of view of the familiar world, transcendent, one might say otherworldly and transcendent. But this is a fact from which there is no escape. It's time to acknowledge it.

But where does all this lead?

It turns out that many spiritual teachings of mankind have long spoken about this state of affairs.

The world we see, consisting of material objects, is not the basis of reality, but only a small part of it and not the most important one. There is a transcendent reality that sets, determines everything that happens to our world, and therefore to us.

It is there that the real answers to the eternal questions about the meaning of life, the true development of a person, finding happiness and health lie.

And these are not empty words.

All this leads to a rethinking of life values, an understanding that, in addition to a senseless race for material goods there is something more important and higher. And this reality is not somewhere out there, it surrounds us everywhere, it permeates us, it is, as they say, "at our fingertips."

But let's talk about it in the next articles.

Now watch a video about quantum entanglement.

We are moving smoothly from quantum entanglement to theory. More on this in the next article.

The golden foliage of the trees shone brightly. The rays of the evening sun touched the thinned tops. Light broke through the branches and staged a spectacle of bizarre figures flickering on the wall of the university "kapterka".

Sir Hamilton's pensive gaze moved slowly, watching the play of chiaroscuro. In the head of the Irish mathematician there was a real melting pot of thoughts, ideas and conclusions. He was well aware that the explanation of many phenomena with the help of Newtonian mechanics is like the play of shadows on the wall, deceptively intertwining figures and leaving many questions unanswered. “Maybe it's a wave… or maybe it's a stream of particles,” the scientist mused, “or light is a manifestation of both phenomena. Like figures woven from shadow and light.

The beginning of quantum physics

It is interesting to watch great people and try to understand how great ideas are born that change the course of evolution of all mankind. Hamilton is one of those who stood at the origins of quantum physics. Fifty years later, at the beginning of the twentieth century, many scientists were engaged in the study of elementary particles. The knowledge gained was inconsistent and uncompiled. However, the first shaky steps were taken.

Understanding the microworld at the beginning of the 20th century

In 1901, the first model of the atom was presented and its failure was shown, from the standpoint of ordinary electrodynamics. During the same period, Max Planck and Niels Bohr published many works on the nature of the atom. Despite their painstaking work, there was no complete understanding of the structure of the atom.

A few years later, in 1905, the little-known German scientist Albert Einstein published a report on the possibility of the existence of a light quantum in two states - wave and corpuscular (particles). In his work, arguments were given explaining the reason for the failure of the model. However, Einstein's vision was limited by the old understanding of the model of the atom.

After numerous works by Niels Bohr and his colleagues in 1925, a new direction was born - a kind of quantum mechanics. A common expression - "quantum mechanics" appeared thirty years later.

What do we know about quanta and their quirks?

Today, quantum physics has gone far enough. Many different phenomena have been discovered. But what do we really know? The answer is presented by one modern scientist. "One can either believe in quantum physics or not understand it," is the definition. Think about it for yourself. It will suffice to mention such a phenomenon as quantum entanglement of particles. This phenomenon has plunged the scientific world into a position of complete bewilderment. Even more shocking was that the resulting paradox is incompatible with Einstein.

The effect of quantum entanglement of photons was first discussed in 1927 at the fifth Solvay Congress. A heated argument arose between Niels Bohr and Einstein. The paradox of quantum entanglement has completely changed the understanding of the essence of the material world.

It is known that all bodies consist of elementary particles. Accordingly, all the phenomena of quantum mechanics are reflected in the ordinary world. Niels Bohr said that if we do not look at the moon, then it does not exist. Einstein considered this unreasonable and believed that the object exists independently of the observer.

When studying the problems of quantum mechanics, one should understand that its mechanisms and laws are interconnected and do not obey classical physics. Let's try to understand the most controversial area - the quantum entanglement of particles.

The theory of quantum entanglement

To begin with, it is worth understanding that quantum physics is like a bottomless well in which you can find anything you want. The phenomenon of quantum entanglement at the beginning of the last century was studied by Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, Boyle, Bell, Planck and many other physicists. Throughout the twentieth century, thousands of scientists around the world actively studied it and experimented.

The world is subject to the strict laws of physics

Why such an interest in the paradoxes of quantum mechanics? Everything is very simple: we live, obeying certain laws physical world. The ability to “bypass” predestination opens a magical door behind which everything becomes possible. For example, the concept of "Schrödinger's Cat" leads to the control of matter. It will also become possible to teleport information, which causes quantum entanglement. The transmission of information will become instantaneous, regardless of distance.
This issue is still under study, but has a positive trend.

Analogy and understanding

What is unique about quantum entanglement, how to understand it, and what happens with it? Let's try to figure it out. This will require some thought experiment. Imagine that you have two boxes in your hands. Each of them contains one ball with a stripe. Now we give one box to the astronaut, and he flies to Mars. As soon as you open the box and see that the stripe on the ball is horizontal, then in the other box the ball will automatically have a vertical stripe. This will be quantum entanglement expressed in simple words: one object predetermines the position of another.

However, it should be understood that this is only a superficial explanation. In order to get quantum entanglement, it is necessary that the particles have the same origin, like twins.

It is very important to understand that the experiment will be disrupted if someone before you had the opportunity to look at at least one of the objects.

Where can quantum entanglement be used?

The principle of quantum entanglement can be used to transmit information over long distances instantly. Such a conclusion contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. She says that maximum speed movement is inherent only in light - three hundred thousand kilometers per second. Such transfer of information makes possible the existence of physical teleportation.

Everything in the world is information, including matter. Quantum physicists came to this conclusion. In 2008, based on a theoretical database, it was possible to see quantum entanglement with the naked eye.

This once again indicates that we are on the verge of great discoveries - movement in space and time. Time in the Universe is discrete, so instantaneous movement over vast distances makes it possible to get into different time densities (based on the hypotheses of Einstein, Bohr). Maybe in the future it will be a reality just like mobile phone today.

Aether dynamics and quantum entanglement

According to some leading scientists, quantum entanglement is explained by the fact that space is filled with some kind of ether - black matter. Any elementary particle, as we know, exists in the form of a wave and a corpuscle (particle). Some scientists believe that all particles are on the "canvas" of dark energy. This is not easy to understand. Let's try to figure it out in another way - the association method.

Imagine yourself at the seaside. Light breeze and a slight breeze. See the waves? And somewhere in the distance, in the reflections of the rays of the sun, a sailboat is visible.
The ship will be our elementary particle, and the sea will be ether (dark energy).
The sea can be in motion in the form of visible waves and drops of water. In the same way, all elementary particles can be just a sea (its integral part) or a separate particle - a drop.

This is a simplified example, everything is somewhat more complicated. Particles without the presence of an observer are in the form of a wave and do not have a specific location.

The white sailboat is a distinguished object, it differs from the surface and structure of the sea water. In the same way, there are "peaks" in the ocean of energy that we can perceive as a manifestation of the forces known to us that have shaped the material part of the world.

The microworld lives by its own laws

The principle of quantum entanglement can be understood if we take into account the fact that elementary particles are in the form of waves. Without a specific location and characteristics, both particles are in an ocean of energy. At the moment the observer appears, the wave “turns” into an object accessible to touch. The second particle, observing the system of equilibrium, acquires opposite properties.

The described article is not aimed at capacious scientific descriptions of the quantum world. Possibility of reflection ordinary person based on the availability of understanding of the material presented.

Physics of elementary particles studies the entanglement of quantum states based on the spin (rotation) of an elementary particle.

In scientific language (simplified) - quantum entanglement is defined by different spins. In the process of observing objects, scientists saw that only two spins can exist - along and across. Oddly enough, in other positions, the particles do not “pose” to the observer.

New hypothesis - a new view of the world

The study of the microcosm - the space of elementary particles - gave rise to many hypotheses and assumptions. The effect of quantum entanglement prompted scientists to think about the existence of some kind of quantum microlattice. In their opinion, at each node - the point of intersection - there is a quantum. All energy is an integral lattice, and the manifestation and movement of particles is possible only through the nodes of the lattice.

The size of the "window" of such a grating is quite small, and measurement with modern equipment is impossible. However, in order to confirm or refute this hypothesis, scientists decided to study the motion of photons in a spatial quantum lattice. The bottom line is that a photon can move either straight or in zigzags - along the diagonal of the lattice. In the second case, having overcome a greater distance, he will spend more energy. Accordingly, it will differ from a photon moving in a straight line.

Perhaps, over time, we will learn that we live in a spatial quantum grid. Or this assumption may be wrong. However, it is the principle of quantum entanglement that indicates the possibility of the existence of a lattice.

If to speak plain language, then in a hypothetical spatial "cube" the definition of one face carries a clear opposite meaning another. This is the principle of preserving the structure of space - time.

Epilogue

To understand the magical and mysterious world of quantum physics, it is worth taking a close look at the development of science over the past five hundred years. It used to be that the Earth was flat, not spherical. The reason is obvious: if you take its shape as round, then water and people will not be able to resist.

As we can see, the problem existed in the absence of a complete vision of all acting forces. It is possible that modern science to understand quantum physics, it is not enough to see all the acting forces. Vision gaps give rise to a system of contradictions and paradoxes. Perhaps the magical world of quantum mechanics contains the answers to the questions posed.