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 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
For years I have been accepting quantum entanglement because the experiments show it works. I have never quite understood how it works until just now. I am reading "The Matchbox that ate a Forty-Ton Truck" by Marcus Chown. In it he finally makes a few statements that clarify the reason for it.

The reason that when you detect a quantum state of one particle the quantum state of an entangled particle is immediately determined is because of conservation laws. Take the case of photons, which have been the most studied particles. Photons of course have a property called spin. Photons naturally have a spin of 1. In measuring spin you will measure any given photon as having a spin of 1 or -1. The difference is the direction the photon is pointing, up or down. Spin is a conserved quantity. That is the total spin of a system will always be the same, no matter what happens to the components of the system. So, if an event creates 2 photons then the 2 photons will have a spin of 0, since the 2 photon system had 0 spin before it was created. This zero spin will be the sum of the spins of the 2 photons, -1 + 1 = 0. But the 2 photons exist as wave functions, and the spin of either one of them will be unknown until it is measured, at which time it will randomly take a spin of either 1 or -1. But since spin is conserved the other one will immediately take the opposite spin. And that will happen no matter how far the 2 photons are separate.

Hooray, at last I have a much clearer idea of just what quantum entanglement is all about.

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
On the right track Bill but even that is a simplification

For example you can entangle an electron and a photon so here we have two different sorts of quantum spin in two different things

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11577.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/a-quantum-dot-first-entanglement


Only this month it was shown you can entangle two chambers of billions of particles in two gas chambers

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-quantum-teleportation-atomic-distances.html

There is no way that the two chambers contain exactly the same number of atoms so a simple pairing 1 for 1 on spin is not really possible.

You are trying to simplify the effect too far and in doing so you lose some important understanding.

I understand you want to take you solid normal world and add entanglement into it without changing your solid world physics and you can only take that approximation and simplification so far before you lose the importance of what is happening.

So you have at least worked the entanglement to QM spin now you need to think about what QM spin is as clearly you can entangle the photons, electrons and protons with each other QM spin is deeper than the flavor of the particle.

To show you that in absolute form we can entangle two particles that never existed at the same time

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physics-team-entangles-photons-coexisted.html

Entanglement and QM spin are a lot deeper than your current thinking and you need to think harder about what QM spin really means.


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
Orac, Do you mean that there are other forms of entanglement than conserved quantities? While I used spin for my example I didn't intend to say that was the only way entanglement could happen. But I can easily see any conserved quantity could form an entanglement.

After all if there is one thing in this universe that is for sure it is that the universe will enforce its laws. In the case of spin, if you detect the spin of one entangled particle, then for sure the other will have the complementary spin, no matter how you try to wiggle around and avoid it. That will go for any other conserved quantity.

So in my opinion the simple reason that entanglement works is that the universe enforces the conservation laws for any conserved quantity.

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
Indeed there are different sorts of entanglement and unfortunately now you really are on the edge of science so we are still trying to quantify it.

Probably most updated discussion on the web

=> http://phys.org/news/2013-06-spooky-action-physicists-entanglement.html

The extension of understanding entanglement is how it was deduced that you could entangle two particles that never existed at the same time. Time-separated entanglement was predicted by even original early quantum theory it has taken significant advancement in QM however to finally be able to show it.

The simplest forms of entanglement work exactly how you describe but that is not the end of the story it is simply the easiest case or mode of entanglement. If you think about it you have an obvious problem your simple entanglement requires even particles because you are swapping spins so how would I entangle 3 particles they would have to ping pong or something like that

Hence we did an obvious test way back in 2008

=> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jun/05/multi-particle-entanglement-in-solid-is-a-first

Quote:

An international team of physicists has entangled three diamond nuclei for the first time.


The fact you can entangle odd number of particles tells you something significant that entanglement is definitely not as simple as you have tried to make it.

You are open and smart enough to understand the science and experiments so turn your thoughts to Quantum Spin and what it is and I am sure this will all start to make more sense.

Last edited by Orac; 06/11/13 04:51 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
I realize that there are various types of entanglement. But what is it that produces the entanglement? Are you sure that the various kinds don't all involve some sort of quantum conservation laws? Or at least things that involve symmetries that are considered invariant. I'm not sure whether things such as CPT invariance are considered to be conservation laws.

Bill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Orac said:

"I understand you want to take you solid normal world and add entanglement into it without changing your solid world physics and you can only take that approximation and simplification so far before you lose the importance of what is happening."

So, is the following on the right track? (gleaned mostly from Wiki...)

Spin correlation with aligned measurements (i.e., up and down only) can be simulated classically.

Quantum entanglement with spin of the particles in directions other than just up or down can show a correlation
that is fundamentally stronger than anything that is achievable in classical physics.

The fundamental issue about measuring spin in different directions is that these measurements cannot have definite
values at the same time, they are incompatible.

In classical physics this does not make sense, since any number of properties can be measured simultaneously with accuracy.

Bell's theorem implies, and it has been proven mathematically, that compatible measurements cannot show Bell-like correlations,
and thus entanglement is fundamentally a non-classical phenomenon.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The important bit you missed in Bell Pokey is that it also says no two observers see the spin exactly the same this is very like General Relativity where there is no zero frame.

So if no two observers see exactly the same spin can Quantum spin even exist as a physical spin like we are apt to try and make it like Bill did in his simplification.

What Bell's theorem says explicitly is there is no local reality quantum spin exists outside local reality and thus the simplification of the Original Post is misleading.

So any two observers looking at quantum spin will agree there is a spin but will disagree on how it is spinning. So at this point most try and visualize it as two observers looking at a spinning object from different angles but even that is misleading.

To understand why we must take the problem deeper and go back to the beginning with the Stern–Gerlach experiment and you end up here

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD

And where that brings you to is the connection to the uncertainty principle and why uncertainty exists

Originally Posted By: Connection to the uncertainty principle

One consequence of the generalized uncertainty principle is that the spin projection operators (which measure the spin along a given direction like x, y, or z), cannot be measured simultaneously. Physically, this means that it is ill defined what axis a particle is spinning about. A measurement of the z-component of spin destroys any information about the x and y components that might previously have been obtained.


Since spins are entangling and interacting in our spacetime they obviously must have a common reference to do that yet Bell's inequality and the uncertainty principle tells you that is not possible in our solid world.

So you are left with no alternative but to realize that spacetime must have an extension outside our physical solid world that QM is operating in or else you need to invoke GOD because the two entangled particles clearly are interacting that is impossible under classical physics.

Those who dislike the clear an unescapable conclusion to try and preserve the universe as only the solid world you can see and touch always invoke there is some hidden forces or things at play allowing the particles to communicate rather than expanding our understanding of the universe.

Slowly test by test we have removed any possibility of hidden communication and last month the last loophole was closed

=> http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html


So from a science point of view there is no option but to accept that the universe and quantum spins are not confined to the solid world we see but also a part we can't see or directly interact with.

None of that is a real surprise anymore because with the discovery of the Higgs we already know the universe is more than our solid world as the Higgs lives in that other non solid bit we struggle to understand and accept.


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
But what is it that produces the entanglement?


QM tells you that answer you have a waveform it is being transmitted it a spacetime manifold when its entangled it has two opennings into the spacetime manifold.

So if you want the basics you need are here

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

You may want to look carefully at the rquirements that implies


Originally Posted By: Requirements

Continuity of the wavefunction and its first spatial derivative (in the x direction, y and z coordinates not shown), at some time t.

The wavefunction must satisfy the following constraints for the calculations and physical interpretation to make sense:[8]

It must everywhere be finite.

It must everywhere be a continuous function, and continuously differentiable (in the sense of distributions, for potentials that are not functions but are distributions, such as the dirac delta function). As a corollary, the function would be single-valued, else multiple probabilities occur at the same position and time, again unphysical.

It must everywhere satisfy the relevant normalization condition, so that the particle/system of particles exists somewhere with 100% certainty.

If these requirements are not met, it's not possible to interpret the wavefunction as a probability amplitude; the values of the wavefunction and its first order derivatives may not be finite and definite (with exactly one value), i.e. probabilities can be infinite and multiple-valued at any one position and time – which is nonsense, as it does not satisfy the probability axioms. Furthermore, when using the wavefunction to calculate a measurable observable of the quantum system without meeting these requirements, there will not be finite or definite values to calculate from – in this case the observable can take a number of values and can be infinite. This is unphysical and not observed when measuring in an experiment. Hence a wavefunction is meaningful only if these conditions are satisfied.



IMPORTANT => You will note QM is incompatible with an infinite universe the universe must be finite under QM. I have not discussed this before but it is why I always react when people start talking about infinite universe.


Originally Posted By: Bill

Are you sure that the various kinds don't all involve some sort of quantum conservation laws? Or at least things that involve symmetries that are considered invariant. I'm not sure whether things such as CPT invariance are considered to be conservation laws.


What you call conservation under QM we call parity

Start here => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(physics)

Given the QM domain extends the universe outside the solid world of classic physics conservation is a bit tricky unless we first agree on definition of universe.

Last edited by Orac; 06/12/13 04:39 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
So if no two observers see exactly the same spin can Quantum spin even exist as a physical spin like we are apt to try and make it like Bill did in his simplification.

I don't think that I ever said or implied that quantum spin is the same thing as classical spin. It does act like it in some ways. For example electrons can be separated by passing them through a magnetic field. They will react differently depending on the direction of their spin. But an electron is not a hard little ball spinning around its axis, so the spin of an electron isn't really the same thing as the spin of a baseball.

Granted I am trying to simplify things. But simplification can be very useful when a person is trying to understand something that requires a lot of esoteric mathematics. In this case I have realized that a lot of the complexity of entanglement is covered just because the universe is the ultimate judge of what is allowed. So when the universe came up with various laws of conservation, or parity if you want to call it that, then things got strange, because those laws apply, no matter how various parts the system that is entangled are separated. So if something changes the state of one part of the system that would cause a violation of the particular law then another part of the system has to assume a state that is complementary to the first so that the law isn't violated. This occurs with no obvious way for the 2 parts of the system to communicate. You imply that this link between the parts of the system is outside of what we recognize as spacetime. That may well be, but I think the jury is still out on that.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Re: Spin, Quantum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

"In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei.[1][2] Spin is a solely quantum-mechanical phenomenon; it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics (despite the term spin being reminiscent of classical phenomena such as a planet spinning on its axis).[2]

Spin is one of two types of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the other being orbital angular momentum.

Orbital angular momentum is the quantum-mechanical counterpart to the classical notion of angular momentum: it arises when a particle executes a rotating or twisting trajectory (such as when an electron orbits a nucleus).

The existence of spin angular momentum is inferred from experiments, such as the Stern–Gerlach experiment, in which particles are observed to possess angular momentum that cannot be accounted for by orbital angular momentum alone."

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
IMPORTANT => You will note QM is incompatible with an infinite universe the universe must be finite under QM.


absolutely !

QM can claim that because QM knows where the boundary of the universe is !

QM's creative math can be used to determine this exactly
like it has been used to determine everything else it has determined.

if I have 10 apples , but I only want 9 apples then all I
need to do is use QM's creative math to arrive at a precise correct and accurate answer to my problem.
then I just chunk the left over apple under the rug before anyone see's it.

problem solved .... ie.

(10 apples^2 / 10 ) - (((( 10 apples x 10 apples )- 10 apples ) / 10 ) - 8 apples ) = 9 apples

I'm curious what QM has determined concerning the furthest things in our universe that are approaching light speed and
we see those things in their past...

have those things proven that QM is correct.

that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

or is the speed of light only concerned with how fast light can travel and cannot be attached to any other object.


when we invent lies we must invent more lies to cover up
the first lies we made up.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/070904a.html

Quote:
The Question

(Submitted September 04, 2007)
I have read articles that cosmologists believe that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Another theory states that the speed of light is constant and nothing can move faster than the speed of light. My question is if the universe is accelerating, eventually should it not reach a speed faster than the speed of light? Has anyone investigated the question as to what will happen if the expansion of the universe breaks the light speed barrier?

The Answer

Thanks for your question. It is true that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. And it is also true that our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light today. This sounds like a contradiction, but actually it is space itself that is expanding faster than the speed of light, driving objects further apart at an increasing rate. The concept of space expanding faster than the speed of light is not in contradiction with the limit for zero mass particles, ultimate speed. A nice discussion of this can also be found at: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575



nothing can travel faster than the speed of light if you word
it in a fashion that those who believe in the first lie can believe!

it all makes sense to me.

if a planet is actually traveling away from my planet at a speed faster than the speed of light then certainly its not moving faster than the speed of light, it just wants me to think that it is so that I can wonder why it wants me to think that.

it has nothing to do with actual facts or data or anything like that its just about the way that I think about it.

so even if something appears like its moving faster than light
its not possible for it to move that fast because thats what I
have been told.

and no one would lie to me.

anyway all we need to do now is to use what has been said to describe our faster than light spacecraft , we can invent yet another lie and say that the spacecraft does not travel faster
than light , oh no , its just the space around the spacecraft that is expanding in front of our spacecraft that causes it to
appear to travel faster than the speed of light.

and we can claim that the reason the spacecraft did not become so massive was because the space around the spacecraft became massive as the spacecrafts speed reached and passed the speed of light and everything inside the spacecrafts space expanded with the expanding space.

its simple and easy to lie to those who believe only lies.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I noticed a correction I should address.

Quote:
and we can claim that the reason the spacecraft did not become so massive was because the space around the spacecraft became massive as the spacecrafts speed reached and passed the speed of light and everything inside the spacecrafts space expanded with the expanding space.


as we know nothing can reach the speed of light.

it should have read as follows.

and we can claim that the reason the spacecraft did not become so massive was because the space around the spacecraft became massive as the speed of the space around the spacecraft reached and passed the speed of light and everything inside the spacecrafts space expanded with the expanding space that expands around the spacecraft.


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
This occurs with no obvious way for the 2 parts of the system to communicate. You imply that this link between the parts of the system is outside of what we recognize as spacetime. That may well be, but I think the jury is still out on that.


No it isn't out the verdict has been given by science all loopholes have been closed there are no hidden variables and that is what I find problematic with your statement.

The science is very clear as scientists we disliked the implication as much as anybody but you have to look clearly at the experiments and results.

You are left with only two viable options GOD or the universe extends outside the solid world dimensions we see.

Throw in the Higgs which we define as being not in our solid world dimensions and it's behavior is predictable and testable so you already know QM laws are extending into the world of the higgs.

Probably 10-15 years ago the jury was still out but you have two big problems is trying to argue some hidden variables or communication you need to find a loophole we somehow missed and you need to explain the higgs results a new way.


Experimental background:

Bell tests on 144km entangled link removing most hidden variable loopholes.

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-debunking-quantum-entanglement-loopholes.html
original paper => http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0607/0607182.pdf

Closure of final loophole:
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html

Last edited by Orac; 06/13/13 02:34 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
VERY GOOD

WE NEED ADD TO ABOVE MODEL Vo velocity

Thought experiment

"small box and only one body inside the universe "


********* ACTUAL FACT ***************
Fact 1 – Luminosity

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


Fact 2 Doppler's efect ( notice moving source )
http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/cpalma/astro10/Images/FG02_22.JPG


VERY IMPORTANT ANIMATION !!!!

Fact 3 Astronomy Aberration
animation > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

********************************

Bulb ---------------------150 000 000 km -------------camera -----> Vo >0

Bulb ---------------------150 000 000 km -------------camera Vo = 0

Bulb ---------------------150 000 000 km -------------camera <---- Vo<0

Please turn on and off bulb (ONLY 1 sec signal long )
Light's signal has got 360 degree angle

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yrD2uFLkznM/Ua6hkakJkII/AAAAAAAAA80/9O4Y-yFYbsY/s1600/222.JPG

*********************************************************
bulb ----[DARK FILTRE] ---- camera

dark dark filtre = 150 000 000 km distance inside small box

*******************************************************

Einstein and small box ?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD3SHCNAlkE/UK8ogrlmPiI/AAAAAAAAAPk/LqngqVuepwI/s1600/e1.JPG






Where is the source ?
Where will be the camera ?
Where the signal started ?
Where will be ring 1 during picture ?
Exist Vo ?
PERPENDICULAR - small box

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YT45QUAt1l0/UURZ9009EPI/AAAAAAAAAss/vgc2wiIIfOI/s1600/222.JPG


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2xhYG4lbDOc/UUcC-DfqAJI/AAAAAAAAAtU/qsSQE4_pkik/s1600/perpendiculard.JPG

PARALLEL –small box ( E front / E rear = X graph ? )

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vTs64GjGxJo/UVRWqhB1PyI/AAAAAAAAAwY/heVb8diniyU/s1600/DopekN.JPG


below paragraph is right now in all books please study

" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).

This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."


MAROSZ ( me )

" (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them)." ?!
"This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s)" ?!

We can recognize velocity and we no need use other objects ( Stars ) we can use fact confirmed by Michelson Morley light's velocity = only C not exist C+ V source


Ring 1/point 1 ...Ring 2 ... Ring 3 ..... and luminosity = "apparatuses " that is not not moving with Us ?!?!


"We have only one Universe Relativity = nonsense"

Marosz 11 /06 / 2013 5:00 AM polish local time

http://solarsytemspeed.blogspot.com/

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your English is as fractured as mine Newton but I understand your argument which as you say dates back to Galileo.

In 1949 Kurt Gödel took your argument to the full extent and created an Einstein nightmare we call the Gödel metric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric

It is a nightmare because it is entirely consistant with physics but breaks Mach's principle on which Einstein developed GR in a horrible way so that the distant stars seem to be revolving faster and faster as one moves further away.

Your idea is a simpler variation of the same theme.

Fortunately there is a reasonably testable effect to sort all this out called frame dragging

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

NASA created an experiment to test for the effect called gravity probe B.

=> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
=> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/


Frame dragging and Einstein confirmed and Gödel and you are in a world of grief smile


So you have a big problem with your theory and now you need to explain why we see frame dragging when we shouldn't in your theory.

Last edited by Orac; 06/13/13 01:55 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
Originally Posted By: Bill
This occurs with no obvious way for the 2 parts of the system to communicate. You imply that this link between the parts of the system is outside of what we recognize as spacetime. That may well be, but I think the jury is still out on that.


No it isn't out the verdict has been given by science all loopholes have been closed there are no hidden variables and that is what I find problematic with your statement.

The science is very clear as scientists we disliked the implication as much as anybody but you have to look clearly at the experiments and results.

You are left with only two viable options GOD or the universe extends outside the solid world dimensions we see.


I never said that there were hidden variables. I realize that all 3 of the explanations that were originally brought up have been ruled out. What I am saying is that this is on the fringe of modern physics, and that we shouldn't rule out other ways it works. You say that entanglement has to reach outside of space-time to make the connection. Can you make a positive statement that this is the consensus of most physicists? I say that there is no such consensus and that it is still an open question as to just how it works. However, I am willing to let the universe handle it.

It seems to me that some sort of conservation law, or whatever you want to call it, is what trips the balance. How the universe tracks attempts to infringe the law is a whole different question, and that is what you seem to be trying to address.

By the way, attempting to reason with newton is kind of a fruitless task.

Bill Gill

Last edited by Bill; 06/13/13 02:56 PM.

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
YES !

from the link you posted concerning the gravity probe which claims to prove that einstein was correct.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

it is impossible for a anything to point at a anything forever
when in an earth orbit because everything beyond the earth is
moving.

I see this as a cheap attempt to validate a lie.
the attempt is probably founded via a education that included
a lie as its foundation.

thus more lies must be invented to cover up the paid for lies
acquired in the education process.

Quote:
GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, GP-B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit. But in confirmation of Einstein's theories, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin, while Earth's gravity pulled at them.


1: a polar orbit.




there is no such thing as a orbit around the earth that never
changes its orbital path.

there will always be tugs on any satellite orbiting the earth
by all of the thousands of other satellites orbiting the earth as it orbits the earth which would pull the satellite out of its intended , planned orbit.

these would be tiny almost unnoticeable orbital changes as have been proposed to verify einstein theory.

2: also the earths axis fluctuates which will cause a corresponding change in all satellites orbits around the earth.
some earthquakes have caused the earths axis to change in a single moment.

3: just because nasa says something is true does not mean that
what is said is true.

4: a gyroscope will maintain its spin if encased inside a orbiting satellite , this spin will maintain its path as the satellite orbits around the earth.

however a gyroscope cannot cause a satellite to maintain its orbital altitude , gravity from the earth will still cause the satellite to accelerate towards the earth.

the angular velocity of the satellite is what causes the satellite to maintain its orbital altitude.

minute fluctuations in the earths gravity field causes a satellite to move into both a higher and lower orbit as a satellite orbits the earth.

these fluctuations in orbital altitude are minute but can be measured.

the velocity of a satellite that has moved into a lower earth orbit has increased thereby reducing its orbital time by a fraction that can be measured.

likewise

the velocity of a satellite that has moved into a higher earth orbit has decreased thereby increasing its orbital time by a fraction that can be measured.

there are many minute orbital changes that a satellite undergoes that can affect measurements taken from instruments onboard a satellite.

why they decided that these measurements prove any theory
concerning the proposed space time or any of the other fantasy theories is beyond logic.

5: one more thing that may not have been considered is the electrical charge of the satellite as it orbits within the earths magnetic field.



a spinning gyroscope has both a gravitational field and a magnetic field due to its charge ,
as internal electrical charges build up in the gyroscope
due to spacecraft charging the gyroscopes magnetic field strength increases , the magnetic field of the spinning gyroscope will then try to align itself with the ever changing magnetic field of the earth which will cause minute spin changes.

If gravity did not affect space and time, GP-B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit.

as pointed out above , I dont think space and time fantasy have anything to do with it , it is the real instances of events and forces that actually occur that are the reasons that the gyroscopes do not point in the same direction forever.


personally I wont accept that a satellite orbiting the earth could possibly prove any of einsteins theories.

any.

the gyroscope inside the GP-B satellite is a sphere of fused quartz.



http://www.resonancepub.com/gravity.htm

note : that quartz will deform when a electrical current is passed through it.

quartz is a non conductive material , however it has a small
charge , it is a piezoelectric which means that when subjected to pressures it generates electricity and vice-versa

the quartz sphere is rotated up to 170 Hz by a gas , however it
is suspended by two electrical charges placed on the two bowl
shaped electrodes pictured above.

spacecraft charging can alter these suspending charges so that the sphere would become closer to one side than the other generating a compression to the sphere as it moves from one side to the other that could deform the sphere during spacecraft charging events.

retrieval of the sphere and inspection will probably show
that the sphere has contacted the electrodes several times.

which would cause minute changes in its spin.


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

What I am saying is that this is on the fringe of modern physics, and that we shouldn't rule out other ways it works. You say that entanglement has to reach outside of space-time to make the connection. Can you make a positive statement that this is the consensus of most physicists? I say that there is no such consensus and that it is still an open question as to just how it works. However, I am willing to let the universe handle it.


Science doesn't work by consensus you know that this is not a stupidity discipline like climate science where we need consensus for a political agenda.

Science is built on what can be tested and what can be falsified and the problem is that QM is the only theory left that can explain all data and experiments.

I know you have faith in GR over Newton based on exactly the same logic so your statement sort of surprises me.

Look at the basics on a 144km link the flight time at the speed of light is 487 microseconds you have two atomic clocks synchronized and tested at each site to 0.8 nanosecond. When you change an entangled particle the change is showing up at the other end within that 0.8 nanosecond window.

Not many choices for how that is possible you have communication at hundreds of time the speed of light or you need some sort of determinism.

Add in science declares we have a Higgs which is most definitely off the classic solid world reservation ... I thought you accepted there was a Higgs or is the jury still out on that too?

So we have only one theory that not only explains both of those incredible unlikely results but predicted that it would be the case and the reason for setting up the tests and expensive experiments.

Sorry I don't see how you think the jury is out .... the verdict from the science jury is most certainly in.

The classic solid world is dead and buried to science and peoples like or dislike of the implication doesn't come into it.


Originally Posted By: Bill

It seems to me that some sort of conservation law, or whatever you want to call it, is what trips the balance. How the universe tracks attempts to infringe the law is a whole different question, and that is what you seem to be trying to address.


I also believe that is most likely the question is what frame is the conservation working from.


Originally Posted By: Bill

By the way, attempting to reason with newton is kind of a fruitless task.


Well he can either argue a sound argument as to how Gravity probe B got it all wrong or he will argue utter trash which I can ignore like our resident religious fruitloop.


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:
which I can ignore like our resident religious fruitloop.


to ignore wisdom and study falsities

QM / SR creative math prevents nothing from happening in the real world.

it only allows those who choose to ignore the real things to
have a place for their head.




Quote:
The classic solid world is dead and buried to science


if you ever figure out any usefulness that QM has given
to the world , Please inform those of us who dont have our
heads stuck in the sand.

those who realize the value of real vs fantasy.

oh , and just how fast is a planet that is traveling faster
than the speed of light (inside the faster than light expanding space) traveling if the observer is at the center of the universe?

what if the observer is holding a spool of ultra fine thread that has one end attached to that faster than light speed planet , and he is observing how the thread is unrolling at a rate that shows the planet has surpassed the speed of light.

science as you call it says that nothing can travel at the speed of light or faster and it even gives an incredible explanation of the reasons why.

and now its trying to claim that the things we see that appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light are not actually traveling that fast , they are just riding along inside space that is expanding faster than the speed of light.

but , the thread cant see the expanding space , neither can the observer.

the above Proves your fantasy world is fantasy.

because your fantasy world's foundation is fantasy.



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
You religious types are to busy molesting young children, blowing each other up and killing each other all in the name of your pathetic goat god to know what the real world looks like.

I mean we are all doomed as the second coming is due any time soon isn't it so what does it all matter smile

Why do you even bother Paul the world is a cesspit doomed to destruction why not spend your time more productively or perhaps you really don't believe I hear the punishment for that is a bit severe ... haha look forward to seeing you in hell.

Interesting fact from the catholic church is I only have to accept god and his forgiveness on my death bed and I get all my sins forgiven and go straight to heaven you as a believer don't get it so easy because you are supposed to know better and not sin .. thought for the day ... I love religion laugh

Last edited by Orac; 06/14/13 11:07 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
I suppose if you cant think up a relevant reply its much easier to simply put your head back into the sand , that is the place where your head feels comfortably at home and where you fantasy scientist types feel a degree of peacefulness.

after all in your world of make believe and with your creative math you can imagine and invent anything.

it doesn't matter if what you imagine or invent has any value or not, because to your type of fantasy scientist the important thing is that you believe that it has value.



but those of us who have their heads above the sand , who deal
with reality know that what you fantasy scientist types believe has no value.

your problem is that you have immersed yourself in fantasy so deep that your brain believes the fantasy is reality.




slowly but surely QM , SR , GR is digging its own grave.



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
Good to see you are contributing to a science discussion on a science forum in a meaningful scientific way as usual you religious fruitloop ... let me guess your god made you do it.

Your arguments are as stupid and contradictory as the bible you follow and no one can seriously take such a contradictory piece of garbage as the literal word of an all powerful god ... well only the stupid and ignorant could.




So do you want to continue to trade insults or have a discussion ... your choice?


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
Science doesn't work by consensus you know that this is not a stupidity discipline like climate science where we need consensus for a political agenda.

Science is built on what can be tested and what can be falsified and the problem is that QM is the only theory left that can explain all data and experiments.

Yes, there has been a lot of experiment that shows that "spooky action at a distance" is real. Has there been any experimental evidence as to HOW it works? What you seem to be saying is that there is some kind of connection outside of space-time that makes entanglement work, but you aren't, in my opinion, showing just what that connection is. Is it string theory, m-theory, some other theory that requires extra dimensions? Is there a consensus on the most probable WAY it works? My opinion is that this is still an open subject, because nobody has come up with an experimentally testable theory on the way it works.

So far I am happy just to have realized at last that there is a relatively simple explanation of why it works, which as I have been saying, is that the universe enforces its rules about what states are permitted and what states are not permitted. I'm still waiting for a fully realized explanation for how the universe enforces those rules.

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:
Your arguments are as stupid and contradictory as the ...


which arguments are you talking about?

remember that voice in your head really isnt anyone arguing at you.

its you arguing at yourself.


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
Has there been any experimental evidence as to HOW it works?


Quantum mechanics is EXPLICIT about how and why it works it's not like we discovered entanglement and QM was developed to explain it.

It is the extract reverse situation go back and read the history of entanglement and QM which I will brief down below

Einstein realized the wave-particle duality in 1909 and realized mutual dependence of systems obeying bosonic statistics in 1924 (he in effect was describing entanglement but he did not formalize it). Bohr's via his Bohr model included the feature in his 1927 interpretation. Finally in 1935 Erwin Schrödinger showed the mathematics behind the predicted behavior and coined the term entanglement in his paper "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik".

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued against the Schrödinger paper describing the EPR paradox in 1935 because they could not fault the mathematics and argument of Schrödinger.

Max Born, Enrico Fermi, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Robert Oppenheimer all join the argument which at this point is largely about atomic structure but how entanglement fits into that structure.

At this point entangelement was still a theoretical argument between the top phsyicists of the day.

It's not until Bell in 1964 that we actually get a true experiment showing entanglement to be real and measurable.

That's why you comment above is ridiculous at a science level we know why entanglement occurs and why. The reality is we know more about the how and why of entanglement than we do about chemical reactions or almost any other part of science.

The mathematics and theory is so exact we can push the boundaries of the universe and break almost every classic law there is because of the reverse of what you claim ... we understand the mathematics and physics of what is happening EXPLICITLY.

What the universe is made of is an entirely different problem to entanglement you don't worry about what the universe is made of to understand a chemical reaction or scientifically study it or any other area of science.


Originally Posted By: Bill

What you seem to be saying is that there is some kind of connection outside of space-time that makes entanglement work, but you aren't, in my opinion, showing just what that connection is.


Incorrect entanglement does not need an outside of the universe to work that's an entirely different problem with time, particles, gravity and all the stuff that makes up the standard model. You won't find much if any discussion on entanglement within the standard model.

What I am saying to you is if there is a hidden part of the universe and it appears there is for other reasons and sort of confirmed with the Higgs that hidden section also must by what we can experiment so far be compatible with entanglement.

Originally Posted By: Bill

Is it string theory, m-theory, some other theory that requires extra dimensions? Is there a consensus on the most probable WAY it works?


That's all a totally different problem when trying to create a theory of everything.

Entanglement was realized as having to exist because otherwise your atomic structure doesn't work. Go back and read the history of the science of trying to understand atomic structure if you are trying to understand entanglement and why it is necessary to exist.


Originally Posted By: Bill

My opinion is that this is still an open subject, because nobody has come up with an experimentally testable theory on the way it works.


Holy molly you want a more precise testing and theory than what we have ... the theory we have is about the most proven thing in science are you really talking about entanglement?????

I really think you are getting the structure of the universe confused with the entanglement and they are very different arguments.


Originally Posted By: Bill

So far I am happy just to have realized at last that there is a relatively simple explanation of why it works,


If it didn't work your atomic structure would fail and you would have no science at all.


Originally Posted By: Bill

which as I have been saying, is that the universe enforces its rules about what states are permitted and what states are not permitted. I'm still waiting for a fully realized explanation for how the universe enforces those rules.


That's a theory of everything you are waiting for has absolutely nothing to do with entanglement.

Remember at it's core QM started life about the very small like atomic structure it is only lately we realize that actually QM has also a lot to say about the macro structure of the universe but that is all expanded out from the implications of atomic structure.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
today I finished build new tool for physics
Luminosity and velocity Vo and difraction smile

I already solved Fermat's Last theorem

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ck5EQue4R1M/Ubv7d_ruiPI/AAAAAAAAA-Y/1-IR_vRX5T0/s1600/CIMG2344.JPG

we are very close to build one good equation for all in physics

more details
http://maroszmaciej.blogspot.com/

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
The simplest explanation for entanglement is that every thing that is manifested has got infinite dimensions therefore nothing is isolated. The universe or universes behave as one unit.It can be proved that the electron is spread out through out the universe though the relation that governs the mass is such that practically the whole mass is confined to very very little volume and the mass density falls very rapidly with increase in distance from center of electron.The relation governing the mass is very simple and is related to the internal structure of electron or photon which are not like hard balls nor are dimensionless points.The ignorance about internal structures makes it difficult to understand the simplest laws of nature and abstract mathematics used leads to weird explanations. How can you reach a destination if road map is not known? The theoretical physicists are like blind persons trying to study the form of elephant the result will not be holistic because no one can see the elephant form as a whole.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
That is neither simple or actually correct and you like Bill are getting things confused.

Read carefully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Quote:

There is much confusion about the meaning of entanglement, non-locality and hidden variables and how they relate to each other. As described above, entanglement is an experimentally verified and accepted property of nature, which has critical implications for the interpretations of quantum mechanics.


You are confusing non-locality into entanglement.

Entanglement at it's core has to do with light (wave particle duality) and atomic structure and the initial arguments go back to arguments about atomic spin,charge and structure it was realized it would have profound implications but that is an extension of entanglement not part of why it exists.

If you want a world without quantum mechanics then you need to work out how to explain light wave/particle duality and how to allow partial spins and charges within the atom.

The only way we have to do this at the moment is Quantum superposition ... read the formal interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition)

Hence the best and most consistent explaination of the universe in QM simply says

Applying the superposition principle to a quantum mechanical particle, the configurations of the particle are all positions, so the superpositions make a complex wave in space. The coefficients of the linear superposition are a wave which describes the particle as best as is possible, and whose amplitude interferes according to the Huygens principle.

That's all QM says and its a pretty clear and concise statement.

Entanglement can occur because of the superposition and note at this point we haven't dealt with non-locality at all. We have simply said that particles are complex waves in space.


The argument then widened out because it those top scientists above realized atoms are built out of these particles so that allowed them to have partial charges and spins etc.

The problem was that there is no good reason why it should stop at the atom and now you start to get real spatial non-locality issue.

We somewhat harshly judge Einstein as being anti-QM and anti-entanglement but that is harsh because entanglement was not actually experimentally proven in his time it was largely a theoretical argument then.


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:
It's not until Bell in 1964 that we actually get a true experiment showing entanglement to be real and measurable.




in 1964 !!!! we had the ability to precisely monitor the properties of photons !!! what a load of crap...

heres something else we had in 1964.



LOL , I seriously doubt that anything except the experimenter
and the sheer size of the equipment and its detection capabilities controlled the results of the experiment.


Quote:
The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics.


yes , they had already strongly suspected that QM would fail
if ever observed and this observation showed QM that if it
was to survive in a world of realist then
QM must change the realist into fantasist.

this must be where QM first knew it was crap
and knew that it must travel down an imaginary
path to even more and more crap as it traveled
down into the pile of crap it was materializing
on its way to destruction.

QM said , hmmmm we have nothing , we must invent ways
around our nothing so that we can become important in
the minds of the feeble minded.



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
Originally Posted By: Orac
What I am saying to you is if there is a hidden part of the universe and it appears there is for other reasons and sort of confirmed with the Higgs that hidden section also must by what we can experiment so far be compatible with entanglement.


Ok, then what is the current theory of what the hidden part of the universe is?

For purposes of this question I am not interested in whether entanglement exists, or how it works, or any of the other things you keep bringing up. I just want to know what the hidden part of the universe is.

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
Bill

I hope you dont mind if I try this one !

I'll have a look at the places that modern scientist spend
so much of their time and see what I can find , perhaps they
are hiding the hidden in these places that we never have thought about looking in...

on second thought , I dont really think I would be capable
of seeing anything in those places so I will just ask some
of the brilliant students of fantasy science who are currently attending college learning the one
skill they will need mostly during their career.



you might wonder how the students could learn in there but remember these students are special with special abilities
they dont need an instructor or to be able to see anything real.
they dont really have to study in the sense that normal people
would , they just open their minds to it , and it flows in from
all parts of the universe replacing logical thoughts that they once experienced earlier in their lives.



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
The standard model creates that universe and the first particle off the reservation is the Higgs.

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

Quote:

Nevertheless, the Standard Model is important to theoretical and experimental particle physicists alike. For theorists, the Standard Model is a paradigm of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, etc. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models that incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimensions, and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at variance with the Standard Model, such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations. In turn, experimenters have incorporated the Standard Model into simulators to help search for new physics beyond the Standard Model.


So the importance of the Higgs to the standard model is given right there and after it comes all your string theories etc.

See nothing about entanglement in any of that stuff the standard model describes the first off solid world model and provides the kick off for more of it.

As I said if you go back to the original arguments about entanglement all this extra dimensions and string theory etc didn't even exist at science so it has no relevance to the discussion.

You are getting all that stuff confused with entanglement which is a more basic property of the universe because of it's QM nature.

The problem with QM which I have said many times but it is worth repeating is that it is a description of the universe not an explaination of it

The simple statement QM makes is this

Applying the superposition principle to a quantum mechanical particle, the configurations of the particle are all positions, so the superpositions make a complex wave in space. The coefficients of the linear superposition are a wave which describes the particle as best as is possible, and whose amplitude interferes according to the Huygens principle.

Most of that is easily understandable by a scientist except one thing => "complex wave in space"

Complex wave in space requires interpretation because complex waves by definition are a mathematical concept and space we assume means the solid construct around us.

That's the point QM gets hard because it's not exactly clear if QM is saying the universe is a mathematical construct, the universe isn't real or someone is manipulating a solid world model using mathematics or thousands of other possibilities.


I certainly have no idea or preference for what QM is implying what it is doing extremely accurately is describing the universe.

I would throw in that you accept gravity and its laws as a description in science and likewise for it you have absolutely no idea of why it comes about or what process it describes but you don't seem to struggle accepting gravity yet you struggle with QM?


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:
I would throw in that you accept gravity and its laws as a description in science and likewise for it you have absolutely no idea of why it comes about or what process it describes but you don't seem to struggle accepting gravity yet you struggle with QM?


I cant talk for anyone except myself.

I used to agree with what science said about gravity , Im not
sure if I still agree with what science is saying about gravity , these days its probably something to do with QM of course.

I accept gravity , yes , because its real.
gravity is a property of all mass / matter , when mass / matter is combined with / in the vicinity of other mass / matter gravity increases proportionately.

its really pretty simple.

and gravity does not describe a process !!

newton does not describe a process!
foot pound does not describe a process!

newton is (a force and a distance and a time). 1kg m/sec^2
foot pound is (a force and a distance and a time). lb ft/sec ^2

its a shame that science does not consider gravity as being a force but because the magnitude of gravity changes with distance between two objects I suppose that its easier that way
to teach the correctness of everything.

we only use the acceleration due gravity 9.8 m/sec^2
we overlook the force that causes that acceleration. 9.8 N/kg which is the force that we use only on earth !!!

but thats all we really need anyway , right?



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
Orac, I'm not sure what the Higgs has to do with the subject of the original post. That post was about what drove the "spooky action at a distance" of entanglement. I had just realized that it was "explained" by the fact that conservation laws, or parities if that is you preference, require any separated portions of an entangled system to act in unison when one of them is measured. For the balance required by the conservation laws to be maintained there can be no time between the instant one is measured and the instant that the other assumes the complementary state. I still don't know how the second part of the system "knows" when it is time to act. I think that that part of the question is still open.

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
I had just realized that it was "explained" by the fact that conservation laws, or parities if that is you preference, require any separated portions of an entangled system to act in unison when one of them is measured.


And as I explained that it totally incorrect conservation laws are not involved at this level it is the laws of the complex waveforms at play. At a deeper level maybe what is controlling the waveform laws is conservation but we have no way of knowing that at this point in time.

Again and repeating QM theory gives the answer which you want to ignore and say the question is open. Fifteen or twenty years ago the statement was probably semi ok but it isn't okay today because science has closed down all the wiggle room.

As a person who accepts science and I know you do you are left with two options now invalidate QM or accept the result your argument above is pseudoscience junk. You wont address the central issue that QM predicted entanglement 50 years before it was experimentally verified yet you say we don't know why it occurs ... how exactly does one predict something one doesn't understand?

Originally Posted By: Bill

I still don't know how the second part of the system "knows" when it is time to act. I think that that part of the question is still open.



QM predicted they would change instantly and it predicted entanglement and QM explicitly says the system doesn't know anything nor does it need to.

Essentially you are trying to invalidate QM with an EPR argument without calling it what it is and EPR argument.

On the science front we have falsified EPR completely there are no loopholes left the nails have been firmly driven in that coffin.

I actually would have said EPR was beyond dead with the amazing realization of "weak measurement" and being able to see the same photon in both slits of a double split experiment at the same moment. EPR says there is only one photon because it wants a nice neat solid world so the result is very hard for EPR to explain.

So as scientists we are back to trying to understand what a "complex wave in space" actually means at a physical level.

There is some testing that can be done on that front because QM predicts the change between the particle should be instant as in planck unit of time instant it predicts instant as in 0 seconds because we do understand how it works.

If you go back to the current longest distance test on 144km you have 0.8 nanosecond accuracy on a 487 microsecond flight time so we can set a lower limit of around 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. What we should be able to do by increasing the length and timing accuracy is push that number up and up towards infinity.

On other fronts the question becomes is the "complex wave in space" actually real or is it a mathematical description of a process there is definitely conjecture in this area and I have no issue the jury is most certainly out.

Last edited by Orac; 06/17/13 02:51 AM.

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: paul


and gravity does not describe a process !!




So gravity isn't a process then there must be a bloody big elastic band holding the earth in orbit around the sun or you have a very different description of process than science because the process of how gravity varies with distance to lock the earth to the sun is not a process apparently.

That Paul is why we ignore you ... because your next tactic will be no doubt you will try and turn this into a word game about the word process .. see I can predict and deduce how you react :-)

A 10 year old can understand the problem with your explaination and why perhaps you religious nutters need to brainwash your followers and children.

Last edited by Orac; 06/17/13 07:28 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
gravity does not change therefore there is no process that could
be considered along the context that you are attempting to amuse us with.

its magnitude changes with distance , but changing the strength or magnitude of the gravitational field of a object or combination of objects requires addition or subtraction of mass / matter.

you cannot extract gravity from an object.
you cannot destroy gravity.

gravity is the most stable property of the universe.

it does not alter itself and cannot be altered.


even the followers of general relativity know that gravity is a property.

not that I pay any attention to the einstonedians theories , certainly not the creative math they use.

Quote:
General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.


BTW , gravity does not radiate away from an object like science
seems to imagine as I have read.

ie...

Quote:
Because neutron stars are very compact, significant amounts of energy are emitted in the form of gravitational radiation.


hogwash !

Quote:
why perhaps you religious nutters need to brainwash your followers and children.



if there is any significant brainwashing taking place
on the earth it is what science teaches its followers
and the children who are its science students.




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 Orac, If my simplification is wrong, then I need a new one that is right. Please provide one.

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
Hmm okay so lets see if I can take this to a real layman level.

Most people will have seen or used bank or work security electronic tokens.

On that electronic token the number on displays rolls usually every 30 or 60 seconds to a new somewhat random number. You type in that number and the online system or door or appliance will let you in. There is no communication between the bank or security token other than the number you type in.

In QM terms the bank or security token and the system being accessed are entangled. To do this both systems must contain some means of keeping track of time and are running some sort prepared pseudo random number generator.

The EPR argument people would argue that the bank or security token must be communicating with the system trying to be accessed system or device.

This is a very normal type of security technology most people will have encountered so how would you determine which method is being used if you were given a random security token?

QM via entanglement faces exactly that problem in that we can see two particles changing states instantaneously in relationship to each other.

So the bank security token example is an exact match to our problem and so your challenge is to come up with another way of getting the security token system to work beyond the two ways given.

QM already has the time and pseudorandom code method covered and we can seperate the security token and the access system so far apart that the transmission time at the speed of light s to long for the communication method to work.

So you insist the jury is out find another way to make the bank security token system work that does not use either of those two methods.

This test first establishes that things are entangled the why becomes easier to understand when you realise how few options there are for the universe to synchronize.

Last edited by Orac; 06/18/13 06:53 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
Orac , I know that you asked bill the question and I know
that Bill can come up with something better than the below
but I thought that I would try it myself.

I thought this up while I was reading your post and having a
fresh cup of coffee.

couldnt your token / bank security system be replaced by

2 pieces of paper and a pencil?

every 30/60 seconds you are handed a new piece of paper
that has a random number on it.

you then write the number on the other piece of paper , and
if you write a correct number then the security system lets
you in.

anyway , sure there is a way to communicate at those distances
using classical real things.

a inelastic string for instance.

30 seconds x 186,000 miles = 5.580 million miles away.

if I stretch a inelastic string from the token to the bank
I can tug on the string at the token / RGN paper end and send signals to the bank.

the paper is not communicating with the bank , the paper is
only communicating with the person.
the person is then communicating with the string.
the string is then communicating with the bank.

and the communication is faster than light.

way faster than QM has claimed to have accomplished at 11,000 times c.

communication would be instant , faster than anything that QM could hope to achieve.

so classical has used reality once again to outdo the fantasy of QM's achievements.

Quote:
So you insist the jury is out find another way to make the bank security token system work that does not use either of those two methods.



Done!









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
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.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
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


it will never become zero , you should know that.

and what has tiny got to do with it anyway.

how tiny do you think M1 and M2 are ???????

you could easily look at our solar system as being an atom
and we can calculate gravity in our solar system , so what
has size got to do with calculating gravity?

tell me , I'm beginning to think that you are faking things.

if size is such a importance in QM then why do they use
standard equations?

but really orac , you should know that you can never divide
anything and get zero.


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
The denominator goes towards zero Paul .. denominator means the bottom number of the division FYI ... go look again.

If the denominator goes towards zero the overall result goes towards infinity.

Whether you actually reach zero is not important, although you already did the divid by zero stupidity argument once before are you going to try and recycle stupid ideas again?

The key thing is when does gravity start getting very large like heading towards notional infinity or some very very big number because bad things are going to happen at that point like it is going to start swallowing everything and anything around it.

In the proper science version gravity is from the centre of mass so you need a lot of mass in pinpoint to tend towards infinity and we define a black hole as that ... that is ... a lot of mass in a small point like area = a lot of gravity

In the stupidity that you like you can get gravity tending towards infinity by simply moving very close to a neutron surface ... I think that defines science stupidity don't you as every neutron thus becomes a black hole.

So you now have neutrons in the nucleus each with there own gravity which actually gets stronger and stronger tending towards infinity the closer they get together ..... so how do you propose you are going to hold them apart ... anti infinity GOD force mark II perhaps?

The whole world would collapse in on itself at any and every nucleus of every atom.

Sort of get how stupid the whole equation is ????


So next time when you look at alternative suggestions especially mathematics for how gravity works here is the first set of anti-nutcase and whackjob tests to run

1.) Look how you take the proposal towards infinity because that should define a black hole.

2.) Look how you take the proposal towards zero because that should define open space

3.) What forces does the proposal create to oppose gravity to stop the whole universe simply collapsing in on itself.


If you can't pass those first 3 tests then the idea is blatantly stupid and you are dealing with a nutcase.

THE IDEA IN THE EQUATION FAILS NOT ONE BUT ALL THREE TESTS.

That's how I knew the author of that equation was going to be some pseudoscience whackjob with absolutely no clue.

Last edited by Orac; 06/26/13 02:41 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:
The key thing is when does gravity start getting very large like heading towards notional infinity or some very very big number because bad things are going to happen at that point like it is going to start swallowing everything and anything around it.


Im going to say never , because in order for gravity to increase
using the equation , at least 1 of the 2 masses must increase.

your grabbing at straws again orac , your lack of understanding
of basic physics is leaking out into the universe.

why you would think that gravity would increase as it becomes
less and less is beyond logic.

ahem...

Quote:
1.) Look how you take the proposal towards infinity because that should define a black hole.

2.) Look how you take the proposal towards zero because that should define open space

3.) What forces does the proposal create to oppose gravity to stop the whole universe simply collapsing in on itself.


If you can't pass those first 3 tests then the idea is blatantly stupid and you are dealing with a nutcase.


I suppose you made that garbage up yourself , because I
cant see why the three above would not also apply to newtons original equation.

and perhaps a nutcase is who I am dealing with as we continue this discussion.




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
Originally Posted By: Orac
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.

If entanglement has nothing to do with conserved states then will you please explain what it does have to do with. You keep saying the same things over and over, but none of them seem to tell me what it is that causes entanglement. As far as I can see you just keep saying that entanglement just is, don't ask how it works. I want to have a relatively simple explanation of how it works. An analogy is just fine.

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

If entanglement has nothing to do with conserved states then will you please explain what it does have to do with. You keep saying the same things over and over, but none of them seem to tell me what it is that causes entanglement. As far as I can see you just keep saying that entanglement just is, don't ask how it works. I want to have a relatively simple explanation of how it works. An analogy is just fine.


It doesn't require an analogy it's not that hard to understand just follow the actual science

Go back to 2008 and the then cutting edge of science made an astounding prediction which is almost as astounding as the higgs


It's a fairly simple premise

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453022a.html

Quote:

Now, however, there are strong signs that the transition can be understood as something that emerges quite naturally and inevitably from quantum theory. If that's so, it implies that 'classicality' is at root simply another quantum phenomenon. "There's good reason to believe that we are just as much part of the quantum world as are the tiny atoms and electrons that sparked quantum theory in the first place,"


what you are trying to understand is this part

Quote:

Thus, one of the key questions in understanding the quantum–classical transition is what happens to the superpositions as you go up that atoms-to-apples scale? Exactly when and how does 'both/and' become 'either/or'?


The answer proposed tested and verified is this one

Quote:

Decoherence also predicts that the quantum–classical transition isn't really a matter of size, but of time. The stronger a quantum object's interactions are with its surroundings, the faster decoherence kicks in. So larger objects, which generally have more ways of interacting, decohere almost instantaneously, transforming their quantum character into classical behaviour just as quickly. For example, if a large molecule could be prepared in a superposition of two positions just 10 ångstroms apart, it would decohere because of collisions with the surrounding air molecules in about 10&#8722;17 seconds. Decoherence is unavoidable to some degree. Even in a perfect vacuum, particles will decohere through interactions with photons in the omnipresent cosmic microwave background.



The last sentence of that is important because it also kills some old arguments so I will separate it and explain.

Quote:

Even in a perfect vacuum, particles will decohere through interactions with photons in the omnipresent cosmic microwave background.


It means the universe itself is an observer and thus it always has a solid and coherent ground state even without the presence of an actual observer.

Therefore questions like what Einstein asked

"Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it"

The answer is definitive ... yes the universe is an observer referenced from the CMBR.


And of that leads directly to the current QM position

Quote:

Indeed, this picture means that the classical world no longer sits in opposition to quantum mechanics, but is demanded by it.



So at this point the article then goes off into some basic testing that was done showing that testing on large molecules behaved exactly as predicted.

That is the process by which QM scientists predicted and created the experiments now of which hundreds exist to show you can entangle macroscopic objects.


The last six years has been spent showing repeatedly over and over again that the universe is quantum in it's nature and classical behavior is a natural phenomena evolving out of quantum behavior.

As sort of a cream on top proof of that was the discovery of the Higgs which is demanded by QM.


So as I have explained science says the following explicitly:

1.) Via Noether's theorem QM satisfies all conservation laws specifically against your argument it does not require entanglement to do that.

2.) The universe is built on top of QM behavior and classicality is a natural evolution out of quantum mechanics if things have superposition states.


So entanglement is an inevitable consequence of the 2 facts above you have superposition states in a quantum universe and that is all entanglement is nothing more nothing less.


QM scientists have spent the last six years systematically testing and taking on almost every area of science it is why I switched fields to it.

Just this week came the realization that there are some small problems with the laws of thermodynamics because of the implication that the universe structure is QM in nature. It's nothing exciting at large scales where all the current laws will hold but at very small scales things are going to break down

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-quantum.html

The bottom line here is we may actually finally have an understanding of why you can't have a perpetual motion machine and there are losses in all systems because QM seems to make that inevitable.


So there you have it QM is not so weird after all and you classical world would rise naturally from it.

Last edited by Orac; 06/27/13 01:49 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:
this picture means that the classical world no longer sits in opposition to quantum mechanics, but is demanded by it.


what a load of C R A P

Qm is pseudo-science , it never has proven its value
it never has had any value , it certainly could not
be real-science.

Quote:
The bottom line here is we may actually finally have an understanding of why you can't have a perpetual motion machine and there are losses in all systems because QM seems to make that inevitable.


QM does not make anything , anything.

it cant , its nothing.

the real problem with your claim is that we can have a
perpetual motion machine , which tosses QM in the toilet where it belongs.

what amazes me is that you would claim that anything is
not possible.

according to what you have rendered about QM , anything can
happen in QM , you just need someone to write it down
so that the QMers can read and understand it.

thats all QM is , its a load of ill configured thought processes announcing to the world that it has value and
that their value exceeds all other values , like a bloated
tick pumping itself up with the blood of others.

QM is now become junk science





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]

thats all QM is , its a load of ill configured thought processes announcing to the world that it has value and
that their value exceeds all other values , like a bloated
tick pumping itself up with the blood of others.

QM is now become junk science





http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curios...m-mechanics.htm


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Poor Paul your whole stupidity you believe blows up in your face sort of like your religion did.. have your religious mob found their book given to them by GOD yet or is it still lost and are they are still trying to steal the jewish one to cover it up smile

As neohippy and all the people with a brain realize QM has a lot of more use than a religion which lost it's word from it's GOD anyhow laugh

Now I am happy to stay and take the proverbial out of your goat effigy and trade insults with no scientific value if you like.

Last edited by Orac; 06/27/13 03:08 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

So I checked out your link. It is interesting, but I don't see that it makes any statement about how the entanglement works. Basically it just discusses how the transition from quantum to classical effects occurs.
Originally Posted By: Science Daily:Matter-Matter Entanglement at a Distance

In the quantum mechanical phenomenon of "entanglement" two quantum systems are coupled in such a way that their properties become strictly correlated

So in entanglement "properties become strictly correlated". That sounds to me as if the 2 systems are sharing states. When one of the systems decoheres it assumes a particular state, and leaves the other system to assume the complementary state, in accordance with any applicable conservation laws, and in accordance with Noether's theorem.

Originally Posted By: Orac

It means the universe itself is an observer and thus it always has a solid and coherent ground state even without the presence of an actual observer.

As I said, the universe is the one that keeps track of things.
Originally Posted By: Orac

That is the process by which QM scientists predicted and created the experiments now of which hundreds exist to show you can entangle macroscopic objects.

No argument there. It is just an extension of basic entanglement.

Originally Posted By: Orac


1.) Via Noether's theorem QM satisfies all conservation laws specifically against your argument it does not require entanglement to do that.

Specifically the informal statement of Noether's theorem is: "If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

So conservation laws are a part QM. Therefore entangled systems have to follow conservation laws. If one part of an entangled system decoheres into a given state, then the rest of the system has to decohere into a complementary state that does not conflict with the state of the first part.

So I don't see why you keep saying that I am wrong. And I don't see why you keep having links that show that entanglement works. I know it works and it is being experimentally extended to more things all the time.

In order for you to convince me that I am wrong you need to provide some information that shows that entanglement doesn't involve some kind of conservation law.

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

In order for you to convince me that I am wrong you need to provide some information that shows that entanglement doesn't involve some kind of conservation law.


The fact you can use entanglement to teleport energy sows you are wrong entanglement itself doesn't demand conservation however to do the teleport we have to ensure the whole system itself correctly meets conservation.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417362/physicist-discovers-how-to-teleport-energy/

Ok lets look at a much more mundane example which arises in a similar way which is a rainbow.

A rainbow sometimes can be seen when it is raining ... does that mean that a rainbow is always part of rain?

You know the answer no its an effect that's caused by the underlying physics of light and diffraction in a media the rain merely creates a suitable media.

Entanglement is no different its simple a side effect of superposition states the total of the superposition states must be conserved not the entanglement.

We probably also need to explain to you that entanglement is not a black and white thing it can be partial which involves mixed states which makes a conservation background even harder.

As sort of a basic background start here

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_discord

EDIT:
Actually thought of a much clearer almost exact simple example.

Does a piece of copper wire always obey the laws of conservation?

The answer is no .. if I pass an electric current into the wire it is creating energy this is the identical situation to entanglement.

Its only when you pull back and include the source of energy that is creating the electric current that you have conservation.

That is why the 2nd law language is framed with some important words that involved an "isolated system" or a "complete system".


I have no doubt that the full system involving the entanglement does conserve energy but entanglement itself does not enforce that conservation any more than a piece of copper wire does and hence both can transmit energy.

Last edited by Orac; 06/28/13 01:53 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
Entanglement is no different its simple a side effect of superposition states the total of the superposition states must be conserved not the entanglement.

Orac, That's what I have been saying. When one part of an entangled system decoheres into a given state then the rest of the system has to decohere into a complementary state so that the whole system meets all applicable conservation laws.

For this discussion I have been ignoring the problems with locality. We know from theory and experiment that locality doesn't apply to entangled systems. How that is handled by the universe is still a question, which I will leave for future enlightenment.

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
If you are calling entanglement meaning the entire system controlling the entanglement I have no issue but just the entangled particles themselves no I disagree.

To show you what I am worried you were implying lets go back to our copper wire and do a thought experiment.

Lets assume you have a physics idea that conservation of energy is somehow part of matter itself this is sort of what I feared you were doing with entanglement.

You can break the argument apart by a simple thought example.

I can keep dividing the copper wire down and down and it must keep conservation law and I can do that until I have one copper atom.

So now my conservation law must be in my copper atom. There is a problem conservation is guaranteed on all atoms so I can keep throwing off 1 electron and 1 proton pair until I get to the element with 1 proton and 1 electron being hydrogen.

So we are all happy conservation is somehow stored in our simplest atom except Einstein realized the problem the energy bound into hydrogen is exact and a constant quanta and he could even calculate that energy E = MC2.

C is a constant so your conservation is now being held to where ????????? => something that is defined as the vacuum of space.


If you do the same thought experiment on an entangled particles you end up at the same place the conservation is at a deeper level than the entangled particles themselves it is to the vacuum of space.


What I am making sure is clear is that entanglement is nothing special in terms of physics people seek to mystify it and misrepresent it ... matter has properties like magnetism, conduction, hardness etc ... entanglement is just another property because of the quantum nature of the universe. All of those other properties have nothing to do with conservation either but in a system they will comply to it.


I guess what I am making sure is understood that the semi-recent view (like pre 2008) that we could have a classical world and somehow tack QM in is dead and buried and we have a QM world with classicality emerging from it.

Many of the string theories with holographic worlds etc are also dead and buried and some like many worlds interpretations are in trouble. You could never kill all string theories because of its range but many have been given there last rights. BTW I liked string theory if you remember because it is nice and logical but I am a scientist foremost and I have to accept the data and I was wrong.

There are a few still sticking to their guns on string theory but I loved "Not Even Wrongs" discussion on the upcoming conference "strings 2013" (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/)

Originally Posted By: Peter Woit

Perhaps these yearly conferences should be renamed something like “Conference on the latest topics popular among people who used to do string theory”. No sign at all of the landscape or string theory unification.


I did laugh at that

I should also say that with strings being taken out of the equation it has opened up much more thought about how we could have dark matter without a string landscape.

I am still making my way through readings and background on this idea for example

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-simple-theory-dark.html

Anyhow will leave it at that getting way off topic to what we were talking about.

Last edited by Orac; 06/28/13 03:53 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
hmmm ... lets have a look.

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics?

10) The Transistor

nothing to do with QM , sorry.
the people at bell labs who built the transistor did not
use QM at all.


9 ) Energy Harvesters

Quote:
Researchers at the University of Arizona hope to change that. Using a principle of quantum mechanics called quantum interference, they have simulated a working molecular thermoelectric material capable of turning heat into electricity.


I might add that simulation is not a part of real world!

8 ) Ultraprecise Clocks

Quote:
Researchers at two German universities have developed a way to suppress the noise levels by manipulating the energy states of the cesium atoms in atomic clocks.


developed a way?
is that like simulation or have they actually improved on
atomic clocks , either way QM is not responcible for atomic clocks.

a way is not a real world application!

7 ) Quantum Cryptography

Quote:
Today, quantum cryptography promises to be unbreakable (in theory, at least).


theory , does that mean that its a theory and not a real world application?

BTW , a theory is not a real world application.

6 ) Randomness Generator

Quote:
The quantum world, on the other hand, is completely unpredictable,


I agree , and thus serves no purpose for predictions.

5 ) Lasers

Quote:
In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation)


theory is not a real world application.

Quote:
in 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and effected the first demonstration of stimulated emission


he found stimulated emission.
Lamb was 33 yrs old then

just a few years out of school then and at the beginning of his career.

Quote:
Lamb is remembered as a "gifted experimentalist, and theoretician, in the best Newtonian tradition"[4] and referred to as a "rare theorist turned experimentalist."[5] In the latter part of his career he paid increasing attention to the field of quantum measurements.



Lamb FOUND the foundation of lasers , the rest of the story
is just a heap of thieves and lawsuits.

but Lamb was not a QMer when he found it.

4 ) Ultraprecise Thermometers

an actual real world application.

made only possible by QM noise.

but is QM noise truly QM?

3 ) Quantum Computers

Quote:
Before quantum computing becomes a reality, scientists will have to tackle some big challenges


not a real world application.

2 ) Instantaneous Communication

Quote:
The key to making instantaneous communication a reality may lie in something


not a real world application.

1 ) Teleportation

Quote:
Previously, a team of six engineers working at IBM proved that, at least in theory, teleportation of whole objects is possible.


not a real world application.


1 out of 10 , and the 1 is uncertain.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417362/physicist-discovers-how-to-teleport-energy/

Quote:
Measuring the state of the first ion injects energy into the system in the form of a phonon, a quantum of oscillation. Hotta says that performing the right kind of measurement on the last ion extracts this energy. Since this can be done at the speed of light (in principle), the phonon doesn’t travel across the intermediate ions so there is no heating of these ions. The energy has been transmitted without traveling across the intervening space. That’s teleportation.


First , I couldnt believe that MIT has its name on that
page , but its about a japanese scientist so that calmed me down.

if you believe that a measurement can inject energy
into a ion then....
let me ask you orac , which type of energy do you
fantasize that the measurement injected into the ion?

my reasoning on this is that in order to teleport energy you
must first have energy to teleport.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
hmmm ... lets have a look.




Have a look at this one too. Some repeats, but I find your explanations quite entertaining.

http://cosmomed.hubpages.com/hub/Applications-of-quantum-mechanics-in-real-world


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Neo, don't forget that QM also explains why the universe hasn't gone up in one flash of Ultraviolet light. The first use of QM was by Max Plank. He derived the idea when he was trying to explain why classical physics didn't agree with observation when looking at something that was being heated. Classical theory when applied to a heated body led to the idea that all the energy that went in would immediately be released at extremely high (ultraviolet) frequencies. So the universe couldn't exist. Plank made the unique suggestion that if you assumed that light came in small lumps (quanta) you would be able to match observations to theory. He didn't like it. He considered it to be a mathematical fiction that made theory work, but was not the real world.

Of course then Einstein took his idea and applied it to the photoelectric effect and it explained the observations there too. In fact that was what Einstein got his Nobel for.

So another use of QM is to keep the world from going up in a flash.

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
Anything to do with light you need QM

Anything to do with the properties of matter, conduction, hardness, structure, entanglement, organization and why it doesn't collapse on itself under gravity you need QM.

The Higgs discovery requires QM

What QM doesn't cover is conservation laws which it seems to have to obey from something deeper.

So QM can explain many things but it also indicates there is something deeper and this puts it alongside gravity in that regard.

Last edited by Orac; 06/29/13 12:54 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
neohippy's link was supposed to list

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics

Quote:
So another use of QM is to keep the world from going up in a flash.


that wouldnt really be a use of QM now would it.

whatever keeps the world from going up in a flash must have
been here before QM.

but to say that QM can claim a list of theoretical applications
as being real world applications is very misleading.

would I be correct if I claimed that classical physics brought about the first use of tools by humans?

well I guess I would these day's.

CLICK HERE --> light comes in small lumps <--CLICK HERE

nothing there , but I had to check.
now that I've checked ,for some reason I wonder if it really
is there and the reason I didnt find it was because someone
had checked / measured it earlier.

light comes to us in the form of particles that travel in
different wave lengths / patterns.


Quote:
He considered it to be a mathematical fiction that made theory work, but was not the real world.




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
I think that is the most science correct post you have written and that alone and us liking it will make you unhappy laugh

You are correct QM is a description of the universe at it's heart is mathematics and it is brutally accurate and gives no idea why the universe works like that.

Gravity and it's laws similarly give a brutally accurate mathematics which predicts perfectly with results and there is no indication why the laws of gravity work either.

Perhaps your GOD created those laws and hence you trying to lie and deceive about those laws would therefore be a direct insult to your GOD ... something you may ponder before you meet your maker and he judges you ... the thought of you being sentenced to hell for what you thought was helping your god's cause is quite amusing to me smile

All we can say as scientists having now got all the mathematics correct is trying to match and find a theory that fits both sets of mathematics and explains stuff we as yet don't understand. Unfortunately for you all your made up stupidity and lies never matches even the most basic mathematics of experiments ... and thus you do give us the greatest laughs.

There was a time I used to worry that students coming here may be misled by your ideas but I now realize your science is not good enough to cause anyone beyond 12 years old a problem and so I actually feel sorry for you.


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:
light comes to us in the form of particles that travel in
different wave lengths / patterns


I have found 2 very descriptive images made by newton of sagg.

hopefully newton will not mind that I use his images this way.

I have applied these two images to a light particle.
these two images provide a very good description of light travel.

the first describes/defines a light particle's motion as it travels around a gravity source.



the second describes/defines the ever increasing
wave pattern/length of a light particle as it travels in
a straight line outward from its source.





the first describes how we will find many more smaller parts
as we perform research into the unknown.

as our solar system has many more parts to it other than
its sun.

the second shows that space is not expanding the way common
laymen scientist want us to believe , and it describes how space appears to be expanding because of the distance increase as the light gets further away from its source.

also , I did not get mad at you for agreeing with me , I actually got scared that you did , it was frightening to think
that you could be developing some type of logic within your illogical world and that could be dangerous.

the fact still remains that QM has served no real purpose
and has generated no real worth and as we delve deeper and deeper into the unknown we will see that QM was merely a method of temporarily visualizing what might be possible in the unknown , like a roll of the dice or even better like winning the lottery by picking all of the numbers correctly.

pure chance!

as we go deeper we will gain knowledge of the attributes
of the elements we find in the unknown and will be capable of assigning properties to the many newly found elements.

these properties of the newly found elements will be constants that can be used in equations that are reality based.

and classical will be seen as the only true method of accurate prediction in that new world strictly because it uses constants
that do not vary.

c, c^2 , c^4 are not real constants.

because we know that the speed of light is not constant.

so any equation that uses c , c^2 , c^4 etc... is creative math and cannot be considered as being accurate.



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
Back on my hobby horse.

Originally Posted By: Paul
because we know that the speed of light is not constant.


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


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
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.

Last edited by Orac; 07/01/13 02:10 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:
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
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.


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.

Quote:
Nothing is allowed to go faster than C under any conditions.


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.





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

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


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.



Originally Posted By: paul

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


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



Originally Posted By: paul

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.


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.


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
Ahem...

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
so it has exactly zero relevance to the universe


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

Quote:
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.


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.




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
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

Originally Posted By: paul

science cannot make a vacuum.


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


Originally Posted By: paul

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.


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.

Originally Posted By: paul

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


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?


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
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



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
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 laugh

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



I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
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.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
" 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.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
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.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: paul
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.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
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.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Actually I did type it , but I read it somewhere because someone
else had already typed it first.

of course.

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


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.











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
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


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
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.


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
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.

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


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
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

Quote:

Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observance of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble"


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 smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/04/13 02:34 AM.

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
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.

Last edited by Orac; 07/16/13 04:48 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
the wave form is 'observed' when it impinges on something that reacts to it.


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

Quote:
But there doesn't need to be any intelligence involved.


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


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

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


Beyond the David Bohm out there stuff the CMBR actually acts like a universe observer be it benign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

=> An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a single electron proved sufficient as an "observer" — there is no need for a conscious "observer".


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
I revived this thread because this paper release really belongs here rather than starting a new thread.

In the thread we discussed how we now understood quantum coherence and entanglement in a more fundamental ways. We discussed the mixing and sharing of entanglement between photons, atoms and solids.

One of the more interesting tests on the stability of quantum coherence with this cross mixing has recently reached the general media

The actual paper:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i3/e033601

Layman media release:
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-physicists-motion-minute.html
http://io9.com/scientists-freeze-light-for-an-entire-minute-912634479

The image that shows it up best to a layman with light being trapped:


It is interesting outside just quantum computing and a truly impressive piece of science.

There is an interesting extension that many fundamentalist scientists are urging be tested ... anyone want to hazard a guess what it is we would like to try?

Bonus question: Is the light really stopped in a true science sense and what is actually happening?

Last edited by Orac; 08/06/13 04:09 PM.

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
Physics has done a bit more technical write up but should be still layman understandable

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/80


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a single electron proved sufficient as an "observer" — there is no need for a conscious "observer".


Great discovery! Think what this might mean. According to the concepts of the “implicate order” the cosmos is infinite, and every part of the cosmos is the cosmos. Every part embodies all the properties of the cosmos. The cosmos possesses consciousness, therefore every part of the cosmos, right down to the smallest quantum particle, must possess consciousness. An electron is a conscious observer!

We cannot observe this directly because we are restricted to 3+1 dimensional perception, but QM provides a window to the infinite, through which we are just beginning to look.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Careful in extracting to far Bill S.

QM is simply a description of the behavior it does not imply any why or how.

One of the better possible why and how in my opinion and it is only an opinion was published recently

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-physicists-higgs-boson-portal-source.html

Last edited by Orac; 08/10/13 03:46 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Interesting link, Orac. I'll have to read it again to see where it fits into this discussion.

BTW, my favourite quote from Lawrence Krauss is: "By nothing, I do not mean nothing," It comes from the book I am reading at the moment: "A Universe from Nothing".


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Qrac
QM is simply a description of the behavior it does not imply any why or how.


A description of the behaviour of a person makes no direct statement about the reason for that behaviour, but it might suggest areas of that person’s history in which an explanation might be sought.

If QM describes a behaviour in nature that seems to link to some particular problem or concept, surely that link is worth investigating. Of course, it is important to avoid suggesting that this is what QM is actually saying; when the line of reasoning is simply an extrapolation.

If I look through the window into my garden (yard), the window tells me nothing about the garden, but without it I would not know that there were beautiful butterflies on my buddleia.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
QM as written in mathematics is a very ugly beast, I saw a great blog post on it

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/just-how-prettyugly-is-standard-model.html

Now that's a lot of very complicated mathematics which looks like nothing how we see the world.

Now we have place QM firmly in it's position in the universe as a fundamental property of the universe we have to deal with the measurement problem.

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Our initial attempts at the interpretation had invisible waveforms etc.

In the post 2008 era we now understand quantum decoherence is what the early interpretations tried to describe

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

Quote:

Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists — at least for all practical purposes[23] — beyond the realm of measurement.[24]


What all that is telling you is that the universe extends outside what we can see and touch ... above they call it ... beyond the realm of measurement.

The previous post article I linked brings in GRAVITY and unifies it with QM is this hidden realm in a scientific way.

What I am steering away from is "consciousness of an observer" arguments

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse#.22Consciousness_causes_collapse.22

I take an out on this mumbo jumbo as do most scientists

=>To many scientists the dualist interpretation fails a priori to compete with other interpretations of quantum mechanics because "consciousness causes collapse" relies upon a dualistic philosophy of mind (in particular, a radical interactionism), which is inconsistent with the materialist monism presupposed by many physicists.

I am a very very very materialist monism person smile

Last edited by Orac; 08/12/13 05:57 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
What I am steering away from is "consciousness of an observer" arguments

I fully agree with you there. It doesn't take consciousness to "observe" the collapse, or whatever you want to call it. It just takes something to be affected by it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 1 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 UsokÂþ»­¾W
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