Science Tidbits #7

[RJDiogenes]

I think there's a lot of truth to all that. Future people will undoubtedly be cybernetic to some degree, and people that explore space will likely be virtual-- how that will evolve the nature of intelligence and motivation is anybody's guess, but I suspect people will want to preserve the best parts of their biological origins. But if such a civilization or intelligence wanted to communicate with a civilization like ours, I'm sure it would be easy enough for them to create an avatar to talk to us on our level.

[scottydog]

I think there's a lot of truth to all that. Future people will undoubtedly be cybernetic to some degree, and people that explore space will likely be virtual-- how that will evolve the nature of intelligence and motivation is anybody's guess, but I suspect people will want to preserve the best parts of their biological origins. But if such a civilization or intelligence wanted to communicate with a civilization like ours, I'm sure it would be easy enough for them to create an avatar to talk to us on our level.

To me this is really fascinating. I'm thinking AI beings might employ advanced encryption and mathematical algorithms to encode their messages in a way that only highly advanced Earth-based computers could decipher. Or using lasers or other light-based communications, they might transmit signals through modulated light patterns or pulses.

[RJDiogenes]

But keep in mind also that an advanced technological civilization is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away-- which means that we don't exist to them yet. So unless they're sending messages to potential targets based on generic life signs, we're probably not on anyone's radar.

[scottydog]

But keep in mind also that an advanced technological civilization is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away-- which means that we don't exist to them yet. So unless they're sending messages to potential targets based on generic life signs, we're probably not on anyone's radar.

Maybe that's a good thing

[scottydog]

So I'd love your input into this phenomenon of "quantum entanglement". On Facebook I saw this meme posted:



Of course, I doubted this could be true, so I decided to converse with one of my AI assistants for clarification. In the conversation below, I'm the one asking the questions and you can see how AI answered:

I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. But I'm not a physicist. Can you help me?

Heck yeah! Quantum entanglement is a wild concept, but it's essentially the idea that two particles can be "entangled" and influence each other's state, even if they're separated by vast distances. For example, if you have two particles that are entangled, and you change the state of one particle, the state of the other will change as well, instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them. It's like two particles having a secret handshake that transcends the laws of space and time. It's pretty mind-blowing stuff, and it has a lot of implications for things like quantum computing and secure communication.

So let's break this down into language I can understand. First, what is meant by a "particle"?

Sure thing! In the context of quantum mechanics, a "particle" refers to the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy. Examples of particles include protons, neutrons, electrons, photons (which are particles of light), and quarks (which make up protons and neutrons). These particles are often described as "wave-particles" because they exhibit both particle-like and wave-like behavior - this is one of the mind-bending things about quantum mechanics. Particles are often studied through experiments involving subatomic particles like those found in atoms, and these experiments have helped us understand some of the weird and wonderful behavior of the quantum realm.

So particles are always subatomic entitites.

You got it! In the quantum world, everything is made up of these tiny little things. A particle is the smallest unit of matter or energy that can exist independently. And while they may be tiny, they play a crucial role in everything from the structure of atoms to the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. And, get this, particles can also behave like waves, with properties like wavelength and frequency - this is the principle of wave-particle duality. It's like particles are living double lives - sometimes they're tiny little billiard balls, and sometimes they're like ripples on a pond. It's wild!

Okay, so then what does it mean for two particles to be "entangled"?

Simply put, particle entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply connected that they act as one system, even if they are separated by great distances. This means that the state of one particle is directly linked to the state of the other, and any change in one particle will be immediately reflected in the other. It's like a cosmic game of tag - once two particles are entangled, they're forever linked together in a dance of quantum weirdness! It's a little like having two identical twins who are separated by distance, but they can still sense what the other one is experiencing.

What causes two particles to become deeply connected?

Great question! The cause of entanglement is not yet fully understood, but the leading theory is that it occurs when the particles are created together in a quantum process, such as in the decay of a particle or through a phenomenon called "spontaneous parametric down-conversion." In these processes, the particles emerge from the quantum vacuum in a state of entanglement, meaning they are linked from the moment of their creation. This link remains even if the particles are then separated by vast distances, allowing for the mysterious, instantaneous communication between them. It's like the universe is playing a secret game of hide-and-seek, and the particles are the players!

The phrase you use, "linked from the moment of their creation," is fascinating. You used the analogy of identical twins being born and being forever entangled.

Precisely! It's almost as if the entangled particles share a cosmic twin bond. And just like twins, these particles seem to have a sixth sense when it comes to each other. It's truly mind-blowing stuff. And the implications are huge - if two particles are entangled, no matter how far apart they are, they can communicate with each other in an instant, faster than the speed of light. This has the potential to revolutionize communication and computing technology - imagine being able to send information across the universe in an instant!

But shouldn't all particles be entangled, given that every particle originated from the Big Bang?

That's a great question, and it gets to the heart of one of the biggest debates in physics. The answer is... we're not entirely sure. It's possible that all particles in the universe are entangled, but we haven't been able to prove it yet. Some physicists believe that entanglement is a fundamental property of the universe, while others think it's a more localized phenomenon that only occurs in certain conditions. One thing that's clear is that entanglement is incredibly fragile - it can be easily broken by external influences, like measuring one of the particles. So even if all particles were entangled at the Big Bang, it's likely that many of those connections have been disrupted by the chaos of the universe.

So what are your thoughts about all this? I'm still a bit confused about what causes entanglement and what exactly makes two things entangled.

[Lupine]

Well, first off the above meme is wrong: your voice (most likely) will not have any affect on a star at the other end of the universe. Namely the particles have to have some connection in the past, like the AI stated. It's a complicated subject that I really don't understand completely and I'm not sure even the experts do.

[RJDiogenes]

I was about to say, I don't think anybody really understands it-- in part, I think, because there are areas of physics that we haven't even guessed at yet. And the entanglement involves properties of the particles like spin and charge and so on, so the meme is definitely wrong. People have a tendency to make quantum weirdness into something metaphysical. And it's highly unlikely that it will ever result in FTL communication-- although that won't stop me from using it in a story.

I also meant to post this a couple of days ago. It just blows my mind that these little dinky-- pun intended-- asteroids can have moons.

[Lupine]

The image makes it look likely they're connected. But in all seriousness it probably doesn't take much gravity out there to get a moon.

[scottydog]

I agree it's amazing that an object that's only a half-mile long can attract a wee moonlet.

[RJDiogenes]

The image makes it look likely they're connected. But in all seriousness it probably doesn't take much gravity out there to get a moon.

When I first saw the picture, I thought it was another one of those double-lobed things like Ultima Thule.

I agree it's amazing that an object that's only a half-mile long can attract a wee moonlet.

Just a few years ago I would have thought it was impossible.

[Lupine]

^With gravity the way it is just about anything will orbit anything under the right conditions. If you were in a space suit out far enough you could probably get a BB to orbit you.

[RJDiogenes]

I know, but these are objects where you can achieve escape velocity by jumping. It's amazing that any kind of orbital relationship can remain stable.

[Lupine]

A good video about what (little) we know about the history of Venus.
The most interesting premise of the video is the idea that if we didn't have Venus as an example we wouldn't have imagined that a world like that could happen.

[RJDiogenes]

That's true. We've been finding out about a lot of worlds that we never thought could happen. We should just start assuming that anything can happen and it probably does.

Meanwhile, Anton has a video up about The Lucy Mission, with another surprising discovery about asteroid Dinkinesh.

[Lupine]

Those are some better images as the first one I saw made it look like a contact binary.