Einstein was wrong. Spooky action at adistance dose exist.

Albert Einstien used the term "spooky action at a distance"in an almost mocking way to describe the idea that pairs of sub-atomic particles can be invisibly connected in a way that transcends time and space.

That an object can be moved, changed, or otherwise affected without being physically touched by another object.

The theory bothered him so much because according to his theory of special relativity passing information between two points in space faster than the speed of light is supposed to be impossible.

en.wikipedia.org...

But a new paper, published in Physical Review Letters, has provided the best evidence to date that quantum entanglement does indeed exist.

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created pairs of identical light particles, or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be measured. The experiment rules out any variables that could offer a different explanation for ' spooky action at a distance.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The break through could have profound implications for fields such as computing and communications.

For me It also raises questions about the implications for research into paranormal fields such telepathy and telekinesis.

If Einsteins theory of relativity can be called in to question then It makes wonder about what other of widely accepted scientific theories will have doubt cast upon them as technology and mankind advance ever further.

a reply to: thebabyseagull

I'm not fond of this paper, well in regards to saying Einstein is wrong. This relies on photons with the same polarization and tests will often have the same or similar results.
It is an important paper, though. It just proves or underscores, something different.

a reply to: thebabyseagull

I am convinced the quantum entanglement theory has stumbled on a new discovery of interaction over vast distances. I don't think there is any faster than light particle travel, there is just a literal entanglement and relationship on a sub atomic level. We are at the beginning of a new understanding of the nature of matter, time and space. There can only be a reference if there are two coordinates. This will grow into yet a new understanding of matter, time and space. It will be an even bigger learning curve than Einstein's Relativity. In fact, he spotted relativity and is the forerunner of that which perplexed him. Entanglement is a kind of relating. Early days yet. It is obviously a lot more complex than just standard description of behaviour of frequencies and waves.

Frame of reference:
"In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements."

No coordinates, no reference. In terms of physics we are still in kindergarten. Lol, especially me, my brain is beginning to hurt already!

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: thebabyseagull

To me the quantum entanglement theory has stumbled on a new discovery of interaction over vast distances. I don't think there is any faster than light particle travel, there is just a literal entanglement and relationship on a sub atomic level. We are at the beginning of a new understanding of the nature of matter, time and space. There can only be a reference if there are two coordinates. This will grow into yet a new understanding of matter, time and space. It will be an even bigger learning curve than Einstein's Relativity. In fact, he spotted relativity and is the forerunner of that which perplexed him. Entanglement is a kind of relating. Early days yet. It is obviously a lot more complex than just behaviour of frequencies and waves.

Frame of reference:
"In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements."

No coordinates, no reference. In terms of physics we are still in kindergarten. Lol, especially me, my brain is beginning to hurt already!

Correct.

Physical Review Letters is a very well-respected peer-reviewed journal, so this experiment has good credibility. Thanks for the thread.

EDIT:And your title has a misspelling, (dose should be does), a deers, a female deers.

a reply to: Aleister
Duh

Thanxs

a reply to: thebabyseagull
Wasn't the hidden variable idea that two particles have something about them that makes them behave the same, so that no matter the distance between them, and despite not actually being connected, they'll give the same result? How do they disprove that?

The hidden variable idea seems to me like psuedorandom numbers in computer programming. Or perlin noise. Used oftne in procedural content generation. The numbers seem random, but can be repeated if you have the seed number or know the process. So if I was making a program and creatd two particles, in order for them to produce the same results they'd have ot both have the same seed number. As I understand it, this seed number would be the hidden variable. The likliehood that two particles will have the same seed number depends on how many bits represent the seed number and how many particles exist. If bits are infinite then likliehood of duplicate might be infinitismally small. Iniitial seed numbers are created using the psueod-random generator which is itself based on a seed number. So the entire program range of content can be based on a single seed number.

Another thing which comes to mind are fractals. Why is it patterns in the lower and higher extremes repeat? This also reminds me of procedural content generation. Fractals are useful because of their repeatedness and scalability. I realize it's a meaningless connection. But assuming there're seed numbers in our universe then it makes sense they'll repeat at various places if somehow the universe is conserving its bits and there're enough particles.

I know none of that makes much sense. I also know it offers nothing scientifically. But as a programmer, this is what involuntarily comes to mind whenever I read about entanglement.

a reply to: thebabyseagull

I think its a bit harsh to jump in with both feet and declare Wrong!

here is a quote from a real physics forum

The way people get around the idea that entanglement implies instantaneous communication is that no actual information is passed when the entangled particles affect each other. The argument is as follows (using a non-QM example):

Say you agree to send out two beams of light to your two friends who live on opposite sides of the galaxy (you live in the middle). Ahead of time you tell them that if one of the beams of light is red the other will be blue. So you send the blue beam to your friend on one side and immediately she knows that your other friend is receiving a red beam at the same time. Aha! You say, my friends have now communicated at a speed faster than the speed of light and violated relativity, but no real information has been passed between them. You have told both of them at a normal sub-luminal speed about what you just did and that's all. (A way of proving there's no faster than light communication is that you could lie and send them both the same coloured beam of light and they would never know!).

With QM is gets a bit more complicated because theoretically no-one knows the state of the particle until it has been observed, but you still cannot affect the state of the particle so the argument is the same.

There is a nice article about this stuff here which talks about the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox. Einstein and his colleagues were very uncomfortable when they heard about quantum entanglement and devised the EPR paradox to 'prove' that it couldn't be true (meaning that while you hadn't observed the particle yet it still has a state). It was proved in one line of algebra that this idea of "hidden" variables couldn't be true.

As I said above though, quantum entanglement still does not imply faster than light communication. You cannot affect which state the particle goes into, even though it doesn't 'decide' on its state until you observe it.

a reply to: MrMasterMinder
What makes a particle decide on its state? How does it happen?

I assume nothing internally is involved. For example, if I spin a basketball in my mind, how I do it matters and will change what happens. The state of the ball and myself influences what occurs. But that isn't hte case with entangled particles, as I understand. There's no prior state which influences what its state will be when measured. Is this true?

So it's not really a decision is it? Decisions are based on prior state; local or non-local. Instead it's a probability. It's random and has no predictable pattern other than it will possibly fall within a range of values. We're at its mercy, whatever it chooses to do. It's the ultimate black box.

a reply to: jonnywhite

>Wasn't the hidden variable idea that two particles have something about them that makes them behave the same,

Got source on this,never heard of it and it sounds quite interesting.

a reply to: thebabyseagull

There is no problem with relativity.

At the core, relativity implies that the fundamental equation of motion, including in quantum mechanics, must obey certain transformation properties. There has never been a violation observed.

Now, if you combine relativity and additional assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics, called "local realism", then yes, relativity would preclude entanglement results.

Remember, that in 1935 there was no experimental result demonstrating the physical reality of entanglement across space-like distances which relativity would rule out in combination with local realism. Einstein was not a fool or idiot for questioning quantum mechanics at the time. EPR suggested that that if such experiments were to be done, then they could come out in a way compatible with local realism, and that could require some small modifications of quantum mechanics. The experiments do not.

This means that local realism is not true in our universe. It also means, to me, that the underlying 'space' in which quantum mechanics operates is not the macroscopic (x,y,z,t) space of special relativity---in fact it is a functional space (functions are elements and not geometric points) which can include some kind of interaction across space-like intervals in some cases. And this nature is irreducible.

The normal behavior of macroscopic continuum space, which does not have entanglement, and appears to have local realism bound by relativity, is therefore an 'illusion' or more precisely a highly persistent effective theory in the normal thermodynamically large macroscopic systems of people and machines and planets and stars. That larger systems can have apparently distinct collective dynamics from their microscopic counterparts is well known in physics. You can start from kinetic theory of particles, which models statistics of individual collisions of generic atoms with momentum & energy, and build yourself up to Navier-Stokes equations with heat diffusion in about 5 lectures of graduate statistical mechanics. Along the way, you make approximations and assumptions that aren't always true in all cases.

Someday soon, if it hasn't been done already (it may well have but people don't know it), the same will apply to quantum mechanics & entanglement.

Hi there, just a small input to the discussion:

In order to understand how scalar waves light can supercede the constant, one must begin to imagine dimensions and spheres as a truth. The speed of light is exponential, not a constant! On the x axis one is restrained by dimensions, as in order to reach higher speeds than the 3D constant, one must ascend to 4D. Seraphim are 5D, Lucifer was 6D and the Crown of God is 8D. The cherubim sits at 6D as well. When God capitulated to the chitauri invasion and Earth received the arbitrary concept of Law, Mother Earth and God the Merciful tricked the invaders into thinking there was only 6 dimensions in matter worth conquering, so their law reflected the same. 1D is a point of observation with nothing to observe, 2d adds a point to observe. 3d adds time as a relative and depth of field thanks to the observer now experiencing the relative. 4d is intellect. 5d soul and 6d a cesspit of evil. 7d is the realization that God is omnipresent, mercifull, Lord, Crown, leader, speaker and all the other attributes attested to in the Koran. 8d is Gold, pure gold.


When accessing the higher dimensions one can for instance act thru soul, where speed of light is app. 2,8x the constant in 3d.

Shamans using Salvia Divinorum can descend to 2D where the speed of light is half that of 3d. Using soul work in 2d one can defeat most of 6d's influence, heal sickness and remove parasites that are causing distress and illness.

The Astronauts were propelled by Cherubim to a speed 2,8x the speed of light. Seraphim guided the spirits home. In cherubim eyes, Fredrik did a wonder. Total eclipse of the Sun is another Luciferian scheme that will result in another war in the heavens, and quite literally the end of life, period. Please take this warning to President Biden and tell him we extend an offer for reset back to a pre-cultural time of reference. This is not a plea, but a warning. We are ready, we are legion.

Einstein was never wrong, he simply could not explain the spooky effect at a distance, and therefore ignored it.
Other scientists with better technological devices, later in time, could demonstrate the phenomenon and therefore did not have doubts.
This story about Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, rather than proving Einstein was wrong, proves that European (especially british) application of his theory out of scientific fields and in the social sphere is totally wrong and misleading to the average reader, who doesn't understand the topic in depth.

Second and most importantly, it proves that Scientific research requires technological progress, and further tech progress will require more scientific research.

Without telescope, Copernicus could not do his scientific research. Without the LHC, scientists could not have discovered the Higg's boson.

Einstein did not disbelieve in quantum entanglement. He merely pointed out in the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox that this prediction of quantum mechanics violated his Special Relativity, from which he concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete. Where he was wrong was NOT in rejecting quantum entanglement (he didn't) but in persisting to believe in so-called "locality", so that the correlation between entangled quantum states had to be a causal one mediated by an information-carrying signal that travelled faster than light. Instead, it is not generated by such a signal because the universe is non-local, as recent experiments have now proved, at the same time eliminating loopholes that had left previous experiments inconclusive about eliminating the possibility of local hidden variables at work.

ignore

a reply to: Revolution9

I don't think there is any faster than light particle travel.

Perhaps not, but we know time slows down for anything approaching c which suggests the possibility that time could reverse for anything exceeding c. So what we observe in our local time as a speed barrier might be better understood as a time barrier. If the speed of light in reality is instantaneous then the experiment might be showing us nothing more than a circuit that exists over time frames that is only spooky when witnessed in local time.

It will be an even bigger learning curve than Einstein's Relativity. In fact, he spotted relativity and is the forerunner of that which perplexed him

Lorentz Hendrik formulated local time, Einstein wrote in 1928: The enormous significance of his work consisted therein, that it forms the basis for the theory of atoms and for the general and special theories of relativity. The special theory was a more detailed expose of those concepts which are found in Lorentz's research of 1895"