Quantum Entanglement, ideas?

But string theory connects both quantum mechanics and Theory Of Relativity. It is the most consistent theory so far.

But not testable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

eram

I don't think much of string theory, it seems so ad hoc and vague. I don't KNOW that it is not true, but it lacks the kind of elegance that something like Relativity has, and as many other answers in science display.

Layman

I too think there is no conflict between SR and Quantum Mechanics, the problem lies in our understanding of how one fades into the other at very small distances. But god not only plays dice with the Universe, he often throws the dice where we can't see them. When probability is applied to the macro the outcome becomes locked into the most probable result(IE it is not unusual for a single particle to have a certain vector(one much more extreme than normal, even)but it would be highly unlikely that every particle in a room would all go off on one vector, leaving behind a vacuum. When it is applied to a single particle(or smaller)the results can be wildly variant, when applied to many particles the norm emerges. This is why randomness and probabilities are so important to quantum physics, but nearly irrelevant in macro physics(IE the predictability of SR).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but we already have a relativistic theory of quantum mechanics, at least for cases where the overall number of particles is constant. This does not give us any new insights into entanglement, though.
What we don't yet have is a model for quantum gravity, which is a different issue altogether.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To me elegance is kinda subjective. I prefer theories that "make sense", so to speak.

Anyway, what you mentioned earlier about trying to resolve non-locality or "spooky action"

sounds a lot like string theory.

Th Dirac equation utilizes both SR and QM. As Markus mentioned above, the issue is to unify GR and QM with quantum gravity. LQG and M-theory are possible contenders.

Yes, that is the Correspondence Principle. But why do you bring it up?

 

Not really, I normally try to explain away all quantum weirdness with SR. I normally get told that real science doesn't do anything of the sort. But, I think it is a fundamental mechanism behind a lot of it, it is the only way I can seem to make it make any kind of logical sense. I would like to know more about an existing one, but frankly it already sounds like we need a new one. For the most part, the only reason why I even believe in quantum weirdness is because of how I have tried tying it together with relativistic principals. Otherwise, it would be like trying to believe in God.

I think it would be interesting to try and to accelerate a particle during a quantum jump. I have an idea on that too, I guess I am just full of them. But, if I am right I think that type of experiment could have some tantalizing results. Do you know of any that have tried this?

 

No idea what you're talking about.

Interesting...though that's an unlikely source of unification.

 

eram

Theories that make sense is part of what is elegant about them.

Just with less strings, more dimensions? Strings of what, exactly? I just do not find the idea explanatory, or even logically descriptive. It seems to be an attempt to describe everything as just different aspects of the same phenomena. And while Occam says the simplest explanation that describes and predicts all aspects of the system studied is USUALLY the correct one, there is such a thing as distorting your theory in an attempt to oversimplify. But I could be wrong(it wouldn't be the first or only time).

The thing about theories trying to describe things that largely cannot be studied from the frame of our Universe is that they are largely math based speculation. The theories may or may not be accurate or even close. I'm skeptical about gravity ever being shown to be divisible into discrete quanta. I think some things are just aspects of the framework, not energies, particles or events within that framework, and mass(gravity), motion and time may just be linear even to infinitely small sizes. Planck time and length were simply thought experiments made necessary by the smoothness of time and mass to the limits of our ability to measure it and they describe graininess we assume has to appear at some point(that point lying beyond Planck time and length, evidently)and are analogous to Black Holes in that they describe realms of physics currently beyond our ability to understand.

Because it points out that both SR and Quantum theory are describing a single existence, not two separate kinds of reality. It just LOOKS different to us only because it is like looking at the behavior of one individual and comparing it to the behavior of a large crowd. The behavior of the individual can be wildly different than the behavior of a crowd, there are things the individual can do that the crowd cannot and vice versa. But when it comes down to it both are just different sizes of the same thing.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was thinking more along the lines of mathematical elegance. Yup.

Skeptical? But we already have quantum theories of the other forces. Why not gravity?

Anyway now we're digressing with SR and QM. Let's get back on track.


The OP asked about the underlying mechanism behind entanglement.

I know you don't think much of string theory, but that doesn't address your earlier post (#26). Your explanation of entanglement sounded a lot like string theory, what did you actually have in mind?


Markus Hanke gave his take (#3).

It sounded a lot like Einstein's "two gloves" concept, in contrast to "spooky action". (jump to 27:40 or 30:33)

[video=youtube;EGhQmNZhlqw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhQmNZhlqw[/video]

By 37:00, Greene states that Aspect and Clauser's experiments have proven that there really is "spooky action at a distance."

 

eram

Math is a tool, the validity of the answers it gives depend on the understanding of the one using that tool and some of those answers will be very elegant, but wrong. Conceptual elegance incorporates mathematical elegance. E=MC^2 is both a mathematical and a conceptual statement. It accurately describes the equivalence of matter and energy, but it was the concept that lead the math, not the other way round. There's no mathematical reason that time should not go both ways, but it sure doesn't seem to, entropy's arrow only goes one way.

We have evidence that some forces are quanta, but gravity, time and motion(length) have so far resisted all attempts to dice them into discrete, irreducible bits. Gravity seems to simply be the distortion of space time by mass or energy, time and length are also affected by mass or energy so they too may only be characteristics of space time, not divisible into discrete packages with a lower size limit.

String theory is only one of several theories that indicate more than three dimensions of space and one of time. Last I heard they had largely settled on 11 and were talking about Branes in a non-zombie related context. All but the three spacial and one time dimensions are rolled up in the quantum(the very, very small), in fact they have zero dimensions in our Universe. But if you burrow down over there, and I burrow down over here we will still touch the exact same point in and of these dimensions, even if you are on the other side of the galaxy. This is the hypothesis, anyway. If true entanglement could simply be communication between particles through one of these dimensions. Thus the violation of Relativity in our three plus one dimension Universe is NOT a violation in the Universe with three plus one and the rolled up dimensions not expressed in our Universe but available(maybe)in the subatomic level. It seems a simple fact that if two widely separated particles are communicating instantaneously, the signal is probably not travelling in our Universe of three plus one and the extra dimensions may be the conduits.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, I agree.

I've read about some physicists who were referring purely to mathematical elegance. I can't remember what they said, but I do remember that one of them was Dirac.

I'm not sure how non-divisibility follows from that argument, but this is all too high-level for me, I can't say much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I understand your explanation, I think it's somewhat similar to mine, the very first reply to this thread.

Also, think "Einstein-Rosen bridges", aka "Wormholes".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why do you think there is no explanation of entanglement?

It is very simple. You go to the shop and buy a lock and a key in a packaged in a box. Then you and your friend close your eyes and tell your friend to blindly pick up one item from the box and put it in another box. Then tell him to go away with the box. Now this is an entangled situation. If you now open the box and find the lock there, you discover that your friend has taken away the key. And if you find the key, you discover that the lock has been taken away.

Now the main point to remember here is that YOU KNOW BEFOREHAND that a lock and a key always comes in a package. Its not two locks or two keys etc. Similarly physicists know that when an photon disintrigates it is ALWAYS an electron and a positron. Thus, when they discover that an electron is coming to them from a disintrigated photon, they discover that the other thing going away is a positron.

There is no distance problem to overcome, as there is none to begin with. The event of being one electron and one positron out of a photon, occurs just at the moment the photon disintegrates. It is not like a photon disintrigates and something comes to you, and you discover that something to be an electron. Right at that moment, the otherthing somehow senses your detection and starts to change into a positron. Nopes, whatever is there is already there from the start. You just discover it.

Another point to understand is the nature of discovery. When you discover the particle to be electron, you conclude the other particle to be positron BY HAVING CONFIDENCE on the laws that govern it. It is like solving an algebraic equation. You know a + b = 3. Suddenly you are told that a is 1. Then you solve that b must be 2. But how do you know? You are not explicitly told that b is 2. You know because you have knowledge of the equation of their relationship. Similarly you never discover the other thing is a positron. You conclude that is must be a positron. But you have confidence in the law governing them. Thus you also have confidence that it is a positron.

Now if somehow you are told simultaneously that a is 1 and b is 2. That would be something different. By drawing the analogy, say in this situation at the time of local detection you simultaneously get a signal coming from the the other thing that it is positron. Now that would be spooky action as it will take superluminal signal transmission for something like that to occur, keeping in mind the time for signal travel is zero.

-Kholdstare
Anti-feminist physicist

 

I will tell that when time will come. For now you can look at my introduction in introduction subforum.

It had been a long time since I've read anything regarding Bell's theorem. It would be foolish to say something without reading them again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-Kholdstare
Anti-feminist physicist

 

That's fine by me. I would like people to consider the ideas discussed in #3, #54 and #9

 

I've moved some posts to a more appropriate place: [thread=134999]Derailment of "Quantum Entanglement Ideas"[/thread].