Subscription Center
Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einstein's special theory of relativity
February 18, 2009 | 185
Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation, the first modern scientific description of gravity, involves “action at a distance.” Newton is sure there must be an account of gravity without this nonlocality
and even tries an unsuccessful theory in which tiny invisible, jiggling particles fill all of seemingly empty space....[More]
Charles Coulomb introduces the inverse-square law for electrostatic
forces, analogous to Newton’s inverse-square law for gravity. Electric effects seem to involve action at a distance....[More]
Michael Faraday introduces the idea of magnetic lines of force. Physicists at this time use a notation involving electric and magnetic fields that fill space....[More]
Hippolyte Fizeau and Jean-Bernard Foucault measure the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second, or 298,000 kilometers per second, but no one knows what light really is.
[Link to this slide]
James Clerk Maxwell’s equations reveal that electromagnetic fields have a rich dynamical life of their own, pushing and pulling each other, and crossing empty space at 298,000 km/s....[More]
Einstein’s special theory of relativity reconciles Maxwell’s equations with the principle that observers moving at a constant relative velocity should see identical laws of physics....[More]
In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the curvature of spacetime plays the role that electromagnetic fields play for electromagnetic forces....[More]
Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen argue that because quantum-mechanical calculations involve nonlocal steps, quantum mechanics cannot be the full story....[More]
John S. Bell extends the “EPR” reasoning to cases in which spins are measured along nonparallel axes and shows that no local theory can possibly reproduce all of quantum mechanics’s predictions for experimental results....[More]
Experiments using entangled states of light (right), in particular by Alain Aspect and his co-workers, verify that the world follows the predictions of quantum mechanics even in those situations in which quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequalities....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
100 Years of Quantum Mysteries
Nobel Pursuits: Decades of Wisdom from Prize-winning Physicists
How Quantum Effects Could Create Black Stars, Not Holes
Quantum Flip-Floppers: Photon Findings Add to Mystery of Wave-Particle Duality
Carbon Wonderland
Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth
Gravity, by George Gamow [Special Archive Article]
A Geometric Theory of Everything
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
185 Comments
Add CommentHow is locality defined, 4,5,6 or 11 dimensions? Does string's theory's 11 dimensions mean that all the dimensions identified as 5 or grater have to be very small or could there be supersized dimensions that contain what the math says is nonlocal in a higher dimensional that can be seen as the action is happening locally?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntanglement results from two particles that have resulted from the decay of a single particle. The original particle was required to satisfy various conservation laws, and the daughter particles must also satisfy the same laws. When a property of a particle is measured, say its spin, quantum mechanics tells us that the measurement process selected one of a number of possible states the particle occupies. However all those states are connected to the states of the other particle by the conservation laws; so, when the measurement process has picked one of the states occupied by one of the particles, the state of the other is automatically established by the conservation laws operating when the two particles were created. There is no "action at a distance".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe term this intuition "locality."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, but the point is, “intuition” is considered a sixth sense, or a 5th dimensional categorization, therefore it all belongs to a 5th dimension Universe.
Therefore Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct, (and factual to many peoples who can dream facts of the future,) “unexplainably”
quantum entanglement is a direct consequence of the absolute simultaneity , I believe this put an end to special relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein postulated that elecricity is faster than light. I think that light is faster than electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure you quite understand what is being said in this article. The last line says it all, but the article is also trying to explain how people are trying to prove that both special relativity and nonlocality can co-exist. It is also saying that currently it has been proven that locality is not always true. In a sense locality is never true but is only percieved to be true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf two particle pairs, say, e(a,b) and e(x,y) are "disentangled" and then re-entangled as e(a,x) and e(b,y), wouldn't this suggest that their non-"locality" is due to the observer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom this article, it would appear that our main problem comes not from defining just ocality, but the nature of time. We percieve time as a seperate dimension, but Einstein tells us time can be deformed in space-time. He imagined how the world would like if we sat on a light-beam, where time is locally distorted in comparison to a so-called instantaneous moment. I always found it hard to try to get my head around that, but apparently maths can handle it perfectly well so maybe we are just perceptually blind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we accept Einstein's statement that space-time can be deformed, all we have to do is to calculate the local deformations of entangled objects to get them to coincide as one particle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaN at 12:08 AM on 02/17/09 writes "It is also saying that currently it has been proven that locality is not always true. In a sense locality is never true but is only [perceived] to be true."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen again "a sizeable minority of physicists have long been pushing entirely the opposite view. They remain unconvinced that quantum theory depends on pure chance"[1]. Regardless of how clever a mathematician John Bell may have been, he could not compellingly explain his (or similar) proofs to my grandmother nor his.
As physicist Sheldon Goldstein of Rutgers University in New Jersey says "At the very least, the notion that quantum theory put the nail in the coffin of determinism has been wildly overstated" [1]
Non-locality's apparent incompatibility with special relativity may also (alternatively) suggest that Dr. Einstein may have been correct even when he thought he wrong (CC) AND correct when he thought he was correct (SR) AND correct when thought QM was incomplete.
The solution Occam's razor clearly favors (BM not QM) could conceivably be wrong and perhaps "God does play dice", but the implications of a non-local world at a macro scale are too profoundly problematic to accept dubious proofs of non-locality without significantly more scientific skepticism.
[1] NewScientist, Quantum randomness may not be random (22 March 2008) http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700
I find some of the comments here applicable to complex space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the concept of configuration space is new to me, from what I can
see it can be quite involved, I would appreciate readers opinions
about the application of configuration space at:
Complex Quantum Mechanics Yahoo Group
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/complexquantummechanics
From what I have seen so far the use of configuration space applies in classical to QM to facilitate its use of higher dimensions and also to bolster said theory. I do not see any reason why a complex dimension (that is a complex plane or complex space cannot be represented too. If so it greatly adds to the feasability of Complex Quantum Mechanics.
I have found some connection between Complex Quantum Mechanics and free space. This should greatly add to Complex Quantum Mechanics application in electronics and I hope to give a more comprehensive view on this.
Free space is used to describe a perfect vacuum for electronics purposes and I hope to show that complex space can be substituted here.
Using a single point to describe a set of co-ordinates in higher dimensions seems to carry forward any errors and I wonder if matrix manipulation is not just simpler (although I suppose configuration space is an attempt to visualise higher dimension action).
Alex
If we postulate a big bang (at least for our corner of the multiverse) then all observed particles originate from one Mother Particle at the singularity (classical or string, either way). Therefore, ALL particles are entangled since they were all the same particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a physicist so I cannot comment on whether or not this idea could lead us back to a deterministic universe. What we view as wave functions, non-locality, and uncertainty are merely the outcome of billions of years of permutations and combinations which have so muddied the waters as to make physics probabalistic at any manageable level of calculation.
That said, I do not suscribe to classical determinism, just musing....
Someone needs to tell the author this is not news. These principles have been discussed for decades, and there have been several great books written about entanglement and its implications. Im surprised a fine magazine like Scientific American didnt bother to wrap a little more history around this otherwise interesting article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEpistemologically it is not without interest that in addition to ordinary space there exists quite another domain of intuitively given entities, namely the colors, which forms a continuum capable of geometric treatment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�
The characteristic of an n-dimensional manifold is that each of the elements composing it (in our examples, single points, conditions of a gas, colors, tones) may be specified by the giving of n quantities, the "co-ordinates," which are continuous functions within the manifold.
�
Thus the colors with their various qualities and intensities fulfill the axioms of vector geometry if addition is interpreted as mixing; consequently, projective geometry applies to the color qualities.
- Weyl
Take some range of phenomenal qualities. Assume that these qualities can be arranged according to some abstract n-dimensional space, in a way that is faithful to their perceived similarities and degrees of similarityjust as, according to Land, it is possible to arrange the phenomenal colors in his three- dimensional color solid. Then my Russellian proposal is that there exists, within the brain, some physical system, the states of which can be arranged in some n-dimensional state space [...] And the two states are to be equated with each other: the phenomenal qualities are identical with the states of the corresponding physical system.
- Lockwood
We shall now recall the data of a classical theory as understood by physicists and then reinterpret them in geometrical form. Geometrically or mechanically we can interpret this data as follows. Imagine a structured particle, that is a particle which has a location at a point x of R4 and an internal structure, or set of states, labeled by elements g of G.
- Atiyah
I have two points to make about the article. First, all of the original authors of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory agreed that the interpretation was deeply flawed and practically worthless but it was 'the best we have' at the time and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, both magnetism and gravitation represent 'action at a distance' as we have no explanation for either gravitational or magnetic fields. The introduction of a particulate 'carrier' for the fields does nothing to clarify this. To illustrate, try to answer the question 'how does a gravitron bring two masses together? Does it stretch out over the intervening space, grab the other mass and then snap back like a rubber band? If so how is it compelled to do so and wouldn't this action imply a complex structure making the gravitron anything but elementary? Or does it move to the other mass, attach itself to it and then deploy thrusters to drag it to the original mass?
We are obviously missing some fundamental aspect of spacetime and, apparently, covering up the lack with mathematics which have become completely uncoupled from direct physical meaning.
Why are we trying to produce a "philosophically realist way to get the predicitons of quantum mechanics" when most philosophers of mathematics (the language of this science) have long agreed that mathematics is "philosphically (epistomologically) idealistic"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding nonlocality implying "that a fist in Des Moines can break a nose in Dallas without affecting any other physical thing": Does it really? I don't see any reason to ascribe a property of (some) particles to Newton-sized, multiparticulate objects. The vexing thing about quantum mechanics is that it's at odds (in some ways) with Newtonian physics. So why conflate the two? The strange beauty's in the differences, isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if locality and non-locality are -- "entangled"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that Quantanglement is incorrect, in particular the common depiction of the photon doesn't even obey Maxwell's Equations (curl of E field being proportional to the time rate of change of the B field). Once people fix that then they realize that helicity oscillates and thereby means there can be no photonic quantanglement at all. Similar with any atomic spins, it is quantum physics that needs to be revised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperhaps we should start over and base our new theory on solid facts instead of grandiose mental ruminations.
Can someone that understands this answer a question for me? If there are extra dimensions (a la string theory) then might a particle decaying be analogous to threads parting in a string? In that case they would still be local in the sense that they were connected in a way that we can't observe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum mechanics, string theory, superforce and a host of other modern day cosmological theories suggest the existence of other dimensions besides those of space-time. However, the tendency is to rationalize their existence with an explanation known as compactification. Compactification suggests that higher dimensions are "invisible" in everyday life because they only exist at very minute distances on the order of Planck distances. An alternative explanation might be that the higher order dimensions exist in parrallel to space-time and intersect with space-time at Planck distances in subatomic particles. The advantage of the latter explanation is that it allows for a medium of transmission of information without a time coordinate. Therefore, non-locality could be mediated through a higher (non-temporal) dimension while special relativity continues to be supported by a highly local space-time continuum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis posting is in reply to the person for asked for clarification of the differences in reality between state spaces, configuration space (phase space). Also, in a later posting there is a request made to understand how the epistological distinctions that takes into account colors in the space geometry fit into the reality of all of this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand it the reality of configuration space arises from a set of solutions to a collection of differential equations (the dimension of the manifold or orbifold of these solutions may be much more than the 4, 11, or higher dimension of the symmetry space of the Lie groups in which the geometry of the particles or light energy is represented in.
And, if we take another quantum leap into our scientific realities the epistological space of the network of knowledge solutions can be considered as having nodes and several colored edges (which the represent the constraints) of the truth we are seeking.
Andrew Harrell
http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/discussionboard
I feel like I'm in a room full of priests who are arguing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". and if the pin needs to be real to exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel like I'm in a room full of priests who are arguing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". and if the pin needs to be real to exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet' see if the server can get this right this time. pgtruspace
i don't find nonlocal-ity counterintuitive...but then i haven't let myself be brainwashed by materialism...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi don't find nonlocal-ity counterintuitive, but then again i haven't let myself be brainwashed by materialism
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that nothing is random. If you apply several patterns over each other, you can get seemingly random results. I've done it in art, music, and even data encryption. Just because we can't understand how something happens doesn't mean it's random. Non-locality also may not be entirely correct. If there are multiple dimensions that we cannot perceive, then why can't higher-level local interactions be responsible for this seemingly non-locality? In other words, isn't it possible that on some level, everything exists in one place, and is everything is one with everything else? Why does everything have to be separate because we perceive it to be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine that every dimension is an elaboration on the laws of all the others, like amendments to a constitution. These dimensions create what we consider the laws of physics. The more dimensions are involved, the more complex the law and the more incomprehensible it becomes. In the end, our finite minds are attempting to understand an infinite universe. It's obvious that this is impossible, the finite cannot understand the infinite.
"If there are extra dimensions (a la string theory) then might a particle decaying be analogous to threads parting in a string? In that case they would still be local in the sense that they were connected in a way that we can't observe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one anywhere says anything about the strings in string theory being made of smaller wound-together threads. The various string theories vary in many ways. Some postulate that strings are actually loops, for example.
Why does my comment say it was posted by NaN... or is it just my browser goofing up...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA model is: Defining"point" as a small volume that can't be further divided, the number of points which can all touch one another directly simultaneously (n) is directly proportional to the number of dimensions (d), n= d+1. Examples, 1 dimension, line, a maximum of 2 points. 3 dimensions, a maximum of 4 points can all directly touch one another simultaneously. This may be called a "point cluster", and the model, Point Cluster Theory. Now, two points which are separate in 4 dimensional space time can be within the same point cluster in a larger number of dimensions. So entanglement in 4 dimensions would be directly touching in many dimensions. The article mentioned "configuration space with many dimensions. There is also data from the Quantum Theory of Consciousness being proposed by some scientists. Subjective images and other qualia require that nerve impulses be integrated instantaneously, so the process seems to involve nonlocality. A subjective image involves the nerve impulse pattern at the end of the information processing, because we don't see the earlier processing itself. The image is all the bits of information we perceive simultaneously, so the information is, in a sense, an entanglement of all the bits. Since we can see images with several thousand bits of information, the model says the process involves a nonlocality involving several thousand dimensions. It might be possible to use the psychological data to gain some additional parameters for physical properties. For example, it is easier for some images to be perceived than others, and easier for certain properties of images to be seen. This is probably related to differences in nonlocality processes. Differences in nonlocality processes might influence many things in physics. For example, the kinds of sub-atomic particles that can be formed and their masses might be influenced by variations in nonlocality processes which are seen in the processing of psychological images. James F. Newell
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mathematical analysis part of physics can be conducted on manifolds because by the definition of the transition functions that manifolds must have the points can all be transformed or "touch into" each other's neighborhood (groups of open sets around the point set topology of the manifold). Being able to "touch" reality and get a response is a feature that most philosophers would ask for. However, just because something or a person is a "nobody...that is, doesn't have a completely definable substance accessible to our sense impressions" doesn't mean it is unreal or "nothing". For example, the ancient Greeks created the beginnings of our scientific logic and geomety using these types of "ideal" models of reality,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think entanglement is just the beginning. We will find in the next decade or so evidence of particles below or smaller than quanta. When we do, questions about the nature of entanglement will be solved, as we discover a vast web of connectivity between all matter, whether traditional atomic-sized or sub-atomic particles. There will be quantum states of quanta, as it were. So, the idea of bits of matter being connected across vast distances will simply be re-framed as bits of matter connected by ever smaller pieces of this universe we don't know much about yet. That is the nature of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismH = 0
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisqH = 0
sH = 0
vH = 0
�
Higgs d.n.e.
(mass of Higgs = 0)
(charge of Higgs = 0)
(spin of Higgs = 0)
(speed of Higgs = 0)
(implies both ways)
Higgs does not exist
salvatore gerard micheal
Physicists are deep and creative thinkers. They are excellent applied mathematicians. They have successfully identified sections of physics theory which correspond to structures in pure math (such as Abelian groups). But these factors do not suggest, in and of themselves, that the assumptions of the Standard Model are correct. Further, they do not give credence to implications of those assumptions. The faulty assumptions of the Standard Model create a literal house-of-cards where the slightest breeze knocks them all down.
Some have compared me to a gaseous expulsion from the lower rectum . But I suggest those naysayers are tantamount to the same thing. I suggest they also compare to a nightmare in the mind of God. What happens when God wakes up? ;) Ridicule, ego, and flaming aside, I have been unjustly dismissed by convention for the simple fact I buck convention. I question their allocation of funds (research projects). In particular, I question the validity of the LHC (large hadron collider).
The LHC will look for signatures of Higgs (directly and proposed decay products of Higgs). They will find something. But I assure you: it will not be Higgs. The reason is the faulty assumptions of the Standard Model. Lets list them out:
1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles
In previous essays, I have discussed the meaning of them. We dont need to rehash that here. Recently, I have developed a special space called Micheal space, in honor of my father W. Jean Micheal, which seems to incorporate critical engineering concepts for a valid alternative to Standard Model assumptions. Those are briefly discussed on the Wikipedia page Micheal_space.
Now, in reality, assumptions 1 and 2 above are not unreasonable considering Micheal space. There is a deterministic view of them not unreasonable and not contradictory with observation. I dont waste much time arguing about those two assumptions. The assumption I take issue with is number 3: that is based on over application of reduction and boson theory. It is assumption number 3 which implies Higgs. It is assumption number 3 which I categorically state is unequivocally WRONG.
As developed in my previous essays and publications, gravitation can be reduced to distribute
mH = 0
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisqH = 0
sH = 0
vH = 0
Higgs d.n.e.
(mass of Higgs = 0)
(charge of Higgs = 0)
(spin of Higgs = 0)
(speed of Higgs = 0)
(implies both ways)
Higgs does not exist
salvatore gerard micheal
Physicists are deep and creative thinkers. They are excellent applied mathematicians. They have successfully identified sections of physics theory which correspond to structures in pure math (such as Abelian groups). But these factors do not suggest, in and of themselves, that the assumptions of the Standard Model are correct. Further, they do not give credence to implications of those assumptions. The faulty assumptions of the Standard Model create a literal house-of-cards where the slightest breeze knocks them all down.
Some have compared me to a “gaseous expulsion from the lower rectum”. But I suggest those naysayers are tantamount to the same thing. I suggest they also compare to a nightmare in the mind of God. What happens when God wakes up? ;) Ridicule, ego, and flaming aside, I have been unjustly dismissed by convention for the simple fact I buck convention. I question their allocation of funds (research projects). In particular, I question the validity of the LHC (large hadron collider).
The LHC will look for ‘signatures of Higgs’ (directly and proposed decay products of Higgs). They will find something. But I assure you: it will not be Higgs. The reason is the faulty assumptions of the Standard Model. Let’s list them out:
1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles
In previous essays, I have discussed the meaning of them. We don’t need to rehash that here. Recently, I have developed a special space called Micheal space, in honor of my father W. Jean Micheal, which seems to incorporate critical engineering concepts for a valid alternative to Standard Model assumptions. Those are briefly discussed on the Wikipedia page Micheal_space.
Now, in reality, assumptions 1 and 2 above are not unreasonable considering Micheal space. There is a deterministic view of them not unreasonable and not contradictory with observation. I don’t waste much time arguing about those two assumptions. The assumption I take issue with is number 3: that is based on over application of reduction and ‘boson theory’. It is assumption number 3 which implies Higgs. It is assumption number 3 which I categorically state is unequivocally WRONG.
As developed in my previous essays and publications, gravitation can be reduced to distribute
distributed temporal curvature. Similarly, so can the so-called strong force. They are essentially one and the same. The critical engineering concept mentioned above is called impedance. But that need not be associated exclusively with space. Just as gravitation can be theoretically (and possibly more concisely and realistically) ‘assigned to time’, so can impedance. Space need not curve (or impede) to explain gravitation (or e-m propagation).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is time which may impede and curve (exclusively). This is the essence of Micheal space.
Let me copy-paste a section from the Wikipedia page:
while impedance has a tendency to lengthen the period between electromagnetic events, curvature has a tendency to lengthen the period between mechanical events. This is the essence of the theory. It is equivalent to Feynman’s statement about understanding non-locality and QM.
Some time ago, Feynman stated that if we could understand non-locality (for instance as exemplified by double-slit phenomena), we would understand quantum mechanics. He also stated something critical about our search for a unified theory (something like): we must look in the corners we have neglected in order to find valid cogent seminal ideas for unification.
Micheal space deserves a serious look.
It would be better if you gave clearer references to papers. The "astonishing 2006 paper" by Tumulka is an example. He has 8 papers listed, and they may all be astonishing. How about something like
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarXiv:quant-ph/0611283 for example. (That may not the right one.) If not in the magazine then on line.
How would you categorize this with-in the theory of relativity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was 7-8 years old, I remember one night being waked up by some one talking loudly next to my bedroom, (because there wasn’t any one in that room I went to investigate) I look through this French door, which was half glass, and seeing my Father and Mother there, facing the large window toward the street, I went to them and looked through the same window outside, under a street light presumed by them was an animal form, with horns walking on two legs, they were discussing and pointing to show me where it was, but no matter how hard I looked I couldn’t see anything there, (the street lamp and the post were there and nothing else)
Since then I often wonder, about the minds and the illusions they can project and produce into others, (but most of all I wondered if that was not something I projected on the street, for I remembered when I was waked up by their loud noise, I was dreaming of a such figure on the street,) what puzzled me was how did they get to that room from their bedroom which was across the hallways from there.
There were about 30 comments to this article. My comment was number 10. Today I see that comment 10 and all after are now missing. Could someone please investigate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment was:
NaN at 12:08 AM on 02/17/09 writes "It is also saying that currently it has been proven that locality is not always true. In a sense locality is never true but is only [perceived] to be true."
Then again "a sizeable minority of physicists have long been pushing entirely the opposite view. They remain unconvinced that quantum theory depends on pure chance"[1]. Regardless of how clever a mathematician John Bell may have been, he could not compellingly explain his (or similar) proofs to my grandmother nor his.
As physicist Sheldon Goldstein of Rutgers University in New Jersey says "At the very least, the notion that quantum theory put the nail in the coffin of determinism has been wildly overstated" [1]
Non-locality's apparent incompatibility with special relativity may also (alternatively) suggest that Dr. Einstein may have been correct even when he thought he [was] wrong (CC) AND correct when he thought he was correct (SR) AND correct when thought QM was incomplete.
The solution Occam's razor clearly favors (BM not QM) could conceivably be wrong and perhaps "God does play dice", but the implications of a non-local world at a macro scale are too profoundly problematic to accept dubious proofs of non-locality without significantly more scientific skepticism.
[1] NewScientist, Quantum randomness may not be random (22 March 2008) http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700
Another comment (by and unknown author) which was also deleted was the following: (Again, an explanation of this deletion would be appreciated).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaN at 03:03 PM on 02/18/09 "I have two points to make about the article. First, all of the original authors of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory agreed that the interpretation was deeply flawed and practically worthless but it was 'the best we have' at the time and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Second, both magnetism and gravitation represent 'action at a distance' as we have no explanation for either gravitational or magnetic fields. The introduction of a particulate 'carrier' for the fields does nothing to clarify this. To illustrate, ..."
and
"We are obviously missing some fundamental aspect of spacetime and, apparently, covering up the lack with mathematics which have become completely uncoupled from direct physical meaning."
Both Bohr and Einstein were mechanists, so they denied the 2 rational explanations to non-locality which are rather organicist. Einstein denied the effect, Bohr denied reality. Both were wrong. Let us consider them:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Synchronic Determinism: most particles when in contact make their parameters equivalent (equalization of temperatures between molecules, organisms of cells which must have the same dna to avoid rejection, etc.) So let us consider 2 particles when in contact synchronize their parameters of space and time (x,t). Thus, they become clones. Imagine you are totally determined. This means you actions in the future will be all determined by your parametersin the past
Thus if 2 particles entangled in x,t (space/time variables), becoming self-similar by transferences of energy and form
(as organicist systems do, when close together, from atoms that acquire same temperature to cells that have same dna)
FROM THEN ON IN A DETERMINISTIC WORLD, they WILL AWAYS HAVE THE SAME PARAMETERS since they will be EVOLVING IN THE SAME MANNER. Thus there is no need for communication or spooky effects.
The second explanation is what i call in Fractal Relativity (see www.unificationtheory.com) fractal translation. This is more complex. In fractal relativity the Universe is considered a structure of self-similar systems of energy and information, in which the properties of energy and form remain invariant. Hence it is possible to translate them between scales. Yet we, humans, and old physicists thought the Universe to be only an scale, a single spacetime continuum. So we dont see them all. Thus, when someone translates information to other scale, emits it and then retranslates it seems magic to us. The simplest case is radio. As your article notices, it was also first thought to be 'instantaneous and non-local' . Since in the fractal scale we exist in, we see the man talking and then the receiver listening but we cant see its translation of information and its translation in space through the smaller, faster scale of electromagnetic spacetime. So it seems magic. The same happens in neurons. They work with 2 different spacetimes, the chemical and electrical spacetime which is faster. So we do not see the jump of the electric sign between neurons because it is translated by chemical serotonine, dopamine, etc. So till Cajal, we thought it was a 'continuum', and then it seemed magical.
What 2 scales of fractal space-time are used in the 'spooky effect'. Obviously the 2 we know: the world of electromagnetism ruled by special relativity, where those particles exist and the world of gravitational spacetime ruled by general relativity, which is made of dark energy that 'we dont see'.
Now, here the Error of einstein was to consider both worlds limited by the speed of light, which is by definition the light-space of electromagnetic forces NOT the brane of gravitation. Thus dark energy, gravitation doesnt need to be limited by c-speed as quasars with z=10 show. So as galileo thought of light, its speed can be so great as to seem non-local, instantaneous.then the particle re-translates the gravitational message back to the electromagnetic brane.
Both Bohr and Einstein were mechanists, so they denied the 2 rational explanations to non-locality which are rather organicist. Einstein denied the effect, Bohr denied reality. Both were wrong. Let us consider them:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Synchronic Determinism: most particles when in contact make their parameters equivalent (equalization of temperatures between molecules, organisms of cells which must have the same dna to avoid rejection, etc.) So let us consider 2 particles when in contact synchronize their parameters of space and time (x,t). Thus, they become clones. Imagine you are totally determined. This means you actions in the future will be all determined by your parametersin the past
Thus if 2 particles entangled in x,t (space/time variables), becoming self-similar by transferences of energy and form
(as organicist systems do, when close together, from atoms that acquire same temperature to cells that have same dna)
FROM THEN ON IN A DETERMINISTIC WORLD, they WILL AWAYS HAVE THE SAME PARAMETERS since they will be EVOLVING IN THE SAME MANNER. Thus there is no need for communication or spooky effects.
The second explanation is what i call in Fractal Relativity (see www.unificationtheory.com) fractal translation. This is more complex. In fractal relativity the Universe is considered a structure of self-similar systems of energy and information, in which the properties of energy and form remain invariant. Hence it is possible to translate them between scales. Yet we, humans, and old physicists thought the Universe to be only an scale, a single spacetime continuum. So we dont see them all. Thus, when someone translates information to other scale, emits it and then retranslates it seems magic to us. The simplest case is radio. As your article notices, it was also first thought to be 'instantaneous and non-local' . Since in the fractal scale we exist in, we see the man talking and then the receiver listening but we cant see its translation of information and its translation in space through the smaller, faster scale of electromagnetic spacetime. So it seems magic. The same happens in neurons. They work with 2 different spacetimes, the chemical and electrical spacetime which is faster. So we do not see the jump of the electric sign between neurons because it is translated by chemical serotonine, dopamine, etc. So till Cajal, we thought it was a 'continuum', and then it seemed magical.
What 2 scales of fractal space-time are used in the 'spooky effect'. Obviously the 2 we know: the world of electromagnetism ruled by special relativity, where those particles exist and the world of gravitational spacetime ruled by general relativity, which is made of dark energy that 'we dont see'.
Now, here the Error of einstein was to consider both worlds limited by the speed of light, which is by definition the light-space of electromagnetic forces NOT the brane of gravitation. Thus dark energy, gravitation doesnt need to be limited by c-speed as quasars with z=10 show. So as galileo thought of light, its speed can be so great as to seem non-local, instantaneous.then the particle re-translates the gravitational message back to the electromagnetic brane.
It is possible that many extra dimensions might be a surprise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn mathematical models, time works like a spatial dimensions, yet there are nevertheless differences between a spatial dimension and time. It is possible that a number of other dimensions might be similarly different from both spatial dimensions and time dimensions, yet in other ways act mathematically like a spatial dimension . It is possible that qualia qualities are dimensions. Redness, blueness, middle-C-ness, rose-odorness, democracy-ideaness, etc. might all be dimensions, which are different from spatial and temporal dimensions in someways, but act mathematically the same in other ways.
I can't provide a probability of this hypothesis being correct, but it is obviously something highly uncertain at this time.
It is something that needs to be thought extensively about, and something for which we need to develop experiments that might test whether or not such properties could be kinds of dimensions.
James F, Newell
You are correct up to your last sentence. The measurement process forces the first particle into an eigenstate of the measurement apparatus, which is arbitrary until applied. The second particle cannot know what direction it needs to "point" until the first is measured. The conservation laws (angular momentum in the case of spin) couples the particles instantaneously though they are separated spatially, possibly by lightyears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelativity is a relative science. We need two points or dimensions to exactly define a location. But there is no surety to the fact that two dimensions can exactly define a location. Thus, the base is superficial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, this is so badly communicated. I doubt anyone without insight will gain any from reading this article. It seems like you just heard some advanced words and wrote them down, accompanied by nasa illustrations and various photos. Almost hilarious, except it presents as something deliberately worth one's time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt applies to two different areas of physics. The macroscopic and microscopic worlds are simply governed by different rules.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The other recent result, discovered by one of us (Albert), showed that combining quantum mechanics and special relativity requires that we give up another of our primordial convictions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich recent result? There is no citation. Presumably, this is an ad for Albert's 2003 book "Time and Chance," for which he provides a teaser!
The concept of entanglement that my unified field theory of everything has is that local and non-local are the same. Tiny strings of The String Theory in 4 dimensional torus waves in my concept of cosmic strings spiraling out in the universe at their highest point of potential energy cotinues into an inward 5 dimensional time arrow spiraling to one of the many singularities of their black holes where the 4th dimension time arrow starts from and thereby gravity entanglement is created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article completely fails to convince me that there is any inconsistency between q.m. and relativity. The only place it tries to make the case is in the figure on page 38 (Alice and Buzz and the explosion). But Alice cannot *choose* the spin state of her entangled particle, she can only *observe* it. When Alice describes simultaneity and Buzz describes "effect before cause" they are actually making statements about relationships between correlated events, not causal connections. From my point of view the article fails. I wrote a longer letter to the editor, which I might place here in these comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLate in life Einstein doubted that physics could be based on continuous structures. If so this would undermine the whole of modern physics. The only alternative is a discontinuous and synchronous universe. This is clearly indicated by a new way to delineate the structural dynamics of the cosmic order that embraces all possible structural varieties of phenomenal experience. Never explored before, this methodology clearly indicates that the only universal measuring rods available are the spherical inner space of a primary atom with respect to linear external space. Linear time is thus determined by a succession of synchronous atomic space frames linked by light alternating with timeless orthogonal quantum frames that constitute a boundless spatially indeterminate energy field. Light comes as series of pulses in a cosmic movie consistent with Plancks constant. Matter is thus both particulate and formless in each primary interval of time. It is particle waves. The movie must be universally synchronous which requires a universal component that intimately binds each atom into spatially independent wholes. Light is independently related to each atom accounting for universal light speed. Synchronous discrepancies come with relative motions accounting for relativistic effects. Atomic particles intimately bound by universal counterparts account for entanglement. See Gravity, Quantum Relativity & System 3 at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. Other articles there encompass the biological and social sciences as well as physics. The methodology complements traditional approaches to science. It meaningfully integrates the empirical pieces of the puzzle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince all matter and energy and it's subsequent forms are derived from a single point and are therefore related, why would we think that entanglement isn't present throughout the KNOWN universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the observer far down the chain of time bound to the origins?
Time and spacial geometry are flexible states. Gravity, relative speed are known modifiers in our local reality. In a holographic universe (writer unremembered now) it's understood that projection is inherent. Higher dimensions are accepted, indeed, expected by such a concept.
The unsatisfactory explanations are also inherent. This is displayed within the article recently written here (podcast?) involving our inability to know precisely anything. No observer within a system can KNOW everything about a system. Essentially, we are doomed to always have puzzles and framing their answers precisely.
A pragmatic approach would to allow for the openendedness of this situation and to consider peer-review from a looser construct to allow for this long-term foment. Refinement of the current acceptable theories doesn't fit the bill.
One thing that occurs to me is that a construct of greater dimensionality as an observer's platform will lay a little concrete on the flux. Wish I had the math skills to do so.
I also noticed some problems with comment posting - it went from 8 to 50-something instantaneously (another violation of special relativity?) so my comment to one of the earliest ones in the queue appears well after it should have. "Woops72 at 10:51 AM on 02/21/09" was intended to respond to "waltond at 03:07 PM on 02/16/09" and appears out of context as I refer to waltond's last sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any event, there seems to be a general misunderstanding about Bell's theorem experiments (entanglement). When the particles depart from point of origin they are guaranteed to collectively obey conservation laws - energy, momentum, angular momentum (spin), charge, etc. - but this still leaves a lot of freedom for the states they take upon observation.
Remembering that the act of measurement forces an otherwise unobserved quantum state into an eigenstate of the measurement apparatus, once one particle is measured it is forced to take a definite state, say pointing up. This means its partner has no choice but to be in the spin down state if they were originally created from a zero spin state. If the first particle is forced into a spin sideways (say, left) state by the measurement apparatus being configured differently, its partner must also then be in a spin sideways (right pointing) state. Since the configuration of the measurement apparatus used on the first particle can be arbitrary and changing, the state the first particle is forced into must somehow be "signaled" to its partner, which could be lightyears away when the first measurement occurs. This is the spooky part.
The base article mentions that this effect cannot be used to transfer actual information faster than light. You could ask why not just observe the second particle's state and then you know what configuration the first particle's apparatus was in - that is instant information! But you can't observe the second particle's state without also forcing it into one of the eigenstates of the second measurement apparatus, which may or may not be aligned with the first particle. If it is aligned by a priori agreement, you don't pass any new information. If it is at an arbitrary angle, say up, when the first apparatus was forcing a sideways state upon the first particle, then you have a 50:50 chance of the second particle pointing up or down. Comparing statistics after repeated trials you can conclude the particles must have been entangled, but you don't get real time information transfer. Special relativity is preserved. At least that is the conventional wisdom.
If physicists are able to unravel and ultimately understand the relationships between locality, nonlocality and quantum mechanics they my inadvertently end the debate as to the origin of the human species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbob is right in his understanding that non-locality effects implies a discontinuous Universe, in which information travels between fractal scales. In any case the errors of physics regarding time are too deep to make this argument relevant. To start with time is change, and change has 2 modalities, morphological change used by Biology to describe life/death cycles and transational change v=s/t, t=s/v, which merely measures the changes in motion and position. This is not by any means universal change, not the only change/clock of the Universe. This brutish error that plagues the work of people like hawking with his pretentious time travel aroused with the foundational fathers, descartes' single frame of reference of space/time and galileo's single clock to equalize all time cycles of the Universe. Once this brutish error is unveil you enter a fascinating world of multiple, fractal space/times in which non-locality effects are easily explained as we must account for many timespaces, and yet all still follow the equations of Einstein space/time continuum, how do we then explain non-locality, i have here other post, i think number 11 or so that does so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisluis sancho
www.unificationtheory.com
pd. of course i dont mean the work of physicists on time is irrelevant or even inaccurate. On the contrary in all what is 'translation in space' it has become exhaustive, far more than the study of morphological change (evolution, life/death cycles). Yet the enormous lack of conceptual understanding that seems to plague 'dislexic physicists' limits a lot present science. Some basic errors on that sense:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Because v=s/t (corrected in einstein's work with a -ct contraction of space) is just the measure of a local time-change, it is NOT, the entire timeof the Universe, a meaningless concept, as every translation is a different change, every life a different time. So entire branches of speculative physics 'a la hawking' are false.
- Because we humans are morphological beings with minimal translation in space what matter most is morphological time (evolution, biology) related to form, hence to in-form-ation, not to movement, hence to energy.
- In fact, the great conceptual discovery of Einstein was to find that time curves space also in physics. That is movement in physics (translational change) was often a by-product of morphological change (the curvature of space that evolves towards the future into higher form, in-form-ation).
- Thus, there are 2 arrows of time, not only entropy,energy, translational change, 'spatial time', or time as a dimension of space (v=s/t), but also information, morphological change, as in evolution, in life (aging processes) and in relativity (curvature).
- This leads to an entire new age of physics and science with fascinating results. But it is difficult to change ideas. In 10 years of giving conferences about time duality, i found an enormous resistence of physicists to give up their desire to be the only high priests of time. Even when first mehaute proved in chemistry that when entropy doesnt increase systems fractalize that is create fractal information, and I expanded the model to all other physical and biological systems, explaining mathematically the process of aging, those key findings of modern time theory ended published in obscure magazines. While sciam keeps publishing nonsense on outdated time theory... maybe planck was right when he said for a new paradigm to take place an entire generation of old scientists that learnt the previous paradigm must die (-;, In any case is only 'question of time' that monist entropy leaves way to what will be the Time theory of the XXI c.
luis sancho
Einstein was correct only if what he said, talks about something physical or it talks about an observable relationship existing between physical entities. This is the requirement that what he talks about exist in a sensually verifiable way. Which is to say that the existence of what he claims to be so , is so; i.e., that it exists in a sensually knowable way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is, of course, the basis of human intelligence.
The universe is a creation of the human mind. The issue at hand is not "in what form does the universe exist" but is "why does the universe exist in the form it does exist in." Why; i.e., for what purpose, did the human mind create the universe. The universe was created to allow for an overall explanation for the existence of everything - real, delusional, religious and scientific.
This would allow for development of an explanation for why the human mind created such things as diverse as salt, water, life, god, purpose and (of course) human.
The point that is generally missed is the timeless orthogonal energy field called the Void, distinct from the vacuum of physics. It is a universal sensorium or memory bank of quantum elements of experience subsumed at all levels from which the world of forms is recalled in synchronous space frames that close ranks, giving the impression of continuity. This nevertheless leaves irrational discontinuities in space as Richard Dedekind showed in 1888. Since the Void is timeless it spans and integrates history such that diverse elements are recalled as appropriate to ongoing circumstance. On a cosmic level this specifies the parameters of galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution as well as subatomic behaviour and entanglement. On a personal level it allows us to meaningfully integrate our history of change in an ongoing synchronous present. Consciousness is orthogonal to space-time. We recall the past and make commitments that anticipate the future. There are both subjective and objective elements involved that are mutually coalesced and thus spatially indeterminate in the boundless Void. There is a non-linguistic way to delineate specifically how this works called The System introduced at www.cosmic-mindreach.com that exhausts all possible structural varieties of experience. The One System subsumes an open ended series of higher Systems nested within it. It is not possible to intuitively conceive of anything apart from it since the structural methodology encompasses all possible phenomenal behaviour. It is ontological in a way that subsumes epistemology. The Void is directly accessible in personal experience under certain circumstances, so it is more than a theory. It can be known directly. I do not believe it is possible to prescribe the workings of the cosmic order in language alone, unaided by a disciplined structural methodology that bridges right brain intuitive insight and left brain language according to circumstance. Reality is not disembodied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears to me that the authors themselves have trouble with letting go of the traditional view of reality - but if non-locality it allowed, surely there is no reason to limit it to space alone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also worth keeping in mind that despite the potential failings of relativity ad QM, they have still both passed every test thrown at them; thus they can't be that much off.
What I think non-locality demonstrates more than anything is that the common assumption of point-like particles is profoundly false. I imagine it is entirely possible to resolve these issues if we start over, resolve the issue of what is a reasonable model of a physical particle; and this time, why not start with the simple space-time of relativity, and seek to contruct a particle that is nothing more than a stable "knot" in the geometry of space?
because the 'simple space-time' of relativity is wrong, is too simple. We have to account in this and other physical puzzles like neutrino theory with missing information, so we need at least 2 fractal branes of space/time, the gravitational and electromagnetic brane, to explain how between those 2 waters, energy and information appears and disappears, or rather trans-forms itself. And this requires a full understanding of in-form-ation, formal time, which physicists can't do because they defined long ago only translational time (change in movement in space), v=s/t, not morphological, formal, in-form-ative time (change in form). Einstein ammended partialy this studying how time'curve forms' space. Even defined the topology of rossen-einstein bridges that transfer information between fractal scales. he did a lot for his time, as darwin did for morphological time. The problem of science are not the founding fathers but those who canonize them as dogmas, lesser scientists that as kuhn explains detain the evolution of science by converting the ever advancing, changing analysis of reality in frozen beliefs. Only fractal spacetime defines both a continuous and discontinuous timespace that as per my other posts here rationally without spooky ideas explains all those riddles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisls
Doesn't this really depend on the definition of locality? If something affects something else at a distance then by a simple definition, there must be a course of events that progresses from one to the other. You can call flipping a switch or dialing a phone number with your voice via Bluetooth as magic, but they is still something there. The insistence that there is no intermediary sounds like pr hocus pocus . If something happens, by defintion, there has to be a chain of events that causes it to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat something is 'translation'... the oldest trick... fractal translation. So we dont see it. when someone translates information to other scale, emits it and then retranslates it seems magic to us. The simplest case is radio. As your article notices, it was also first thought to be 'instantaneous and non-local' . Since in the fractal scale we exist in, we see the man talking and then the receiver listening but we cant see its translation of information and its translation in space through the smaller, faster scale of electromagnetic spacetime. So it seems magic. The same happens in neurons. They work with 2 different spacetimes, the chemical and electrical spacetime which is faster. So we do not see the jump of the electric sign between neurons because it is translated by chemical serotonine, dopamine, etc. So till Cajal, we thought it was a 'continuum', and then it seemed magical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat 2 scales of fractal space-time are used in the 'spooky effect'. Obviously the 2 we know: the world of electromagnetism ruled by special relativity, where those particles exist and the world of gravitational spacetime ruled by general relativity, which is made of dark energy that 'we dont see'.
Now, here the Error of einstein was to consider both worlds limited by the speed of light, which is by definition the light-space of electromagnetic forces NOT the brane of gravitation. Thus dark energy, gravitation doesnt need to be limited by c-speed as quasars with z=10 show. So as galileo thought of light, its speed can be so great as to seem non-local, instantaneous.then the particle re-translates the gravitational message back to the electromagnetic brane.
.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. Your paragraph cleared up several things for me. Do other people agree with this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith a conflict between quantum theory and special relativity I am going to go with special relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoss Penifiled HY
Surely entanglement is the missing mechanism for those anomalous reports which seem to suggest there might be some scientific basis to homeopathy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven setting the issue of homeopathy aside, surely entanglement will eventually lead to medications that will actually perform along the lines homeopathy claims for itself.
It's possible that non-locality is a spatial interference effect, caused perhaps by space itself, that was included fortuitously in the equations of quantum mechanics. That may in some sense explain the double slit experiment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein's Principle of Relativity (the first postulate), as well as the second postulate of relativity, both derive from MDT's single postulate which is more concise and has the added benefits of providing for free will, liberating us from the block universe, weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity, and providing a *physical* model for time and all its arrows and asymmetries, entropy, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement, as well as reality's probabilistic nature. The fourth dimension is inherently nonlocal via its invariant expansion, and thus quantum mechanics characteristic trait (in Schrodingers words) naturally emerges.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Both of these postulatesas well as the Einstein/Minkowski spacetime metricnaturally derive from MDTs simple postulate and equation: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic.
MDT presents a new universal invariant--an elementary law from which Einstein's Principle of Relativity can be built by pure deduction. Begin with a universe with four dimensions x1, x2, x3, x4, where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions dx4/dt=ic, and the Minkowski/Einstein spacetime metric and all of relativity naturally emerge, as does quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entanglement, wave-particle duality, space-time duality, mass-energy duality, E/B duality, entropy, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries.
"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?" --John A. Wheeler
MDT presents a physical principle more fundamental than Einstein's principle of relativity, as all of relativity naturally emerges from MDT's postulate, as well as entanglement and quantum mechanics probabilistic nature.
Generally speaking, physicists of yore would come up with a postulate, representing a novel physical reality.
MDT's postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.
That postulate would often have an equation associated with it.
MDT's equation: dx4/dt=ic
The postulate and equation would represent a new principle--in MDT's case, that of the hitherto unsung fact that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.
This postulate/equation would then be shown to have a myriad of far-ranging consequences, as Lee Smolin says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bLwqnIfLRA&feature=related
MDT's far-ranging consequences:
1. MDT is the foundational *physical* source of nonlocality and thus quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature and entanglement.
2. MDT is the foundational *physical* source of relativity: begin with a 4D universe wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic, and all of relativity arises.
3. MDT is the foundational *physical* source of time and all its arrows and asymmetries.
4. MDT is the foundational *physical* source of entropy.
5. MDT is the foundational *physical* source of Huygens' Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Simple proofs of MDT:
PROOF#1:
Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.
Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.
Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner.
The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change.
For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.
PROOF#2:
Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4=ict
Ergo dx4/dt=ic.
PROOF#3:
The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Best,
Dr. E (The Real McCoy)
Both quantum nonlocality and relativity derive from a common source--the expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238
In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth dimension is not time, but ict. Despite this, prominent physicists have oft equated time and the fourth dimension, leading to un-resolvable paradoxes and confusion regarding time’s physical nature, as physicists mistakenly projected properties of the three spatial dimensions onto a time dimension, resulting in curious concepts including frozen time and block universes in which the past and future are omni-present, thusly denying free will, while implying the possibility of time travel into the past, which visitors from the future have yet to verify. Beginning with the postulate that time is an emergent phenomenon resulting from a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics are accounted for. Time dilation, the equivalence of mass and energy, nonlocality, wave-particle duality, and entropy are shown to arise from a common, deeper physical reality expressed with dx4/dt=ic. This postulate and equation, from which Einstein’s relativity is derived, presents a fundamental model accounting for the emergence of time, the constant velocity of light, the fact that the maximum velocity is c, and the fact that c is independent of the velocity of the source, as photons are but matter surfing a fourth expanding dimension. In general relativity, Einstein showed that the dimensions themselves could bend, curve, and move. The present theory extends this principle, postulating that the fourth dimension is moving independently of the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time. This physical model underlies and accounts for time in quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as well as entropy, the universe’s expansion, and time’s arrows.
MDT presents a physical principle more fundamental than Einstein's principle of relativity, as all of relativity (The Principle of Relativity (the first postulate), Einstein's two postulates of relativity, and the Minkowski/Einstein spacetime metric) naturally emerges from MDT's postulate, along with time as we measure it on our watches and computers.
And too, MDT, via the natural smearing of locality into nonlocality heralded by the expansion of the fourth dimension, provides a *physical* model for quantum entanglement--that which Schrödinger stated was the "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics:
"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled." --Schrödinger
So it is that MDT provides a common *physical* model for quantum mechanics and relativity, unifying them.
The authors obviously did not read Vasily Yanchilin's book "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation" (2003). This Russian scientists maintains that the special theory of relativity is valid if interpreted thus that the speed of light does not depend on movements of the observers. As explanation he argues that the speed of electro-magnetic propagation depends on the potential of the total mass of the Universe. This potential is not measurably influenced by small observers, but Earth, the sun, giant stars do. Also change results from the ongoing expansion of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo c changes and therefore Yanchilin does not accept the general theory of relativity, which is based on constant speed of light. The latter was only proposed by Einstein as a temporarily working hypothesis before quantum theory was discovered.
That a fist can break a nose at a thousand miles distances is utterly nonsense. Everything has non-locality according Yanchilin but for bigger objects this thrinks to almost nothing. On small scale he sees p.e. an electron as innumerable times, discontinuously appearing and disappearing within a sphere with Heisenberg dimensions. I suggest to call such appearing an iet as then the word electron can be reserved for the whole thing. When a photon hits an iet the sphere shrinks to almost a point and afterwards expanding resumes. The distance between iets can become enormous and the electron may pass two holes simultaneously. Probably such distance sometimes gets almost to our senses unlimited, but not so the envelope around a fist.
The discussion would become better after reading Yanchilin's contribution and I suggest that SciAm invites him to give a summary. In the book one finds also a good explanation why time travel is impossible.
I always wondered.... if scientists wanted to observe the physical laws of nature, why would they do it in a vacuum? Nature is not a vacuum, our Universe definitely fills a space. Even if you think you're in a vacuum, such as in the middle of outer space, you still are not really in a vacuum, as it is essentially filled with much lower density contents like solar winds, interstellar winds, and so on. That being said, if all things are throwing off some kind of energy, then conservation must be maintained as a previous poster stated. I like to use the Hawking version, if you create an electron and a positron, the net energy change is exactly 0. What I believe we can surmise from this is that, starting from a fundamentally neutral particle of energy, we have been continuously splitting into smaller charge-biased forms which then arrange themselves based on normal physical laws. Each split resulting in a particle of energy and its anti-particle. So entanglement in a vacuum would be this particle and its anti-particle, literally opposing in every way. So as one's spin is one direction, the anti-particle which will eventually neutralize it at the end of their route will always have the exact opposing spin at any given point. In a filled space, where these particles can react with other particles, the overall course of each particle may vary, but will eventually return to the source along with everything else, regardless of total distance traversed. This view is supported by the inverse square law; while at vast distances the impact of gravity, magnetism, heat, and essentially all other things related to energy, are reduced, they never entirely 0 out. So at the point where a particle is slowed down by these minuscule forces from such a massive distance, it will simply come back under attractive forces. So the apparent non-locality is actually not non-locality at all. Neither is it locality. Locality and non-locality are an illusion created by perceived distance and non-contact. What ends up causing these particles to act so strangely is really down to how they split in the first place; how outcomes of complex actions are sensitive to initial starting conditions. That is to say, Chaos Theory applied to energetic particulate actions and reactions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi think, Einstein was wrong as well. His idea seemed too complicated. I like to believe that the simplist answer is the correct one. i think time travel is silly too. Einstein was still a great man with alot of great ideas. nobody is always correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne should distinguish between mathematical description and real physical phenomena. To me a problem is how something does make itself feel or visible next door, since empty space between is not bound to anything and thus can vary autonomously or is undetermined. The model of the electron with discontinuous appearances within a varying space with Heisenberg dimensions helps somewhat. Thus a "barrier" can be passed as one of the appearances or iets can manifest itself further on and when hit by a photon the whole thing "cristallizes" there, which is elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext question is how potentials do it and as they expand with the speed of light a comparable action might take place. Light does tranport energy but not mass, which ressembles falling domino stones. So empty space or vaccuum is it invaded by iets?
Again I suggest that SciAm should call Moscow for possible further information since 2003. After which discussion here may become more "advanced".
I missed a precise definition of the special theory of relativity in the authors' story. Do they think that c is independent from anything else in the universe?
As for the general theory of relativity: this old stuff suffices when factors vary little, but is completely wrong near p.e. "black holes" and at the Big Bang, according to Vasily Yanchilin, who presents good argumentation.
Near the first with nits big mass time does not come to a standstill but its speed increases, just like happened at the latter.
Einstein's general theory is a mathematical concept which describes what happens but it gives no explanation for gravity, does not tell how mass changes what is not present, namely the empty space. Space itself is a mathematical concept and reality manifests only when things are present in an otherwise undetermined................
The new theory explains gravity as a purely quantummechanical process: Nearer to an external mass time runs faster and more iets appear here than in the other half of p.e. an electron with Heisenberg dimensions. Within the sphere the distribution will be equal and as a consequence the particle moves towards the other mass.
I do wonder if angular momentum is conserved for a photon though. If angular momentum is a quantity that, according to Maxwell's Equations, is dependent on charge (current density) then there is no reason why the photon looks like two straight perpendicular lines in a plane at any given time increment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould not the photon be a time-oscillating E-curl field and a time-oscillating B-curl field that are 90 degrees out of phase in magnitude and where the B-curl field is orthogonal to the infinitesimal plane in 3-space?
dude, what is quantum field theory, chopped liver? boy oh boy does that feynman propagator ever enforce relativistic causality, gee whiz don't that path integral realize superposition, hot diggity isn't that S-matrix unitary, causal, analytic, and sweet jesus ain't entanglement beautifully encoded in the choice of vacuum state... see, i always thought quantum field theory is what you get when you give quantum mechanics and special relativity a shotgun wedding. where did we theoretical particle physicists go wrong? dude, where's the love for QFT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial relativity is quite on the way out. Thousands of scientists outside the mainstream have known this for many many decades. These scientists can be found at http://db.worldnpa.org.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial relativity is quite on the way out. Thousands of scientists outside the mainstream have known this for many many decades. These scientists can be found at http://db.worldnpa.org.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink Chinese :)
Arabic and West Math. has - almost - no Role in Chinese philosophy
Zero ( � ) Means " Extreme Fine Rain " - not Zero or infinity it means there is some thing behind SEARCH FOR WHAT BEHIND.
PAIR - 2 - ( ) IN CHINA NUMERICAL, MEANS ONE - 1 - In rest of the World - read Yin and Yang Concepts.
Quantum;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink Chinese :)
Arabic and West Math. has - almost - no Role in Chinese philosophy
Zero ( 零 ) Means " Extreme Fine Rain " - not Zero or infinity it means there is some thing behind SEARCH FOR WHAT BEHIND.
PAIR - 2 - ( ⼆ ) IN CHINA NUMERICAL, MEANS ONE - 1 - In rest of the World - read Yin and Yang Concepts.
Any quanum object is described by a wave function. The wave function has a phase ( quantum phase). Fro any wave there are 2 velocities : the pahase and the group veocties. The former LAWAYS PROPAGATE WITH THE SPEED EXCEEDING THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us consider, for example, a singlet spin up, spin down. It is a very simple representative of a class of emtamgled quantum objects. This singlet is described by its unique wave function. Both parts of the si nglet are "connected" via the quantum phase.
Therefore any change of one part os the singlet responds to a hange in its another part witha speed , EXCEEDING THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
The confusion about the role of the quantum phase in the quantum entanglement leads to an errneous conclusion about apparent violation of the SR in the entanglement experimens .
"Any quantum object can be described by a wave function" Is true in my book, but it leads another truth through logical progression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny quantum object can be described by a wave function.
All other objects are composed of quantum objects.
Any object can be described by a wave function.
Wave function is a relative scale of change in one way or another(more energy to less or less to more).
Any object can be described by a procession and recession.
No objects terminate, only change form.
Any object can be described by a series of procession and recession, and ends when it synthesizes into a new series of processions and recessions.
Oh, hello Hegel, how are you today?
Albert's and Tumulka's "curiously different directions" might not be so different. One (Albert's) has recourse to the infinite dimensions of Hilbert space, while the other relies on (what I would call) delay coordinates in low dimensional space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know from Chaos Theory that delay coordinates in low dimensions can be used (for example) to reconstruct higher dimensional attractors of chaotic dynamical systems.
When two photons are "entangled" that entanglement only lasts until one is disturbed. The process of observing the photon (as in the Aspect experiment) irrevocably disturbs its wave function. Thus they are no longer "entangled." In other words, there is no way of making an observation on it without doing so, and they have independent outcomes from that point onward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why should there be a problem?
Also, the process of sending a message faster than light does not necessarily cause a paradox of causality. If Buzz sends Alice a message, there is no way of comparing his send time with her arrival time. They are following two different world-lines.
What is critical is: Her REPLY must not come before his sending the message. Only then is there a paradox of causality.
When two photons are "entangled" that entanglement only lasts until one is disturbed. The process of observing the photon (as in the Aspect experiment) irrevocably disturbs its wave function. Thus they are no longer "entangled." In other words, there is no way of making an observation on it without doing so, and they have independent outcomes from that point onward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why should there be a problem?
Also, the process of sending a message faster than light does not necessarily cause a paradox of causality. If Buzz sends Alice a message, there is no way of comparing his send time with her arrival time. They are following two different world-lines.
What is critical is: Her REPLY must not come before his sending the message. Only then is there a paradox of causality.
The whole problem consists in the definition of time. As long as time will be regarded as a "dimension" in the way as space dimensions, or as being as "real" or "existing" as matter, there will be trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime is, physically spoken, a derived quantity like entropy or force etc.
Time is "created" by matter and the (different) disposition of it.
That is also why there is no time on a submicroscopic level: a particule "N" that goes from condition "p" to condition "q" and back to "p" again, is in every sense identical, and there can be no time defined that passed (in, and FOR, the system "N").
Time is more an "entropic quantity" and can only be defined over entropy - the disposition of macroscopic entities.
This notion of time resolves a lot of problems - and you will never get out of trouble if you look of "time" as an independantly existing value (by making time "flexible", Einstein made a step in the right direction, but he didn't go far enough).
Think of it : time is NOT EXISTING - it is merely another word/value for describing different states of matter.
Einstein was right when he said: time is what you measure with a watch - if a system is not complex enough to lead to different macroscopic states, that you can differentiate, there simply IS NO TIME !
In a universe with one electron, there would be no time...
As my girl friend once remarked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Love me, love my wave function.... "
What you are saying is that the measurement reveals something that pre-existed but was simply hidden. This would be trivial, but it is not so. For if it were true, then any result of any measurement (say, spin in any direction)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould be encoded in both particles. But this is precisely the hypothesis that Bell makes to arrive at his inequalities. And these inequalities are violated by quantum mechanics and by experiments. So the results of not yet performed measurements cannot be determined. It s not true that measurement of one particle reveals a pre existing state of itself and the other.
This was meant to be a direct response to the comment by waltond on feb16
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess what I mean to say is - The photons are 100 percent correlated before they are measured. So if we can devise an accurate enough measurement it will tell us exactly what the spin states of BOTH photons were BEFORE the measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trouble now arises because making the measurement of photon A changes its wave function, so now it is no longer correlated with photon B. So nothing you do with photon A will affect the state of photon B. This precludes any faster than light transmission of messages. That was my idea of what the paradox involved.
One thought experiment would be: Deflect photon A with a mirror. Would this cause photon B to be deflected as well? I think the answer is clearly NO.
I don't think so
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just read and partially understood a "Scientific American" article discussing how such phenomena as entanglement, locality and non-locality have presented some conflicts between the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory. The article strongly suggests that Einstein may have got parts of his relativity theory wrong and also perhaps that Bohr got some stuff wrong in his quantum theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that's the way real science works. Experiments will be devised to discover why these unexpected conflicts have occurred. Eventually someone will figure out some new twists to the old theories and the people who are paying attention will move a few centimeters further along the path of knowledge.
Isn't it a shame that Theory of Evolution (and its subsequent modifications and current controversies) cannot be discussed as calmly in public as the above mentioned conflicts? Is it that no fire-breathing pastors are able to see that Einstein and Bohr were more of a threat to religious orthodoxy than "Bobby" Darwin ever was?
I have just read and partially understood a "Scientific American" article discussing how such phenomena as entanglement, locality and non-locality have presented some conflicts between the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory. The article strongly suggests that Einstein may have got parts of his relativity theory wrong and also perhaps that Bohr got some stuff wrong in his quantum theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that's the way real science works. Experiments will be devised to discover why these unexpected conflicts have occurred. Eventually someone will figure out some new twists to the old theories and the people who are paying attention will move a few centimeters further along the path of knowledge.
Isn't it a shame that Theory of Evolution (and its subsequent modifications and current controversies) cannot be discussed as calmly in public as the above mentioned conflicts? Is it that no fire-breathing pastors are able to see that Einstein and Bohr were more of a threat to religious orthodoxy than "Bobby" Darwin ever was?
A main notion in QM is that of "measurement", a process of interaction between a measuring device (some observable phenomenon) and that which is being measured. And the hardly discussed canon for a long time has been that there are a number of possible states or outcomes of the "measurement" whos probabilities are calculated using wave functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd voila! -there is only one of those possible states that will manifest itself in the act of measurement. Is this the best description of reality that we have, or are we just locked in semantics? In other words, who or what is to say that when a particle disintegrates into two daughter particles they don't already assume one of the possible states by random chance as calculable by the wavefunctions involved.
So that when we make the measurement of spin for example, both daughter particles already are in the states that the measurement will reveal. Let us remember that QM is not the reality or our physical world, it is not even a complete description of it. I think it is important to keep this in mind, even if there astonishingly accurate predictions and descriptions of physical processes made by QM. However it is just a mental tool.
What is IT that waves, that the wave function quantifies? Well the square of whatever IT is seems to describe the probability of finding mass or energy in a location in a process of "measurement".
And let's revisit the two slit interference paradox of wave/partical duality. The fact that a stream of photons or electrons generate a pattern of EM flashes in locations on a screen AS IF THEY WERE waves doesn't mean that they actually are waves. The wave function is just a very accurate DESCRIPTIVE TOOL. In other words I think we have an issue of semantics - of confusing that which we are trying to describe with our incomplete descriptors.
Our spoken and written is somewhat anologous. A human language is originally spoken (not written), consisting of sounds expressing what's going on in our brains and bodies at large. We can analyze the sound into phonems, consonants and vowels etc., and discover grammatical patterns , all of which can be described in a written representation of what's spoken. But let us not forget that the written language is only a crude representation of the real language. For instance we still don't have good characters or markers to write for tone of voice (anger, sarcasm, warmth etc), not even for the intricate use of pitch and intonation.
From a laymans perspective, it seems that the conflict between quantum nonlocality and special relativity is tied to the mysterious instantaneous process occurring when one of two entangled particles interacts with a physical detector resulting in the collapse of the wave function linking the two and the emergence of the physical property of the other particle. It would seem that, in principle, this process would follow the time dependent Schroedinger equation describing how, over a finite period of time, the symmetrical wave equation for the entangled state would distort and alter as it interacted with the wave equation for the detector and collapse into two separate but complementary wave equations for the two separate particles. Would such a description of a noninstantaneous process help to resolve the conflict?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe need to sit back and look at the big picture and realize that because time is a factor outside of our universe, it is the "third observer" in any closed system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your clear and succinct explanation. You valdiate what I have heard before and wonder why there is any confusion today about the action at a distance claim. The fact that we know the spin of the remote particle for certain at the moment we know the the soin of it's partner seems to be the same thing as something like, we blindly painted pairs of objects the same color, but we didn't know what color of paint any pair got, only to say that each pair had the same color. Then later we seperate them blindly and keep them in two closed dark boxes. After that we open one box and find one half of the set of paired objects have differnt colors. Say one of the pair are two billaird balls and we see that our one billiad ball has a red dot on it. At that moment we would know that he other billarid ball has a red dot on it on the other closed remote box even before we open it. Even if both boxes are openned 20 years later, and one of them had been sent to Mars, after we open the box on Earth we know instantly that the remote billiard ball has a red dot on it. If this analogy is sufficiently correct I don't see the "action at a distance". Maybe you explain what these obviously very smart people proposing the conflict are saying that makes them believe their is or could be "action at a distance". Thanks very much for yoru help!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPat
Does it not seem obvious that these 'particles' are not discrete entities at all; and that what we call 'entanglement' is more probably 'attachment'? The electron on this side of the galaxy and the neutron on the other side of the galaxy are not entangled - they are two parts of a larger whole. Do something to 'one' and it affects the 'other' because they are fingers on the same hand. If what we can observe is the surface of a pond and the air above it, imagine a 10' sausage-shaped soap bubble lying underneath the surface, except for its ends. To our observation, the ends appear to be two bubbles 10' apart. But if we pop the closer one - look! The other popped at the same time! No, we popped one bubble. It had a shape we would not have guessed at, and that shape was hidden under a membrane we cannot see through.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reading the article whether Einstein might be wrong, I am reminded about JS Bell's Non-Locality issue as it might relate to tornadoes. About the same time that Bell came up with his idea, the tornado was being described as a SEVERE LOCAL STORM but has had the moniker LOCAL dropped from this phrase. As a researcher into the patterning of past tornado outbreaks and noting the problem of LOCALITY with respect to tornado energies, I am wondering if meteorologists have run into a wall of problems because these took the path of randomness when in actuality, tornadoes are more likely to be deterministic. Bell makes the use of ABSOLUTE VORTICITY suspect further casting doubt on its viability if tornadoes should be thought of as SEVERE NON-LOCAL STORMS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a longtime subscriber to SciAm I have watched in dismay as the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquality of the articles has steadily declined. In all these years I
have not been sufficiently moved to complain, but the "Was Einstein
Wrong?" piece in the March issue was so poorly written that I am now
compelled to vent. It is a poorly-worded confusing mish-mash of
generalities that left me with a complete lack of understanding of the
new results concerning nonlocality. I find it hard to believe that the
article was actually edited at all.
Page 39 was the worst. Please read the paragraph at the bottom of the
first column that begins with "The trouble." It is a single sentence
with 64 words! Please ask yourself whether that paragraph "in a
perfectly concrete way exceeds or eludes or has nothing to do with" the
reader's understanding of what the authors are trying to say.
The article's last sentence was the final indignity. "We may, in fact,
see the universe through a glass not so darkly as has too long been
insisted." If there is a hell, and my ninth grade English teacher ended
up there, his torment would be to read that sentence over and over.
The comment by myself (Patrick WIlson), was meant as a comment and question for "waltond" who posted at 03:07 PM on 02/16/09. If you are out there I would like to hear your reply. Thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. It's too bad when I reply directly to one post it doesn't tree my reply off that particular post.
Hi folks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould non-local and local effects be reconciled by a space-time substrate that's only statistically dimensional?
Reka Albert's 2001 Dissertation - "Statistical Mechanics of Complex Networks" http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/albert01statistical.html indicates that for random graphs with extremely high numbers of nodes:
"the fractal dimension of the finite clusters is df = 4, and even the infinite cluster at the percolation threshold can be embedded in a four-dimensional space."
There may be constraints on this finding that I'm not appreciating. However, it does give an example of where a non-dimensional substrate (a random network) statistically produces dimensional behavior.
Thank you,
Matt Kamerman (USA)
I have the following problems with this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. It assumes that because entanglement, a type of non-local relationship, exists, "non-locality" is proven. This is incorrect. Entanglement is a type of non-local relationship. However, just because entanglement exists does not mean that "non-locality" of all types exists. In fact, hidden variables have been disproven. I have not seen a single real challenge to special relativity in this article. Information cannot be "transmitted" via entanglement, so how then is special relativity violated? This article is rubbish. There is no conflict what-so-ever between special relativity and entanglement. Not only do you not explain time dilation or spacial contraction, but you fail to explain the basic elements of quantum mechanics.
2. There is no "instant transmission" or any other such nonsense with regards to entangled particles. When you operate on (measure) a wave function, you 'cause' a result to appear. Here's why this 'causal' effect does not propegate at infinite speed to the other side of the universe 'causing' the other particle to have opposite spin:
Darcy Doubter (DD) looks at her particle P1 (P1) at time t1 (t1) in her reference frame and measures its up or down spin.
EG:
DD at time t1: <s| Y(P1)
with <s| being the up-down spin operator and Y(P1) being the wave function of particle P1 at time t1
Faithful Ferris (FF) looks at his particle p2 (P2) at time t2 (t2) in his reference frame and measures its up or down spin.
FF at time t2: <s| Y(p2)
FF is 100 million lightyears away from DD. Let us assume completely empty and flat space time (impossible due to the time energy uncertainty principal) between the two.
Now, lets assume that P1 and P2 are entangled to have opposite spin. (they originated from a particle accelerator 1/2 way between DD and FF a very very long time ago (say 500 million years ago), so each particle is traveling at 10% the speed of light)
Now comes the magic:
at time t1 DD measures p1, performing <s| Y(p1)
"simultaneously" p2 has the opposite spin where FF is.
However, no matter how hard he trys, FF can ONLY MEASURE p2 at time t2. He cannot measure p2 at time t1. This is because, as per the lesson of quantum mechanics, physical reality does NOT EXIST until the exact moment you take a measurement. At any other time, the wave function resumes.
Hence, let t1-t2 = Delta(t)
Thus, it is impossible to measure the two particles simultaneously. no "information" propagates at faster than the speed of light.
Lets take this one step further.
Let's say that at time t1, DD shots a beam of light directly towards FF and at time t2 FF shoots a beam of light directly towards DD.
100 years later, they receive the beam of light. If they had a watch, they could time exactly how long between t1 or t2 that they received the beam of light. However, no matter how many times they do this experiment, it is impossible for them to determine the exact moment that the other person measured the particle due to the time energy uncertainty principal. In fact, the two particles have opposite spins simultaneously at an infinately small sliver of time. Not only that, but there is uncertainty in the position of the photon when it is absorbed by the 'measuring/timing' device. It is therefore impossible to ever 'know' if the measurement went off simultaneously. Thus, it is impossible to ever measure these two particles simultaneously without running into an uncertainty principal. Entanglement is a lovely principal if you are God. Otherwise, you can't ever see both measurements at the same time. There is no 'non-locality' going on here. There is only uncertaintly. It is rather strange that when quantum mechanics spits out "they have opposite spins," we assume that this means anything in reality. Since reality is defined by measurement, saying 'they have opposite spins' means nothing. The most you could say is that you MIGHT measure opposite spins when you compare results, but it's not guaranteed.
This article misuses terms and says things such as "instantly alters" the spin of the other particle. Sorry. Nothing was 'altered' at all. The wave function of particple p1 and p2 existed before they were measured, and the results fell within the range possible by the wave function. Nothing 'altered' anything.
The words you use betray the fact that you barely understand basic quantum. Please have somebody with a basic understanding of Quantum write your next article.
And now a real physics question:
Can somebody explain to me what happens when we insert v=aic into special relativity?
I tried to understand imaginary velocities with special realitivity, but my mind goes to mush when I thought about it. It would seem imaginary space time is completely different from our space time.
I have the following problems with this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. It assumes that because entanglement, a type of non-local relationship, exists, "non-locality" is proven. This is incorrect. Entanglement is a type of non-local relationship. However, just because entanglement exists does not mean that "non-locality" of all types exists. In fact, hidden variables have been disproven. I have not seen a single real challenge to special relativity in this article. Information cannot be "transmitted" via entanglement, so how then is special relativity violated? This article is rubbish. There is no conflict what-so-ever between special relativity and entanglement. Not only do you not explain time dilation or spacial contraction, but you fail to explain the basic elements of quantum mechanics.
2. There is no "instant transmission" or any other such nonsense with regards to entangled particles. When you operate on (measure) a wave function, you 'cause' a result to appear. Here's why this 'causal' effect does not propegate at infinite speed to the other side of the universe 'causing' the other particle to have opposite spin:
Darcy Doubter (DD) looks at her particle P1 (P1) at time t1 (t1) in her reference frame and measures its up or down spin.
EG:
DD at time t1: <s| Y(P1)
with <s| being the up-down spin operator and Y(P1) being the wave function of particle P1 at time t1
Faithful Ferris (FF) looks at his particle p2 (P2) at time t2 (t2) in his reference frame and measures its up or down spin.
FF at time t2: <s| Y(p2)
FF is 100 million lightyears away from DD. Let us assume completely empty and flat space time (impossible due to the time energy uncertainty principal) between the two.
Now, lets assume that P1 and P2 are entangled to have opposite spin. (they originated from a particle accelerator 1/2 way between DD and FF a very very long time ago (say 500 million years ago), so each particle is traveling at 10% the speed of light)
Now comes the magic:
at time t1 DD measures p1, performing <s| Y(p1)
"simultaneously" p2 has the opposite spin where FF is.
However, no matter how hard he trys, FF can ONLY MEASURE p2 at time t2. He cannot measure p2 at time t1. This is because, as per the lesson of quantum mechanics, physical reality does NOT EXIST until the exact moment you take a measurement. At any other time, the wave function resumes.
Hence, let t1-t2 = Delta(t)
Thus, it is impossible to measure the two particles simultaneously. no "information" propagates at faster than the speed of light.
Lets take this one step further.
Let's say that at time t1, DD shots a beam of light directly towards FF and at time t2 FF shoots a beam of light directly towards DD.
100 years later, they receive the beam of light. If they had a watch, they could time exactly how long between t1 or t2 that they received the beam of light. However, no matter how many times they do this experiment, it is impossible for them to determine the exact moment that the other person measured the particle due to the time energy uncertainty principal. In fact, the two particles have opposite spins simultaneously at an infinately small sliver of time. Not only that, but there is uncertainty in the position of the photon when it is absorbed by the 'measuring/timing' device. It is therefore impossible to ever 'know' if the measurement went off simultaneously. Thus, it is impossible to ever measure these two particles simultaneously without running into an uncertainty principal. Entanglement is a lovely principal if you are God. Otherwise, you can't ever see both measurements at the same time. There is no 'non-locality' going on here. There is only uncertaintly. It is rather strange that when quantum mechanics spits out "they have opposite spins," we assume that this means anything in reality. Since reality is defined by measurement, saying 'they have opposite spins' means nothing. The most you could say is that you MIGHT measure opposite spins when you compare results, but it's not guaranteed.
This article misuses terms and says things such as "instantly alters" the spin of the other particle. Sorry. Nothing was 'altered' at all. The wave function of particple p1 and p2 existed before they were measured, and the results fell within the range possible by the wave function. Nothing 'altered' anything.
The words you use betray the fact that you barely understand basic quantum. Please have somebody with a basic understanding of Quantum write your next article.
And now a real physics question:
Can somebody explain to me what happens when we insert v=aic into special relativity?
I tried to understand imaginary velocities with special realitivity, but my mind goes to mush when I thought about it. It would seem imaginary space time is completely different from our space time.
What if Operators (observers) mediate (resolve wave functions) through such a higher dimensional space. I've had philosophical difficulty in having N-operators in a universe in which the operators themselves are part of the wave function. The only way it made sense to me was to assign Operators some special 'force' that mediates through an unknown dimension. Why should a wave function be able to resolve and measure itself? Operators must have some value different than the wave function (of space time) on this mediating higher dimension.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore scientists can discredit Einstein, it seems to me that researchers must not only prove entanglement experimentally, but they must also prove experimentally that entanglement operates instantaneously over vast distances. However, that would require the discovery of a new system of communication. Researchers would need a second method of instantaneous long distance communication for verification, because electromagnetic waves transport information at the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot being inclined to believe in the length contraction, I posted this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations in the newsgroup, sci.physics.relativity, but to this date have received little response other than profanity and insults. Rather than viewing t'=t as representing absolute time, as scientists have done since the time of Isaac Newton, I just said it showed a common measurement of time in two frames of reference, such as using the rotation of the earth as measurement of time in S and S', which would result in t'=t. This being the case, if a clock is running slower in S', the moving fraem of reference, as experiment shows it is, then time on a clock in S' cannot be t' because that time is already defined to be t'=t. So atomic or scientific time would require another variable, which we will call n'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf light is traveling at c=300,000 km/sec according to t and n', then
x=ct
x'=cn'.
x'=x-vt
cn'=ct-vt
n'=t(1-v/c)
At speeds that can be measured directly, such as the speed of the planet Mercury, this equation for n' will agree with the result of the equation for t' in the Lorentz equations to several decimal places.
With regard to three dimensions, light emitted at x,y,z expands as a sphere with a radius of ct. In S' the same light is emitted at x',y',z' and expands as a sphere with a radius of cn'. So if light is emitted at the origins of S and S' when they coincide,
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 =c^2t^2
(x')^2 + (y')^2 + (z')^2 = c^2(n')^2
which reduces to n'=t(1-v/c).
Robert B. Winn
What, I wonder, would other readers think of the suggestion that not only was Einstein with his special relativity possibly wrong, but so too might Max Planck have been with his quantum theory? Maybe Newton was right after all. It is just a pity that when the metaphorical apple fell on his head, the penny did not drop at the same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein and Plank between them seem to have led us into ever more fanciful realms of a space-time continuum, a whole family of sub-fundamental particles, an expanding, or contracting universe, just possibly flat, multiple, parallel universes, worm holes, time travel, etc., etc., ultimately to a big bang, the idea that it all started with a teaspoonful of explosive dust.
It seems unrealistic that something so enormous, so enduring, so energy dependent as the universe should have been beholden to a momentary indiscretion by some unknown and unknowable miscreant arsonist for its existence. It would seem more sensible, perhaps, if so complex a system had an in-built supply of renewable energy. Possibly it does have, and just possibly that source is gravity, unlimited, inexhaustible, freely, continuously and instantaneously available to all matter everywhere at all times.
Gravity is an inherent, inalienable, fundamental property of matter, which confers upon it the power of attraction to behave in the manner Newton enunciated. If the idea of this simple energy source is accepted, then we may conceive of the universe as nothing more complicated than a two-component perpetual motion machine, comprising just space and matter, only one universe, infinite and eternal, which must forever go on evolving. One standard unit of matter suffices, a fundamental particle capable of assuming the roles of neutron, proton and electron within atoms, an infinite number of them, and space, a continuous medium that offers a miniscule resistance to the motion of fundamental particles, a resistance which varies with the spin and speed of travel of fundamental particles.
Of course, what applies to fundamental particles applies also to structured aggregations of them, matter as more generally familiar to us.
Throughout space, matter is attracted to other matter, which causes it to acquire increasing kinetic energy, and to coalesce into enormous aggregations, galaxies, leaving vast regions of intervening space virtually emptied of matter, dark and cold. Within embrionic galaxies a great deal of matters kinetic energy is converted into radiant energy of the space occupied, primarily heat. Maximum temperature is reached when loss of kinetic energy equals gain of radiant energy. For the remainder of a galaxys lifetime, this initial total store of energy must suffice for all of the energy phenomena experienced, to occur.
As the galaxy ages, its matter slows and its space cools, radiant wave energy dissipating out into surrounding colder, emptier space according to an inverse square law, the complementary return process to Newtons Law for the initial gain in kinetic energy by matter. In effect, space serves to return the kinetic energy imparted to matter by gravity back towards a wholly potential state of absolutely cold static space, totally inert matter, a state which can never occur, as matter can never be infinitely distant from all other matter, so these cycles must recur over and over again randomly distributed throughout space and over time, matter from the outer extremities of galaxies spiralling out into surrounding space, there to encounter other such matter from other dying galaxies.
Physics and chemistry, all science, is concerned with the study and understanding of the infinite variety of energy phenomena that occur naturally, or that man may contrive, consistent with these ever recurring, ever unique galactic cycles.
It would be most interesting to learn the views of other thoughtful readers.
I thought it was bad when my brothers english teacher wrote a 36 page rubric on a one paragraph essay, and that was how it was for all essays, a new rubric. But this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "two" or more particles quantumly entangled are not really separate entities but part of the same phenomenon. We are developing techniques for separating them but they are connected (perhaps through one or more of the 5 - 11 meta dimensions beyond the 4 we are familiar with). Their is only an apparent non-locality involved if you are limited to the 4 familiar dimensions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis "non-locality" spoken of is wierd - in the undisturbed natural world. But humans have been altering the natural world for thousands of years. Creating techniques to pull apart particles which are actually components of one multi-particle (artificially created) and therefor un-natural phenomenon produces an effect which appears to violate local action "rule".
yeah, well if i had the time to read all 109 comments at this hour, the situation might at a gamble become more definitely clear; however the necessity of defining Local and Entangled is of the first importance since they are Not related, regardless of what some may say, on any level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat, I wonder, would other readers think of the suggestion that not only was Einstein with his special relativity possibly wrong, but so too might Max Planck have been with his quantum theory? Maybe Newton was right after all. It is just a pity that when the metaphorical apple fell on his head, the penny did not drop at the same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein and Plank between them seem to have led us into ever more fanciful realms of a space-time continuum, a whole family of sub-fundamental particles, an expanding, or contracting universe, just possibly flat, multiple, parallel universes, worm holes, time travel, etc., etc., ultimately to a big bang, the idea that it all started with a teaspoonful of explosive dust.
It seems unrealistic that something so enormous, so enduring, so energy dependent as the universe should have been beholden to a momentary indiscretion by some unknown and unknowable miscreant arsonist for its existence. It would seem more sensible, perhaps, if so complex a system had an in-built supply of renewable energy. Possibly it does have, and just possibly that source is gravity, unlimited, inexhaustible, freely, continuously and instantaneously available to all matter everywhere at all times.
Gravity is an inherent, inalienable, fundamental property of matter, which confers upon it the power of attraction to behave in the manner Newton enunciated. If the idea of this simple energy source is accepted, then we may conceive of the universe as nothing more complicated than a two-component perpetual motion machine, comprising just space and matter, only one universe, infinite and eternal, which must forever go on evolving. One standard unit of matter suffices, a fundamental particle capable of assuming the roles of neutron, proton and electron within atoms, an infinite number of them, and space, a continuous medium that offers a miniscule resistance to the motion of fundamental particles, a resistance which varies with the spin and speed of travel of fundamental particles.
Of course, what applies to fundamental particles applies also to structured aggregations of them, matter as more generally familiar to us.
Throughout space, matter is attracted to other matter, which causes it to acquire increasing kinetic energy, and to coalesce into enormous aggregations, galaxies, leaving vast regions of intervening space virtually emptied of matter, dark and cold. Within embrionic galaxies a great deal of matters kinetic energy is converted into radiant energy of the space occupied, primarily heat. Maximum temperature is reached when loss of kinetic energy equals gain of radiant energy. For the remainder of a galaxys lifetime, this initial total store of energy must suffice for all of the energy phenomena experienced, to occur.
As the galaxy ages, its matter slows and its space cools, radiant wave energy dissipating out into surrounding colder, emptier space according to an inverse square law, the complementary return process to Newtons Law for the initial gain in kinetic energy by matter. In effect, space serves to return the kinetic energy imparted to matter by gravity back towards a wholly potential state of absolutely cold static space, totally inert matter, a state which can never occur, as matter can never be infinitely distant from all other matter, so these cycles must recur over and over again randomly distributed throughout space and over time, matter from the outer extremities of galaxies spiralling out into surrounding space, there to encounter other such matter from other dying galaxies.
Physics and chemistry, all science, is concerned with the study and understanding of the infinite variety of energy phenomena that occur naturally, or that man may contrive, consistent with these ever recurring, ever unique galactic cycles.
It would be most interesting to learn the views of other thoughtful readers.
Here is a brain twister
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's say we are both the same age:
In Case A, I am traveling towards you at near the speed of light, and then stop when I get to you. Special Relativity says that when I stop, I should be younger than you and you should be older.
In Case B, You are traveling towards me at the near the speed of light, and then you stop when you get to me. According to special relativity, you should be younger than me and I should be older than you.
Now Imagine an empty universe except you and me.
Is there any different between me heading towards you at .99*C, or you heading towards me at .99*C?
I can't imagine any difference. Yet, both can't be true at the same time, can they?
I used to understand this, and now it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Here's the twin paradox:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you go to see the world, it'll pass by in an instant, but if you wait for the world to come to you, it never will.
(If you accelerate towards an object it will age fast = die = pass by in an instant. If something accelerates towards you. you age faster than it, so you'll die before it gets to you)
So, this would mean that the daughter particles had been somehow "programmed" while still within the parent particle. Could it be said that their characteristics are what determines the parent particles'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a suggested silly solution to bernsten69's 'brain twister': maybe 'I' and 'you' both simply age by the same interval of time that it takes for the one to travel to wherever the other may happen to be? That would mean as regards .99*C no difference at all? The same, perhaps, applies to his 'twin paradox', whether travelling to 'see the world', or waiting for it to come to him, whether, or not, he or the world travels at constant, or accelerating speed? I suppose, if he could run away fast enough, the world might never catch up with him, but he, and the world, would still, I think, only age by the time for which he kept on running?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial relativity has been refuted even with classical physics arguments,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisabout thousend times since 1905, so entanglement is just one more
refutation.
Best regards, Hartwig Thim, www.ime.jku.at
Special relativity has been refuted many times since 1905 using classical
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphysics arguments. Einstein's light speed postulate is simply wrong and absurd as experimental results have shown. I addition, the relativistic transverse Doppler shift has been refuted as shown in my IEEE article.
Best regards,
Hartwig Thim, www.ime.jku.at
Special relativity has been refuted many times since 1905 using classical physics arguments. And experiments have been performed that the speed of light is anisotropic on earth and in other inertial frames of reference
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinvalidating Einstein's light speed invariance postulate. In addition the relativistic transverse Dopplershift has been shown to be wrong as published in my IEEE publication of the year 2003.
Hence, special relativity must be given up.
Best regards, Hartwig Thim, www.ime.jku.at
The light speed postulate (isotropic in all inertial frames) has been refuted by measuring the one-way speed of light on earth. Thus the Lorentz transformation equations are not valid as they have been derived on the refuted light speed isotropy postulate. Thus special relativity is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is that simple. The experiments refuting the light speed postulate can be found on www.worldnpa.org
Hartwig Thim, member of the NPA-Organisation adn www.ime.jku.at
Obviously Einstein is wrong. How stupid can you be to believe otherwise? Humans are too dumb to understand the universe. Newton was wrong, so is Einstein and so will be the person to come with the next monumental theory. Maybe we should be more concerned with what is going on "locally" like the planet that we actually live on; and what it is that is wrong with our current way of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quantum world exists in multiple dimensions. Some spacial where there is no distance, some temporal where particles exist in the past and future, thus entangled particles can exhibit non-locality without violating special relativity which exists on a larger scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are these forums always ripe grounds for people to spout out crazy theories with triple posting and make posts trying to get people to join their cult. Idiots! Stop acting like you know anything about physics while spouting made up terms and things that don't make sense. If you're really so brain damaged that you have to go running around shouting that "some made up theory" disproves special relativity, go to wikipedia and try to LEARN something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is exactly the kind of crap which caused me to cancel my subscription many years ago. Entanglement is a CORRELATION! not an action at a distance. Only people who insist upon specific ontological (re)interpretations of QM must invoke an action to explain EPR experiments. There is no contradiction or inconsistency between SR and QM. Only between SR+QM and certain (IMNSHO silly) alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistriple posting is so common in all the threads that it must be caused by the page hosting setup. It seems to happen to many new posters, my self included.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison the other hand long postings of physics techno-babble is annoying to those who don't speak the language. If you can't keep it simple you don't really understand the subject.
triple posting is so common in all the threads that it must be caused by the page hosting setup. It seems to happen to many new posters, my self included.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison the other hand long postings of physics techno-babble is annoying to those who don't speak the language. If you can't keep it simple you don't really understand the subject.
Could this discussion of QM, entanglements, and localities & non, be relevant to why we can dream of an event, e.g., the death of a person, only to find out the next day, or soon thereafter, that the event occurs? I interpret this clairvoyance, as it were, as an example of entanglement where a bit of information supersedes the speed of light, arriving before the event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis happened in the event of the death of a 38 y/o man who drowned in a sailing accident on the day AFTER i was awakened in the night before by a nightmare of him falling into a body of water, and i couldn't save him.
i believe that information can travel faster than light. if two planes intersect each other, and the of incidence is small enough, the moment of intersection causes the intersecting node to travel at a velocity that can be faster than light speed. observe the crashing of a wave into the beach. if it is a perfectly curled wave, with the wave hitting the beach almost simultaneously, you actually see a flash of light moving up and down the beach, whose speed logarithmically increases with the decrease in angle between the wave and the beach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you assume that reality is none local, then all strange coincidences are not coincidental, and reality is a shifting soup of parallel universes in which reality changes infinitely. Experience seems to bear this out. What we will find out soon enough is that even though time travel is not possible for actual physical things, it is possible for information to travel back and forth through time. let me lay out the scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshoot a laser beam from new york up to a satellite. split that beam in opposite directions. a thousand miles from those two beams are two detectors in orbit. those two detectors, equidistant from the beam splitting satellite 1000 miles away each, have also been sending split beams of light out in opposite directions, half of which are striking the original beam splitter sattelites detectors at the same time the beams are striking them. continue this all around the world 30 times with 30 sattelites a thousand miles apart. all of which are split beam detector/emitters. ultimately you have a circle of lasers which all feedback on each other sothat the time it takes for a beam of light to traverse 1000 miles, effects each detector simultaneously due to the entanglement. effectively you create a ringed system of communication in which the the speed of information traveling on light is limited only by the distance between each member of the splitter ring system. the closer together the splitters, the more instantaneous the communication.
i would like to postulate an experiment to prove that action at a distance is more than a correlation, more than a fact. but is actually the gold standard of instantaneous communication in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere is the experiment.
entangled light traveling from a solid diamond star,The huge cosmic diamond - technically known as BPM 37093, has just reached the earth after 50,000 light years. its dim light is also is reaching every point on the circumference of an imaginary sphere equidistant to the radius from earth to that star. on the surface of that imaginary sphere, another civilization fifty thousand light years away from the core of that star, and anywhere from a dozen light years to 100,000 light years from us, is receiving that same entangled beam of light. on earth we observe that light and it collapses into a plus or minus state. at the moment we observe it, on that other civilizations planetary observation site, the light observed there collapses because of our observation. if we and they can devise a way in which the entangled light can be observed which causes nonrandom collapses, then we can have intantaneous communication with them. this by passes the quagmire of having to send out a light beam and wait for it to get to another planet directly which is like trying to approach quantum mechanics non quantumly. we use the existing stream of entangled photons to communicate. the beauty of it all is that it shows that the fastest path between two points of communication is not a straight line, but in a circle. you never point your laser detector at the civilization you want to reach. rather you point it at the star which could be sending quantum entangled light to us both simultaneously, and naturally. a diamond crystal dwarf star, or perhaps as quasar, may be found to be a natural entangled photon emitter source. since it is an existing source, the catch 22 of having to send light in order to receive light is eliminated. we use the light we are receiving, assuming it to be entangled, observing it and causeing an instantaneous reaction in every single split photon. we have to assume that light is already entangled and then we have to devise an experiment to see if that light can be disentangled. its kind of like using the null hypothesis.
mitcheisenstein, thank you for your attention & opinion re: my query.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's said ”There are no coincidences“ and your example of inter-striking split-laser beams supports this, as well as the proverb “what goes around comes around.”
Your “experiment to prove that action at a distance is more than a correlation“ to refute another poster's claim that ”Entanglement is a CORRELATION! not an action at a distance“ is more complex but theoretically worthy.
It seems hat the electromagnetic constant (light) is not necessarily the ultimate on the cosmic speedometer. Information is a contender. Whether or not information is lost or not inside a black hole remains an issue among astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking.
Aren't light and electricity the same thing? Photons are electrons. Tame electricity in wires is slowed by resistance. Light is slowed by atmospheric resistance, also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaltond's observation (3:07 on 2/16)is the correct one relative to entanglement. Go directly to Newton's Law III or Law III, Corollary IV. Action/Reaction dictates that all cosmological events happen in such a way that conservation of center of mass of the universe remain intact, and not be modified by any event occuring within the universe. This applies to elementary events as well as macro events. Non-locality existed long before quantum theory, and was rediscovered with Bohm's quantum potential (Q) in his deterministic theory of QM. This is such an interesting feature of the cosmos that it seems appropiate for more study in this area of physics. Perhaps a measurement is not really necessary for reality to occur. Hmm. Wheeler, did you really mean otherwise? (mediametrics-at-aol.com)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonlocality of quantum mechanics
Only in their second last paragraph do David Albert and Rivka Galchen ("A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity", March 2009) get to the essence, that quantum physics describes underlying reality in terms of wavefunctions, not position, momentum, spin along a particular axis, etc., all only secondarily derived in terms of those wavefunctions. For one particle, that wavefunction is at least in the same three dimensions as that of real space. For two or more particles, since the wavefunction lives in a much higher dimensional configuration space than the three dimensions we perceive and measure in, quantum physics is inherently nonlocal. That is inescapable and well recognized.
Although the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) question, cast in terms of the Bohm-Bell version of two spins, deals with an entangled pair of spins, the essential point is the basic quantum one for a single spin, that its measured state with respect to different axes are incompatible so that it cannot simultaneously possess definite values for them. Whether as part of an entangled system or not, a quantum spin exists as a wavefunction till interaction with a classical measuring apparatus and only then is a specific value of it along the direction of that apparatus meaningful. Further, in an entanglement with another spin, even when the overall system has definite values for total spin, say zero ("singlet" state), the individual spins do not, only wavefunctions that are neutral with respect to all directions until the system (one component of it will do) is registered on a classical apparatus. To assume otherwise leads to seeming paradoxes and, now as we know from experiment, contradicts the nature of our world. And the moment one spin is observed in some direction, the other will unambiguously be in the opposite direction, the pair becoming both unentangled and no longer in a spin singlet state. An analogy might be the saltiness of NaCl, that it resides in the molecule, not in either the Na or Cl separately. On separation into the atoms, say at opposite electrodes, both the molecule and saltiness are gone.
While it may be difficult to reconcile with classical intuition, that both members of an incompatible pair cannot be definite simultaneously, that is the nature of science. Intuition and biases have to yield to experiment. Contrary to appearances, it is not the Sun that in reality goes around the Earth.
Even though most discussions about entanglement are non-relativistic, there is no conflict with Special Relativity, no violation of causality. Entanglement has to be established initially through some interaction, and in this and in the later separation of the particles, there is no conflict with causality. And, anyway, it is well known that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot be welded together consistently in one particle mechanics. The consistent formulation requires quantum field theory, which is perfectly internally consistent. Therefore, one can be confident that a part of it, the study of entangled two-particle states, also has no inconsistencies. While unwieldy to formulate entanglement in terms of quantum field theory, it is an option in principle. However, just as Newtonian mechanics is adequate to describe the motion of our cars or even rockets and we do not have to look to Einstein, so also non-relativistic descriptions of entanglement are fine and do not compromise the valid, relativistic description underlying it.
A.R.P.Rau
Was relativity proven by quantum mechanics phenomena? http://tinyurl.com/dlvxyf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAWT and Lorentz symmetry violation http://tinyurl.com/d6h6rc http://tinyurl.com/dykqto
Well quantum mechanics is locally not contextual. And it is in fact local.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever,
Bohmian mechanics, which is the only attempt to gain the same results as the Copenhagen interpretation is non-local. (and one of the few indeed) It is however also deterministic, and locally contextual.
The writer of the article makes a strange impression of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is not weird, because most people do. In fact about 90 percent of people who have been taught Quantum mechanics use it as FAPP (For all Practical Purposes) And don't care about its meaning. That and Bohr writes horrible, horrible indeed.
The entanglement experiment that is described is The Einstein Podolsky Rosen experiment.
Bell proved that indeed for some (few) correlations this proved wrongly. (and sometimes greatly) It is however not a violation of all or relativity. At best only a small part of special relativity. General relativity is never violated. It doesn't say anything about it.
The only difference in the entire debate, and as to my opinion ever was. Was that Einstein was a typical classical determinist. And quantum mechanics just simply isn't deterministic, as, is the whole world. Einstein refused to give up his deterministic beliefs ever, and died dreading that he couldn't prove it wrong.
A good example on how people think is how they interpret the 'delayed choice experiment' Or quantum eraser experiment. In which entanglement is used to prove that the choice of measurements indeed makes up the system.
For a deterministic thinker, or a Bohmian thinker, this can only mean one thing; We travel back in time! (making the world shock)
To a Copenhagen interpretational, or just someone who knows non-linear quantum theories. Nothing happens, he knows that the system falls into non-linearity on observation. And nothing is wrong, all happens as expected, for who could not have know the position anytime before.
Quantum mechanics tells us all we can know.
Not all else that we would like to know, but are unable to know.
That is what Einstein simply hated
mitcheisenstein - apart from ignoring basic quantum mechanics and logic, you're "communication device" still wouldn't work. You can't 'transmit information' when you 'collapse' a wave function via entanglement. Even if you could somehow simultaneously measure two entangled particles at the same time, which is impossible due to the energy-time uncertainty principal, among other reasons, can you explain to me how you could send information? For example, say that I want to send the number 1, from a set of 0 and 1. Let's say i'm on earth and measure the entangled particle, and lets say that it shows "spin up" in your detector. So now, your companion far away measures the entangled particle and gets "spin down." So how exactly do you tell him that you have the number 1? So you intend on sending a message to the star in the middle. So it shoots out two photons (you can't control where the particle with "spin up" goes, and infact it is NOT 'spin up' until you measure it). SO how do you send this information? Please explain this process, instead of saying bullshit science that you know nothing about. All the other person knows is that you have a 'spin up' particle. But how do you tell him that the "1" that you have written on your paper is a "1" and not a "0?" You can't control whether your measurement is spin up or spin down, so you are effectively tellhing him that you rolled a die and it came up with a 1 on it. You can't control the value of the spin, so you can't send information. IDIOTS, Stop posting crap you know nothing about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjules-
The statistical chance that your neurons malfunctioned in your brain to cause you to believe the story that you remember is around 10^2500 times more likely than a wormhole forming and sending the information back in time to you. It's more likely (by a massive factor) that we are all deluded rather than that we observed a miracle.
Can somebody who knows what they are talking about explain my confusion about this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the delayed quantum eraser experiment, I don't see any backward time causality issue. Since you Can't measure the pattern on Detector D0 until after the determination has been made to look at D1 & D2 or D3&D4, (eg, you have to look at subsets to get the pattern), D0 does not actually occur for the purposes of applying the operator until you observe it having already looked at D1 &D2 or D3&D4. In other words, whatever value Do will turn up having does not yet exist until the measurement of D1&D2 or D3&D4 occurs, meaning there is a period of time for which Do has no value (eg, the wave function has not collapsed from a measurement, since you didn't make one). As such, I look at this experiment, not as changing a value in the past, determinate on your choice of observing certain detectors, but rather that there is no universe in which a value existed prior to the observation post D1-4 observation. Although classicly we think that since Do was hit by photons, it must have a value, but the measurement at issue is not the hitting of the detector, but rather the observation post D1-4 observation. To ask whether the path was determinate or indeterminate prior to the D1-4 measurement is a non-question. the correct answer is that prior to the D1-4 measurement, the path was a super-position of determinate and indeterminate. After measurement D1-4 (meaning either D1&D2 or D3&D4) is made, the past is not changed - it was still a super-position. If the other interpretation is taken as valid - that it changes the past value, the universe becomes inversely determinate - the past is defined exactly based upon future determinates. EG, the value would be exactly set, but it would be impossible to measure at the time, because it will be determined in the future. Having a determinate but unmeasurable value means that path-forward causality must hold. Since path foward and path backward causality cannot simultaneously exist (eg, I can always choose to measure D0), this interpretation must be incorrect. Rather than changing a value in the past (whether or not it was path determinate), the delayed quantum eraser experiment must simply cause a 'delay' in the collapse of the wave function - not only do wave functions exist in the future - they can propagate backwards in time. Does this make sense?
Can somebody who knows what they are talking about explain my confusion about this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the delayed quantum eraser experiment, I don't see any backward time causality issue. Since you Can't measure the pattern on Detector D0 until after the determination has been made to look at D1 & D2 or D3&D4, (eg, you have to look at subsets to get the pattern), D0 does not actually occur for the purposes of applying the operator until you observe it having already looked at D1 &D2 or D3&D4. In other words, whatever value Do will turn up having does not yet exist until the measurement of D1&D2 or D3&D4 occurs, meaning there is a period of time for which Do has no value (eg, the wave function has not collapsed from a measurement, since you didn't make one). As such, I look at this experiment, not as changing a value in the past, determinate on your choice of observing certain detectors, but rather that there is no universe in which a value existed prior to the observation post D1-4 observation. Although classicly we think that since Do was hit by photons, it must have a value, but the measurement at issue is not the hitting of the detector, but rather the observation post D1-4 observation. To ask whether the path was determinate or indeterminate prior to the D1-4 measurement is a non-question. the correct answer is that prior to the D1-4 measurement, the path was a super-position of determinate and indeterminate. After measurement D1-4 (meaning either D1&D2 or D3&D4) is made, the past is not changed - it was still a super-position. If the other interpretation is taken as valid - that it changes the past value, the universe becomes inversely determinate - the past is defined exactly based upon future determinates. EG, the value would be exactly set, but it would be impossible to measure at the time, because it will be determined in the future. Having a determinate but unmeasurable value means that path-forward causality must hold. Since path foward and path backward causality cannot simultaneously exist (eg, I can always choose to measure D0), this interpretation must be incorrect. Rather than changing a value in the past (whether or not it was path determinate), the delayed quantum eraser experiment must simply cause a 'delay' in the collapse of the wave function - not only do wave functions exist in the future - they can propagate backwards in time. Does this make sense?
To Bernsten69 - I don't see any backward time causality either, because in regular (Copenhagen) Quantum mechanics there isn't any. I'd say what you say is correct. You need to travel back in time, only if you are a additional variables interpreter. And if you are a many worlds interpreter, well I wouldn't know. I personally like just one world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just can't find myself in the last few sentences. A wave function might exist in the future, since it can evolve non-linearly it isn't bound to look anything like 'the past'.
In this case the collapse isn't delayed at all. The first possible time of observation is after entanglement. (or it isn't entanglement at all) Hence it isn't delayed at all, It just is as it is.
I don't think wave functions can propagate backwards. Remember, due to the non-linear collapse, we loose a lot of information about the past. Disabling backward propagation. And between linear collapses it evolves unitairy. Symmetrical in time. Still, no information is gained or lost. We do not change the system in any way, and no usefull information is transported by this unitairy evolution backward in time. For, it could collapse at any time. It would seem strange to me, that the wavefunction would know when I want to measure it. Especiallu if I don't.
And it doesn't, that is the idea. The world is just a super-position.
Domus Ulixes-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm having trouble following you. I think it has been a bit too long since I studied Quantum. . . years in fact. I believe in the many-worlds hypothesis - it was the only way I could understand time travel without running into paradoxes. I've been thinking this a while, but - how can observers (operators) be a part of the wave function? It would in fact be the wave function measuring itself, while, simultaneously, the observer is a wave function, being observed by a third party. Basically, I can't understand how an n-observer universe can exist where each observer is actually just a part of the wave function - wouldn't it never collapse or yield a value if this were the case? From this (possible-misunderstanding) I came to the thought that perhaps observers are both a part of the wave function and are additionally part of some other tensor - eg, some other "dimension" - not in the classical sense, in that, the property of this tensor is that it allows a causal collapse of the wave function. I am under the understanding (misunderstanding?) that observation causes a collapse of the wavefunction for the moment that the measurement is taken. I suppose that the statistical QM view just says that it is just a statistical distribution of what you measure - but I have trouble understanding other QM effects under the pure statistical interpretation. I suppose this is more of a religious view - we were made in God's image in that - we can observe and cause the wave function to collapse to a value. For us, perhaps there is little if any capacity to choose the value that results, but for God, it would be that he could choose the value. Alternatively, in the multiple worlds hypothesis, every moment, we are split into infinite versions of ourselves, each that that observes a different result in a different universe. Perhaps it is this "splitting" that causes our conciousness to move forward in time? These are just the mumblings of a long lost physicist who has forgotten much of the theory underlying this all, and just recalls a few spare facts about how a few things work. Can you please explain what you mean by non-linear vs. linear collapse?
Thanks
Personally I must warn you know, that I am not a many-worlds thinker. And that my answers might be somewhat off. I just think that when something is measured, for us as humans it is defined. And having determinate measurement outcomes is something many-worlds theory drops. I personally think that the assumption that a wave function must evolve linearly in time is much too strong to perform any relevant physics on. And personally I do not see the relevance of imagining a world beside my own, that I cannot see, cannot observe. But I will be open to suggestions of experimental proof of the Nulliverse. (As hidden in Everet's paper of 1957) But that to the side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, how can they not? If you look at Heisenberg mechanics it is the operators that evolve alike the Schrödinger equations. And I myself observe experiments on a regular occasion, yet still I myself am just as much a wave-function as anything else. I can not superpose myself above nature. The physicist will always be part of the equation. I think you will be greatly helped by Wigner's Friend here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
Again, if you attain Many-worlds Theory, you do not NEED collapse. It isn't required to make the theory work, and it will not yield a determinate value, for that is one of the prime assumptions it drops. If you have a hard time seeing the difference in interpretations. I suggest you read 'Three Measurement Problems by Tim Maudlin. An exquisitely written piece of overview.
Personally I am not religious at all. No god can explain what I see an do in an everyday life. So I lose any necessity for it. But let not let religious debate blur our conduction of science. Again consciousness is more of a Wigner part of QM, it isn't part of Many-Worlds theory, and wouldn't recommend putting it in either. The entire Idea is that with the Nulliverse, you do not need all that 'subjective spiritual mumbo-jumbo' (not my opinion).
As you will be able to read from Maudlin's article. There is basicly three assumptions (per measurement problem) in QM that form the different interpretations. You have 1A: The wave-function is complete and specifies all the physical properties of the system. 1B: The wave function evolves in accord with a linear dynamical equation. 1C: Measurements always have determinate Outcomes. In non-linear theories (alike Copenhagen) 1B. Is dropped. Negating linear evolution and introducing the 'collapse'. In Additional variable theories (Bohmian mechanics) 1A is dropped, and says that there are things we can not observe but do take part in the evolution process. In Multiverse theories (alike Many-world theory) 1C is dropped, and is replaced by infinite worlds all manifesting all possible outcomes.
Naturally, each and everyone of these has problems when it comes to statistics (but many developments have been made). But in general all might seem to become mathematically correct. It is then just a matter of choice. And perhaps one or two will fall in the future. Though admit tingly, non-linear theories stand experimentally strongest. However also interpretational hardest to understand.
There is no such thing as linear collapse. Hope this helps.
Quote from the article,...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The other recent result, discovered by one of us (Albert), showed that combining quantum mechanics and special relativity requires that we give up another of our primordial convictions. We believe that everything there is to say about the world can in principle be put into the form of a narrative, or story. Or, in more precise and technical terms: everything there is to say can be packed into an infinite set of propositions of the form "at t1 this is the exact physical condition of the world" and "at t2 that is the exact physical condition of the world," and so on. But the phenomenon of quantum-mechanical entanglement and the spacetime geometry of special relativitytaken togetherimply that the physical history of the world is infinitely too rich for that."...End quote.
Sorry if this philosophical input upsets the more scientific theoretical types here but perhaps the ancient Eastern tradition of the non-dualistic nature of Existence is worth contemplating, i.e. The Tao that can be talked about is not the unknowable Tao.
IMHO, this is what is happening when the human mind which frames its perceptions along the lines of a dualistic theme, i.e. me and not me, local and non-local, now and past or future, etc., and which subsequently results in a mind state of apparent non-awareness of the underlying unity of the Cosmic Whole.
Regardless of perspective, one should always be aware that when one is trying to convey understanding through words, numbers, etc., that these are concepts and are not real in themselves (except as concepts), but rather are meant to represent the real. The real however is forever beyond direct analysis for the very act of analysis divides the underlying cosmic unity into the analyser and that which is analysed and hence results in the local/non-local dualistic paradox.
Very briefly, given all the comments so far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematics is idealistic in itself. Its fundamental axioms are temporarily frozen concepts like "unity" that lend themselves to manipulation, and tend to provide handy descriptions of the world from which they were generalized. No surprise there.
The important thing in the Quantum/Relativity discussion is in fact not mathematical at all, but philosophical. Kant is the big obstacle here. His work was directed towards destroying the auto-da-fe metaphysics of the Catholic church, and dragging philosophy and scientific thought kicking and screaming into the purview of the human mind. But his Thing-In-Itself went way too far - just compare it with Gödel's theorem!
Hegel was a child of the French Revolution, and took the destruction of the old political and philosophcal regime for granted. His remarks on Kant's dichotomies in the Science of Logic are devastatingly concentrated. He does as good a hit job on Kant as Kant did on the Grace-of-Godders.
The relevance of this to the current article lies in Hegel's discussion in the two first parts of this Science of Logic (Part I - quality, Part II - quantity) of
a) the finite and the infinite (following on the explosive first chapter on Being, Nothing, and Becoming); and
b) the discrete and the continuous.
Einstein's "boundless but finite" comes to mind...
As mentioned in an earlier comment, gravity is an all-pervading aspect of existence that we haven't got a handle on yet. it's like the elements for the ancients. It's our great scientific challenge. Like Goethe's eternal feminine it draws us onward, rather than just pull us down ;-)
We know that everything holds together, otherwise there's no way we would be here thinking. We have no idea how, but can speculate as to why. Our world is a whole, not a hole.
Enough for now.
Eppur è coerente.
I wish to take Nathaniel's leanings a bit further. The best way to look at the spacetime continuum is as an absolutely frozen milieu. Time doesn't exist in reference to anything except the moving eye of the observer (us) who can only view one slice of the frozen milieu at once. Not only is everything absolutely simultaneous otherwise, it is absolutely frozen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, in this view QM is an artifact of an artifact--the original artifact being the assumption that chance or randomness really exist. They don't. Nothing happens by chance and never does the universe really branch. All these errant conclusions are the products of observers overthinking sequential events and deciding that at any arbitarily chosen point in the flipping of coins there really was a point where the coin might come up heads or tails with precisely equal "probability." But there never was such a point except as an illusion produced by the conscious ponderings of the observer. Every single one of a sequence of coin flips was chosen long ago and will remain etched in spacetime permanently long in the future.
So, chance is an illusion and free will is an illusion. QM is actually miraculously simplified because Schroedinger's Cat in any particular cat survival experiment is always either alive or dead--there is never a suspended state. Entangled particles in the Copenhagen interpretation have no determined values whatsoever until an observe shatters the magic spell, but in reality the fate of the particles and the observers was always meant to coincide and there are no "results" of that coincidence, only pre-determined spacetime trajectories smoothly continuous and mysterious only in that when we observe a certain slice of spacetime there are some things that we can deduce about the future and some things that we can not. The future itself is always the same, but some things we can't predict about it until we get there.
I wonder what happens to the entanglement between two particles if one falls into the event horizon of a black hole and the other doesn't. Are they still entangled? If the spin of one is measured, does the other still turn out to have the opposite spin? If so then this would be one way that at least one property of a particle that entered a black hole event horizon could be known after it had gone in. But what about time stopping for the particle at the moment it entered the black hole's event horizon? How would the non-local communication occur when the measurement was taken of the particle that didn't enter the black hole event horizon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thought, the behavior of an entangled pair of subatomic particles communicating over any distance instantaneously sounds a lot like the description of two ends of a wormhole. To test this idea, an experiment could be set up whereby an entangled pair of electrons were created and then one of the electrons could be accelerated to near light speed and then brought back, much like the wormhole time machine idea. At this point the two electrons would be at different ages. Then the accelerated electron could have its spin measured to see if the non-locality communication to the non-accelerated electron determines its spin before the spin of the accelerated electron is determined or simultaneously with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCLaird wonders how the "spooky action at a distance" would be communicated when one entangled particle is at the event horizon? A similar question can be asked of what would happen if we arranged a double-slit experiment and in the middle of the flat target we placed a mini-black hole (BH).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the testing is unobserved at either slit the probability distribution should form a big hump in the middle of the target, but that is where we have located the BH.
Another question we can ask is this: the BH does communicate some information from inside its event horizon. Somehow it is managing to transmit to the outer world just how much mass it has so that it can deform spacetime, a characteristic we can measure.
Einstein said that massive objects just distort spacetime and create a deep gravity well and that is what we call gravity, case closed. But how does a mass communicate its message to spacetime, especially in the case of a black hole? If the BH suddenly vanishes, how would spacetime know it?
The gravity well around a Black Hole is so deep and steep that it reminds me of how spacetime was distorted during the inflationary period of the Big Bang, or (moving in the other direction) how it WILL BE distorted when runaway Dark Energy expansion at the end of the universe transforms all our surroundings into an apparently very cold, empty, low-entropy place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have always contended that the pre-inflationary tiny little Big Bang universe would not necessarily appear to be "hot and dense" the way so often claimed. It would in fact appear to be rather like our present universe, because SPACE ITSELF HAS SHRUNKEN DOWN AND EVEN ATOMS HAVE SHRUNK.
In fact, this very early pre-inflationary pre-Big Bang universe would be opaque and maybe some of the "constants" like the speed of light and the electron diffraction grating constant, even the G of gravity itself, might have been different in those early times, all these changes having the effect of making the early universe either indistinguishable much from today's universe, or else indistinguishable from the runaway Dark Energy inflation universe.
Tracking entropy, it would be lower at the beginning and the end, highest in the middle (except for pockets of life which are really a separate type of entropy due to the unique kind of information and order that life generates.)
waltond is right. This 'problem' is based on a confusion about the meaning of probability. The measurement of the first entangled something, coupled with the known conservations, leads to more knowledge about the system than we had when we wanted to describe it via a direct product of two possible states. When we have more knowledge of the system (and, make no mistake, knowledge is at least one part of what probability formalizes), we can't use the same old probabilistic description of the system that we used before we gained that knowledge--or else we'll come into contradictions! That's all Bell's Theorem really gives us. This branch of physics mysticism called 'entanglement' is really an outgrowth of the old confusion between correlation and causation that hectors so many confused students in Probability 101.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismarine0802 has said that "Someone needs to tell the author this is not new". I say much the contrary. There is a new light in this article. I have never heard a so clear statement about the Bohr-Einstein discussion on EPR. It is very brave the author when saying Bohr did not sustained his dogmatic points of view when replying Einstein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is absolutely new for me (I agree 100% with him) and I have been following quantum foundations for around 20 years.
In reply to bernsten69 when saying: "Nothing was 'altered' at all. The wave function of particle p1 and p2 existed before they were measured, and the results fell within the range possible by the wave function. Nothing 'altered' anything."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, bernsten69, let consider the fifth postulate of Quantum Mechanics. According to Cohen-Tannoudji Quantum Mechanics Volume 1, the wavefuction becomes altered (projected) after a measurement. I thought this book is one of the most orthodox QM approaches, but I could be wrong. Am I wrong?
Thanks for your opinions.
Thanks, Matt Kamerman. This matches my own point of view. I would like to know more about it ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime seems to be the one consideration not yet explained by Quantum mechanics and yet it may be the explanation. Quantum vs Relativity may not be the right approach, but the application of a better understanding of what effect the possible absence of time presents on the mechanics of Quantum theory may be. Our thinking no matter how hard we try still seems to be linear. The absence of time may explain how the totally unexplainable is possible. Locality and Nonlocality may be as simple as gaining the understanding that the past, present and future exist simultaneously at this level. But then this may just be the philosophical musings of an old Einstein fan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI somehow missed the issue with the original article, but find much to my surprise and pleasure that my own work at the level of daily life has led to very similar conclusions. I'm compressing an overly long article this month and will put the original on line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere the authors and I may part ways comes in the last three paragraphs concerning the status of wave functions that we now must take to be an ontological issue. The article was not clear, but it seems to imply that if reality is described in physical terms, nonlocality implies the existence of multiple worlds (as in David Lewis). I'd be interested in knowing if this is what the authors had in mind.
An approach I find less adventuresome and more heuristic is to look instead to modal realism vs. physicalism, so that non-local properties are unobservable real aspects of a thing: in particular its a) exogenous property that are its possibilities acquired as a constraint on the more universal level from which it emerged, and b) an extrinsic property which is the probability gradient between that level and its environment, which makes the level a process.
The constraint of observable structure (the "past") on unobservable exogenous properties (the possibilities of its parent level) in conjunction with the probability gradient (the impetus for change) is a probability distribution (the "future"). This defines "process" and gives rise to emergence.
Localization is the effect of a reduction (for the observer) to just the modality of actuality, the acquisition of spatio-temporal property values, which is the effect of framing an object by a causal relation by some other actual structure, such as occurs in observation.
The authors may instead presume an empiricism in which the complete story of the world is a physicalist description of observables, so that what is nonlocal and therefore unobservable must be projected outside our actual world to constitute another world.
I am curious why physicists never appear to take notice that the brain's view of reality is only a model. The model is only evolution's guess at reality. We see colours which of course do not exist in the external universe but are just a handy coding of wavelength, colur blind predators may see movement as colour, It should make one think of what else we see really maps to a truly representative interpretation of the universe. The model is three dimensional because that suffices for the purpose of survival, possibly the dimensionality itself is manufactured. Entangled particles do not need to communicate but could be just be images of a dimensionless reality i.e. are actually a single entity with just different space time variables which we map in our model as two entities. It could just be they are two states of the same thing which can be read in two ways from the dimenionless database of reality. Possibly the universe exists because of inconsistencies in the database of reality enabling particles to be interpreted in different locations. Possibly space time exists because the model though consistent is flawed and uncertain and is open to a finite number of different interpretations, entangled particles just possess a greater degree of consistency because they share the same posting details on the core reality database but with different vectors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly, the present results respecting entangled objects leads us inexorably to an acceptance of at least one dimension, other than those we have traditionally acknowledged, that extends the concept of locality. Thus we are forced to confront the idea that there exists height, length, width, time, and hyper-locality. Further, it is evident that the later is not conveniently hidden in the interstices of the traditional dimensions, but is out there englobing all that we consider comfortingly familiar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Galilean relativity is correct. Einstein relativity is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The speed of light is not relevant to the observer.
- The speed of light is related to the properties of ether. As the speed of sound is related to the properties of air.
- The speed of light is the speed of electricity. The speed of light is not relevant to the magneto speed.
- Speed of magnetic waves is related to the magnetic properties of ether. So it is much greater than the speed of light. As the speed of gravitational waves is much greater than the speed of light. 10 ^ 24 times.
- Quantum entanglement has been accessed in the experiments, irrelevant to quantum mechanics, but the result is a speed difference of electricity with magnetism.
- That is right, space (not spacetime) is made up of pieces, like light is made of photons.
- For the structure of these pieces, please contact us: a.vaseghi@hotmail.com
- Galilean relativity is correct. Einstein relativity is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The speed of light is not relevant to the observer.
- The speed of light is related to the properties of ether. As the speed of sound is related to the properties of air.
- The speed of light is the speed of electricity. The speed of light is not relevant to the magneto speed.
- Speed of magnetic waves is related to the magnetic properties of ether. So it is much greater than the speed of light. As the speed of gravitational waves is much greater than the speed of light. 10 ^ 24 times.
- Quantum entanglement has been accessed in the experiments, irrelevant to quantum mechanics, but the result is a speed difference of electricity with magnetism.
- That is right, space (not spacetime) is made up of pieces, like light is made of photons.
- For the structure of these pieces, please contact us: a.vaseghi@hotmail.com
No local corresponances crakc special relativity at than level, it's so simple as that. And it also allows busting the Copenhagen interpretetion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards Knut Holt
http://www.abicana.com
Nonlocal correspondances simply crack the ralativity theory for some types of processes. And they also in a deeper level crack the Copenhagen interpretation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
Knut Holt
http://www.abicana.com
Please read my DOC. 6198 PUBLISHED IN YEAR 2002 to understand about ether and where Einstein gone wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI teach high school physics in philadelphia. This problem was given out during my college classes, but I have never resolved it: Suppose you had a crystaline rod, say diamond, some 50 light years long. It floats in dead space, no gravitational or other forces are on it. Suppose an alien held one end and you held the other. (This is some 15 trillion miles long). Question; if you pull the rod relative to it"s fixed position on both ends, would the alien feel the pull "immediately"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf so, the "information" transmitted would be faster than light (50 years). I suspect that the atome would create a "wave" of motion which would take much longse to reach the alien. But, intuition says that since there is no resistance in outer space, communication could be theoretically instant.
I am not highly trained enough to begin to solve this riddle. I would ask the Authors and any other trained scientist, to please try to tackle this. I will use the results in my classes, with due credit to the responders.
Thank You,
Harry Bridges
http://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn introduction to Quantum Entanglement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/
Einstein violated the rule of mathematics by application of Lorentz transform in Michelsons equation. He created magic in time dilation by this application and assumed his postulates without any justification. He knew ether is exotic and may not be draggable due to its property but he discarded ether for his theory to establish space-time contunuum concept and his field equations taking time as dimension misinterpreted facts in quantum physics and physics of the universe. The concept of entropical thermodynamic concept is lost and we are in a magical reality of relativity for theoretical physicists to produce papers on field equations which very few people could understand properly. It is true that his relativity proved locally many cosmological observation by default and it is a revolutionery approach in modern physics but not exactly correct. So after my retirement in year 2001 , I stared to point out these anomalies in various publication and in year 2002 ,published my ether-gravity-dark energy theory of gravitoethertons and balloon inside balloon theory in ASTRONOMY.NET and a copy was sent to all scientific community and if you open --durgadas datta facebook --then the links are available for your perusal . Now various cosmological observations are confirming my theories and we may soon find out a spherical vibrating gravitoetherons theory in spherical coordinate taking time entropical not dimension in un particle wave smear propagation with pointed quantum jumps as matter etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.wbabin.net/science/gchandra.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPls read the article and confirm the validity of special relativity.
Thanks,
Goutam.
Because Einstein made two mistakes.: Time is entropical thermodynamics not dimension as such though dilating but not as per space-time continuum of relativity from wrong application of Lorentz in Michelsons experiment. Second most important is speed of light is not limiting speed . These two incorrectness is reflected in quantum physics in quantum dynamics field equations giving incorrect picture of reality as well as the magic of entanglement. Read my ether-gravity-dark energy theory of gravitoethertons and balloon inside balloon theory in --durgadas datta facebook -- where links available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a long list of observations that prove Einstein was indeed wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://knol.google.com/k/michael/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying/31bvt2170ijjb/1#
The question is "Could it be that a compression wave in diamond travels faster than light in a vacuum?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the answer is "No."
Try to understand our universe from the basic ideas of space and time and ether which is nothing but space and space is created from some outside source for accelerated expansion. . Einsteins gravity idea is great but not for bigger universe far from our galaxy and near neutron stars. Only gravitoethertons as dark energy or space may explain . Background radiation of near three degree is actually the detection of gravitoethertons and not from bigbang. So read my ether=gravity=dark energy theory of gravitoethertons of Durgadas Datta published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is possible to alter Newtons equations and get something that technically agrees exactly with Einstein's gravity in the low and medium mass density objects. This also has the added benefit of getting rid of the singularity problem, and at the same time explaining dark matter. See: An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian Equations of gravity. Physics Essays 21: 222-228.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next stage is to account for advanced quantum gravity, restore simultaneity and causalility, and at the same time expalin the presence of "dark matter" in terms of a specific configuration of harmonic quintessence. See: The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319. String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377.
The many worlds meta-theory suggests that the wave function does not "collapse", that the entangled particles are described by a wave function of the ensemble with the observer and so does not require non-local action between disparate systems (which presents no problem for QM and SR). Have your cake and eat it too...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously you did not read "The Universal Physics Theory" (third edition) by Benoit Launier... Launier is the first (and the only) physicist to have resolved the unification of physics. In his 700 page book, he details the origins of our most sacred foundations, and tweaks them. By doing so, all physical laws merge into a single universal set of rules which link one another seamlessly, no exceptions! On the other hand, for those of you who idolize Einstein, there is a side of him you surely do not know; you're in for a surprise...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFranlali
KNOWN QUANTUM MECHANICS IS AN INCOMPLETED THEORY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI proved to this proposition on my new mechanics.
When I was studying on local and nonlocal effects.I cosntrusted a new relativitiy.It is called Complex Relativity.I combined all effects in the same theory.I found its all field equations.I applied on its for Quantum Mechanics.I saw that Quantum Mechanical field equations can explain on local effects.But they can not explain on nonlocal effects.
I found Quantum Complex Relativisitic Equations.As to them Quantum Mechanics is incompleted mechanics.I have local and nonlocal equations of my theory.I saw that Dirac Equation is a local equation.Because of it can not explain on nonlocal effects."Quantum Complex Relativity Theory " can explain on local and nonlocal effects at the same time.
I constructed Quantum Complex Relativity Theory " for local and nonlocal effects.As to this theory known Quantum Mechanics is an incompleted theory for nonlocal effects.
Best Regatds
cebrail hasimi
I believe that I have found the answer to non-locality and a relationship with Special Relativity. I will be presenting this paper in March at the Space and Propulsion International Foreum. Come and see me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisref
http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic3.pdf
Frank Znidarsic
Einstein’s “Law of Relativity”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an amateur Physicist and truly love science. I don’t claim I have the right answer however when I sit back and visualize Einstein’s Law of Relativity I can not help but question a couple of things:
To me, there is a missing component.
When Einstein made reference to relativity, he spoke about the act of OBSERVATION of a specific RELATIVISTIC event from the point of view (location) of an individual sitting at the position/location where the relativistic event WAS INITIATED. For the purpose of THIS discussion I will call this ‘location A’.
Therefore position A is defined as the location where the INITIATOR of a relativistic event is located.
It is clear, therefore, that from the EVENT Initiator’s point of view (at location A), the formula E=MC [2] makes sense AND does indeed predict outcomes.
From THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE INITIATOR OF A RELATIVISTIC EVENT, nothing else impacts THE OUTCOME OF THAT EVENT beyond what is already defined and contained within Einstein’s E=MC [2] formula. In this case, all is good, science remains predictable and Einstein remains correct FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE INITIATOR OF THE EVENT.
However, I believe that Einstein forgot to expand the formula SO THAT IT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT predictable SCIENTIFIC outcomes for an observer who is OBSERVING THE EVENT CREATED BY OBSERVER A from a location other than the location where observer A is.
For the sake of discussion I will now call the second observer OBSERVER B, and in this case we will assume that observer B is at a different location to observer A.
To make it clear, Einstein is totally correct in his formula E=MC [2] AS IT PREDICTS the outcome AS observed by observer A when such observer creates a relativistic event.
However, very simply, and in my view, Einstein did not take into account a second observer. So the question is, what would a second observer (OBSERVER B), WHO IS AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, see if he was looking at the relativistic event created by OBSERVER A, considering that OBSERVER B is watching the event from a different place or location?
If there was someone else observing the same relativistic event (OBSERVER B) from a different position (location), I then ask you, what is observer B going to see?
Well. In very simple terms, observer B would need to understand a few things in order to predict an outcome related to AN event created by observer A:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Mass
2. %Speed of light
3. Energy
4. And something else. He would only be able to calculate an outcome if he also takes into account his DISTANCE from the event created by observer A (the initiator of the event).
In my view, therefore, there is a critical missing piece in Einstein’s E=MC [2] formula to make it universal so that it can be used to predict a specific outcome of an event irrespective of location or distance in which the event is being observed.
As an example, from observer B’s perspective, he will only be able to predict an outcome of an event created by the originator (observer A) if he also takes into account his DISTANCE from the event because he too (observer B) will be impacted by the laws of relativity, therefore his ability to observe an event originated by OBSERVER A is directly related to the distance he is from the event OBVERVER A created.
The Law of Relativity states that OBSERVER B can only observe a certain action created by OBSERVER A at the speed of light, therefore it means that OBSERVER B must also take into account his distance from what OBSERVER A to be able to calculate the outcome.
So, to make Einstein’s relativity formula universally complete, irrespective of whom is observing, you would need to add r (=distance) to it. It now becomes easier to understand the relationship between distance and time: r and t: it becomes increasingly clear that r and t are somehow related in some sort of exponential relationship, where r and t are equal when r (x)=t (y).
So, the actual formula should be E=M R (x) T (y) C [2]
By inference, therefore, the definition of Time should be:
T (y)= M R (y) C [2] / E
This implies Distance has some sort of relationship with Time, and that both Distance and/or Time, (within this relationship) is equals to:
R (x) = T (y)
Therefore
R = T (Y) / (X)
SO, we can say that there is a close relationship between DISTANCE and TIME so the outcome of the above formula (in this case) would (lets assume) to be Z
Therefore E= M Z C [2]
Or, Z= M C [2] / E
In simple terms, DISTANCE and TIME is very much the same thing. In other words, the outcome of an event is based on how far the observer is from that event as well as the time in which he observes the event.
There seems to be a relationship between DISTANCE and TIME. (Please note that in this case, DISTANCE is not the same as SPACE but rather LOCATION IN SPACE).
I have a number of sketches, WHICH visually REPRESENT this analogy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn summary, Einstein was totally right. Time IS relative however its relativistic properties are also dependent on THE DISTANCE IN WHICH OBSERVATION IS TAKING PLACE, therefore dependent on location in which OBSERVATION is taking place.
To spice up the subject, OBSERVER B would observe something very different as it relates to OBSERVER A. And if OBSERVER B decided to get closer to the event initiated by observer A he would experience something very different. In the first stage, prior to reaching the location of the relativistic event created by OBSERVER A, observer B would see TIME dilation relative to the event in front of him, but as soon as he overtakes the event and looks back TO it, he would see time compression of that event.
In other words, this would complete Einstein’s Law of Relativity by taking into account not only the impact on the observer (observer A who initiated the event), but would also mathematically predict the outcome of that event for observer B. But, would both observers see the same outcome?
1. Distance from the initial relativistic event has, therefore, not been taken into account as a critical factor in terms of determining time/distance in which the outcome of the event will take place.
2. The multiplicity of time (relative to specific events, its creators and observers) and its relationship to distance is a complex one… therefore it seems that TIME and DISTANCE will alter the outcome of a specific event’s outcome location and time, which implies that the outcome is dependent on the location in which the event is observed.
3. There are an infinite number of locations where you can choose to observe an event created by someone else, therefore depending on the location of observation, the outcome will be different as compared to the initiator of the event. It will be different in terms of TIME, and if TIME is related to distance, it will therefore be different in terms of Distance. It therefore implies that there could be a number of possible places (distances) where the final outcome of an event will take place as well as a number of possible TIMES such event outcome will take place, totally dependent to the location in which such event is being observed.
4. However if we were able to build a framework where you can predict a specific outcome from an infinite number of observer positions, one would be able to build a framework to predict a specific location and time for the outcome of an event to everyone observing it. But remember, it would be impossible to build an infinite framework… right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5. It further implies that the speed of light limit does exist, however it only exists in relation to observer A (who created the event) and not to observer B. Therefore it means that the speed of light restriction is not real in an universal way, its only real to observer A BUT NOT TO ANY OTHER OBSERVER.
6. What is interesting is that this fits quite nicely with the definition of Electrons where one cannot predict the location of an electron until such time the electron is observed by someone (such someone who is observing the electron from a specific location). Therefore, the position of a specific electron is directly related to the position of the observer. [Schrödinger’s cat]
7. If there are differences in outcomes dependent on place of observation, it also implies energy transfer is not perfect, and that every time energy is transferred from one state into another there must be very very small degradation of energy on transfer. And if this is the case, it tells us that the laws of physics are not constant, but evolve (change) as they relate to time/distance. In other words, everything in the universe evolves, including the laws of physics. The universe is a ‘learning’ entity, always working its laws to achieve perfect balance.
8. It is a fact that magnets, for example, eventually lose their magnetism. Why is this? The only reasonable answer is that energy transfer is not perfect or infinite, as we believe. Energy transfer is ALMOST perfect. But its not. After enough time/distance, it eventually dissipates. It is clearly observable that it dissipates with distance, and therefore, if distance is correlated with time, it therefore predicts that, with time, magnetic waves emitted by the magnet will weaken. Otherwise a magnet’s magnetic field would (inversely) be able to reach infinite distances right? It also infers that the relationship between distance and time is one where every unit of distance is equivalent to an exponential relationship with time.
9. It also infers that there should be a WAVE relationship across all forces, including gravity, and that gravity acts as a wave. If gravity acts as a wave (similar to sound waves for example), it also means that it is possible to cancel the effect of gravity by creating technology, which replicates the exact opposite gravitational wave (negative correlation) similar to those fancy earphones, which eliminate background noise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10. And finally, it also implies that the universe is OPEN, and that it will expand forever, cool off, etc. However this is another subject all together because there is a contradiction within this specific point. The contradiction is that absolute zero MATTER does not exist and that space (location)/time is unstable. There is no such thing as empty space. Empty space is unstable and its existence is directly dependent on who is observing it as well as the location from which it is being observed.
Weird stuff!
A possible unification of quantum physics and Special Relativity from the cold fusion community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf
Frank Znidarsic
laurob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "it becomes increasingly clear that r and t are somehow related in some sort of exponential relationship, where r and t are equal when r(x)=t(y)."
First, there already is a time-distance relationship based on observations. It is
r = ct
where c is the speed of light. In a vacuum the speed of light is always constant regardless of the inertial frame of reference or if you are heading toward or away from the source of light. That's Einstein's 2nd postulate in his theory of special relativity; and it has been experimentally proven.
With regard to E=mc^2 you have to distinguish between rest mass or relativistic mass. In either case there is no reason to believe that E is underestimated by a factor of R(x)T(y). First, it does not make dimensional sense (in other words, the dimensions of your equation must balance). Second, any observational delays are taken care of experimentally. Any differences in the inertial reference frame are already accounted for by the theory of relativity. That's the whole point of the theory. You don't have to re-apply it. You would be double counting.
There are only two inertial reference frames. An event happens in one inertial reference frame. One person (#1) observes that event in that same inertial reference frame of that event. Another person (#2) observes that same event from another inertial reference frame. It does not matter how far away person #2 is or how fast person #2 is traveling away or toward the event and person #1. That what the theory of relativity calculates -- the relationship between the two observations.
If there is a person #3 in another inertial reference frame observing that same event, then person #2 is irrelevant. The relationship is re-calculated based on the inertial reference frame of the event (person #1) and the inertial reference frame of person #3.
Photons possess relativistic mass (hence their momentum) and since this mass is stored it qualifies as "potential mass." But energy may also be stored, for example, charged particles possess potential energy. As first argued by Faraday, the potential (stored) energy of a charged particle actually resides not in the particle but in a field that surrounds the particle. This field is an actual entity, not simply a quantity, and like any entity it has properties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo is it possible that the potential (relativistic) mass of photons could be another non-material entity? Potential energy as a non-material field entity can bind two charged particles together. Can potential mass be a non-material wave entity that binds two photons together? And if conjoined photons have a common binding entity does this help to explain non-locality? This "Potential Mass Interpretation" is outlined in a work called <a href="http://www.einsteinsmethod.com">Einstein's Method</a> which I find very interesting.
Simultaneous Locality and Non-locality:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider this 'thought experiment':
A nearly infinitely long chain of non-compressible spheres exists, their centers forming a straight line of any non-infinite distance.
Consider an additional similar sphere moving along the axis of this string so as to collide with "the first" sphere in the string.
The information (ie, velocity) of the 'striking' sphere will be instantaneously transferred to the most-distant sphere in the string, causing it (by conservation of momentum) to be accelerated from the chain.
This result does seem to me to include a set of representations of the transmission of information at speeds vastly faster than 'c' , assuming a long-enough chain of spheres, no?
As I understand, I may not post sites on this blog. OK, in brief, Einstein was a little wrong, in that not everything he published was correct. Write me and I'll forward the site to you. No, you can't find it on a search engine; at least not yet. You can write to me directly at ct.bioinstruments@gmail.com (or not). 1/16/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this