Testing Quantum Entanglement...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, May 30, 2017.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The emission of a photon by a pair of entangled electrons in atomic structure is both quantized and deterministic. The mature sciences of spectroscopy and chemistry both depend heavily on it.

    The idea that it takes two quantum entangled charges accelerating to create an entangled photon is new. That idea that the electrons change entanglement state many times during the process of emitting a photon and that these changes of entanglement state occur much faster than the emitted photon propagates outside of atomic structure is also new, but essential to the model.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Entanglement is not a free ticket to instant communication. In order to take advantage of the effect, the entangled photons must go through a beam splitter and respectively propagate at c and begin arriving whereever it is they will be observed, and also at the SINGLE remote location you wish to have instant communication with.

    Clever means for observing one path of entangled photons as a means for modulating the entangled signal in the remote path may then take place. Full duplex instant communication will require an isolated channel, which may or may not be practical without sending communication protocol instructions first. ONLY TWO points in all of the universe may be connected by means of entangled wave functions like this for each entangled pair of photons. The entangled photons are, for all intents and purposes, simply an extension of the wave function of the entangled charges which originally produced them.

    To say this is a tricky way to cheat entanglement into a limited form of instant communication is, as you can see, an understatement of its inherent complexity and limited applicability. No communication system in use today is nearly as finicky or hard to apply, and this is not likely to change.

    But in principle at least, it does work.

    What seems strangest to me is that the earliest successful attempts at entanglement communication propagated through fiber optics with no difficulty. Total internal reflection occurs continuously in fiber optic cable, and each reflection occurs apparently without any loss of entanglement. Reflection doesn't count as an observation, which is weird, because it involves absorption and re-emission by electrons in the fiber optic cables. If someone has a good explanation as to why that would work at all, and yet does not cause the same effect as an observation, I'm very interested. Is a direction for observation chosen by means of reflection, or is it not?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    There's instant communication and then there's the instantaneous passing of information which would violate the speed of light. Are you saying, in principle that is possible?

    Instant communication is telling someone that if one particle has up spin then the other particle will have down spin. They measure one particle and it has up spin so they instantaneously know that the other particle has down spin.

    They know that faster than the speed of light but they know it only because you told them ahead of time. They also can't change the spin characteristic so no real information has been passed.

    Are you suggesting otherwise?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The "collapse of the wave function" is, yes, instant. An instant of time is not subject to the relativistic edict which applies to a time interval, a velocity, or the velocity of light. Minkowski's math error was making time itself proportional to the speed of light, the mathematical equivalent of proportional division by zero. It may not be the case that entanglement is actually faster than light. On the contrary, it is much, much 'slower'. Absolute time exists in the quantum equivalent of the instant of 'now'. But don't expect that you will be able to do geometry with it, because absolute space does NOT exist. Since 1905. That it keeps getting resurrected by mathematicians would be amusing if it were not so pathetic. It has no bindings to physical reality, any more than division by zero does.
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    An interval of time is a very different thing than an interval of space.

    In the rest frame, it is possible to compare the space between stationary or near stationary atoms of a solid phase of matter by means of measuring the light travel time between them. Such measurements may be performed as many times as necessary and you will always get very close to the same measured value for space. So the geometry of space has relative meaning so long as the measurement is done with respect to something else that has INERTIA.

    An interval of time is a different matter completely. While it is true that the universe is comprised of energy and of energy transfer of events, to suppose that the speed of light is proportional to time is a serious error. Energy may propagate in a composite quantum spin mode in the case of matter or antimatter, or it may propagate along a more or less straight line trajectory in the case of a photon.

    An interval of time as conceived by Minkowski does not exist. A stopwatch does not measure an 'interval of time'. It measures a length between a set point where part of a timepiece ceased function as a timepiece (something that moves at a fixed rate), and another part of the mechanism that kept moving. It is a mathematical fiction to believe this is a measure of a time interval. It most certainly is not.

    Time dilation (the rate at which time proceeds) is something you can actually measure, whereas a time interval is not. Energy that is unbound does not spontaneously propagate backwards, HOWEVER QUANTUM SPINS BETWEEN ENTANGLED PARTICLES MAY FLIP INSTANTANEOUSLY, because this is the fundamental nature of time itself. Entanglement is what binds energy into matter and antimatter. Fundamental particles of matter or antimatter persist in time because of it, and the unbound energy of an entangled photon propagates at c in a vacuum because of this fundamental nature of time as well. The Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy only exists because both time and energy exist, and the same can be said of inertia.

    Unbound energy persists in time. Bound energy persists in time. Unless both are true, conservation of energy fails. It is dependent on a deeper understanding of the nature of time not possible with Minkowski's geometrical spacetime construct. Absolute time (instants) exist. Absolute space and the geometry that goes with it, does not.

    By means of extension, and due to the underlying nature of time itself, an interval of spacetime does not exist either. Treating any part of time as a tensor quantity is dividing by zero. Time has a fixed direction, dependent on energy propagating in various modes, but no magnitude than can be compared to a velocity, fixed or otherwise. Time dilation has a variable rate that is dependent on relative motion and proximity to other forms of energy, but no fixed direction in 'space'.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Assuming that time itself is self-similar to proportional math involving a velocity or a time interval all the way down to an instant of time is exactly the same misconception as: "why it's turtles, Dr Russell; it's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN." The last turtle is not a turtle at all, only a turtle's equivalent of turtle entanglement.

    Many, many thanks to Peter Lynde of New Zealand:

    https://www.wired.com/2005/06/physics/

    For many of the concepts I have just put forward as a quantum revision to the bedrock of relativity. And of course, to sciforums, for tolerating me while working it out.

    Peter simply did not take his ideas quite far enough.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Space as we perceive it is an artifact of time, not the other way round. This is true on any scale, at rest or at any relative velocity or time dilation < c, any quantum spin or lack thereof, or for the absolute present time instant 'now' associated with quantum entanglement of energy.

    There is no way to measure a time interval more than once without involving time travel. There is no such problem with a measurement of relative time dilation, which, like velocity, is a rate, not an interval. Proportional math will work fine for time dilation and velocities, but not for an instant of time.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Danshawen: A "virtual turtle" as it were?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    That paper doesn't have any experimental results in it. It's what the author believes to be a counter-example.

    It hasn't rocked the scientific community very much, or at all. What have I missed?

    p.s. arxiv has Christian's original paper, and it has some more papers refuting Christian's.
    e.g. see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0535
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    An entangled turtle would be real enough, and actually a pair of turtles. It would also flip much faster than your proportional turtles can crawl.
     
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    This doesn't suprise me (that falsifying Bell's theorem did not rock the theoretical physics world). If you wish to hear a theoretician "go off" about experimentalists in a derogatory manner, Murray Gell-Mann's lectures would be hard to beat. I'm not saying there is no such thing as an experimental wild goose chase. The OPERA fiasco is only one such example. It is difficult to impossible to control every confounding factor in any kind of experiment, even with an otherwise good experimental design.

    I am an experimentalist, myself, and the preponderance of sentiment is mutual dislike between our tribe and the pure theoreticians. We are of course impressed when a theoretician manages to predict a new particle before it is actually discovered, but I can count those occasions on one hand and have fingers left.

    Feynman was an experimentalist.

    There are theoreticians in physics that I literally cannot stand to listen to. They are as condescending as they are arrogant.

    And I just caught Minkowski with his theoretical pants down, dividing by zero like there was no tommorrow, jumping to the conclusion that time and space simply had to be related by ancient greek Euclidean geometry. That any of his theory worked at all is a miracle. Over one hundred years of quantum physics ignoring relativity followed as a direct result of that single mistake about the nature of time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Florin Moldovaneu is a PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS professor from UMD College Park (my alma mater).

    I can think of more than one recent quantum entanglement physics results not even mentioned in Christian's paper that more or less directly contradict Bell's Theorem. Even if I did not, I would not seek the guidance of a philosophy of science professor to decide the validity of Christian's methodology or conclusions.

    QQ here is a philosophy of science professor. Read some of his recent threads and posts. Would you choose him to do thorough peer review of one of your most technical theoretical papers?

    My advice based on a quick roundup of the whole question of Bell's Theorem would be to simply ignore everything it says. It hasn't a single clue about what is important about quantum entanglement.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  16. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    Nacho: Your explanations on the previous page look spot-on to me. In particular, it's worth re-emphasizing that entanglement can only be inferred by looking at statistical ensembles of identically prepared systems; there exists no measurement that will tell you whether a single pair of particles is entangled. Similarly, when a measurement on one half of an entangled pair collapses the wavefunction, there is no measurement on the other than can indicate a collapse has occurred. Only by comparing the measurement results on both halves can we see that quantum weirdness is occurring. One consequence of this is that quantum entanglement does not allow faster-than-light communication; I could try to send a signal by measuring an entangled particle to collapse its partners wavefunction, but to receive my signal, someone on the other side would have to determine whether the wavefunction had collapsed using only one particle, which is impossible.

    Also, Joy Christian is a well-intentioned but misguided fellow who got lost in the complexity of his own math. Bell's Theorem is one of the most interesting results in all of quantum mechanics.
     
    Nacho likes this.
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    I can't fail to spot the disconnection though. You say Joy Christian has proved that Bell's Theorem is false, which means entanglement doesn't happen because of hidden variables.

    If you discount Bell states, you discount entangled states. What if Christian's paper has mathematical errors in it? Is it still a proof? Why even discuss entanglement or what it is, if this one guy has "proved" it doesn't exist (except, he hasn't).
    Well, let's hear about them, shall we?
     
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    To your first statment above

    Disagree

    If space is an artifact of time , then that implies that " time " has physical properties .

    Your thoughts dan .

    Or anyone really .
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
    Bells theorem

    I'll see if i can find the posts made by one member here along time ago... explaining Bells theorem - Quantum entanglement etc...
    Statistical assessment of entangled particle polarity or something to that effect.
    Also
    I am not a philosophy of Physics professor as Dan has incorrectly stated. I have no idea where he got that idea from.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    danshawen likes this.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    There was a discussion in the General Philosophy section shortly after I joined sciforums that gave me that impression.

    As I recall, I was down on philosophy in general at the time. Philosophy, unlike science, has no equivalent of Karl Popper to tell us what part of philosophy is falsifiable and what is not, nor even whether philosophy uses the scientific method or not. It isn't (falsifiable), and it doesn't (follow the example either of evolution or the scientific method , FYI).

    Florin's refutation of Christian's paper refuting Bell's theorem is particularly disgusting, and not just because of those issues.
     
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Here is a list of over a dozen with explanations:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

    When a theoretician says that something is "local", what exactly does that mean?

    Einstein's special relativity, for example, states that no "locally" performed experiment can determine with certainty an absolute state of motion, spacetime curvature, or a difference between proper time (dilation) and the rate at which time progresses anywhere outside of the influence of local gravitation or relative states of motion.

    In physics, the principle of locality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

    states that an object <"entangled" particle> is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings... an alternative to the older concept of "action at a distance".

    Bell's theorem, as stated, is unfalsifiable. This means it is not science. I can't make it any plainer than this.

    Space determines what is local and what is not. Space is an artifact of time, not "simply" related to it by means of proportionality. Where quantum entanglement is concerned, there is no means for determining what "local" might mean. If a local electron flips entanglement state, there would be no way to determine where in the known universe its entangled twin might be, or what might be happening to it, or why. That's a hidden variable, but given that space itself is an illusion, whereas time is not, it would make perfect sense, both statistically and fundamentally, for entanglement to operate in this manner.
     

Share This Page