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) 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 * Noting here that the posts bearing my signature above were copy and pasted here by Uralunlucayakli and were originally made on my user talk page.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)

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)