@wolfgang59 saidA typo? This has nothing to do with a typo.
If you had a copy of Hamlet with a typo would you say Shakespeare was BS?
Wikipedia is only useful for things that are largely undisputed. Anything controversial is often plagued with false information on wikipedia. That is just how it is. If you cannot accept that fact you might be biased.
21 Feb 20
@kazetnagorra saidI am skeptical of that assertion.
The Schrödinger equation itself predicts quantum entanglement.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I think it is a myth. Nobody understands it now. How could he have way back then? Show me the specific equation. Sonhouse asked you a good question and I think you should answer it.
@metal-brain saidFor the second time the relevant papers are:
I am skeptical of that assertion.
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Discussion of probability relations between separated systems". (1935)
Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554.
"Probability relations between separated systems". (1936)
Bibcode:1936PCPS...32..446S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100019137
@sonhouse saidAn arbitrary many-body quantum problem is generally entangled.
@KazetNagorra
So is it easier to be in a superpositional state if the number is 2 V 3 or 4?
I saw work showing entanglements of as many as 5 particles.
You are probably thinking of 5 qubits in a quantum computing context specifically. It is of course much harder to have those 5 qubits in a controlled environment than it is for 5 particles to be entangled in some way.
@metal-brain saidThe Schrödinger equation is a specific equation.
I am skeptical of that assertion.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I think it is a myth. Nobody understands it now. How could he have way back then? Show me the specific equation. Sonhouse asked you a good question and I think you should answer it.
22 Feb 20
@kazetnagorra saidShow us.
The Schrödinger equation is a specific equation.
Where is the equation?
22 Feb 20
@wolfgang59 saidDid he predict it or simply observe it and write about his findings?
For the second time the relevant papers are:
"Discussion of probability relations between separated systems". (1935)
Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554.
"Probability relations between separated systems". (1936)
Bibcode:1936PCPS...32..446S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100019137
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mathematical-proceedings-of-the-cambridge-philosophical-society/article/discussion-of-probability-relations-between-separated-systems/C1C71E1AA5BA56EBE6588AAACB9A222D
@metal-brain saidI'm sure you are able to find the Schrödinger equation somewhere, it is the most widely used equation in quantum mechanics.
Show us.
Where is the equation?
@metal-brain saidYes.
Did Erwin Schrödinger write an article predicting QE?
Schrödinger, E., 1935. “Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31: 555–563; 32 (1936): 446–451.
When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled
23 Feb 20
@athousandyoung saidI already posted a link to that article. It says nothing about a prediction. Looks like mere observation to me.
Yes.
Schrödinger, E., 1935. “Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31: 555–563; 32 (1936): 446–451.
When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time ...[text shortened]... ought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled
@metal-brain saidPredictions come from observations.
I already posted a link to that article. It says nothing about a prediction. Looks like mere observation to me.
The Schrödinger equation makes predictions.
23 Feb 20
@metal-brain saidIt's a completely theoretical paper, it doesn't "observe" squat.
I already posted a link to that article. It says nothing about a prediction. Looks like mere observation to me.
23 Feb 20
@kazetnagorra saidThen quote the prediction.
It's a completely theoretical paper, it doesn't "observe" squat.
@metal-brain saidHow could he observe it?
Did he predict it or simply observe it and write about his findings?
23 Feb 20
@wolfgang59 saidFrom the link below:
How could he observe it?
Quantum entanglement was discovered by Schrödinger and later studied by Einstein and other scientists in the last century.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180516102307.htm
It says "discovered", not predicted.
Schrödinger did NOT predict quantum entanglement. Wikipedia is wrong again.