I was hoping someone with lots of qm knowledge could help me with a question please:

When Einstein said he did not believe the moon dissapeared when he was not looking; did he mean that he refused to believe that entanglement was operating at the macro-scale ie: on objects like the moon?

If i understand non-locality correctly its basically saying that a sort of objective consistency will occur instantaneously so if it was going on with the moon, either someone else on earth is looking at it and we are entangled with them, or because it occurs far faster than we can see it happen (constrained by our limit to c)?

Or both, or none?

Well, I don't have lots of QM knowledge, but I do agree with Einstein.
What we observe in the Universe is based on what we can see and measure. But in Quantum Mechanics, our observations are sometimes limited... to the weird.
And that, is QM in a word. Weird.

As I see entanglement, it is a description more than a definition. It is what we currently 'observe' but is not necessarily the 'reality' either.

But that's just my two bits until a larger brain comes to post.

Are you suggesting "reality" might require a "concious observer"?

__________________
Measure once. Cut twice. Power tools are fun.

I seem to recall Jetlack having a very similar thread before...

My question was trying to understand how or IF entanglement would effect macroscopic objects. I used Einstein's famous comments which argued against this being the case, but HE did indeed frame it in terms of observing the moon - not I.

I guess you don't have an answer to my question

I would not start a thread on Q&A arguing that observers are essential for decoherence/wave collapse. As Neverfly correctly points out I have argued about the "measurement problem" before though i dont think its relevant to this thread.

So can anyone help me out here and explain whether current qm theory allows entanglement to occur with macro objects?

Thanks for trying

On the weirdness of qm: is it so weird really? Other than our interpretations which can get pretty far out and weird.

Ok, no it does not.
As I stated already in my previous post.

Here is a quicky wiki on entanglement.
On the macroscopic scale, the conditions are also entirely different even though the physics is the same.
Similar to how a Spiral Galaxy Looks like soapy water circling a drain. The Celestial Mechanics involved is entirely different than the draining water, but the physics is the same. The Galaxy's workings and movements have nothing to do with drainage.

I've read the wiki entry but I' not sure it answers the question. It kind of skates around it. I was hoping there was a definitive yes or no type answer

Not only do you also not have an answer, but your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject is demonstrated by the fact that your question, in reality, makes no actual sense whatsoever.
You may as well have posted in a Biology forum asking a Biologist if Elephants sense with their antenna and survive radiation because the roaches do it. Or asked about a chimpanzees book lungs enabling them to breathe underwater.

It would help if you tried a little bit harder too. And the condescending tones could be avoided, I really don't like responding to half of your posts because your attitude when you don't like the answer is extremely depreciating.

Jetlack, go to a library and actually start Learning about the things you're asking about.
Do some homework for a change so that you can ask well informed questions and get realistic answers to them.
Some of these questions simply cannot be answered in a post or even several posts. They require background knowledge about the fundamentals of the theories you are asking about. I can answer you "no", but when you ask why not, it kinda puts a damper on me because to explain it to you also requires you to understand, even at a basic level, how the realms of QM differ from the Macro and Relativity even. And that's even assuming I'm proficient enough to give an answer. But Chris Hillman or Publius would be just as hard pressed.

It is not our job to "try" to please your preconceptions with answers you might like. It is your job to study the reality behind the things you wonder about.

I cannot honestly answer this question. If you ask what I "believe" then my answer would be that the conditions at that level appear quite foreign to us, as well as we are in the process of learning much about the microscopic. It seems weird to us for these reasons.
But the seeming and the observing are still weird and can get very weird and unexpected results can catch you by surprise very easily. So in spite of the True underlying Nature, we can probably get away with always calling it weird.

Yeah, you just quoted me where I said, "No, it does not." I also gave a clear as a bell example as to how you're thinking and why it is leading you astray.

Neverfly,

I am gob-smacked by your response.

"Not only do you also not have an answer, but your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject is demonstrated by the fact that your question, in reality, makes no actual sense whatsoever..." .... and he continues with a nasty rant.


Well if i was a an expert i would not be asking the question would I? However I see it as a perfectly rational question, and i even used Einstein's own statement in the question.

You have not answered my question. You at first admit you probably don't know enough on the subject but then just said NO, and then gave me an analogy that makes no sense. Excuse me if I don't take it as gospel. I've read much on entanglement including the wiki and i am still confused about its effects on macroscopic objects. I did ask for someone to answer who knew alot about this question.

My comment to pzkpfw about him not being able to answer my question was a straight-forward fact because he was more interested in my view on the "measurement problem".

I'm going to leave it there Neverfly because the rest of your post is something i would expect on some moonbat site, and frankly you've set a pretty crappy example for anyone looking for physics answers on here.

If I had pounced on you out of the blue, or these two posts were the first type I had seen, then your feeling of being "Gob-smacked" would be warranted.
But it isn't. I've read far, far too many of your posts and threads to fall for it. Not one bit.
And I just accidentally stumbled onto your other post that may have been the precursor to this thread.
Jetlack, your question is not innocent. Your question seeks to justify a belief you already hold. You are seeking out that justification.
And secretly, I think, You're hoping that no one here can answer your question.

You often claim an answer wasn't an answer to what you asked as well. Part of that may be because if someone refers you to such and such Theorum, you would probably say "Huh?" So they try to simplify it to something more basic to save the trouble of the maths. This still is one of those things where- if you truly want to understand, you will need to take the time to develop a foundation for any answers to stand on.
Part of it too, may very well be, that you don't want a satisfactory answer.
Again, I have read a great many of your posts.
Not really. I told it like it is. It wasn't very flattering and you didn't like it- but I was Honest. That doesn't make it a nasty rant just because you didn't like having to hear it.
I get told things about myself that I don't like hearing too.

Your question is similar to asking if a Chimpanzee's book lungs enables it to breathe underwater.

1.) context.
2.) expert- no... Don't need to be an expert to ask a question. Might need to become one to really fathom an answer... But that isn't the point is it? You are not just asking a question- You are following a very definite trend- a pattern.
3.) If you're going to claim ignorance, then you should be open to the statement that you need to understand the background and basics.
See? Here it goes...
I'm not so arrogant to think I'm knowledgeable. But I know enough to say the answer is "no." Furthermore, the question itself begs of ATM preconceptions.
It makes perfect sense. I outlined it to you as a demonstration of how your comparison led you astray. You're not the first person to do that...
You don't have to. But you asked a question and I answered it. Do you have a library card?
I would never claim to know a lot about anything. Except Plumbing. It's just my way. Don't take that and use it as an argument to claim that I must therefor automatically be wrong, either.

As am I. For reasons I have already outlined. Very clear ones at that.
I am not saying that I'm correct in those reasons, but that you have laid the groundwork to make my reasons very understandable.

Feel free to demonstrate how this is so.

You are taking the properties of one situation and sliding them over into an entirely different realm (Thus my analogy about the Spiral galaxy.)
Now, I could have TOTALLY missed the bus here and be completely wrong- I'm very open to correction and will apologize profusely if such is the case.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but you have been following very clear trends that have guided me to this response.

Neverfly,

I am not going to fall into the trap of having some semantic **** up with you. You want an argument find it elsewhere.

However i see now that you have decided that the answer is very certainly NO to entanglement having any effects on macroscopic objects: "But I know enough to say the answer is "no." Furthermore, the question itself begs of ATM preconceptions"

I'm happy to go along with that unless someone deems it necessary to contradict you.

Neverfly,

Actually you appear to be mistaken.

"Quantum physics: Entanglement hits the big time":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/425028a.html

"Rosenbaum leads team measuring quantum effects in real-world objects":

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/031120/quantum.shtml

"“Quite often quantum entanglement is probably the cause of macroscopically observable effects, but in general it is difficult to identify exactly which macroscopic features are the result of microscopic entanglement,” Coppersmith said. "

So considering what the experts do say I'd say its your view which deserves to be labelled ATM. But thanks for your help anyway

Wait, I feel something tugging at my feet.

Agghhhhhhhh . . .

(slurp slurp slosh)

Actually, would a Bose-Einstein condensate be sort of "macro entanglement"? Essentially, a quantity of liquid helium that acts as if it were one large particle.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

What I would like to know is whether punctuation exists on online forums while I'm offline, only to disappear the minute I logon and start reading threads, and how this entangles me with my eighth grade English teacher.

__________________
I've become used to the taste of crow.