What is quantum entanglement? Nobody this side of Heaven really knows. In one of his more memorable quotes, Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".
For those who are unfamiliar with quantum entanglement, it was first theorized by Einstein and two other scientists, and the term 'entanglement' was first coined by Erwin Schrödinger in his famous "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment.
What quantum entanglement means, to greatly simplify the matter, is that if two particles are entangled, if you observe the state of one particle, then the other particle will be in the same state... except that as soon as one particle is observed in any way, the other particle is automatically disentangled and is forced to take on its own state.
If that makes no sense to you, well, you're not alone. Physicists can describe what is happening, but none know why it is happening.
I first began reading up on quantum entanglement for a short story I was writing about four years ago... and I found out that research had by then shown that not only quantum particles could be entangled, but such entanglement could be found between complex particles such as atoms and even molecules at significant distances... and apparently, even across discrete periods of time.
I realized then that if complex molecules - which can be a billion times or more larger than elementary particles like quarks - can be entangled in the same manner as quarks then there should be no reason that entanglement would not affect our very bodies, and even be seen or felt by our consciousnesses!
For instance, we've all heard of "sympathy pains", which are called "Couvade syndrome" by the scientific community. Symptoms experienced by the partner can include:
stomach pain, indigestion, changes in appetite, weight gain, diarrhea, constipation, headache, toothache, cravings, nausea, breast augmentation, hardening of the nipple and insomnia. In some extreme cases, fathers can grow a belly similar to a 7-month pregnant woman and gain approximately 25 to 30 pounds.
Could this be an example of entanglement on the macro level? Perhaps, but that's not the only possible example. We've probably all heard of instances where a woman suddenly 'knew' when something bad happened to her child or her husband, or of identical twins who were raised apart but led almost identical lives. Just today came the news of two identical 92 year-old twins who died within hours of each other...both by heart failure.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Christopher Rose
I'd stick to religion if I were you, Glenn...
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Doggone it -
For the editor, on page one:
I realized then that if complex molecules - which can be a billion times or more larger than elementary particles like quarks - then then there should be no reason that entanglement would not affect our very bodies, and even be seen or felt by our consciousnesses!
SHOULD read:
"...elementary particles like quarks - can be entangled in the same manner as quarks, then there..."
in other words, please add "can be entangled in the same manner as quarks" and take out the redundant "then".
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
*chuckle*
Hey - entanglement's already been observed in complex molecules...and since that's on a scale a billion times larger than quarks, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that entanglement doesn't exist on a much larger scale than molecules. It's ONLY a matter of scale, and nothing more.
All I did was point out possible - or even likely - experiences we all have that are difficult at best to explain...until quantum mechanics comes into the picture.
I realized this four years ago, and Asimov first developed the concept (if not the mechanics behind the concept) sixty years ago...and the references I gave show that it really looks like we're on to something! It's nice when a PhD publishes an article in a respected magazine that gives credence to a hunch you had four years before....
Just keep this in mind a decade or so from now, Chris!
4 - Christopher Rose
re #2, done.
5 - Christopher Rose
There's also no reason that entanglement does exist on a much larger scale. You are simply speculating, which is fun, but not science.
Furthermore, sixty years on, psychohistory is still just a fanciful theory, not a scientific practice.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
All I said was that Asimov developed the concept - but not the mechanics behind the concept. I would liken it to Arthur C. Clarke when he first postulated communications satellites, or H.G. Wells when he first wrote about traveling to the moon.
None of these really knew the engineering that would be necessary to make it happen...but it happened nonetheless. That does NOT automatically mean that Asimov (and myself) was right...
...but did you read the references? I did take care to use only reputable sources...
...and if a certain thing can happen to a quark AND to a complex module a billion times bigger, chances are REAL good the thing can happen on a much larger scale still.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, the main problem with your premise is that quantum anything, by definition, is something that occurs on the subatomic scale, where the general laws of physics don't apply. As Chris points out, it doesn't follow from the fact that subatomic particles behave in a certain way that molecules or larger units of matter will.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Read the references. Entanglement has already been observed in complex molecules...so don't say it can't happen when it's already been scientifically observed and peer-reviewed.
This is the most pertinent link.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
And for those that don't want to click the link to the Scientific American article (which is the COVER STORY for this months issue, btw), here's the title:
Living in a Quantum World: Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles. It applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people
Gee - "applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people"
But I get it - I'm just a crackpot....
10 - Glenn Contrarian
And although the full article does NOT appear online - you have to buy the hardcopy which is WELL worth it for those who are interested - here's a summary:
Nearly all physicists, though, think it applies to everything, no matter what the size. The reason its distinctive features tend to be hidden is not a simple matter of scale.
A beer would be nice, Chris and Doc - I'll keep it cheap - Sam Adams would be nice.
Over the past several years experimentalists have seen quantum effects in a growing number of macroscopic systems.
The quintessential quantum effect, entanglement, can occur in large systems as well as warm onesâ€"including living organismsâ€"even though molecular jiggling might be expected to disrupt entanglement.
11 - Dr Dreadful
I don't dispute that quantum phenomena manifest themselves on the macro level (e.g. superconductivity), but their effects on our scale won't look like their effects on the quantum level. They can't.
It'd be a bit like watching TV at a distance of 10 feet and expecting to see nothing but lines on your screen.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
I don't dispute that quantum phenomena manifest themselves on the macro level (e.g. superconductivity), but their effects on our scale won't look like their effects on the quantum level. They can't.
Not so.
1 - it was observed on two scales, one (complex molecules) a billion times larger than the other.
2 - It appears to be present in the senses of migratory birds (see the link in #13).
3 - Nearly all physicists agree (see the Scientific American story) that quantum effects occur not only on the quantum level, but on the macro level i.e. complex organisms...and nearly all physicists agree that scale is apparently not an issue.
In other words, Doc, there's NO indication that quantum effects are limited to the 'micro' scale, and there is an indication that we may indeed be able to experience quantum effects - again, check the reference about migratory birds.
Doc, the reason I made this leap in reasoning is because of the basic difference between quarks and molecules is this: quarks are (AFAIK) not complex objects...while complex molecules certainly are, and a billion times bigger to boot. In other words, I suddenly understood that quantum effects are NOT limited by complexity OR by size. Therefore we humans will experience quantum effects - and so will fleas and whales...and planets and stars, for that matter.
And that's what the Scientific American article's about - there is apparently no limit on quantum effects due to size or complexity
From the hardcopy article:
Thus the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory's deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum system without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line - and, indeed, without a truly classical world - we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.
...
[Einstein's] General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time - in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, the theory is that quantum effects on the electron scale in the birds work to give them a compass on the macro scale. In other words, the effect we observe is not what the electrons themselves experience.
So you can't really extrapolate from that that flocks of birds or schools of fish turning in unison is caused by quantum entanglement (though it might be).
Nor the 92-year-old twins dying within hours of each other. For starters, 92-year-olds dying of heart failure isn't all that surprising, not to mention that they shared the same DNA (giving them the same life expectancy) and, since they were both monks, the same simple lifestyle.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
In other words, the effect we observe is not what the electrons themselves experience.
Think it through, Doc - if birds can feel the effect caused by the entanglement of mere electrons, then what is to say we cannot feel the effect caused by complex molecules? Again, nearly all physicists agree that the scale of the entangled object is not much of an issue.
I know this is hard to grasp...but it's sorta like Yoda showing Luke that size doesn't matter, that our individual perspective is the only thing that is limiting your grasp of what the physicists are coming to understand. It's not the Force, of course, but entanglement - which we now know operates on the macro scale, and not just on the nanoscale.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
And about the twins - identical DNA does NOT denote or even approximate the hour, day, week, month, or year of the death of one or both of a set of identical twins. C'mon, you know better than that!
I agree that it is NOT proof that consciousness or awareness or emotion or even life itself can somehow be affected by macroscale entanglement...but at the same time, Doc, don't keep your mind closed to the possibility...because we're beginning to see it already.
16 - zingzing
ahem. i myself am an identical twin. we are very different people. and i will kill him.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Is it your evil twin ginzginz? Or is it zingzing with the two syllables reversed?
18 - zingzing
i'm the evil one. he's a good boy. he was the first born, and he lords it over me, telling me that i'm "the second born, the one they didn't want," which is pretty hilariously true. sigh. i do like him. it's a pity that i'll have to strangle him one day.
19 - Christopher Rose
What Glenn says: "For instance, we've all heard of "sympathy pains", which are called "Couvade syndrome" by the scientific community. Symptoms experienced by the partner can include:
stomach pain, indigestion, changes in appetite, weight gain, diarrhea, constipation, headache, toothache, cravings, nausea, breast augmentation, hardening of the nipple and insomnia."
What the SA article says: "These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body."
Glenn, please stick to religion, where this kind of giddy hysteria appears to be acceptable, you are rubbish at logic and science.
20 - Mitchel Eisenstein
I have been hypothesizing that quantum entanglement of photons observed in the laboratory, might be extrapolated to looking for natural sources of quantum entangled light. I have suggested that perhaps certain types of stars can emit quantum entangled light, such that any planets lying at the exact same radius away from that quantum emitter, can use that light as a carrier signal and they can theoretically communicate with each other over interstellar distances instantaneously. It might be true even if the star that emitted the entangled photons no longer exists. I have contacted the folks at SETI, which have just closed down by the way due to budgetary cutbacks, suggesting this new and novel way to search for alien life, and to my shock I got back an email saying, THEY LIKE MY THINKING ALTHOUGH MOST PHYSICISTS STILL DONT THINK ITS POSSIBLE. But in any event I suggested an experiment to at least try and see of there are natural quantum entangled sources out in the universe, and to catalogue them by sending up a satellite with multiple sensors that rotates slowly, presenting multiple sensors perfectly perpendicular to a potential source, and through observation of the photons at one sensor, a reaction at the other sensor would indicate a natural quantum emitter. Then a map of quantum emitters would distinguish these sources from all other stars, and work could be done to use the existing carrier signals. I liken it to finding what was previously an invisible electrical grid interconnecting the universe. Dr. Mitch Eisenstein [Personal contact info deleted]
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
What is entanglement? It's the effect when two discrete amounts of matter which have in some way interacted but are separated by distance and become somehow connected - when one mass is in a certain state, the other will also be in that certain state.
Remember, space and time and scale of mass are apparently of little consequence. Even Stephen Hawking is postulating that space and time are secondary effects, that entanglement is the primary driver of much of what happens in existence.
But that's okay, Chris. Keep an ear to the ground the years go by and the developments keep coming...and in about a decade or so, I'd say some of the physicists will come out and agree with some of what I've said in this article - indeed, their observations on the macro level in living things (birds and possibly plants) are already a definite step in that direction that I saw years ago.
So keep an eye on what's going on...and I suspect that you and Doc will agree that both of you will owe me a beer in a decade or so (if only the digital kind, of course).
22 - Irene Athena
Glenn said right there in the title it was a HUNCH about the human condition, not a dang hypothesis. Thank you, Glenn. I love reading about things that make me wonder.
After reading this, I have a HUNCH that there is a beautiful poetic rhythm in the universe, so that even if quantum entanglement is not *directly* responsible for the in-sync traveling patterns of birds and fish, there is some other as-yet-not-understood process at work for which the quantum entanglement behavior of sub-atomic particles is "a thought experiment."
23 - Christopher Rose
Yeah, that's right, Glenn, physicists are going to acclaim you as a visionary - not!
Irene - so as I said, he should stick to religion not confuse science with gibberish.
There is "a beautiful poetic rhythm in the universe", which may or may not have anything to do with quantum entanglement, we just don't know yet.
Given that we can't detect around 80% of our universe, there is obviously more that we don't know than we do know.
Attributing unclear processes to theoretical constructs as you and Glenn seek to do is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
24 - handyguy
Those of us who love the TV show Fringe know the pleasures of fantasizing about alternate realities/universes.
My assumption is that we only know a billionth of what there is to know about reality [if even that much]. Chris's and Doc's posts on this thread seem both smug and gratuitous in their 'we already know this isn't true, obviously' stance.
25 - Christopher Rose
handy: I am a big fan of Fringe too - and most, though not all, science fiction.
The "pleasure of fantasizing about alternate realities/universes" has precious little bearing on the predictions made by Glenn and to which he has determinedly stuck. It seems to me that persistence is more smug than the efforts of the Doc and me to point out his, er, over-exuberance...