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
0 registered (), 257 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by newton
Today at 01:25 AM
3mV VS 2mV ( final Experiment ) THX for Respect
by newton
10/16/17 06:41 AM
Instruction Manual How To brake SYMETRY !
by newton
10/13/17 01:04 PM
Eureca during fast motion mass M become longer!!!
by newton
10/04/17 03:03 PM
Short story about SYMETRY .
by newton
10/04/17 08:13 AM
P=MV neutralizer
by newton
10/02/17 09:53 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 31
Marchimedes 1
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#48635 - 05/05/13 01:57 AM At last an explanation of quantum entanglement
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
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.

Top
.
#48803 - 06/10/13 12:52 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.

Top
#48807 - 06/11/13 02:04 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
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.

Top
#48809 - 06/11/13 04:50 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.


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.

Top
#48811 - 06/11/13 10:36 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
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.

Top
#48813 - 06/12/13 03:08 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
pokey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/22/07
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.

Top
#48814 - 06/12/13 04:22 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: pokey]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.

Top
#48815 - 06/12/13 04:38 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.


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.

Top
#48816 - 06/12/13 02:51 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
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.

Top
#48817 - 06/12/13 04:32 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
pokey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/22/07
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."

Top
#48820 - 06/12/13 08:13 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4117
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.

Top
#48821 - 06/12/13 09:02 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4117
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.

Top
#48822 - 06/13/13 01:47 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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


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.

Top
#48823 - 06/13/13 11:08 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1194
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/

Top
#48824 - 06/13/13 01:53 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.


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.

Top
#48825 - 06/13/13 02:55 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
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


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.

Top
#48826 - 06/13/13 03:10 PM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4117
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.

Top
#48827 - 06/14/13 01:35 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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.

Top
#48829 - 06/14/13 03:28 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4117
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.

Top
#48831 - 06/14/13 10:59 AM Re: At last an explanation of quantum entanglement [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
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


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.

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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