"Spooky action at a distance" What did he mean?

Can you explain what you mean by "simple dynamics"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vacuum energy does not behave as a gas does in thermodynamics. The Boltzmann equation has nothing to do with it. Forcing this is equivalent to forcing Minkowski on spacetme. It doesn't work, largely because Minkowski was a mathematician, not a physicist. If his math doesn't work, he blames reality for its imperfection instead of the reverse.

For one thing, entangled bosons there may travel only at the speed of light, and it is only now becoming clear exactly what it means when they interact to impart inertia to certain kinds of matter. Such matter is bound by means of quantum entanglement. It is this process that assures that anything possessing inertial mass may not exceed the speed of light with respect to other similarly bound particles.

The vacuum in this universe does not derive of anything akin to the space-time of Minkowsky. It is rather a straightforward superposition of the single dimension of time together with energy that enjoys unrestricted modes of propagation in an infinitude of directions. Except for the degrees of freedom afforded by this rotation coupled strongly to the time that derives of vacuum energy propagation, space in the Euclidean sense is not part of this universe, but only exists in that form in the minds of mathematicians. To vacuum energy, time exists as an oscillation of energy in a field, and space in the direction of its propagation contracts to zero length. It isn't Euclidean in even small measure. Any mathematics that attempts to impose Euclidean space on it the way Minkowsky did loses binding to reality, and because of this, fails the consistency test so necessary to physics before calculations can proceed any further.

None of the molecules of a gas are entangled. Electrons may be entangled locally, but this too is a side effect of the Higgs mechanism consisting of integer spin bozons, ALL of which are entangled. For longer range entanglement for communications, only entangled photons will serve.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A pair of plane mirrors bouncing a laser beam back and forth in the same manner as Einstein's original e=mc^2 thought experiment (and also Wheeler's graphical derivation of the Lorentz transformation) may conveniently be used to demonstrate the idea that energy has the property of inertia ONLY when it is bound (bouncing between the two mirrors). While the electrons in the mirror share the inertia of a spacecraft in an inertial FoR, any beam that bounces between the mirrors will continue to bounce (assume lossless mirrors) and follow the content velocity path of the spacecraft in any direction. This demonstrates that bound energy has inertia. That is exactly what the property of inertia means in terms of energy, which can never be truly at rest, but persists without dissipation in any state in which it is bound, just as matter does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is in part because photons have no mass and the boson associated with the Higgs mechanism does that leads more or less directly to the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. No doubt, this does not matter in order for QFT to work, but they have tossed out the variable for time because there was no other convenient way to eliminate infinities associated with it. They seem to have collectively forgotten that this device is only a mathematical compromise and that it really makes little real sense to toss out time in favor of probabilities simply because you can continue doing finite math that way. Time and energy are fundamental to an understanding of the physical universe. Without them, you are just playing with counting numbers, not trying to understand the physical universe or reality.

 

Would you say that if a photon was to exist, it MUST do so ONLY in the universal present moment.?. (ie. hyper surface of the present)
That as a photon travels at 'c' across vacuum-ous space, regardless of vector, the universal present moment must travel with it?

That the universal present moment is transforming (changing) at a rate of 'c'?

 

The propagation of energy in the vacuum is limited by c, but entanglement is not, or else matter as bound energy could not exist.

A 'moment' would be a time interval of zero duration, which as Peter Lynds has pointed out, is a nonsensical concept. Energy including energy bound as matter would not be conserved if time completely stopped (delta t = 0). Even energy bound as matter is never truly at rest, but constantly interacts with entangled bosons in the vacuum to maintain inertia.

There is no "hyper-surface" because that would be Minkowsky's concept of Euclidean space with time tacked on as an afterthought. There is only time and energy. To get something that resembles the space in which matter and we may exist, simply imagine virtual energy propagating and rotating through an infinite number of directions at any "moment".

As Little Bang has pointed out, time may flow at different rates and have different time dilations near gravitational fields or moving FoRs anywhere in this universe, but the local measure of the speed of light is always the same.

 

So when does a photon exist? In the past? In the present ? or in the future?

 

Why do you feel that a time would stop if a zero point moment was delta t = 0?

Isn't, say, a 5 minute time duration made up of an infinite number of zero point moments that each have delta t = 0?
( like how an infinite number of points make up a line of any length)

 

No. That would be Xeno's paradox as well as one of those infinities which drove QFT and the math associated with the logical fallacy of frozen energy which apparently Einstein himself could not find a way around. Neither time nor what we call space is quantized in terms of the propagation of energy. Matter is the only form energy may ever take in which it is in any sense frozen or bound, and although matter interacts with energy in a manner that is quantized, neither energy nor time is quantized, nor by extension is what we refer to as space, because it is a direct superposition of time in the directions energy may propagate. Bound energy in the form of matter may appear frozen in terms of time, but on sub-quantum scales it is extremely dynamic in terms of how it interacts with vacuum energy and fields. It can be bound or provided inertia in no other manner except by means of entanglement.

Discrete space time is exactly where Minkowsy's ideas lead, and of course he was just fine with that because it gives him something else to count. His student Einstein was the physicist. Einstein knew the Planck relation only applied to matter. But it is not taught that way mainly because all of the instrumentation of physics is matter also. This will change once the physics of entanglement is fully understood. We are standing on the brink of this revolution.

I can't thank you enough for helping wring out these ideas, which evidently, are not all mine. One of my former colleagues had it right all along. I simply hadn't got up to speed with entanglement. Most of my colleague's ideas were very similar to those of Eric Verlinde, but there are important differences also.

Thanks QQ. You were right. This discussion belonged in pseudoscience. The rest of the forum helped iron out some bugs as well. I was very uncomfortable with Lee Smolen's very similar ideas, but he couldn't take the ideas to their logical conclusions basically because his ideas are tainted by association with an academic environment that worships math and has not been challenged since the days of Minkowsky. This needs to change. G-d may play dice, but he is no bean counter, and counting is not the same as understanding in this universe. Einstein proved that by thinking outside the box that Euclid constructed. People like Ed Witten put us back into that box and physics never got back out of it.

 

I see no logical fallacy in the notion that:
"In a continuum of movement (time or change) a particular moment has zero duration, for if it had duration there would be no continuum of movement..."
A photon does not stop. It has a continuum of movement. So if we say mark the time at 10 am exactly we are referring to a zero duration point of our own calling that exists in a continuum of movement. ( Both as an abstraction and actual)
I see no logical fallacy with that nor do I see Mathematics having much to do with it. just logic, that a continuum of movement has to be continuous. As I wrote, a photon does not stop no matter what "zero point moment" you point to.
There is no need to quote any one to confirm the logic.. it is straight forward enough I would think.
Lynds' earliest papers where quite good at dealing with this issue if I recall correctly, but all that changed once the peer review found that Lynds' thoughts were controversial regarding Relativity etc..

 

I believe that as Quantum entanglement was evidenced as early as 1954 *? that the mechanism behind it has already been well and truly understood but is not published ( classified ) . I also believe that the biggest issue that is involved currently is in how to communicate change with out breaking the entanglement or otherwise compromising the connection.

 

Yes, I noticed also that Lynd's ideas about Relativity had run off the track. But I think his ideas about freezing time to delta t = 0 were spot on. It robs matter both of inertia and of energy, and that is just an impossibility. I think that at its root an understanding of entanglement is necessary to resolving Zeno (Xeno) issues with time. For the speed of light to be limited the way it is, something in terms of energy and fields must be faster, and that would be entanglement.

 

Yes indeed. But Einstein died in 1955 of an aneurism that hemmoraged, so he probably didn't have much to say about entanglement, although he possibly would or might have commented that it was spooky. But no spookier than is gravity or any of the other forces. If you can't see the actual cause, it's difficult to understand it as anything other than spooky or occult in origin.

I'm not surprised some of the scientific literature relating to an understanding of entanglement may be classified. So is the identity of the person who mows the White House lawn. It impresses even less to think that science so basic would be on a need to know basis. So, we can expect that even if this venue of inquiry ultimately leads to something all of humanity could possibly benefit from knowing, only the privileged few with security clearances (like I once had for a few years) will be likely to carry on this work? OK, so Einstein got away with talking about Relativity without such encumbrances because he was working on something that appeared unlikely of being of strategic significance until the first A bomb was constructed and detonated. Makes sense.

I also have something of a unified field theory pertaining to dissemination of technical and scientific knowledge in the internet age. I have not as yet disclosed any of the (only marginally) sensitive information I was privy to and swore not to disclose in any venue, nor do I have any plans to. Now, who's still got a secret? Edward Snowden, perhaps, not me. I have no working knowledge of the classified literature to which you refer, nor do I seek it. If you feel that the furtherance of this discussion may compromise any of it, then we should probably end this discussion. If you are bound by any non-disclosure agreement(s), y0u should honor them also.

Again, thanks for your candid replies. It has been an interesting thread QQ.

 

A story, (treat it as fiction if you like)

Years ago ( about 12 years ) I had a discussion with a 35 (*?) year old granddaughter of a retired USA Naval Admiral. She stated that as a child she used to sit on her grandfathers lap and tap something embedded under the skin of his right temple saying "What is this Granddad, what is this?" She never received an adequate response.

Shortly afterwards research revealed that a disc like object about 1.5" diameter and about 1/8" thick made of dark carbon material was being used by USA Fighter Pilots in the attempt to improve concentration and reaction times in battle conditions.

It was also revealed that this disc was being used experimentally to explore the possible therapeutic effects when used on Children suffering severe autism.

Research at the time indicated that one side effect of this embedded or simply attached, carbon disc was that the pilots were able to demonstrate significant influence over others whilst on the ground waiting for their next training flight. In particular females, which as you can imagine leads one on to all sorts of nefarious scenarios.

Suffice to say that mastering this "spooky action at a distance" has many possible ramifications and not just benign and collectively mutually beneficial ones.

I mention the above mainly to demonstrate why, I think, any serious research into quantum entanglement would be classified and any public research seriously inhibited and or discouraged by those seeking to maintain it's classified nature.

The issue of quantum entanglement has significant implications for the "independence" and "autonomy" of individual human beings. IMO
I believe as I stated earlier :

any ways.. enough conspiracy theory..

 

I hadn't thought of that aspect of entanglement very much, but nature always seems to out-engineer us (the wheel, nuclear fusion, sex, dna, photosynthesis, to name only a few). Just interested in how it holds the universe together for right now, really.

 

but of course that universe you refer to includes humanity as well.. what hold humanity together and how life generally plays such an important role in universal order and collective integrity.

Humans are not an accident of universal physics so to speak, humans (humanoids) are a necessary part of universal physics. IMO

Unfortunately ( or fortunately depending on your bent) humanity and life generally are often excluded from any "human" TOE theorizing.

Knowledge of Quantum Entanglement offers a window into understanding the very fundamental nature of this universe including life, and is by no means a trivial natural phenomena. IMO

 

If you follow discussions along a similar vein in other threads you will know that I'm no supporter of either the anthromorphic principle nor Ockham's Razor. The former has been used as an excuse for manipulating the 'free parameters' of physics to make theories that don't' really have much scientific credibility more palatable. A fudge factor by any other name nonetheless reeks of pseudoscience, or math with a fraudulent agenda.

A theory must be as complex as it needs to be to explain all that can be observed, and if it is correct, predictions about things that have not yet been observed will be both possible and verifiable. Russell's teapot and Popper's notion of falsifiability notwithstanding, science knowledge is something you can build on, not just something constructed in a manner that is easy to tear down and discard pieces that don't fit, the way natural selection works. The demarcation Popper was looking for is that pseudoscience cannot be built upon and remain consistent, or at least not for very long.

 

Whilst I hold to the anthropic principle generally speaking I see great value in working as if I do not. It allows one to look at the universe from the outside so to speak and prevents the presumption of anything.
Like asking yourself is there any other visual colors other than that which we commonly refer to in our typical visual color spectrum. Is there a color "bling" for example or "blong" etc... as absurd as it may seem this method allows one to appreciate the colors we do have for what they are more so than if we simply presume that what colors we observe are all there is.

However in essence I tend to agree with the anthropic principle as we humans are only imitators (mirrors) of what we observe about ourselves and around us so therefore we have evolved to do just that...which then logically follows on to the anthropic principle.
I do see your need to keep pushing the boundary though and it is one worth maintaining IMO.

 

The first time I saw the anthropoid principle, I thought: where is Captain Obvious, superhero of the cognitively challenged when you really need him? Nothing I have read about it since then has changed my mind that it is one of those principles, akin to: "I'm still alive!" That is really too self evident. There was a time, not so very long ago, that anyone pointing out something so manifestly self evident would have been as embarrassed and out of place as if asking a stranger for help tying their shoes.

Whatever happened to change this , I've no idea. Perhaps the reason is simply too obvious.

 

Now this one is really interesting (as well as spooky):

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1029974/pg1

When I did have top secret security clearance, I worked with Ground Penetrating Radar systems, and was somewhat dismayed that it was not possible to image something that was smaller than about 1/3 of a wavelength, and for the frequencies we were using, sometimes that meant we couldn't detect buried objects smaller than about a meter.

Something like the system imaging the outline of a cat applied to GPR, making such systems detect smaller objects than otherwise possible with a given frequency bandwidth would be much more useful than just an entertaining parlor trick.