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

[arfa brane]

I haven't seen anything revelationary in this thread about quantum entanglement, and I have yet to see the point of discussing what Einstein meant when he used the word "spooky". I think where that one is concerned, one should consider the translation from German and what the ambit of such a term is in its native context.

Quantum weirdness is nowadays ubiquitous, the poster child has to be interference patterns in double slit experiments. What do these experiments and their real-time and real-space 'patterns' tell us about the nature of (quantum) space and time? Why pick apart a theory and its underlying structure--Minkowski spacetime--when it's a perfectly good theory, and again, what does the theory tell us about the nature of space and time? Is there, in other words, a mathematical "reality" which is otherwise indistinguishable from physics? Apparently there are good arguments for this point of view (viz, Penrose, Hawking, Maldacena et al)--the nature of space and time isn't weird, it's mathematical and mathematics isn't weird (unless you don't understand it).

It looks like the answer to the last question has been answered (Elvis has left the building); if we want to know why, or even, why is it that we ask the questions about space and time--why does it look spooky--that seems to be a different domain, metaphysics and speculation about the nature of human existence, something "beyond mere evolution", perhaps, a special role we are playing, perhaps . . .

The "time is absolute" idea does seem to fit quantum mechanics better than relative time does, yes. Time is linear in quantum systems--so is measurement; it just is, and there is no "why".

But consider that measurement of the speed of light is always in the same quantum domain (of course). That's a fairly strong connection.

 

[danshawen]

Elvis has left the building… spooky metaphysics and speculation about the nature of human existence, something "beyond mere evolution", perhaps, a special role we are playing, perhaps . . .

The "time is absolute" idea does seem to fit quantum mechanics better than relative time does, yes. Time is linear in quantum systems--so is measurement; it just is, and there is no "why".

But consider that measurement of the speed of light is always in the same quantum domain (of course). That's a fairly strong connection.

The absolute time origin that is the present moment everywhere in the universe and also for the purposes of quantum entanglement has its origin in the quantum field that is at rest with respect to point pair CREATION of virtual particles in the vacuum. Time runs at slightly different rates literally everywhere else, which led us to the principle of entanglement simultaneity and infinitely divisible time. This is the principle reason, it is time for Minkowski spacetime to be replaced by a formulation of time that does not depend on misapplied mathematical ideas of Pythagorus. Time is more than the rate of propagation of energy; it is fundamentally related to the relative states of two quantum fields.

In order for there to be a constant value of c with respect to all inertial reference frames, energy must be moving at the rate of c RELATIVE to something more fundamental than matter or energy.

For QQ, who touched earlier on magnetic monopoles:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209143

According to this analysis, a magnetic monopole is just a (single) photon emitted in one direction, like the one that is emitted by an electron that is bound in an atom or a solid. That makes perfect sense. So why didn't Alan Guth get that? The article said he was confused because of inflation theory's prediction of a large number of magnetic monopoles created. That would have been the perfect mode of transition from inflation to BB he was looking for. It's probably because he doesn't realize dual quantum fields are actually a requirement of relativity. Even at the time of the BB, forces still happened in pairs, and the earlier inflation would have given the BB something to push against. This idea is the foundation of any variety of relativity.

 

[HarryT]

I have yet to see the point of discussing what Einstein meant when he used the word "spooky". I think where that one is concerned, one should consider the translation from German and what the ambit of such a term is in its native context.

Spooky is a translation from the German word spukhaft. I can speak German and I believe the essence in this context of what Einstein meant to say or convey is the silliness in his mind of accepting the possibility of direct (or FTL) action at a distance. Using the word spukhaft in that context is comparing the acceptance of the FTL consequences of QM to believing in ghosts. In other words: calling believing in FTL action at a distance non-scientific.

 

[HarryT]

Talking about spookiness: I feel the action at a distance of electric fields is already spooky(*) enough and I think we should worry about explaining or understanding that before even attempting to try to explain, worry about, understand or unite QM, SR & GR.
Nobody seems to talk or think about Electrism much. It seems like everybody believes that we know all there is to know about electric fields and forces and give that no more thought. The fact is that right now we only have a model for Electrism, without any clue about the mechanism that makes charged particles with a non-zero mass/inertia accelerate towards or away from each other.
Same is true for Magnetism and Gravity. We only have models, but no clue about what the mechanisms are that causes the observed forces and accelerations.
Once we understand the mechanism of Electrism we will (or stand a chance to) also understand the mechanisms of Magnetism, Electromagnetism and ultimately Gravity after which all the puzzle pieces should fall into place and we can settle the QM, SR & GR debate once and for all.
(*): with spooky I mean only: unexplained.

 

[Little Bang]

Talking about spookiness: I feel the action at a distance of electric fields is already spooky enough and I think we should worry about explaining or understanding that before even attempting to try to explain, worry about, understand or unite QM, SR & GR.
Nobody seems to talk or think about Electrism much. It seems like everybody believes that we know all there is to know about electric fields and forces and give that no more thought. The fact is that right now we only have a model for Electrism, without any clue about the mechanism that makes charged particles with a non-zero mass/inertia accelerate towards or away from each other.
Same is true for Magnetism and Gravity. We only have models, but no clue about what the mechanism are that causes the observed accelerations.
Once we understand the mechanism of Electrism we will (or stand a chance to) also understand the mechanisms of Magnetism, Electromagnetism and ultimately Gravity after which all the puzzle pieces should fall into place and we can settle the QM, SR & GR debate once and for all.

Your very correct Harry. We have many things we claim to understand like the electron by calling it a fundamental particle we don't need to know anything else about it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Time is more than the rate of propagation of energy; it is fundamentally related to the relative states of two quantum fields.

Well..
(299792458 m/s) - (299792458 m/s) = 0
What more can you want?
Every "thing" is relative to zero. ( nothingness )
And because zero was invariant, immutable, universal etc ( until SRT came along) it is the only no-thing that is at absolute rest. ( as it has no movement because it is no-thing)

 

[Quantum Quack]

It looks like the answer to the last question has been answered (Elvis has left the building); if we want to know why, or even, why is it that we ask the questions about space and time--why does it look spooky--that seems to be a different domain, metaphysics and speculation about the nature of human existence, something "beyond mere evolution", perhaps, a special role we are playing, perhaps . . .

True to a point,
However have you heard of the "Golden Mean" - philosophy of the middle point between two extremes

The average (mean) of -x, + x, etc is in fact zero. ( -x + x = 0, 0/2 = 0 )
x being a pole of an extreme with a mid point of zero.

Therefore the universal average of all energy etc is zero

The golden mean MUST be zero

To eventually achieve a unified theory, all fields in question, ranging from physics, life, metaphysics, epistemology, physical health, mathematics, all the sciences etc, have to be be included.

A comprehensive unified theory can not be considered as such if for example "life" is not included.
As QM has discovered human observation can indeed influence outcomes, which immediately tells us that the human being is intrinsically implicated in universal physics.

To isolate the scientist from the science will only lead to the discovery of only half the picture and because of that isolation, a necessarily flawed half.
Quantum Entanglement (QE) is often considered as only a lab experiment. IMO.
Something that the scientist looks for and tests for. Something that only exist if tested for.
This approach does not assume that QE is universal and always involved whether tested for or not. Unfortunately this diminishes the significance of QE and prevents it from being seen in a wider and universal application which includes life and human existence.

 

[danshawen]

As mentioned in an earlier post, photon entanglement has already been clocked at a minimum of 10K times the speed of light. The entanglement we can verify appears to occur in pairs of entangled photons which instantly react to state changes of its entangled twin.

Evidently, this is caused in part by the fact that from the point of view of the field which entangles them, the entangled particles are not separated by any distance. This makes the idea of entanglement not spooky at all. In fact, it is a further vindication of the theory of Special Relativity.

This is a path to understanding the nature of the quantum field that makes such entanglement possible. Someone who formulated quantum fields somehow forgot such fields were not a replacement for the nineteenth century physics associated with a medium known as the aether. If a quantum field is at rest, it must be at rest relative to something. If the same or some other field supports energy propagating at a speed not less than c, the field which supports that must also be moving with respect to something, in all directions, from every point in the universe from which it is possible for energy to propagate, or in other words, with respect to the stationary quantum field previously described.

The natural state of matter is to be at rest, or to move (propagate) at speeds less than c. The natural state of energy is to move no slower than c unless it becomes absorbed or bound in matter. Entanglement seems to be more closely associated with the field that is at rest (and with matter), because it is this field that is everywhere at once. Energy that is bound as matter, like the stationary quantum field, never dissipates. Only in this way can quantum entanglement be viewed to react at rates faster than c. The "at rest" field is the one which contains the present instant of time we call "now" in the flow of time everywhere, which supports entanglement in both matter and energy. The flow of time, affected strongly by neighboring interactions, gravity, and relative motion, flows at different rates in this universe in every direction. As such, the concept of simultaneity except as applied to quantum entanglement, is nonsense. Only flips of entangled particles, the simultaneity of that instant of time we refer to as "now", or the same event (pair particle creation) viewed from different directions are ever simultaneous in this universe.

QQ has told us all he could about electric and magnetic fields. The 'at rest' field would be electric in nature, but somehow without the associated electric charge (perhaps a mixture of opposite charges). The corresponding 'moving at c' field would be magnetic in nature, and also provide the direction of the arrow of time. Energy may propagate in one direction, but may never spontaneously reverse.

The invariant nature of c (not 'intervals' ) is supreme, but is not a simple artifact of the propagation of energy, as assumed by Minkowski. The underlying relativity of the associated quantum fields is the key to a deeper understanding of both space and time, not Euclid, Pythagoras, and a force-fit version of time as part of an imaginary solid physical dimension. Time isn't part of an imaginary physical dimension hyperbolically rotated from a physical direction of motion. It is literally the only physical dimension matter and energy can experience in this universe, in any direction energy propagates. Entanglement is the key to understanding that space does not exist except as it is related to time and to these fields.

 

[danshawen]

"To eventually achieve a unified theory, all fields in question, ranging from physics, life, metaphysics, epistemology, physical health, mathematics, all the sciences etc, have to be be included."

I like your expansive approach to science.

"Quantum Entanglement (QE) is often considered as only a lab experiment. IMO."

I have a higher regard for it, but I'm an experimentalist.

 

[danshawen]

Well..
(299792458 m/s) - (299792458 m/s) = 0
What more can you want?
Every "thing" is relative to zero. ( nothingness )
And because zero was invariant, immutable, universal etc ( until SRT came along) it is the only no-thing that is at absolute rest. ( as it has no movement because it is no-thing)

I think we're on the same page. But I still want a moving field. Otherwise, nothing EVER moves (Xeno's paradox made manifest).

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think we're on the same page. But I still want a moving field. Otherwise, nothing EVER moves (Xeno's paradox made manifest).

zero can be wherever you put it... It is not fixed as you imply... you could even put it in the center of a photon at 'c' and it would still be at absolute rest.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ has told us all he could about electric and magnetic fields.

what a crazy thing to presume!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Talking about spookiness: I feel the action at a distance of electric fields is already spooky(*) enough and I think we should worry about explaining or understanding that before even attempting to try to explain, worry about, understand or unite QM, SR & GR.
Nobody seems to talk or think about Electrism much. It seems like everybody believes that we know all there is to know about electric fields and forces and give that no more thought. The fact is that right now we only have a model for Electrism, without any clue about the mechanism that makes charged particles with a non-zero mass/inertia accelerate towards or away from each other.
Same is true for Magnetism and Gravity. We only have models, but no clue about what the mechanisms are that causes the observed forces and accelerations.
Once we understand the mechanism of Electrism we will (or stand a chance to) also understand the mechanisms of Magnetism, Electromagnetism and ultimately Gravity after which all the puzzle pieces should fall into place and we can settle the QM, SR & GR debate once and for all.
(*): with spooky I mean only: unexplained.

Harry T,
I agree totally that science appears to be quite happy not knowing what magnetism or electricity is at it's fundamental form. Yet an amazing amount of theorizing and productivity is being undertaken using both as (blind) premises.

OMG!!! the charge of an electron is indeed "Spooky"!!!

 

[HarryT]

OMG!!! the charge of an electron is indeed "Spooky"!!!

OMG!!! is precisely my feeling about this also. I feel this realization moves us from competence stage 1 (unconscious incompetence) to stage 2: conscious incompetence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence).
On a side note: I must say it is very refreshing to see more than 2 people agreeing on something here lol.

 

[danshawen]

OMG!!! the charge of an electron is indeed "Spooky"!!!

Spookier: quarks and antiquarks have fractional electric charges. They never appear outside the nucleus, other than in mesons (quark-antiquark pairs or quads) which are electrically neutral.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think we're on the same page. But I still want a moving field. Otherwise, nothing EVER moves (Xeno's paradox made manifest).

I believe Zeno was quite correct to conclude that movement at delta t=0 is impossible. It takes distance/time to allow movement does it not?
At delta t= 0 movement is impossible.
At delta t=>0 movement is absolutely inevitable.

Plato and ilk were so impressed by their own contribution to humanity's future, they failed to understand the incredible value of Zeno's work. IMO
After all , if you can't understand it, ridicule is the only option for those who's intellectual vanity may requires it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What is even more impressive about Zeno ( of Elea 430-490BC) is that according to some erudite scholars he was actually attempting with his paradoxes to prove that monotheism was a necessary and logical outcome. He did this in an era where "Many Gods" ruled and he was arguing the case for a single divine source.

IMO by arriving at delta t=0 where distance is also zero, (no movement is possible) Zeno has shown that the entire universe is dependent on an invariant zero (nothingness) and that zero compels the universe into a state of consistent order, value, structure and entanglement.

What more could a monotheistic divinity need to be? (other than necessary personification due to the needs of the human ego)

 

[danshawen]

Time's arrow moves forward for the entire universe, and over this we have only limited control. We may change the relative RATE at which time progresses for us, either by relative motion or by proximity to a gravitating body, but this is evidently not the same as stopping (or even slowing down) the progression of the instant of 'now' from one moment to the next.

Yet it is clear (both from Xeno's paradox, and more recent evidence involving quantum entanglement) that time itself actually IS infinitely sub-divisible. Euclid may have been something of a mathematical idealist, but whomever proposed Xeno's paradox was spot on.

There is indeed something about that quantum field at rest that a deity might be expected to have in common. For one thing, it is omnipresent. Entanglement due to this field is much faster than light (infinite, in actual fact), which elevates its action to something that is beyond relativistic limitations imposed on mere matter. This is more godlike than it is spooky, QQ.

But the greeks were POLYTHEISTS, weren't they? When Alexander the Great conquered Judea, greek culture was successfully imposed even on parts of the Torah, from which both Christianity and Islam took portions for their own sacred texts. It was literally all Isaac Newton could do to write in secret about how Christianity had been turned polytheistic from a simple mistranslation of the word "trinity" from the Greek transcriptions of the Torah. Or were the Greeks not always polytheists?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Or were the Greeks not always polytheists?

Apparently Zeno's mentor (Parmenides) believed that logically only one "God" can exist.
My research notes: 2006:
"A few centuries before the birth of Christ, a famous ancient Greek Philosopher Zeno Of Elea delivered to the world a series of "paradoxes" in response to Plato's threats against the philosophy of another ancient Greek thinker, Parmenides who believed that "all is one, unchanging and timeless" a mono-istic status which was an affront to those who believed in a plurality. [ mono theism vs poly- theism]."

At delta t=0 all is indeed one, timeless and unchanging..
At any "absolutely exact time zero point" delta t=0 is valid.


Just to clarify a point that can be very hard to grasp about Zeno.

According to Plato and mainstream science since, Zeno was simply applying a new technique at the time of reductio ad absurdum or infinite reduction to a problem and presents no actual paradox because the hare will eventually over take the tortoise in real life even if the logical steps needed are infinite in number. So Zeno became famous for reductio ad absurdum and dialectics which were taken up by Socrates.

No mean feat to start with however the most important aspect of Zeno's work was that he did indeed provide a paradox but due to misinterpretation the paradox was ridiculed.

I believe Zeno was no dummy and if he considered the results to be paradoxical then he was justified. So I look at the interpretations given by Plato and mainstream and find that what Zeno was actually saying was not:

"Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise"
which is absurd to consider as real and that a paradox is nonexistent in the actual context of a race between hare and tortoise.

He was actually saying that:

"Therefore because of the infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been he can never beat the tortoise to the tortoise's place in the race."
Basically it means that the tortoise will always win his own race...no matter how fast the opposition is... thus a paradox of time and distance exists...

 

[Quantum Quack]

An example of incorrect interpretation IMO.
Look closely at this graph that shows the common interpretation of Zeno's work. c/o wiki


Now consider that the intersection point where the hare and the tortoise meet is a moving point and not a static one as described.

Example:

Both Achilles and the tortoise are in constant movement.

The graph implies the tortoise is stationary at the time they meet and not running...and this only describes a small part of the interpretation problems.
(indirect reference to Heisenberg's HUP)

Because the tortoise is in constant movement the Hare can never beat the Tortoise to the Tortoise's own position.

The tortoise will always win his own race...