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

Hello,

I'm happy to have come across this forum. I've been spending some time looking at other posts, and it occurs to me that this is a good place to post a question that has been gnawing on my brain for a few months.

I think the answer is that we don't yet know. But in case there's a better answer, here we go:

When two particles/photons/quanta/whatever are entangled and then separated, is it possible that they feel an attraction towards one another?

I'm not talking about the electrical attraction they will have if oppositely-charged, or the normal gravitational attraction between all particles. I'm wondering if there is a gravity-like attraction acting specifically between entangled quanta.

The reason that this has been on my mind is that it occurred to me that if the universe was a singularity at the instant before the big bang, then all particles in the universe were in fact entangled at that time, and still would be today. Such a thing might be exactly what gives rise to gravity, and would go a long ways towards defining the Grand Unified Theory.

This would explain how gravity works over infinite distances, and would bring it squarely into the testable realm.

Any thoughts?

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

Welcome aboard. This site is moderated so you don't get lots of nonsense so it is a good place to have a discussion.

Attraction, as we know think of it is due to the exchange of certain types of particles. Electrical attraction is due to the exchange of photons. The way it works is somewhat like two basketball players both attempting to grab the same ball. This exchange of pleasentries causes attraction.

Repulsion can be likened to another type oof ball game. Think of two people tossing a large medicine ball back and forth. Each time one of the players catches the thing they have to step back.

I just realized that I am late for an appointment - more tomorrow.

Dr. R.

Hi Wayne,

Sorry to be so abrupt yesterday.

Attractive (and also repulsive) forces are due to the exchange of certain types of particles. Gravitation is due to the exchange of gravitons. This is, of course, related to the amount of mass that an object has. The mass of a particle, hence its gravity, depend on something called the Higgs field and its quantization called the Higgs boson. This is the only part of the Standard Model of particle physics that has not been observed. The hope is that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will show a particular interaction that would indicate the existence of Higgs. (Keep your fingers crossed!)

You asked: "is a gravity-like attraction acting specifically between entangled quanta"?

I won't just say no. Entanglement is what Einstein called "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" i.e., "spooky action at a distance". This sort of entanglement is not like a tangled ball of yarn where a tug on one part makes a tug on another. It speaks more to a phase relation between the wave functions that describe two systems. Einstein and his freinds Podalski and Rosen devised what is known as the EPR paradox in an attempt to show that quantum theory is incomplete. Well that didn't work out. It turns out that QM is nonlocal and there is no real paradox. Entanglement is commonplace and there are certainly aspects of it involved in Higgs. So the answer to your question is sort of no. Does that help?


For more on EPR the original paper is:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1

also:

http://ej.iop.org/links/rbKdhc0Tq/9vSVOyfB2xG_DvKBav5vpA/ej91n6.pdf

For more on exchange forces see:

http://pos.sissa.it//archive/conferences/037/002/EMC2006_002.pdf


http://upscale.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/HighEnergy/HighEnergy.pdf


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html#c1


Dr. R.

Dr. R,
Your second link leads to a 404 Not found error. Do you have another?

The rest of your links were all very interesting.

"Amaranth"

Hi Amaranth,

Sorry about that.

The paper that I am referring to is:

Comment on `Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?'
Roland Onm?s
Eur. J. Phys. 20 No 1 (January 1999)

The link IOP gave me was as stated above, however when I check today it is

http://ej.iop.org/links/rk2vUV38n/3k22oqPC2xGG8zlzav5vpA/ej91n6.pdf

This is a little different. If this link is not good then go to:

http://ej.iop.org

then click on the search tab, and search for the author.

For still more info on EPR you could search for EPR directly on the same page. A good example is:

Questioning the quark model. Strong interaction, gravitation and time arrows. An approach to asymptotic freedom
G. Basini and S. Capozziello
Europhys. Lett. 63 No 5 (September 2003) 635-641

or

One less quantum mystery
A F Kracklauer
J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 4 No 4 (August 2002) S469-S472

These article are free and so anyone should be able to download them.

Again, my apologies.

Dr. R.

I'm still getting a "not found" error. On the first link. Doesn't look hopeful.

"Amaranth"

Sorry to disappoint you, but there no such thing as "entanglement".
This must not stop you from creating innovative ideas.
Plenty of big shots in Physics have fallen into this trap!

es

Once again ES you distinguish yourself by imitating Shakespeare. What was that he said about "sound and fury?"

Entanglement is fact.
Entanglement is reality.
That you refuse to accept it,
Or are unable to understand it,
Is not going to change nature.

Anytime you don't like that assessment feel free to provide an alternative explanation for Bell's inequality. Supporting matrix math calculations required.

So far no one has claimed the Nobel Prize that would most certainly be earned by anyone that can do it. Perhaps it will be yours.

I do not think one can get nowadays any prize by pointing to the stupidity of pseudoscience bureaucracy.

Just insults from ignoramuses, you get for doing so.

e:)s

You complain about anything and everything related to the most accurate theory ever devised to explain objective reality.

Not a single person of my acquaintance with a PhD would agree with anything you've written so far on the subject.

You are not going to overthrow that theory with proclamations at SAGG. If you have an alternative explanation for Bell's Inequality post it along with the supporting math.

If not consider that maybe you are complaining about something you don't understand.

It isn't a bad thing to not understand something. There are a zillion things I don't understand.

But it is a problem when you declare them false based upon said lack of understanding.

The truth is that anyone that can overturn QM will get a Nobel. Same goes for whoever overturns General or Special Relativity.

BELL's theorem:No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics

That is correct.
Do not pretend, that I am opposed to QM.
My considerations are BASED ON QM.

The QM is not saying the things you put in its mouth.

The QM, the real one, does not say anything about entaglement.
The claims to opposite are 100% false.

es

Got rid of the duplicate post for you es.

You write:
"The QM, the real one, does not say anything about entaglement."

And next you are going to say that it says nothing about quantum computers either?

You can not separate the two. And it would seem that a lot of people would agree with me on that.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm/
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2000-03/msg0023368.html
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0508/0508059.pdf
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~coleman/501.html
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod24.pdf - Similar pages
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-01/msg0072788.html
http://www.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/QO/thirdom1995/kinsler-1995nqec.pdf
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4621261
http://www.physics.emich.edu/nsharma/resume.htm

The list I could post is nearly endless.

You truly seem to be on a tear about QM without a thing to back up your statements other than the appearance that you don't understand the subject such as your statement, above, that QM has nothing to do with Bell's Inequality. It would seem that a substantial number of physicists would disagree.

You are professional ignoramus.

Nothing will help you, ever !

e:S

So, anyway, to return to the question at hand...

It was my understanding that gravitational attraction is theorized to be due to A) The warp of space and/or B) An exchange of particles. (This being one major difference between QM and General Relativity.)

That gravity COULD be caused by something other than particle exchange tells me that perhaps the truth lies somewhere between QM and GR. If QM relies on an exchange of particles for gravitational attraction, but gravity works at infinite distance, then that implies that every particle in the universe is somehow constantly emitting an infinite number of gravitons in an infinity of directions in order to exchange gravitons with every other particle in the universe - something that doesn't sound quite right since that would also give everything an infinite amount of gravitational pull, meaning every quanta in the universe would be a black hole. Obviously, that's not the case.

Warped space certainly seems to exist - as seen by the gravitational effect on light, and as will soon very likely be proven by the research on frame-dragging by Gravity Probe B. But it still seems unlikely that the tiny warp of space caused by a hydrogen atom could stretch all the way out across light years to effect the path of another hydrogen atom. If it doesn't, then gravity doesn't have an infinite reach. But if it does, then it seems that you'd be stuck with every particle creating an infinite amount of warp and thus, again, being a black hole.

But, if all the particles in the universe are already entangled by virtue of having been a singularity at the universe's birth, then they all do have that one thing in common and that could explain how gravity can have an infinite reach without particles emitting infinite numbers of gravitons and without space being infinitely warped.

(Sorry ES, I'm sure you probably do know one heckuvalot more about QM - and General Relativity - than me, and I would rarely hesitate to defer to somebody else in a discussion like this, but I'm firmly IN the "entanglement-exists" camp. If you can provide a different explanation for spooky action at a distance, I'm all ears.)

I'm well aware of significant gaps in my understanding, but the infinite reach of gravity and its weak nature seem to me to be a major contradiction. The idea of entanglement from the big bang being the source of gravity seems to solve it quite nicely, but that an armchair physics fan like myself could come up with it implies to me that it's probably WAY off. On the other hand, a Nobel Prize would look awfully nice on my mantle.

W

[edited for a couple typos and to clarify a few poorly-worded sentences.]

Well thought out Wayne. And unfortunately es seems to know and care little about QM. While he has unrelentlessly railed against it he has never once, as I recall, actually provided a link that supporting his contrarian point-of-view.

I would like to explore your post more but I don't want to just slash and burn so here's something I'd like you to consider.

You wrote:
"If QM relies on an exchange of particles for gravitational attraction, but gravity works at infinite distance, then that implies that every particle in the universe is somehow constantly emitting an infinite number of gravitons in an infinity of directions in order to exchange gravitons with every other particle in the universe - something that doesn't sound quite right since that would also give everything an infinite amount of gravitational pull"

Now re-read your paragraph substituting the word "photon" for the word "graviton" and substituting "electromagnetic" for "gravitational."

Does one create a problem for you and the other not?

Fact: We know the sun does not emit an infinite number of photons.

Fact: We know the light from the sun works at vast distances.

Can you find the logical error in what you wrote?

Excellently put. Thanks.

My mistake was in thinking of gravitons as particles and not as waves. Just as the photons from the sun expand as waves and constantly propagate as they spread, graviton waves would do the same. And, just as a birthday cake candle would be visible from light years away given a big enough telescope, the gravitons from a single particle will be detectable light years away given a sensitive enough detector. So it scales down from the sun to a particle.

That makes a lot of sense.

Here's where I still have conceptual trouble with it: When a photon hits something, it reflects (or refracts) and this is its interaction. If that something happens to be an eyeball, then we see it. In that interaction, the photon is stopped from continuing on it's way. If it isn't stopped, then the thing it hit was transparent to it and it is undetectable and thus unmeasureable. It would seem, though, that the same doesn't hold true for gravitons. Gravitons interact with every particle they hit, but then keep on going - totally unaffected, it would seem, by the interaction. Otherwise, the sun would (for example) exert no "downward" pull on people on the nightside of Earth. It's already exerting it's pull on the Earth itself, and yet the gravitons travel right on through and pull on the things on the opposite side of the Earth and then just keep right on going through infinity, interacting with everything they encounter and yet remaining unchanged in the interaction.

The universe is completely transparent to them and yet reacts to them at the same time. How is that possible?

Also, if gravitons travel and propagate as waves, that implies a wavelength and amplitude. Presumably, the amplitude decreases over distance and is what varies inversely with the square of distance between two particles. So what is the wavelength? If two bodies are moving away from one another then redshift is going to lengthen the wavelength and if they are approaching one another then there will be blue shift shortening the wavelength. But what does that mean in terms of gravity? What happens if you get "zapped" with an extremely shortwave pulse of gravity? Does such a question even have a meaning?

I definitely feel like I learned something today: I can tell because I suddenly have so much less understanding.

W

Lets take your problem with gravitons and return to photons.

Photons, as you will likely recall, are the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

Take a strong bar magnet and put it onto a table.
2 inches away put a small nail.
Behind that put another small nail.
Move the magnet toward the nails.
Does one shield the other?

I wish I could offer you more than just analogies but the truth is that no one fully understands it and I don't pretend to understand as much as some (well many). Just a bit more than my step-daughter and by the time she completes her PhD no doubt I will have become quaint (if I'm lucky).

The best I can do for you here is to remind you that it is quite possible that there are more than 3 spatial dimensions and that gravity likely acts across all of them. What we are seeing is just part of the picture.

Nice idea Wayne, for the explanation of Gravity.
But its very unlikely to be true.
Since if it was, ...then a test taken on ANY (two) pairs of electrons, should test positive for entanglement in the Laboratory.
Which they do not.

Electron or other quantum entanglement, only works when both quanta come from the same source. i.e from the same filament, the same light source, or the same electron beam. Or a structure for generating Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen electron pairs, (where electron electron spin is investigated)
It is only when electrons are recorded and then optically 'split' by the same equipment, and then allowed to travel on in different directions, that they are found to be entangled.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

It was my understanding that the more particles you entangle, the less each changes when others are measured. If all particles in the universe were entangled, then the change on one when another is measured would be infinitesimal. We'd never be able to detect it directly without measuring half the particles in the universe, which ain't gonna happen.

However, I can now see how the concept of >3D gravitonic waves gets around what I thought were inconsistencies.

Still though, even if it isn't the cause of any known phenomena, I wonder about universal entanglement. If the universe started as a singularity, then wouldn't all the particles in it be entangled? How does a particle get disentangled? Assuming that they were all entangled for at least the first instant of the big bang, is that entanglement being taken into account in cosmological studies of how the universe started? It hardly seems like a dismissable idea.

m

Hi Wayne,

Your point - That entanglement at Singularity, sounds logical.
Then again - would'nt dis-entanglement during Big Bang, be just as logical?

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

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

Wayne,

If I am not mistaken, you are not Physicist.
To be able to unerstand and appreciate the actual arguments, one must be at least a very good Physicist.
The problem with QM is that crooks and fools are parasiting on its overwhelming success.
And the back door is "projection postulate" nonsense.

eS

Extrasense,

If I am not mistaken, you are not answering the Question.
To be able to not look like a total idiot, one must be at least able to answer a very simple question.
The problem with your arguments is that they are unfounded and unsupported, and you yourself can't even explain them.
And your attempt to dodge the question by insulting my intelligence is "extrasense" nonsense.

wZ

wayne,
while you are clearly unable to ask a question that makes sense, I attribute it to your ignorance and not to your lack of intelligence.

e:S

Extrasense,

All I'm asking for is a description of an experiment that would prove the existence or non-existence of entanglement. Your expectation of such an experiment would be that it disproves the existence entanglement, my expectation would be that it proves the existence of entanglement.

Creating and describing such experiments is the foundation of theoretical physics. You claim to be not just a "Very Good Physicist", but one of the most brilliant physicists who has ever lived, capable of recalculating from scratch all the formulas used by physicists today to the degree of knowing what an elephant would experience while crossing a black hole event horizon. (Not just summarizing, but - by your own explanation of your actions - actually recalculating all the formulas from scratch just in case all the physicists before you were wrong.) A person who can do that can most certainly describe his position on something that they are so certain of as to accuse the scientific community of fraud.

Following the thought-patterns of idiots, it is clear that your next step is to avoid the question again by challenging me to design such an experiment if I think it's so easy. But there's a difference: The experiments have already been done. All I'd have to do is point you in any of the several directions you've already been pointed. But you refute the validity of all those experiments - not because they are unsound and not because they are error prone, but because they disagree with what you expected.

Tell us, in whatever terms you deems necessary, and whatever level of complexity, what is wrong with those experiments and how you would fix them so that they would prove your point.

Appealing to my ignorance only exposes your own.

w

Wayne ... ES's argument is that he knows something you don't know and that you, me, Dr. R, and others are incapable of even reading his reason much less understanding it.

If it were not so superficial and transparent it would be sad. Richard Feynman could explain his thoughts to the lay public. Stephen Hawking can explain his thoughts to the lay public. But apparently ES, being so much more brilliant than either Dr. Feynman or Dr. Hawking, is incapable of doing so. I guess ES feels cheated that the frauds won't give him the Nobel Prize he so obviously deserves.

Sarcasm aside ... you have thoroughly exposed ES for what he is: A troll. And his condescending and arrogant response should convince you that he has nothing to contribute on the topic.

Well done ES. I was optimistic that you might actually try to respond to an honest question with an honest answer. I was wrong.

It's sad. I was honestly hoping that he'd actually have something interesting to contribute to a meaningful debate. At this point, unless he suddenly produces a coherent reasoning for his position, there can be no other conclusion than that he is intentionally trolling. How pathetic.

Well, let us see if you can understand Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen:
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v47/i10/p777_1

I will point to you, that they have fully proven what they have set out to prove: that "Quantumn Mechanical Description" that includes projection postulate, is "incomplete". It is no good, in other words.

Now use your brains. I suggest and claim, that without projection postulate their proof would not be possible. In fact, without projection postulate included in QM, the "Quantumn Mechanical Description" is complete and good!

Well, I do not expect you to get this anyway

es

You're pointing to an article from 1935 as your proof?

There have been one or two advancements since then. You may have read about some of them somewhere. (Or not.)

Your suggestion that "incomplete" is equivalent to "no good" is ludicrous. Incomplete is incomplete. No good is no good. They are not the same.

Would you say that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is no good? It's incomplete, you know. General Relativity is also incomplete. Obviously, they're both garbage and should be thrown out.

Our understanding of gravity is incomplete too. Obviously, Isaac Newton was a fraud. So there's really no gravity. Good thing, too: It's going save me a fortune on airline tickets once I figure out how to make the earth stop sucking.

w

A. Einstein is no good?

Ignorance has no limits, apparently

es

I had a low opinion of you before ES but this really puts the frosting on the cake.

Albert Einstein disavowed this paper and acknowledge he was incorrect.

What you have written marks you as a crackpot. My cat knows relativity is incomplete. My cat knows QM is incomplete. It doesn't matter. It is an irrelevancy. Entanglement has been proven in the lab and you have again, and rather poorly I might add, attempted dodged answering the question Wayne asked you.

If you can't be bothered to post something with substance expect to be treated accordingly.

ES wrote:
"Ignorance has no limits, apparently"

In your case it would seem to be the case. You were asked a simple question and you have not answered it.

You have pointed, instead, to a paper disavowed by its own author as being incorrect. A fact that is probably written into every book on QM published in the last 30 years.

For anyone wondering why Wayne and I are reacting to ES in this manner I recommend the following link:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Which proves once again that one should not throw pearls in front of pigs.

e s

ES: I never said Einstein is no good. You're the one who says that incomplete theories are no good. I simply pointed out that Einstein's theories are incomplete. By your own definition then, they are no good. Yet you point to one of his papers as proof. But it just happens that this particular paper really IS no good, as Einstein himself pointed out.

So, answer the question: What impossible thing would you need to witness to change your mind about entanglement?

(And the quotation is, "do not throw pearls before swine" - which just goes to show that your knowledge of literature is as poor as your knowledge of physics. Are there any subjects at all that you know anything about?)

w

The conversation with ES is essentially over. He has had multiple opportunities to respond to the reasonable question you asked and has clearly demonstrated he either does not wish to or can't: I suspect the later as he has stated here in the past his minimal knowledge of basic math.

I plan to no longer respond, in this thread, to anything he posts. I think it the only reasonable response to someone refusing an invitation to reason.

Hi: Somewhere in this thread, my name arose. So I am inspired to make precise what I have to say:

Re: "entanglement": contrary to popular opinion, it is NO different from ordinary statistical correlation. The argument for a difference was launched by John Bell. But, he made a mistake first noticed by Edwin Janyes, namely, he misapplied Bayes' formuala for correlated events. This invalidates his famous "inequalitites" and therefore all evidence for 'nonlcality,' 'wave collapse,' etc. Further, as I have shown (and published) all EPR/GHZ the experiments can be understood in terms of Malus' Law, i.e., classically, locally and realistically.

All of my story has been published, against great resistence, in professionally respectable journals; preprints etc. can be downloaded at: www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com

The big 'poobahs' in the trade talk behind my back but have not found the wherewithall to criticize my work under their name where I can respond. It is a scandal that a "scientific" enterprise prefers a mystical interpretation of QM, which could well have something to do with the fact that historically fundamental science actually was an enterprise to substantiate creationism. Irony! No?

A. F. Kracklauer,

Just want to check, but is this your list of papers?
http://www.citebase.org/search?submit=1&author=Kracklauer%2C+A.+F.&maxrows=25

Thanks,
Durante.

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
""entanglement": contrary to popular opinion, it is NO different from ordinary statistical correlation."

Assuming the correlation is 100% vs. 0%?

If I measure the polarization of a local photon and 100% of the time the remote photon's polarization is predictable I will grant that this is a statistical correlation. But in what way is it not entanglement?

I haven't gotten to the library yet to read your papers but on its face your argument seems wanting.

The link you cite was generated by a crawler. The link to my own page is in my original message. Everything any critic needs to rebut my story can be found there.

Regards, AFK

In responce to DA Morgan:

Correlation goes from +1 to -1, depending on the setup (definitions used). Malus' Law covers the whole range, always. Best ref.: W. Feller, `Theory & application of stats' (best recolletion).

Entanglement is supposed to differ from ordinary statistical correlation in the regions where Bell inequalities are violated, i.e., where the CHSH limit (2) is exceeded, etc. In this region, it is said, the (quantum) correlation is "stronger than classical." However, as Bell made an incorrect assumption in deriving his inequalitites, it turns out they are violated by any setup obeying Malus' (nonquantum) Law. This explains the many classical counterexamples to be found in the literature, e.g., Barut in Found. of Phys. circa 1994. [In my papers one can find that this is not the only error in "Bell mysticism," there are at least 3 others.]

No need to go to any library, all I ever wrote on physics is available for download at: www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com

I grant, it's an amazing story. At conferences on Found. of Physics & Q. Optics I have been promissed (threatened?) by now about 70 renowned "experts," that as soon as they found time, they were going to write a devastating critique. After 15 years, none have found time! Is that credible? On the other hand, about 30-40% of all experimentalists in the field openly agree; that's how my papers managed to get published.

BTW, all I claim for myself is, that I worked out details of an argument that Edwin Jaynes was unable to finish because of his untimely death. I rediscovered the key point, after which Jaynes' work was brought to my attention. I came on most of this trying to debunk "teleportation," which it does in spades!

Regards, AFK

Hi AFK,

Your papers look interesting, but i haven't had a chance to read them yet. I did notice something about them that might help the controversy surrounding your research..

You say that your work has been met with great resistance, but most (not all) of your publications have not been peer-reviewed i.e. pre-print and conference proceedings. The community would take your work more seriously if you submitted your research to JHEP, Phys.Lett, Phys.Rev, Nature or Science for peer-review, for example. I know that scientists pay little attention to unpublished pre-prints.

Thanks.

Hi Durante:

All the key ideas have been published in peer-reviewd journals, albeit not the most prestigious. Even conference proceedings are exposed to a certain amount of filtering. All the numbered papers on my web-page have gotten some critical review, or otherwise exposed to the possibility of rejection.

I have submitted to PRL, Science, etc. but at these journals the "peer" is reviewed, not his paper! (The system is broken, in fact.) I'm not good at self abuse, and so, refuse to play at the pecking order games. I stand on my results. If that ain't enough, ta' hell with it.

Anyway, the moral rigor of scientists is no higher than that of the population from which they come, and I am not going to spend my time battling egos. Moreover, I would never expect those whose whole reputation is built on Bell-mythology to collaborate in their dethronment. It is more important for me to see to it that those who want to understand get the responce from me they want. So, if you have any questions or whatever, shoot! In the end, some recognized authority may endorse it, and then my problem might be the opposite: celebertization!

BTW, antiBell and anti nonlocality stuff is more sociologically significant than good, new physics. The "Steerage" paper discusses my best positive contribution to the trade. I do the former to support the latter, actually.

---AFK

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
" I have been promissed (threatened?) by now about 70 renowned "experts," that as soon as they found time, they were going to write a devastating critique. After 15 years, none have found time! Is that credible?"

I've yet to make it to the library so don't take this as a value judgment. But what you write here at SAGG sounds a lot like:

Points 1, 16, 17, and 21
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

In short, if you are legitimate, you are not doing yourself any favors with the attitude and it is little wonder you are being treated as a crackpot. Nor do your explanations, above, explain anything.

I read two of your papers, #18 and #19 from your link, and to say I am wholly unimpressed would be a statement of fact. My first impression is lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

How long has it been since you've been in a university research lab? If an absence of non-locality is to be proven it is not with a pencil.

OK Mr. Morgan:

1. Let's agree: credentials are incidental (I'v had plenty, but likely you do not have the clearances to verify.)

2. Ad hominum stuff is unscientific. Waste of time for serious people (although I can have as much fun as anybody throwing rocks).

3. While #18 and #19 are ok, a better choice might have been #20. In it I present exactly what "Bell's theorem" says does not exist. A MODEL of EPR-B experiments that shows exactly how the data points individually arise without nonlocal information.

Since the issue is on paper, so to speak, i.e., pertains to what kind of models exist, the solution must be on paper. I do not dispute experimnents or any of the data taken. Rather, I explain it without reference to or use of quantum or any other nonlocal information---just Malus' Law.

In the thread somewhere you jumped all over your friend Extrasense for failure to do a calculation. Well, without wishing to take up his cause, I submit that I provide such calcualtions, models, simulations for all the generic EPR/GHZ entanglement experiments. If you are still unimpressed, may I expect your responce in the form of a paper explicating my errors?

Being proud of your PhD, I presume you can contribute to the arXiv, if not PRL, where your paper would get some professional attention and give me an opportunity to digest it and respond without the falderrol of journal editorial disputes. [If you can't submit to the arXiv, you can send your paper directly to me. In addition to putting it on my web page, I'll colaborate to get it on the arXiv---if I can't deflate it, that is.]

BTW, I have been in LOTS of labs. Last 2 weeks ago, in fact. Been in even more computing facilitites---earned my spurs decades ago computing shuttle navigation for NASA, for example. Forget about intimidating me; focus on my "sound and fury" for its content. Re: my attitude and the scientific community, let me quote Einstein to you: "In order to be a faultless memeber of the flock, first you must be a sheep."

"Entanglement" (& nonlocality + projection hypothsis) puts QM in contradiction to SR. Thus, the views I espouse should be seen as the more solidly grounded, not those of (you-?) who champion QM mysticism, and therfore contradictions at the foundations of science! This stuff should have been seen as symptoms of error, not wonders for X-files!

---AFK

A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
"but likely you do not have the clearances to verify."

If ever there were words equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot those were them. Had you bothered to research me, even here at SAGG, you'd have noted that I have lectured at Argonne, Batelle, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

I stopped reading after your condescending pomposity. I know now why the physics community ignores you. I know not what you thought you were going to accomplish. What I do know is that you failed most miserably.

YOYO

Great! Then verify.

Now that my foot is wounded, I won't be able to get very far if you ever get off your trip and actually focus on something other than credientials and write that devistating analysis of the real topic here. If you'll reread your own postings, you will see that you put all your weight on who agrees with whom (as if you never heard Planck's lament to the effect that the only way a contraian notion can prevail is with the death of the generation in the sattle!). Sorry if I offended your pride. It does seem that you are more comfortable in the frat-house mode than at technical disputation---after all, without having made a single technical criticism, you saw fit to reference a cite on cranks, as if it pertained to me (for a moderator, this is unconscionable). Great way to invite underevaluations. My arXiv search on 'D A Morgan' also yielded nada. So, presumtiousness on my part is at least a little understandable, even if not justified.

BTW, the "physics community" does not ignore me. There is a substantial fraction of VERY reputable people in Q. Opt., who champion the views I support. That's how I do get published. Those who reject my stuff are mostly those who will lose face if nonlocality is rejected. This includes a very large number of people who bought on to it just to get through school and do not want to think they were easy.

See if you can't forget for a bit where you or I have left foot prints in the past and actually take a shot at some substantial physics point, like: why do the classical formula for high order correlations (Mandel & Wolf, Opt. Coherence & Q. Opt., Chap 8.) predict exactly the results of EPR/GHZ "quantum" experients?

Where exactly does nonlocality. or "entanglement" actually pertain to lab-type QM? Who needs it? (Don't tell me: Q. crypto. There the vital info goes over the telephone! Everthing else comes from prearranged sources.) If you understand Shor's algorithm, tell me why the parallelism in a Fourier decomposition will not suffice---if there is a difference at all with Q. superpostion multiplicity.

Let's return to the thread: EPR-B/GHZ experiennts give results in accord with Malus' Law. Why should this be taken as support for nonlocality? Bell did not mention nor take into account Bayes' formula for correlated events. Jaynes criticized him for this while both were still alive. Where is Bell's definitive responce? LLL has a very good library. But, I bet, you cannot find answers to these questions in it. If you do, I will eat my shoe---the one with the bullet hole in it!

---AFK