Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum Entanglement = Attraction?

Logic injected into discussions of a singularity and the Inflation ... not sure I'd have the courage to go there.

But your point is valid.

It probably would, if I knew how disentanglement occurs. Once two particles are entangled, what might disentangle them?

And if the Universe was fully entangled at the very instant of the Big Bang, and even if it somehow fully disentangled even within (say) a quadrillionth of a second, wouldn't it still have a profound effect on how the Universe formed?

m

Any ideas pertaining to that last question? I'm still very curious about it.

w

Only idea I have is that the entire question is too speculative to offer up any decent comment.

You might want to send an email to Michio Kaku or someone else and see how they respond. Then post the answer here.

For those who do not afraid to know:

All this entanglement, quantum computers, and quantum cryptography stuff is based on the "projection postulate",
which has no validity.

http://www.quantonics.com/Quantonics_on_Margenau_Projection_Postulate_Rejection.html

e:)s

extrasense points us to quantonics.com

What's wrong ES: Couldn't find a single supporting reference at any college, university of government lab?

Using your logic I can prove the earth is flat too.
http://www.flatearth.org/

It would really be a wonderful thing if you actually studied the subject at a college or university, got your PhD, and commented on some basis other than the fact that you don't understand the state of current laboratory work.

The real-world proof of entanglement is as well established as your selective rejection of the laws of physics.

Well, there is a gzillion works to point to. "Quantonics" provides decent summary, which is why I have choosen it.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8502422778225v5/
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28198309%2950%3A3%3C413%3ATPPAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=LARGE
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qtwoe/qtwoe.html
.....

e:)s

I asked for links to colleges and universities and you point to 1 out of 3 ... and the one that you point to at Rutgers, excuse me if somehow I fail in my reading comprehension test, points to math.rutgers NOT physics.rutgers, it is 8 years old, and is remarkably old news and totally irrelevant to the FACT that entanglement has been proven, repeatedly, in the lab to exist.

You can likely dredge up papers by Albert Einstein claiming QM isn't real too. But they are meaningful only as historical footnotes.

You've failed yet again to meet a minimal burden which is to demonstrate why lab experiments are providing incorrect data.

You did not get that the second link is to the work from Chicago University..
I can produce links, but do you really care?

Anyway, you continue asking for something ELSE, so that you can avoid admitting that you have no case.

Absence of DIRECT PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTAL proof in forty years means what?

e:)s

ES: You may want to avoid clicking on this link, as it might upset your world view a little: DWave.

If quantum computing is impossible, then this company will have a hard time selling the quantum computers that they have already built and publicly demonstrated and are now offering for sale.

Or is it just a man screaming at us to not look behind the curtain? Or perhaps a vast conspiracy of scientists, coordinated in their efforts to discredit you personally.

w

DWave is a known fraud.
Nobody is that stupid as to pay money for it.

e:)s

Okay. Fair enough. If entanglement doesn't exist then the entire scientific community is made of of known frauds.

A public demonstration of a working machine isn't enough to prove that the machine exists, because the demonstration was put on by the aforementioned known frauds. (They must have used some sleight of hand and some smoke and some mirrors and a collaborative audience and a fake thumb cap.)

Here's a thought experiment for you, ES: Let's assume for a moment that trees are made out of wood. Everybody in the world knows that they are made of wood. But the lumber industry, in my opinion, is made of frauds. I know the truth: Trees are really great big cones of cotton candy. I post to lumber bulletin boards with my superior cotton candy theory. People tell me, "No, no, no. Cotton candy only exists in carnivals. Forests have wood. Some people even chop it down and make tables out of it." My response, of course: "No. Those aren't real tables. Carpenters, as everybody knows, are known frauds."

My cotton candy forest theory has as much support as your "the scientists are all out to discredit my claims against QM in a massive worldwide anti-ES conspiracy" theory. But here's the difference: I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. If somebody gives me a rocking chair and I break my tooth trying to bite into it's soft, sweet, sticky, cherry-flavored goodness, then I might reconsider my position. You, on the other hand, would just complain about how stale and hard the cotton candy is.

So, I have to ask: What is YOUR rocking chair proof against the cotton candy theory? What impossible thing would have to happen to make you reconsider your position on QM? Direct, demonstrable proof isn't enough for you, so what is? (Or will you be one of those people who witnessed the flight at Kittyhawk and went on to try to explain to everybody why manned flight was still impossible?

In all seriousness, what proof do you need? (And if the answer is, "No proof will be enough because I know I'm right", then you need to seriously consider counseling for your denial issues.)

Okay - I almost hit Submit on this, and then something suddenly occurred to me. And this is in all seriousness, and I ask it with all sincerity: Are you against QM because, to you in some way the rest of us don't yet see, it might disprove the existence of God? That might sound silly, or perhaps it's right on. That would certainly be something that could make a man deny the things proven to him, if believing them was a betrayal of his faith. And if that's the case, then I can completely understand (suddenly) where you're coming from. Except that I personally don't see the connection. If that's the fundamental cause for your arguments, then let us know and get that out on the table.

w

Not so fast.
I have pointed out to you and Morgan, that there are scientists who are smart enough and honest enough to speak the truth.
Surely, there is quite a number of crooks and fools, which parasite upon the ignorance of Joe Public on the matter.

e:S

Yes, ES, we're all well aware of how good you are at not answering the questions posed to you. And you've done an admirable job of it once again, so I'll have to ask again:

What proof (impossible to exist in your own little sheltered world) would you have to see to change your mind about QM?

For example, to prove to me that leprechauns exist, you'd have to show me a tiny man in green clothes and an Irish accent who successfully grants me an otherwise impossible-to-attain wish. I am as certain that I will never see such a creature as you are that you will never see the proof I'm asking you to describe, yet I can describe the proof I would need to change my mind on the matter. So I now ask you to describe the proof that would change your mind on the matter.

w

According to you extrasense ... those scientists that are smart and honest are those that agree with you and those, presumably that are moronic and felons disagree. Fair enough.

So we can now conclude that the following should followed up on by the ES police:
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-quant.html
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/411/
http://www.qtc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lecture1/lecture1h.html
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7279/19681/00912418.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/#1

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it looks seeing an unknown anonymous person claiming I know more than IBM, MIT, Stanford University, University of Southampton, IEEE, University of California at Berkeley, etc.

Take a look at this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

You expect that we should accept what you write and ignore the facts with respect to Albert Einstein's EPR Paradox? Ignore Bell's Inequality?

When you are capable of explaining why the CHSH (two-channel) experiment is invalid ... do so in a peer reviewed journal, with math, and you may be taken seriously.

Right now you are just saying that you don't understand it, you don't believe it, and thus it can not be right. The universe doesn't work that way.

There never be such time, that everybody will understand the reality. The question is who prevails in the public discussion.
The current situation is rigged in a way that the majority, that is always uncapable of understanding, wins each and every time.

So one have to choose between being duped and being against the mainstream. That is all. But either way in this world we are doomed to pay our money to the crooks.

e:S

ES wrote:
"The question is who prevails in the public discussion."

And you think the universe will alter its rules based on a popular vote by two-legged semi-sentient entities on this spinning rock.

Duped by IBM? Makes you sound like a crackpot
Duped by Stanford and MIT? Makes you sound like a crackpot
Duped by FermiLab?
Duped by Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr?

You really do need to seek help.

You wrote: "doomed to pay our money to the crooks."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

ES has a hobby: stirring up the ire of all who would have a sensible exchange about science topics. Responding in a reasonable manner will avail you not. Even DA's purple rhinos look mundane compared to the science world of ES esquire. What I've seen from ES isn't even pseudoscience; it's deliberately provocative drivel that doesn't merit a response. I'd recommend reserving your logic for those who deal in logic.

I am inclined to agree.

How about it ES? Start posting references and substantiating what you write or find your postings ignored.

I'd be pleased to have you disagree with me if there was substance to the disagreement.

Consider your next post carefully. It may be met by the sound of silence.

ES: Just answer the question! What proof would you have to see to change your mind about QM?

You are so sure of yourself that there MUST be a defining element to your thought (unless you really are just trolling, which is what I originally thought - but you seem way too dedicated to your belief for that). If you can give us that defining element then everybody will understand your point of view. (Of course, everybody will then just try to correct it for you, but at least you will have proven that you have a coherent thought instead of just trolling habits.)

So: What proof would you have to see to change your mind about QM?

w