Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your slight change is fine Paul and yes that solves the problem you have faster than light communication .. at the moment you speed needs to be 10,000 times the speed of light.

You have no problem with that I suspect Paul ... but I suspect Bill is going to have a lot of problems with the suggestion as do I.

Is there any other way you can think to solve the problem Paul ... (hint => think hard about your own personal important thing)

Last edited by Orac; 06/18/13 01:55 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
speed needs to be 10,000 times the speed of light.


10,000 x 186,000 miles / sec = 1.86 billion miles distance.

but thats only if it takes an entire second to tug on the string.

an electronic solenoid could do the tugging in a thousandth of a second.

using 26 strings you could send the entire alphabet 1000 times
in 1 second a distance of 1.86 billion miles

theres no limit to the distance , and communication is instant , as the string is being tugged on at one end , the other end is delivering the communication.

Quote:
Is there any other way you can think to solve the problem Paul ...


why , I think that this example is feasible , doable , and
does not include any fantasy elements.

the strings could be made of carbon fiber.



its not inelastic , but its pretty close.

its definitely testable , and would ( using reality ) prove that faster than light communication is entirely possible.

Quote:
but I suspect Bill is going to have a lot of problems with the suggestion as do I.


I cant see why Bill would have any REAL problems with
this as he has not yet been taken in by the fantasy of QM.

to me he seems to have reservations concerning QM's viability
as I do.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well Orac, let's try a slightly different take on the bank idea. Suppose Alice and Bob have a joint bank account and they have $1000 in it. If Alice is in New York and Bob is in Timbuktu and Bob makes a $500 withdrawal, then immediately Alice can only get $500. I think we could think of entanglement as an account with the Bank of the Universe. Assume that 2 (or more) quantum systems are entangled by some quality that can exist in only certain discrete states. Then when one of the systems assumes one of those states the BOU immediately debits that account for that state and any other entangled systems can only assume the complementary state. Of course "immediately" means slightly different things for an earthly bank and BOU. For the earthly bank immediately means as fast as the communications can take place. For the BOU it does happen immediately.

Paul,
If you want to make a rabbit pie, first catch a rabbit. For your unstretchable string, well that's the rabbit you need to catch. Carbon nanofibers may not stretch much, but the do stretch.

In fact that reminds me of a series of science fiction stories I have read. Larry Niven wrote the "Known Space" stories. One of the things that figures in the stories is a stasis field. This is a field that stops time for anything inside it. In the stories it is used for various things, mostly for emergencies. But I always thought that Niven skipped a lot of uses, such as construction. Imagine forming an aluminum foil girder, then applying a stasis field. The girder would weigh almost nothing, and could last basically forever. However, another property would be that it would be absolutely rigid. If you hit one end of it with a hammer there would be no time delay before the other end moved. So that you could communicate faster than light. Science Fiction is good a that, coming up with impossible but beautiful ideas.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
Well Orac, let's try a slightly different take on the bank idea. Suppose Alice and Bob have a joint bank account and they have $1000 in it. If Alice is in New York and Bob is in Timbuktu and Bob makes a $500 withdrawal, then immediately Alice can only get $500. I think we could think of entanglement as an account with the Bank of the Universe. Assume that 2 (or more) quantum systems are entangled by some quality that can exist in only certain discrete states. Then when one of the systems assumes one of those states the BOU immediately debits that account for that state and any other entangled systems can only assume the complementary state. Of course "immediately" means slightly different things for an earthly bank and BOU. For the earthly bank immediately means as fast as the communications can take place. For the BOU it does happen immediately.


That is called determinism as you have applied pre-conditions on the universe it is the one that I was surprised Paul did not come up with because GOD is one of the ultimate form of determinism (we are supposedly marching towards the 2nd coming and end of days)

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


Quote:

"There are many determinisms, depending upon what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event."



There is a big condition you have to accept for determinism that prediction be practically possible OR you add in another layer of partial determinism.

Why because lets take your example of alice and bob each able to withdraw $500 dollars from a $1000 dollar account.

There are only two normal ways we could enforce that situation


1.) Either alice and bob agree to that arrangement and adhere to it.

So in a physics world you are adding in a complete set of knowledge to a particle that it knows how much it has withdrawn ... think carefully about what you are implying and think about QM?


2.) Option two is alice and bob each have slightly different bank cards and the bank enforces the $500 limit on each.

In our physics world that means that two particles don't entangle with each other therefore the two particles entangle with each other and the background universe which plays bank.

That situation actually would not change what QM says right here right now the cross accounting currently in QM has no location we carry it a complex number you are just giving it a location.

So your situation no matter how you enforced it Bill would adhere to the mathematics of QM .... go back to the understanding that QM describes what is happening not why it is happening.


There is a third way what you describe could happen and I will add it for completeness

3.) Some overseeing law or GOD watches what bill and alice do and controls them to not to spend more than $500. So alice and bob and nothing more than puppets in a larger intelligent system.


You will notice in all this discussion we haven't really described what entanglement is what we are really discussing is why it exists.

This is the same problem Einstein and the EPR argument had they could not simply argue against entanglement because it exists and it is obvious why it exists even to someone who wants a simple solid world with causality. They therefore tried to argue that QM was incomplete and you are trying to do the exact same argument.

The bank example we have set up here is a perfect way to demonstrate not only why entanglement exists but the problems of trying to argue around it.

Now for you Paul if you follow your argument out you end up arguing that GOD doesn't exist because you end up in a total deterministic world ... you are discussing things sanely at the moment so I won't make fun of you.

Last edited by Orac; 06/19/13 01:40 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
two particles entangle with each other and the background universe which plays bank.


Quote:
you are adding in a complete set of knowledge to a particle that it knows how much it has withdrawn


why is it more difficult to add a complete set of knowledge
to a single particle than to have to add a complete set of knowledge to all the other particles in the universe?

wouldnt it be more feasible if the single particle stored the knowledge of how much it withdrew rather than requiring the entire universe to store that knowledge?

Quote:
In our physics world that means that two particles don't entangle with each other therefore the two particles entangle with each other


that must be an error.

Quote:
You will notice in all this discussion we haven't really described what entanglement is what we are really discussing is why it exists.


Quote:
Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs, and even small diamonds interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc.
Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances. In quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles. Recent experiments have shown that this transfer occurs at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, which does not remove the possibility of it being an instantaneous phenomenon, but only sets a lower limit.
This behavior is consistent with quantum-mechanical theory, has been demonstrated experimentally, and it is an area of extremely active research by the physics community. However there is some heated debate about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain why this correlation occurs instantaneously even when the separation distance is large. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.


is that close , that is what wiki says about its what it is.

are they certain that the source of the particles is not giving the opposing spins?

will the emitters only emit particles that spin in a certain direction?

which directions were the particles emitted?

was the experiment carried out here on the earth?

coriolis effect?

earths magnetic field?

did the containment coils or whatever held the particle centered as it traveled build any magnetic field that might have spun the particle in different directions.

I know why it had two different spins if it was a north to south or a east to west travel does not matter as long as
there were two different directions of travel.


were there two different directions of travel?

what was the name of the experiment?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul


Originally Posted By: orac
In our physics world that means that two particles don't entangle with each other therefore the two particles entangle with each other


that must be an error.


Add in the next three words and read it again

"two particles don't entangle with each other therefore the two particles entangle with each other and the background"

Sorry that English thing again let me draw the two options

(1) Particle <-- entangle --> Particle

(2) Particle <-- entangle --> universe background <-- entangle --> Particle



Originally Posted By: paul

is that close , that is what wiki says about its what it is.


The wiki entry tries to describe entanglement and as best it can it does so ... what it doesn't discuss is the why which is what we have been discussing.


Originally Posted By: paul

are they certain that the source of the particles is not giving the opposing spins?

will the emitters only emit particles that spin in a certain direction?

which directions were the particles emitted?
did the containment coils or whatever held the particle centered as it traveled build any magnetic field that might have spun the particle in different directions.

I know why it had two different spins if it was a north to south or a east to west travel does not matter as long as
there were two different directions of travel.


were there two different directions of travel?


The orginal works with entanglement where all based around John bell's work from 1964.

You will find extensive discussion of the test in wiki including important key retests of the result from 1969-2009.
They entangled different spins in different setups and different ways testing all the sorts of suggestions you made and many many more.

The whole question become moot in 2009 because science managed to be able to entangle two electrons and have the two electrons under test at the same time because they have charge.

Here is the write up on the first experiment
http://phys.org/news182430388.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/oct/14/entangled-electrons-do-the-splits

To many who liked the EPR argument it was a death blow because electrons are considered part of the solid matter regime.

It got even worse because we continued to take entanglement out into more and more particles and then eventually molecules considered solid matter.

In 2010 entanglement was extended out into a macro visible object

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

In 2011 this was expanded to very large vessels of gas
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110526204955.htm


It's so boring and mundane and experiment these days most university students will do it as part of there physics class

Here is Berkley universities student coarse
http://labs.physics.berkeley.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Quantum_Interference_%26_Entanglement


And if you don't believe us and want to do the test a home a mere $7500 USD will get you a home kit

http://www.qutools.com/products/quED/quED_datasheet.pdf


This is sort of what I was saying to Bill that pre-2009 his thoughts were probably semi-acceptable but post 2009 that is a very hard position for any scientist to support.


Originally Posted By: paul


was the experiment carried out here on the earth?

coriolis effect?

earths magnetic field?


Yes all the experiments are done an earth and because we are trying to exclude everything to satisfy the EPR zealots sometime very soon science is going to try an entanglement between earth and the ISS.

http://www.livescience.com/28553-quantum-entanglement-distance-test.html

This should also set a new record for a distance and if QM is right the required faster than light communication speed you proposed is going to be pushed up even higher.

China may actually beat everyone to do this because there is a sort of quantum arms race going between USA and china over this.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/15020...ster-than-light
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/05/...m-entanglement/

The two nations are locked in a Quantum arms race because the military wants it for secure communication because there is no wave or transmission that another foreign power can intercept or eavesdrop on.


Originally Posted By: paul

what was the name of the experiment?


There are now literally thousands if not millions of experiments that show the entanglement and that's why you won't find any scientists saying the behaviour doesn't exist.

Last edited by Orac; 06/19/13 06:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Why because lets take your example of alice and bob each able to withdraw $500 dollars from a $1000 dollar account.

There are only two normal ways we could enforce that situation


1.) Either alice and bob agree to that arrangement and adhere to it.

So in a physics world you are adding in a complete set of knowledge to a particle that it knows how much it has withdrawn ... think carefully about what you are implying and think about QM?


2.) Option two is alice and bob each have slightly different bank cards and the bank enforces the $500 limit on each.

Actually that isn't right. The reason that Alice can't take out more than $500 is because that is all there is. And when we are talking about an entangled quantum system, if one part of a system assumes a particular state, the other part has only one other state to assume. Well, that may not be quite right. But if one part of a system assumes a given state that limits the number of states that the rest of the system can assume. For an earthly bank the thing that keeps track of the balance is the banks computer. Just how the universe keeps track of the balance is a pretty big question, but it manages it just fine.

Obviously the analogy is far from perfect, but then most analogies don't fit extremely well. One of the big differences is that if we are talking about a bank and money, money comes in variable amounts, but the quantum world comes in discrete states.

By the way, I have started saying system when I talk about entanglement, because as you have pointed out it doesn't just work for particle pairs, it works for large systems of particles. If you say system that could be 2 particles, or it could be any number of particles that you can work with. If you have a better way of phrasing that I would be happy to start using it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

Actually that isn't right. The reason that Alice can't take out more than $500 is because that is all there is.


Then alice has a separate account and her funds are not entangled at all and has nothing to do with bob. Nor does alice's funds have anything to do with anyone else's funds in the bank.

Originally Posted By: Bill

And when we are talking about an entangled quantum system, if one part of a system assumes a particular state, the other part has only one other state to assume. Well, that may not be quite right. But if one part of a system assumes a given state that limits the number of states that the rest of the system can assume.


And now you unentangled the system above and inserted GOD or a computer system and are trying to dodge the bullet with a wave of the hands in your comment below.


Originally Posted By: Bill

For an earthly bank the thing that keeps track of the balance is the banks computer. Just how the universe keeps track of the balance is a pretty big question, but it manages it just fine.


In that statement the bank is doing the balancing is a computer (IE Artificial intelligence and program monitoring it) and therefore for the universe to do it you can only have GOD, we live in a computer simulation or some AI controls it.


There are real structural problems in trying to make accounting and book keeping process on the physical world without the use of intelligence and that is the problem you are stuck up against.


Originally Posted By: Bill

Obviously the analogy is far from perfect, but then most analogies don't fit extremely well. One of the big differences is that if we are talking about a bank and money, money comes in variable amounts, but the quantum world comes in discrete states.


Money only comes in discrete states too it's called the monetary unit for me its dollars and cents and I would find it difficult to pay for a fractional cent item without overpaying or underpaying. The analogy is actually therefore almost perfect.

The fact is we were even to show two ways we could entangle two people and money in a bank account both of which are quantum mechanic like. The problem you are having is the same as everyone has you can't think of another way to do it without invoking a GOD or needing intelligence in the process.

I am not trying to be argumentative here I know how hard this problem is I doubt there isn't a QM scientist alive who hasn't spent days and days thinking about the problem.

Finally I will let you in a little secret go back and read the work of Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell) and you will find what Bell did was show mathematically it is not possible to entangle via EPR and that's how he knew how to setup the so called Bell's test smile

The mathematics is not trivial and for the faint hearted but for those of mathematical persuasion it is apparently satisfying.

If you want to follow the proof yourself
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteHS10/bell1964epr.pdf

So I am sorry mathematics and physics are both against you at this point Bill.


Originally Posted By: Bill

By the way, I have started saying system when I talk about entanglement, because as you have pointed out it doesn't just work for particle pairs, it works for large systems of particles. If you say system that could be 2 particles, or it could be any number of particles that you can work with. If you have a better way of phrasing that I would be happy to start using it.


There is really no better description as yet mainly because it's all a bit new and I haven't seen an expression I like.

By the way you can also expand our bank example above to cover these expanded entanglement by alice and bob having a son chris who also shares the account (3 entangled now) etc etc.

Last edited by Orac; 06/19/13 04:00 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
The fact is we were even to show two ways we could entangle two people and money in a bank account both of which are quantum mechanic like. The problem you are having is the same as everyone has you can't think of another way to do it without invoking a GOD or needing intelligence in the process.

I don't see any need for God in my analogy. How the universe balances the books is through the laws of nature. How the laws of nature do this is still somewhat open to question. We still don't know all of the laws. We do have ways of working with them, but we still have a lot more to learn.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
China may actually beat everyone to do this because there is a sort of quantum arms race going between USA and china over this.


well since money controls research then guess which
country will win the race.

we owe our thanks to our politicians who have sold the country out so that they could have more campaign funds.

anyway since its a military race now , we will never know the results.

and disinformation will be sop.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

I don't see any need for God in my analogy. How the universe balances the books is through the laws of nature. How the laws of nature do this is still somewhat open to question. We still don't know all of the laws. We do have ways of working with them, but we still have a lot more to learn.


See you are still avoiding the bottom line why it occurs is known Bell's mathematical proof tells you why because there simply is no other way to do it without invoking intelligence.

I started this discussion telling you that this is among the most understood thing in science and it is because it is one of the few things in physical science that has an absolute mathematical basis proof, I didn't elaborate because I wanted you to walk thru the problem.

Bell's proof does not formulate any sort of balance it formulates observation so going back to to bank example if you observe alice and bobs bank balance is entangled it tells you how you could do it without intelligence and how you would test for that non intelligent entanglement. It doesn't tell you the objective behind the entanglement which in the bank example is probably to make sure you don't spend money that you don't have but just because the bank balance is entangled does not mean that is the objective.

Your claim that this is some sort of nature balancing act we simply can not even speculate on and that view started my arguing against the simplification as you presented it. There is nothing wrong with your original example you just draw a conclusion to far in assuming it is a nature balance.

Let me now expand the bank analogy and entanglement out to show the problem.

Every country in the world has there own sort of bank which is usually economically represented as their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Every country in effect entangle there GDP thru a foreign exchange mechanism.

Yet year on year the GDP of most countries throughout the history of mankind has increased. Historically we even discuss this effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product)

Look at the estimated numbers over time
1,000,000 BCE = 0.01 Billion
1 AD = 18.50 Billion
2012 = 71,830 Billion

Science also has a theory the universe is similarly expanding.


See the problem here entanglement does not necessarily have anything to do with balancing the thing it is entangling.


What entanglement does it provide a secure basis for transactions that are guaranteed unique and that is why the bank tokens are a perfect example because they play the exact same role.

Even in the bank token situation the bank might allow or even have a bugged computer that allows you draw out more money than you have, so here again entanglement does not guarantee balancing it simply guarantees the authenticity of the transaction.

Lets see what you make of that and problems and questions.

Last edited by Orac; 06/20/13 02:06 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Your claim that this is some sort of nature balancing act we simply can not even speculate on and that view started my arguing against the simplification as you presented it. There is nothing wrong with your original example you just draw a conclusion to far in assuming it is a nature balance.

Are you saying that nature doesn't have a balancing act going on? That things happen just because they happen and there doesn't have to be any way to enforce parity? You seem to be claiming that the math is what forces the universe to act the way it does. Math doesn't force anything. Math is how we work with nature, not how nature works. It just happens, fortunately, that math can be used to describe the way nature works. Remember that math is really just a fancy way to count. Bell's inequality is a mathematical way to work with entanglement that helps us understand how it works. It doesn't have anything to do with why it works.

I think our problem here is that you just keep saying I am wrong, but you don't really provide an alternative explanation. So until somebody comes up with a different way of looking at it, other than the math says it, I will just keep on assuming that I am probably some where close to correct.

Bill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
there it is.

Quote:
I think our problem here is that you just keep saying I am wrong, but you don't really provide an alternative explanation. So until somebody comes up with a different way of looking at it, other than the math says it, I will just keep on assuming that I am probably some where close to correct.


the math is creative math ( its fake ) it serves no REAL
purpose , thats why his argument and QM relies on it so much.

I think that he wants people to think that he is correct
so he tells people that you are wrong.

he never proves anything or answers anything , he only adds more for someone to read.

and if he cant find anything for them to read , he starts
trolling about religion.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

Are you saying that nature doesn't have a balancing act going on? That things happen just because they happen and there doesn't have to be any way to enforce parity?


I suspect it does but we have no theoretical reason for nature to balance we simply have an observational evidence it does. In other words this is a gut feeling answer not a scientific answer.


Originally Posted By: Bill

You seem to be claiming that the math is what forces the universe to act the way it does. Math doesn't force anything. Math is how we work with nature, not how nature works. It just happens, fortunately, that math can be used to describe the way nature works. Remember that math is really just a fancy way to count. Bell's inequality is a mathematical way to work with entanglement that helps us understand how it works. It doesn't have anything to do with why it works.


And I agree totally with all of that as I have said before QM DESCRIBES THE UNIVERSE it does not explain it so I am not claiming mathematics has anything to do with how the universe works other than describing it. How many times do you need me to repeat that.

The problem with your answer is you violate the mathematics and hence the description of the universe. Entanglement may have nothing to do with balancing from what we can work out as it appears to be just a transacting process.

Just this week they entangled two different sorts of atoms and light

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-entanglement-optical-atomic-coherence.html

How does that have anything in that entanglement have anything to do with balancing nature?


Originally Posted By: Bill

I think our problem here is that you just keep saying I am wrong, but you don't really provide an alternative explanation. So until somebody comes up with a different way of looking at it, other than the math says it, I will just keep on assuming that I am probably some where close to correct.


I don't provide an alternative explaination because science doesn't know how it works at all. What we do know is you are wrong because science has invalidated your idea as it did Einstein and many others.

You can keep believing it if you like some still believe the earth is flat because it looks flat.

So please understand I am not trying to provide any answer and say I am right because I don't have an answer but I can easily invalidate your answer.


THE ANECDOTE OF BILL vs SCIENCE.

Bill: How does gravity work science.

Science: We have no idea but we have this mathematical formula that says all bodies are drawn towards earth with this unseen force described by newton's mathematics.

Bill: Rubbish nature is not determined by mathematics and I don't think there is an unseen force and am going to jump off this roof to prove it.

Science: No Bill we assure you that the mathematical description of gravity is quite correct we simply have no idea why the mathematics works.

Bill: So your saying nature is governed by mathematics, I don't believe you and so there is no gravity?

Science: No we are just saying our mathematics faithfully describes gravity but we have no clue why the mathematics works.

Bill: See you can't provide an alternative explaination so I will continue to believe my idea that there is no gravity ...... jeronimo (jumps)

Science: Ummmm someone call an ambulance it looks bad.



Last edited by Orac; 06/21/13 05:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
you know I found a page that shows classical prediction down to
planck length , FP = Gm1x m2 / (D - dn)^2

D=distance between particles.

Classical Equation of Gravity
to Quantum Limit

By Shantilal Goradia

http://arxiv.org/html/math-ph/0009025

Quote:
The order of magnitude of the force between two adjoining nucleons as derived from scattering experiments is 10^40g . No other formula predicts the short range strong force to any degree close to this prediction.


it does not use the creative math inclusion
of c^2 , c^4 , etc to assure that the math
protects the theory.

I'm almost certain that with proper research it will be
found that classical math such as the above equation can
be used to more precisely predict the sub atomic and smaller
better than any creative math that
QM , SR , GR has invented to protect the theories.

after all the creative math cant be correct.
all it can really do is deliver close pre defined
assumptions based on trickery and deceit that flows
from the theories associated with the creative math.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Oh I am so glad you like that equation Paul when I saw it I almost spat my mouthful of coffee on my screen laughing.

It's not hard to work out the problem with the equation you don't even need to be a physicist just need a bit of maths knowledge.

Hint Paul look carefully at the denominator and think about it for a minute can you see the problem smile

We don't need to even get into the millions of places this is going to badly break down. Anyone can post on arXiv and this is typical of some of the nutters who do.

Obviously Shantilal Goradia worked out he had a small problem or most likely some of the scientists took great delight in showing him how stupid the idea is. Anyhow for one or the other reason he decided he better get on the QM wagon with equally good science and he has even released a book

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Quantum-Consciou...back-/108212710

$9.97 seems like a bargain from this science genius Paul if I was you I would race out and buy a copy because it is absolute science gold.

I want to hear all about how good you find your new science guru. In particular I look forward to your review of how the structure of the universe is the source for consciousness, can't wait but I am not sure your god will approve laugh

Seriously I have tears in my eyes I haven't had such a good laugh in a while ... thanks Paul I owe you one.

Last edited by Orac; 06/21/13 01:58 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Hint Paul look carefully at the denominator and think about it for a minute can you see the problem


I dont see any problem with the denominator.

what is the problem that you see with the denominator?

since you find this equation so amusing which equation would
you use?

note : if you pick any equation that uses an element
that includes assumption such as c , c^2 , c^4 etc into the equation then the equation can only deliver assumption and
can only be considered as delivering a prediction that is
based on the included assumption and nothing more.

we can measure the diameter of nucleons.

tell me why is the equation so amusing to you and why did
it cause you to spit up your coffee yesterday morning.

BTW , you should only comment on the equation itself
as the origination of the equation has no bearing on its viability and usefulness.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok, let's get back to basics, starting with the original EPR. That link will take you to the original EPR paper. In the paper Einstein, Podolski and Rosen show that when 2 particles are in contact they have a shared state. In physics a state is a wave function and consists of a Hilbert space which defines the observable quantities of the wave function and is probabilistic . The observable quantities are such things as spin, momentum, position, and other things. The states are fragile, if one quantity is measured then the state changes. However, if the 2 particles are separated prior to the measurement things get interesting. Assuming we have 2 particles which were in contact and had a shared wave state, then since the quantities contained in the state are probabilistic they can't change after the separation, without affecting each other. If we then measure one of the quantities for one of the particles the probability that the other particle will have that same quantity is zero. Actually, since I'm not sure what different states any random particle or system can have I don't know that it will be zero. It may just be a selected state that is complementary to the quantity that is measured. If as we have said before it was spin, then we know that the complementary value of spin up is spin down then if we measure a particles spin, then the entangled particles spin will be the opposite of the one we measured. For any given quantity, when we measure that quantity, the quantity of the entangled particle will be the complementary value for that particular quantity.

I talked about this mostly in terms of just 2 particles. The entanglement of larger systems works the same way, it is just a lot more complicated.

Any way the way it works is that when you make a measurement of any entangled system then the portion of the system you make the measurement on will show a defined quantity, such as spin up or down. At the same time the other portion of the system will no longer be able to assume that quantity when it is measured, because that quantity has been used up, so it HAS to assume the complementary quantity.

If you don't like my use of the term quantity then blame the EPR paper, that is what the authors used.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

I dont see any problem with the denominator.

what is the problem that you see with the denominator?


Paul the problem is blatantly obviously consider what happens as you approach the surface of the nucleus diameter the denominator gets tiny ... tiny tiny tiny ... at the surface it becomes zero

Therefore it doesn't matter what the numerator is the force of gravity as express therefore heads towards infinity ... you have just turned every atom into stronger than a black hole.

Now you have got a bigger problem than what you set out to solve that of gravity in that you need a force pulling the universe apart to stop every atom black hole crushing the universe. That opposing force to the atom black hole must also equal negative infinity at the nucleus surface .... what shall we dub the force ... GOD force perhaps unseen but strong and everywhere?


Originally Posted By: paul

since you find this equation so amusing which equation would
you use?


I would use the ones all science use because they give perfect repeatable and proven result .. why use anything else?

There is no clear theory of what causes gravity as we can invalidate all suggested theories, some like the stupidity you linked is trivially invalidated and no sensible person would post it.

The mathematics used for gravity calculations actually have no assumptions they are exactly the same as QM.

Go back and read about Newton he is an interesting character
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation)

Note his comment:
Originally Posted By: wiki

Newton himself felt that the concept of an inexplicable action at a distance was unsatisfactory (see "Newton's reservations" below), but that there was nothing more that he could do at the time.



Newton had no idea why the mathematical equation worked it was based on no assumptions it was an inevitable result of mathematical analysis of the data.


That is why I offered that gravity anecdote parody to Bill because QM and gravity share this basis, that is both are extremely accurate mathematical descriptions about the universe from an unknown underlying cause.


Originally Posted By: paul

BTW , you should only comment on the equation itself
as the origination of the equation has no bearing on its viability and usefulness.


Understand why I laughed now the thought of a universe with every atom a blackhole is rather fun laugh


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

If you don't like my use of the term quantity then blame the EPR paper, that is what the authors used.


I agree but that's neither here nor there to the argument.

In the 1970's people tried explaining entanglement along your sort of simplified lines but a scientist called John Archibald Wheeler was the first to realize that assumption could be tested versus what QM mathematics says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment

Wheelers experiment was first done in 1984 and has been confirmed over and over again.

Having that background the question we as scientist wondered was how fundamental was entanglement and so it was obvious to extend the delayed choice to entanglement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser


The problem you face Bill is spelt out loud and clear

Originally Posted By: wiki

This delayed choice quantum eraser experiment raises questions about time, time sequences, and thereby brings our usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question.


Your simplification assumes direct timed/causality that particle A and B are entangled because they are conserving something.

Yet in delayed choice erasure experiments we can change what they conserved according to your idea with full retrocausality.


Then just recently your problems got even worse because now your conserving something between one particle and a particle in the future that doesn't exist yet and won't exist until the current particles is long since dead

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/05/physicists-create-quantum-link-b.html


I can assure you that the next step that is obvious will be being worked on right now which is to do a quantum erasure on time separated entangled particles and that is like your worst nightmare because it would show entanglement retrocausality between two entities that never exist at the same time.


What I am explicitly showing you is QM operates outside time and entanglement has nothing to do with conservation and to push that view is wrong and misleading.


Conservation in QM is covered a totally different way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Look carefully at Emmy Noether's mathematics and theorem which expresses it the best science has to offer.


Note the discussion of potential energy

Originally Posted By: Noether's theorem

Conversely, systems which are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Since any time-varying system can be embedded within a larger time-invariant system, conservation can always be recovered by a suitable re-definition of what energy is. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in such physical theories as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.



What we as QM scientists are saying to you is that QM is much very similar to potential energy and why we are extremely certain that QM is part of the underlying fabric of space because if you don't embed it in the larger universe system we could violate conservation of energy.

So conservation is already guaranteed within modern QM so there is no reason to think entanglement has anything to do with conservation especially in view of time separated entanglement.

Moreover in realizing that QM guarantees conservation of energy it resolves many of retrocasaulity paradoxes. For example the grandfather paradox resolves because you are here you can't go back in time and kill your grandfather because his sperm is required to create your father (conservation law) so killing your grandfather erases you or QM conspires so you can't kill your grandfather, no way without trying to work out which but it will resolve one way or the other under QM.

Last edited by Orac; 06/26/13 02:36 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5