# Einstein Vs. Bohr: Spookiness at a distance



## Sigur RÃ³s (Feb 28, 2007)

*Eistein VS. Bohr:*
_Spookiness At A Distance_


[FONT=Arial, serif]Since the beginning of man, many have questioned the meaning of life, and how it pertains to the creation of the universe. Religions, science's, and philosophies have all gone through it's mighty struggle, and throughout the long years, many fights of extreme aptitudes have been made, either physically through war and fights or mentally through logic and intelect. Even now, in this day of technological advancements, argumentation on the subject has either set great friction or blissful enlightenment, throughout the homes, nations, and the many minds who step to question. However, out of all the endless confrontations, none of these debates and none of these wars, could ever accumulate to the argument of Einstein and Bohr and the undeniable amazement of the supernatural science of Quantum Physics: _The mystical study to understand-through all aspects and possibilities-the fundamental building blocks of our universe,. _[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Neils Bohr,_ 'The Father of Quantum Physics'_ had started it all, with the astounding theory of entanglement, which in the normal terms of English, means a sense of merging in disoriented manners with something or someone else. However, that is far different than the manner in which the Quantum world expresses it. Schrödinger had named it after the German word for phenomenon, which meant enfolding or crossing over in an orderly manner. Once two particles become entangled, the placement of those particles, abstractly cease to matter. They remain interconnected in a powerful, unbreakable communication of telepathy, performing an infinite vastness of seemingly impossible possibilities. It is indeed, like a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]tremendous game of dice, consisting of far more possibilities than just twelve, for they are infinite throughout all paradoxical parallels (or dimensions) and our own state of reality. It can reach from one side of the universe to the other and travel through dimensions, instantaneously. It's because of this, _TheTheory of Relativity_ was questioned, for If they could move instantaneously, then they were faster than the speed of light. This also means that the entangled particles could _exceed_ the speed of light, triumphantly dancing around his equations and adding new wonders.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Schrödinger's wave equation put a strong voice in this. To grasp his concept, you must be clear and open minded. This is an introduction of quanta and Quantum. Quanta being tiny packets of matter and energy set in fixed amounts, working in bits (0's and 1's), rather than a continuous variable of quantity, which separates it from a constant. Quantum is only there to let us now we're working with quanta, which is a tiny spec of _something_, a uniform building block generally found in vast numbers, like a subatomic electron, a photon of light, or an atom. These particles create all that we see. They exist inside of everything, and can even merge together to make new compounds. They are perceived as the constructors of our reality, yet in quantum views, they aren't even there. This was calculated by Schrödinger, who explained particles as waves of possibilities until they are observed or measured, and once we do observe or measure them, they take the Quantum Leap and form reality. What that basically means, is that we're living in a non-local reality. Bohr-in secret, because he knew the hardness of acceptance-believed mind to have a powerful effect on this; conscience being our only keeper of the mutual reality.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Einstein and Neils Bohr were both mutually seeking the fundamental answers of the universe, but there laid a major difference, which would separate them forever. It's because of this they could never become colleagues and combine their great intellect, to have perhaps, sped up Quantum Physics and Physics to an incomprehensible degree. Being a man of tradition, and a believer in god, Einstein immediately denied the acceptance of all aspects and endless possibilities. He neglected the chance of quantum randomness and the fact of non-local realities. Einstein could not fight with Science however. Quantum Theory presented him no room for any attack, no openings for any logical contradictions, and the theory had given too much light to hundreds of unexplained phenomenons. Einstein however, refused to give into the new theory, chanting that, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Einstein felt that there was one unitive answer to the universe, structured with ultimate law. He often sent letters to one of his friends Max Brown, discussing this. He once said ”... theory can not be reconciled with the idea that physics represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]In 1935, after years of pestilently challenging Bohr, who wished for solitude, Einstein and his colleagues, Podolsky, and Rosen, wrote a paper on Quantum entanglement called, “_Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”_ that gave Einstein an actual chance to denounce the theory of entanglement. It was better known as the EPR thought experiment. In it they imagined-due to lack of money and funding-a particle breaking down to form two new particles. Then both the new particles were shot off in opposing directions, each with the same momentum. However, since the original particle had no momentum, the other two canceled out, because momentum needs a force; it doesn't just happen. Yet, how did the first two particles know to go the same momentum? Well, this is when EPR expressed that either Quantum Theory has a large whole or that local reality was an incorrect assumption. They then decided to respond to entanglement or scariness(action) at a distance with a conclusive blow. So, EPR remarked “No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this.” In other words, non-locality was impossible, because reality couldn't let it be. . [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Neils Bohr found himself in shock and grief when his friend Rosenfeld told him about the EPR. He would sometimes turn to Rosenfeld and say, “What does this mean? Can you understand it?” which was due to Rosen's bad translation of Einsteins idea, the papers were quite confusing. He eventually responded to them to say that it went against the Principle of complementarity, which means where there are two mutually exclusive ways of viewing a phenomenon, neither is visible until you take an approach to it. However, he soon realized he'd misheard Einstein's argument, and his counterpoint became useless.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]After that, few arguments had gone back and forth between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein would explain how he believed in complete law and order, and Bohr would counterpoint that philosophy doesn't prove universal puzzles. And before you knew it, Bohr had stopped writing to Einstein's EPR. He had given in, and came to believe that non-locality was impossible, though he wasn't able to easily admit it. The last words were from neither of the great warriors. It was Schrödinger who gave the last cent, explaining that when we know two state's respective representatives,enter a temporary physical interaction, because of known forces between them, and after a time of mutual influence they separate again, then they can't be explained the same anymore. This means that in Einstein's explanation, the two particles would have not canceled out. Schrödinger, for the first time, called this _entanglement_.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]The non-locality theory was proven by one of Einstein's good friend's, John Bell, who by trying to prove Einstein right, did the opposite. He compared the results of two detectors over a wide range of angles, quantum theory predicted one result, and the hidden variables of locality predicted another. The idea of locality was lost forever. It was finally proven that matter is only existent to the eye. Then, not long later, Alain Aspect proved Entanglement (spookiness at a distance) with home made lasers, after being inspired by John Bell. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Neils Bohr, who had given up, and Einstein, who wouldn't stop, had both died years before the fight was finished. Einstein hoped that Quantum Theory would go far, which was once written to Max Brown, but he still couldn't believe god played dice or that there was spookiness at a distance. Einstein's philosophical believes kept him away from the science, and he died not knowing all of it's triumphs. In the end, Neils Bohr made it with his theories. He may have not become as famous as Einstein, but he opened up a science that is exploring the universe in the most phenomenal ways, finding out the infinite possibilities of spookiness at a distance.[/FONT]


----------



## Subterranean1984 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote Sigur Ros: It's because of this, _The Theory of Relativity_ was questioned.

Nikola Tesla, father of alternating currents and actual creator of the radio (having won the patent from Marconi years after Marconi received the Nobel Prize), among hundreds of other ground breaking innovations, refuted the theory of relativity upon its inception. Before Bohr I’d imagine. He apparently was working on his own theories in this field, are you aware of these?


----------



## Subterranean1984 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote Sigur Ros: It's because of this, _The Theory of Relativity_ was questioned.

Nikola Tesla, father of alternating currents and actual creator of the radio (having won the patent from Marconi years after Marconi received the Nobel Prize), among hundreds of other ground breaking innovations, refuted the theory of relativity upon its inception. Before Bohr I’d imagine. He apparently was working on his own theories in this field, are you aware of these?


----------



## Subterranean1984 (Feb 28, 2007)

I don't know why that double posted.


----------



## Subterranean1984 (Feb 28, 2007)

I don't know why that double posted.


----------



## Sigur RÃ³s (Feb 28, 2007)

-The site is acting screwy. 

But I'm pretty sure it was Bohr first since the enanglement theory came out pretty much right after the Relativity Theory. Tesla however, I am aware of. I could write a new one about Tesla VS. Edison in fact, but it would be more personal rivalry, rather than scientific. It's too bad the government got all of those patents from him. I know they got more than they gave to the museum. Tesla made feilds of light bulbs and he's known for whatever machine based off his work in Antartica that can control weather. He was a genius.


----------



## Sigur RÃ³s (Feb 28, 2007)

DP.


----------



## americanwriter (Mar 8, 2007)

Sigur Rós said:
			
		

> *Eistein VS. Bohr:*
> _Spookiness At A Distance_
> 
> 
> [FONT=Arial, serif]Since the beginning of man, many have questioned the meaning of life, and how it pertains to the creation of the universe. Religions, science's, and philosophies have all gone through it's mighty struggle, and throughout the long years, many fights of extreme aptitudes have been made, either physically through war and fights or mentally through logic and intelect. Even now, in this day of technological advancements, argumentation on the subject has either set great friction or blissful enlightenment, throughout the homes, nations, and the many minds who step to question. However, out of all the endless confrontations, none of these debates and none of these wars, could ever accumulate to the argument of Einstein and Bohr and the undeniable amazement of the supernatural science of Quantum Physics: _The mystical study to understand-through all aspects and possibilities-the fundamental building blocks of our universe,. _[/FONT]



This needs much work.  If the first paragraph is this disjointed and tangled, why should I wish to continue reading the rest?  

I tried, believe me, but I couldn't follow.  Partly because there seems no focused idea and partly because of the poor punctuation and misuse of words and phrases.  

[REVISION OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Since the beginning of recorded history, many have questioned the meaning of life with respect to the creation of the universe in an attempt to answer the question, "What is our purpose?" . Wars, physical and intellectual, have resulted.  Religion, science, and philosophy have all failed to adequately answer it, despite man's technological achievements and heightened scientific knowledge.  Einstein and Neils Bohr, considered among the most brilliant of our species, were unable to provide an answer in their lifetimes, though intensely debated from the vantage point of a highly-disputed science known as Quantum Physics, "The mystical study to understand, through all aspects and possibilities, the fundamental building blocks of our universe.[/FONT] [END REVISION] [You need to give attribution for this quote -- who said it?]

You can now segue more smoothly into paragraphs on each man's stand on life's meaning through their interpretation, understanding, or objection to Quantum Physics, and ultimately how their diverse perspectives played out.


----------



## movieman (Mar 11, 2007)

> It's because of this, The Theory of Relativity was questioned, for If they could move instantaneously, then they were faster than the speed of light.



However, 'spooky' entanglement only exists if you don't use the relativistic form of quantum mechanics... and it's not really a surprise that classical quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity, because it ignores relativity!

You might want to read up on the Transactional Interpretation, which eliminates the whole issue; the non-locality just becomes a complicated mathematical way of saying 'we can't tell what state particles are in until we measure it, but they've been in that state since their last interaction'. If you're planning this as an article then it would add something extra which has rarely been touched on in popular media, and I'm amazed that scientists of the caliber of Einstein and Bohr didn't seem to realise that the real issue was so simple.


----------



## mammamaia (Mar 11, 2007)

sorry to have to agree with aw... the writing is poor... needs a lot of work to make this piece make any sense...


----------

