Talk:Quantum entanglement

Standard error of sign regarding information and entropy.

Short before the sentences:

″The reversibility of a process is associated with the resulting entropy change, i.e., a process is reversible if, and only if, it leaves the entropy of the system invariant. Therefore, the march of the arrow of time towards thermodynamic equilibrium is simply the growing spread of quantum entanglement.[83] This provides a connection between quantum information theory and thermodynamics.″

... all entropy formulas, whether Shannon's or 'von Neumann' tell about possibilities and/or bandwidth. Real data transferred via classic or quantum methods show always the reverse sign, because a single of the many possibilities has been chosen for transfer. In the same way growing quantum entanglement does not increase but reduces entropy. For sure the internal order by entanglement is even the reverse of disorder maximization by thermodynamic equilibrium. If [83] is indirectly cited, it tells simply non-sense. Please drop the sentences above and the reference from the article. Many thanks!

Molecular Quantum Entanglement

"Connor M. Holland et al., On-demand entanglement of molecules in a reconfigurable optical tweezer array.Science382,1143-1147(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.adf4272"

I also added to the Turkish Wikipedia that I had translated from English before.

would this be ok?

If you can please give a prompt answer, I will do both changes immediately

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We should have a secondary source, that is still a primary source. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Press release churnalism, also unreliable. Please direct any followup to the article's associated talk page, other interested editors will not find this on my user talk. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Uralunlucayakli (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that the posts bearing my signature above were copy and pasted here by Uralunlucayakli and were originally made on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Add a few sentances on the nobel prize of 2022 related to entanglement and bell tests

There were many experimental results between the work of Chien-Shiung Wu and the modern work in the early 2010s from Zeilinger's group and others. In particular, the Nobel Prize winning experiments of Aspect, Clauser are nowhere mentioned here. It feels that the Nobel prize related to quantum entanglement deserves mentioning in this section.

Perhaps it is enough that it is included in the Bell test page, but it feels like there should at least be a cross link to the Bell test page to highlight the results. 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry meant to say that it is mentioned in the History, but not in the notable experimental results section. I think more that things should be shuffled around in the article page to keep it consistent. Either it is historically relevant or it is experimentally relevant. Perhaps both? 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At least 10,000 times faster than light

Wikipedia now says:

"communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case, 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements".

Is it the same thing as the this? :

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150207-chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light

"Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance': At least 10,000 times faster than light. By Sebastian Anthony March 7, 2013"

If yes, could we make the wikipedia more understandable for an average human or even an average educated person reading wikipedia? Just say the speed is at lest 10^4 speed of light?

Has the speed not be estimated after year 2013, to verify results?

217.140.214.197 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Quantum entanglement lead

Hi, pretty surprised to see your revert (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_entanglement&diff=prev&oldid=1253878041) of my edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_entanglement&diff=prev&oldid=1253686245).

Not going to waste time disputing it, just want to let you know that one of the hallmarks of a high-quality reference text, textbook, encyclopedic article etc.– even one concentrating on a highly special subject – is providing a broad enough outlook in introduction.

As an occasional reader of Wikipedia articles, I would definitely prefer the version I have suggested; furthermore, I would appreciate reading a lead which doesn't mislead a reader by dropping links to closely related subjects as in this case, in *any* article.

And as a peer reviewer and an editor of manuscripts and proceedings since 1990s, I can tell you that an author who'd send me a paper containing the statement which I have corrected, would see his paper returned with the recommendation to avoid such blunders in future for his own sake. 188.66.35.87 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I find rather misleading your suggestion that there is a well-defined trio that form the core of the quantum-classical disparity: quantum entanglement, uncertainty principle and wave–particle duality. Such a list is merely a matter of taste. Tercer (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't plan to get back to this, but the *text* of my edit made no claims or assertions of any well-defined trios, I just linked to WPD, UP and DSE, so please refrain from putting in my mouth what I didn't say in the article text. But when it comes to current wording, which calls QE "a primary feature of quantum mechanics" and puts it "at the heart of disparity..." – now that is not only not the best wording for a WP article, but misleading indeed, as generally accepted views of QM do not assign to QE some special or unique role within QM, hence my edit.

Do you have access to classical texts on QM (Feynman's lectures, writings of Bohr), or at least to recognised and widely used graduate-level textbooks (Sakurai, Shankar etc.)? The reason why I'm asking is because it appears you are not very familiar with the subject if you *really* believe that current wording praising the role of QE is good and find my correction misleading. But the fact is, you won't find a QM textbook introducing QE in the same fashion as in the lead, viz. that it's the "primary feature..." simply because it's not – you'd see a chapter dedicated to it at best, along with chapters on other phenomena (and to the best of my memory, not even a dedicated chapter in the textbooks I mentioned above).

And as far as some of the brightest minds are concerned, you won't see them assigning special or central role to QE within QM either: it's well known that Bohr assigned high importance to complementarity principle, and Feynman to WPD; he is quoted as saying ‘a phenomenon which is impossible... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics].’ (quoting from https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6814).

Is that wording, hyping the role of QE, by chance, a quotation from the NYT article? It appears to be behind a paywall, so I can't even check it myself without subscribing or buying it, which I don't plan to do. In general, I would advise against using sources like New York Times as supporting citations in articles like this one. Popular articles tend to be a lightweight reading, are rarely rigorous in academic sense, often written in sensationalistic style, and WP guidelines might in fact not recommend it too (is that correct? I'm not intimately familiar with all of them).

So I would suggest not only fixing current wording, rewriting it in less emotional style and bringing it in line with common knowledge, which doesn't place QE in some special position as far as the disparity of classical and quantum mechanics is concerned, but also replacing the paywalled NYT article with a proper source in line with WP guidelines, or just removing it (statements which are common knowledge don't require a citation).

Do you agree? 217.118.83.166 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article claims it's a primary feature, not the primary feature. Tercer (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Nitpicking like that is not an example of constructive communication, especially considering that you see precise quotation from the article at the start of my message and that I spent time explaining to you things which should be well-known to an experienced editor, as well as to someone who is competent to contribute to articles on QM. But all right, I'll take that as a "yes" to my last question and will fix the sentence.

More importantly, do you realise that such conduct as yours (unfounded reverting, manipulating quotations, strange nitpicking) is very effective at only one thing: completely killing motivation in any further contribution to this article, as well as any other, where you are active in the same fashion? A few days ago I considered in earnest allocating some time to taking a closer look at several articles on QM to fix inaccuracies or add some missing content, but seeing how it goes, I reviewed my plans. I have better things to do with my time, than seeing a strange revert and then wasting time explaining the obvious.

And although I'm not highly familiar at all with WP's numerous guidelines, there is an essay and a policy which I consider rather important, in particular for the growth of the number of contributors to WP, and would highly recommend you to adhere to, as long as you don't aim to discourage and demotivate people willing to contribute something: WP:ROWN and WP:OWN. 188.66.32.76 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not nitpicking, it is the main point. You are complaining that the article claims entanglement is the only core distinguishing feature of quantum mechanics, but it does no such thing. Tercer (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No need to misrepresent again what I say, the reasons why I suggest the rewrite are described in detail in my 2nd message. Besides, I asked you clearly if you agree with the suggestion and expected as clear an answer from you, as well as any valid arguments, references to WP guidelines and RS in support of your opinion, but you presented none of that.

So no clear answer, no arguments, but instead nit-picking and another revert from you. Shall we ask for third opinion then?

Request for third opinion

Please choose the version which you consider more appropriate, or feel free to suggest your own. Argumentation of the disputing parties is above. Also please comment whether the paywalled NYT article used for unclear purpose should be kept or removed. Any other comments regarding the dispute are also welcome.

Current version:

The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics.

Suggested rewrite, which reflects that generally accepted views of quantum mechanics do not assign to quantum entanglement central or unique role, as far as disparity of quantum mechanics and classical physics is concerned, uses more encyclopedic language, and removes paywalled NYT article (purpose of the source completely unclear and no explanation provided by the opponent; NYT is a very strange choice of source to cite in the article on quantum entanglement (WP:V, WP:RS)):

Along with the uncertainty principle and wave–particle duality demonstrable in the double-slit experiment, quantum entanglement is one of phenomena of quantum mechanics, not present in classical physics. 217.118.83.168 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the current version is adequate. Listing other phenomena that are also non-classical just makes the sentence longer without bringing any real clarity. The current version says a primary feature, not the primary feature (or the quintessential feature, etc.). The current version simply does not say that entanglement is the only non-classical feature of quantum mechanics.

I would agree with removing the New York Times article, on the general principle that pop science is not suitable reference material when it comes to quantum physics. Replace it with a textbook, or just cut it entirely, since that paragraph is there to summarize what comes later. The fact that the intro is intended to be a summary of the main article also argues against mentioning wave-particle duality or the uncertainty principle there, because the latter is barely mentioned and the former doesn't appear at all. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)