Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum At last an explanation of quantum entanglement

Back on my hobby horse.



That's right. The speed of light varies according to the medium through which it is traveling. But C is a constant. C is not the speed of light. It just happens that light travels at a speed equal to C when it is in a vacuum.

C is the universal, and positively enforced, speed limit. Nothing is allowed to go faster than C under any conditions.

Bill Gill

Absolutely spot on Bill and to back that up the testing was done in 2011 on absolutely identified single photons and even testing and shaping their wave fronts. That means you can't encode and transfer information faster than the speed of light either.

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-photons.html

I am sure it will be revisited in a few years time as the timing and optics speeds increase ... science does that tests results over and over with new developments.

The speed of light in a vacuum is hard set and you can't just talk around it with absolute garbage Paul.

and the equations use c not C

and science can claim that C is correct because science
has produced a 100% vacuum.

and the light in that vacuum is isolated from all things
that might affect its speed , such as gravity , electromagnetic forces and the sheer speed of the device used to produce the light that is to be measured.

but science can set speed limits on light because it uses a scientific method ( LOL ) of making determinations on the claims that it claims.

1) we have no vacuum to test the speed of light in.

C is not constant because we dont know what its speed would be
if it were not hindered by any outside forces.

it may be instant point to point travel , we dont know but
we certainly cannot claim that any number can correctly be attached to the speed of light.



then science needs to tell that to all the stars and planets and everything currently breaking the speed limit laws that
scientist people made up in order for science theories to be correct.

but a speed limited science will never be able to catch them
to give them a speeding citation.

because science would need to break their own man made laws
to issue the natural universe a speeding citation.

A perfect vacuum does not exist anywhere in the universe and you can not build such a thing it is impossible and QM tells you that because no matter what barrier you build to try and contain the vacuum in Quantum tunneling will defeat you.

So why discuss something that is impossible anywhere in the universe so it has exactly zero relevance to the universe.

So your idea is as all your crazy physics ideas are .. fundamentally stupid and fatally flawed.





What as opposed to crazy worshipping religious claims and determinations???





Not sure what you are trying to say here nothing in the universe is going faster than the speed of light especially not the stars, planets or galaxies.

I suspect you have as usual completely messed up a fact and got the whole idea wrong.

The edges of the universe are travelling away from each other at faster than the speed of light but that is very different to saying anything in the universe is travelling faster than the speed of light.

Lets turn it into a simple example so you can get your small religious mind around it.

Two cars each travelling at 60 miles an hour if they travel towards each other they have a closing speed of 120 miles and hour. If the two cars drive away from each other they have a separating speed of 120 miles an hour. Each car is only doing 60 miles an hour in either situation yet there relative speed to each other is 120 miles an hour.

Get it not hard to understand the universe only has to expand at a fraction over half the speed of light and the edges are moving away from each other at over the speed of light.

Got nothing in the universe is going faster than the speed of light.

To dumb it down put two torches back to back and turn them one and the two light beams shoot away from each other at twice the speed of light but neither beam is going faster than the speed of light.

Got it not hard.

Ahem...



so basically what you just said is that anyone claiming
anything about the speed of anything in a vacuum is crazy and
that their suggestion would be fatally flawed.

I agree with you on that.

any scientist who claims to know anything about a vacuum is a liar theres just to many things that we dont even know about in there to remove in order to make a vacuum.

science cannot make a vacuum.



exactly , so C has exactly zero relevance to the universe.



LOL , in all directions there are stars thus planets and thus galaxies and everything inside of them moving faster than the speed of light away from us.

so your 60 mph car analogy doesnt hold any water.

that means that we are the observer and everything beyond the earth is the observed.

of course as you know science has found a way to cover up its previous flawed claims by once again fraudulently claiming
that these galaxies are not moving at all , it is the space
between the galaxies that is expanding that makes them appear to be moving away from the earth faster than the speed of light , look up red shift and blue shift.

and science idiots actually repeat the crap that other science idiots tell them , and its like a disease that spreads.

a bunch of ill informed idiots informing each other creating more ill informed idiot's.

look on the bright side , at least now science can truthfully
claim that it has created.

the fact remains that these galaxies are moving away from us
in all directions and the method of propulsion is not in question.

Here we go again Paul is off in the land of so basically stupid that one has to wonder if all the religious brainwashing has left him mentally challenged



Nor can your pathetic goat effigy of a god make a perfect vacuum ... it's not possible in this world.




I am afraid Paul even a 12 year old can see it is exactly the same thing and it's not even worth arguing.

I am leaving you to it because I have no problem the kiddies can see the issue.


Two torches facing each other the beams close at twice the speed light, face them away the light beams move away at twice the speed of light, in neither case is anything moving faster than the speed of light .... it's pretty basic children understand it.

You have no science argument so now you start with the usual anti-science dribble.



So lets give you some anti-religious dribble back

The only thing not in question is religious nutters have had there mental facilities damaged by all the continual brain washing and sexual abuse.

So shall we degenerate into a insult slinging match again or do you want to make a scientific argument?

its clear that your just in denial.

in 1987 particles from a supernova 50,000 168,000 light years distance from earth were detected 3 hours before the visible light was detected.

1987 - Kamiokande, a large water detector looking for proton decay, and IMB detect a simultaneous burst of neutrinos from Supernova 1987A



sometimes you only need to pick through what you are told.

its always better for science to lie about science than to
write new books.

just make the lies part of the test , the students will be
forced to believe the lies , or at least fake it throughout their lives.

its curious to me , given that neutrinos do have mass , although it is a small amount of mass it is still mass.

whats curious to me is that these particles did not gain mass
as they traveled 168,000 light years faster than the
visible light , given that current fantasy science claims
that each particles mass should have become larger than 50,009 universes rolled into 1.

and also it is currently claimed that because of the gain in mass the particles would be slowed down due to the extra energy required to propel the larger mass.

but that didnt happen , did it.

the burst from the core collapse only lasted 13 seconds.
so the particles had at least a 13 second head start.

but thats just the way that giants fall when they fall.

they make a loud noise , but nobody hears it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

We are in denial perhaps you need to look at your own crazy religion before as one of your goat worshippers said

“Judge not lest you be judged” (Mathew 7:1)


Mind you that is typical of your religious loopers you have all these rules and guidance that you seem to break even more than the non believers but hey your lot are true to their GOD

We really should expect it I guess when your GOD even gave your lot his words they managed to lose that, well I guess it was only the word of god no big deal.

Now you are forced to scrounge around trying to borrow parts of the jewish book and whatever prehistoric goat worshipper left around as the new and improved word of god.


So if we are going to have a debate a denial perhaps we can compare science denial as according to Paul versus Religious Denial as according to Orac .... seems fair and reasonable to me.

I mean you religious types are so clear and logical in everything you do

Paul typed:

"in 1987 particles from a supernova 50,000 168,000 light years distance from earth were detected 3 hours before the visible light was detected."


From the same link:

"This is likely due to neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface)."


Is it possible the shock wave takes 3 hours to reach the stellar surface?

In that case there would be no ftl neutrinos.

" Since the neutrinos arrived two to three hours earlier than the light, does that mean that neutrinos travel faster than light? No, it means the neutrinos got a head start.

A supernova is the explosive end of a massive star (the Sun is not big enough to explode as a supernova). Normal stars produce energy by fusing lighter elements into heavier ones deep in their cores. Energy is produced in the fusion process. The energy moves outward and eventually reaches the surface of the star, causing it to shine. This energy production also results in an outward pressure that balances the inward force of gravity. A supernova occurs when a star runs out of fuel in its core and the fusion reactions suddenly shut down. With the loss of outward pressure, gravity takes over and the core of the star collapses in a fraction of a second. The core of a massive star has enough gravity to squeeze the matter in it so tightly that protons and electrons combine to form neutrons. This transformation also produces an enormous number of neutrinos. The neutrinos are able to pass through the star’s outer layers and escape into space before the star shows any outward sign of trouble.

Meanwhile, deep within the star, the core collapse triggers a shock wave that moves rapidly outward. The shock wave takes several hours to reach the surface. When it does, the radiation released in the explosion can briefly outshine a galaxy. Astronomers predicted that neutrinos from a supernova would arrive before its light. So, the early arrival of neutrinos from supernova 1987A was evidence that astronomers have a correct understanding of what causes a massive star to go supernova."

http://clarkplanetarium.org/neutrinos-and-supernova-1987a/
- - -
Unlike photons, neutrinos rarely interact with matter, and so would have left the star within a few seconds of being produced in the core. On the other hand, the shockwave from a core collapse is calculated to take several hours to reach the surface, at which time the photons would be emitted.

well , thanks red.

so were not sure that the visible light was released exactly
3 hours after the neutrinos were released , but 3 hours is
a long time , so we cant actually say that the neutrinos did
not travel faster than the visible light.

because if the release of visible light only took 2 hours
then the neutrino particles arrived 1 hour ahead of light speed.

168,000 light years !

according to current physics the neutrino particles should still
be trying to reach the earth because they have mass.

that's the 1 fact that cant be avoided.

and all we really need is one fact.

the CERN experiment shows that neutrino particles traveled 60 meters ahead of visible light , which was only a tiny fraction
of a second of time , but using 168,000 light years from the 1987 SN we might be able to calculate how long it took the visible light to be released after the core collapse.

wouldnt you think?

and these are actual measurements we would be using.

You're still using c for the speed of light. Space isn't a complete vacuum. Neutrinos can in fact travel faster than light, but not c. Since neutrinos can pass through matter, and light cannot pass through opaque matter, then it's not hard to assume neutrinos would arrive first under most circumstances.

Paul typed:

"the CERN experiment shows that neutrino particles traveled 60 meters ahead of visible light..."

No, the CERN experiment does not show that.

However if it did, the neutrinos from SN1987A would have arrived
sometime in 1984.

Actually I did type it , but I read it somewhere because someone
else had already typed it first.

of course.



when you did your calculation did you also include the faster than light expansion of the universe?

that may be how you got the 1984 arrival time.

I see that they have corrected the measurement to that of the
speed of light , so it was 168,000 years before 1987
when the SN occured
and your calculation covers the distance of 168,000 light years
and the expansion of the universe I assume , because science
claims that light expands as the universe expands.

but do particles expand as the universe expands?

were the detected particles oblong due to their expansion?

can we expect to find oblong expanded objects in space?

of course 168,000 years ago + 26 years the universe was not expanding as fast as it was
in 1987 , so I also assume that you began your calculation with the acceleration of the universe at 168,000 light years away from the earth and wherever the earth was at 168,000 years ago + 26 years.

and ended your calculation with the acceleration of the universe in 1987.

and the location of the earth in 1987.

can I safely assume that you included the above necessary elements into your equation?

I just thought of something that may be critical , you dont
have a toolbox that contains any tools that you can use
to calculate anything that has non zero mass and that travels at or faster than light so please excuse my questioning
of your methods of calculation.

sry.

They say that you can't argue with success. But Paul seems to manage. Even with the huge successes of modern science that gave us most of the things we have today he can still argues against it.

Bill Gill

Bill getting away from the religious nutter and back to the science of the original post topic

I sort of posted the lessons we have learnt from all the post 2008 experiments and the universe landscape that points to.

Sascha Vongehr looks like he is also starting a series on it but I do have some reservations on his article and I find his language well difficult

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/self..._physics-115762


To me he has also left out one important piece of our knowledge as well that is that the universe itself is an observer and this puts interesting constrains on many world interpretations.


I also feel he overlooks the importance of entanglement which is sort of the area I took you to task on and I will explain.

The realization that QM was much deeper level in the universe than was previously ever considered had a profound effect on our thinking and experimental testing post 2008

- Entanglement was realized to be a simple property of the universe and thus it was followed you should be able to entangle matter and light with each other something that earlier QM era's would have never considered.

The hundreds of experiments now confirming that alone has profound implications because when we think about light and matter you don't think of them sharing any properties, really we don't think of them being in any way alike at all and yet here they are sharing a property.

The fact you can cross entangle them tells you the most important thing that they have the same physics underpinning them the QM description of light is the same as the QM description of matter. That is very important because it directly lead to the next realization that you were not going to be able to simply crush QM out of existence in large scale matter which earlier science had thought.

So now rack your brain how many other properties can you come up with that are shared between matter and light?

I will leave it there for now and see what your thoughts are before moving along.

That is I think an important point. At one time or another I have seen places where people get confused when we talk about the wave function collapsing when it is 'observed'. To many people that tends to imply that there needs to be an intelligent observer. But there doesn't need to be any intelligence involved. I read something a while back that suggested that in reality what we are talking about is an action/reaction event. That is, the wave form is 'observed' when it impinges on something that reacts to it.

Bill Gill

Any discussion that talks about waveform collapse as real is pre 2008 as I showed you in an earlier link we no longer consider waveform collapse to be real it simply decoheres

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



This is one of the major advances with modern QM in the post 2008 era and there are now many many experiments that show all of that to be true.

So again we now have constraints on how many people interpret the many worlds theory.

How are you going with common properties between light and matter ... I will give you a hint on one E=MC2

You seem to have stalled on this thread Bill so lets see if I can prompt you to think more

Done this year real time images of entangled particles

http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/real-time-imaging-of-quantum-entanglement/


You haven't attempted the question

Which physical variables are allowed a quantum superposition?

Hint and start list for you these are allowed:
- spin
- polarization
- position
- particle number
- energy


Here are some you may want to think about mass, time, strangeness, charm, colour triality, electric field, magnetic field.

Hint if you need it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superselection

This may help you with understanding issues with conservation of energy and entanglement.

That is the way I've always tended to see it, but.....



I think David Bohm would argue that as there is intelligence in the Universe, the Universe itself must be considered intelligent.