Question about quantum entanglement

a reply to: iamthevirus

0 reminds me of a circle, and a circle's Pi ratio is indeed infinite.

The circle was also a common sacred symbol across several indigenous cultures denoting a similar concept of Life.



I like your insights, thank you for that.

Maybe them mathemagicians just started off on the wrong foot. They keep coming back to 0 and you cant divide by that.

There is only forever, that is what exists.

Forever exists, Nothing does not...

plato.stanford.edu...

“Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero” [Frege]

reply to: GENERAL EYES

originally posted by: iamthevirus
Maybe them mathemagicians just started off on the wrong foot. They keep coming back to 0 and you cant divide by that.

There is only forever, that is what exists.

Forever exists, Nothing does not...

plato.stanford.edu...

“Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero” [Frege]

reply to: GENERAL EYES

I think as a concept infinity is as problematic as zero.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

To me infinity is easier to digest because of time dilation and its paradox.

It's like running to stand still...

And that is infinity because light is not subject to entropy, it doesn't really travel it remains consistent, it is outside of time.

Outside of spacetime is infinity, the 5th dimension which we can not see.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

As perceived by us at any rate, it would take another brain hemisphere or to actually be there to look back at 4 dimensional spacetime and comprehend it.

I can't help but wonder about the multi-dimensional aspects of light, but somehow ibsuspect that takes geometry [the "logical" math] something I'll have to brush up on today... I just woke up, it's still coffee time lol.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
And that is infinity because light is not subject to entropy, it doesn't really travel it remains consistent, it is outside of time.

It's trivially easy to prove to yourself that interpretation of relativity leads to logical inconsistencies, but it's not relativity which is broken, it's that idea which is broken. That is not how Einstein's model works.

The rationale goes if you take an object with rest mass and accelerate it, time for the object goes slower and slower as you approach the speed of light, so that when you finally get to the speed of light, time stops. Except that can never happen because it takes more and more energy, basically an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the massive object to the speed of light.

But the argument goes, photons have no mass and travel at the speed of light so surely time stops for them? Except you can prove it doesn't, because of the inconsistencies which result if you make that assumption, and relativity is based on reference frames and there is simply no valid reference frame where a photon (or light) is at rest, so it doesn't even make sense to talk about what time is experienced by a photon in the context of Einstein's theory of special relativity, as explained below.

This explains why time is frozen from light's perspective:
Why is time frozen from light's perspective?

Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years. The whole framework of Special Relativity is based on two fundamental postulates:

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

If there were a valid reference frame in which light was at rest, then that would violate Postulate 2 because the speed of light would be different in various reference frames (i.e. the speed of light would be c in some frames and zero in its rest frame). And if Postulate 2 is discarded, then the entire theory of Special Relativity is discarded, because Special Relativity is derived from these two postulates.

Does time stop for a photon?...

Does time stop for a photon?... It is really not possible to make sense of such questions, and any such attempt is bound to lead to paradoxes. There is no inertial frame in which a photon is at rest, and so it is hopeless to try to imagine what things would be like in such a frame. Photons do not have experiences. There is no sense in saying that time stops when you travel at the speed of light. This is not a failing of the theory of relativity. There are no inconsistencies revealed by these questions; they simply don't make sense.

I've seen even PhD physicists get this interpretation wrong, and other interpretations of relativity wrong, like the twin "paradox" which really isn't a paradox at all, just a misapplication of relativity. Apply relativity properly and the so-called "paradox" disappears.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Fruit loops everywhere... there's no escape! everywhere you go look in Arithmetic, Philosophy or Geometry people have to wax all spiritual with it.

I just want the good stuff ya know, now I have to sort through whack a mole cosmic oneness crapola all over again... it never ends.

Thanks for the contribution, I'll stew on it when I get home.

totally not interested in dancing around the camp fire singing kumbaya to QM or whatever err... at least there's no funny business in classical mechanics.

I mean I don't need to know how to become at one with the universe because well I already am, I am part of the universe (if that makes any sense) I just want to know how it goes (works)

This isn't science bro, it just more mysticism stuff... the modern approach to spirituality using science which says "there's no fixed truth"

oh wonderful, that's what we get from Quantum Physics?



Eastern Mysticism at that...

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Off-topic, but Robert MacNamara disclosed that Japan had already agreed to meet for surrender talks before the bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin.

On-topic, Entanglement is not faster than light because velocity through space is not a variable required for entanglement.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
I’m not a physicist, but would love to have one chime in here.

As far as I understand it two entangled particles “communicate” instantly even when at opposing ends of the known universe. That spooky interaction at a distance greatly disturbed Mr. Einstein because of his faster than the speed of light limitation.

What is the current consensus of that entangled interaction in the physics community? Supposedly Chinese scientists measured the “speed” of entanglement and clocked it at 3 trillion meters per second. About 4 x the speed of light.

That doesn’t sound right at all. Way too slow for instant “communication” for the entangled particles.

Also, if it’s really instantaneous communication are those two particles in reality never separated, therefore rendering space an illusion?

A layman would like to know. If I misstated anything, please correct me to better understand the subject.

Link to Chinese measurements: futurism.com...

We can't understand this to be true because it's theory.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

Nobody seems to be answering the original direct question.

The scientific consensus on this question, as a consequence of now many detailed experimental studies, is that the entanglement property is physically real with experimental consequences, but cannot be used for communication of information in a macroscopic way, i.e. no FTL communication of useful bits which could be used by realistic computers or humans. Einstein's discomfort was not unjustified, as his observation of the spooky action at a distance (after some decades) started some major movements in the origins of quantum mechanics. Still, though his specific proposal to alter QM turned out to be experimentally untrue, but that fact was not known until after his passing.

The Chinese scientists probably measured a lower bound on entanglement speed, not a lower plus upper bound. Is there a specific reference to the paper.

Also, if it’s really instantaneous communication are those two particles in reality never separated, therefore rendering space an illusion?

Possibly but it's a very strong "illusion" in the same sense that the Navier-Stokes equations and description of fluid mechanics are an illusion. It's a really great description for many applications, but not entirely fundamental. Our 3+1 dimensional space is obviously physically real by any reasonable definition, but what is not known is if the entanglement property is a hint that underlying deepest quantum theory generates macroscopic 3+1 dimensional space as a large N or some other consequential effect. There is not yet any experimental evidence that this is true.

The 'holographic universe' theory is one such theory that our universe is either described by a bulk or in an equivalent representation a space of one lower dimension. But this may not resolve entanglement either.

One possible resolution to the entanglement property is that those entangled particles are still close in some very difficult to imagine Hilbert or other mathematical space that is impossible to intuitively understand, though mathematicians have long defined spaces on objects much more complex than Euclidean space. Then the process of 'entanglement' and 'de-entanglement' would have to be defined and explained.

The current state of science is that this is a very speculative idea and there is no single good theory or accepted work which has proven to tie in correctly with the rest of known physics, physics which is extremely well justified experimentally, namely general relativity and quantum field theory, of which Standard Model is the particular QFT which is experimentally true in our Universe. It is possible that resolution of this problem would solve the quantum gravity problem as both QFT and the space of GR would be consequences of a single unified underlying theory. It's also likely that the conceptual structure of this theory might be wildly different than any before.

It's stupendously difficult and will occupy scientists for the next 100 years.

My guess is that they are connected by a thread of some kind that is in the higher dimensions and therefore the distance between the two particles might not be much at all. The thread might only be a millimeter or less long, for example, but it would tunnel through spacetime like a wormhole.

If they behave the same way those do in the double blind slit experiment then there is an outcome unknown and an outcome expected... having whatever entanglements outcome become polarized to an "expected" as a result... not knowing the unknown or pattern of 'normal' behavior when not observed may or may not be a 'good' thing.

Humans even have such a thing as 'expected' behavior when under surveillance and know or realize it.

So such a phenomena is not just limited to what could be thought of as 'simple particles' it's best to imagine a movie set where everyone there knows it is a movie set... and then hope everyone 'acts natural' instead of knowing that they are being observed. If it is good in movies then one would also have to assume that it is also good on the sub-atomic particle structure as well...

All quiet on the slit! Ok all you; Electrons act... NATURAL!

We really don't know our quantum stuff.

originally posted by: quintessentone
We really don't know our quantum stuff.

They are still working on entanglement, it is the main issue with the quantum (testing and experiment) there are astronomers using super high tech equipment available to us now which one would believe could provide result much faster than were obtained in the past 100 years. They are attempting to use light from distant quasars which are billions of light years away in an attempt to reproduce the dual-slit experiment. Some tests seem to confirm entanglement and other test disprove the theory... it's still a circular argument at present.

On the other hand there are those realists who proclaim that if something is not testable then it's not even worth talking about.

Quantum is all math, math has flaws, known flaws...

Physics and Science involves experiment which is actually the definition of science.

Quantum is wading off into the metaphysical and it's getting pretty deep wading out there... a serious step-up in effort is needed along now with wrestling the term itself back away from the cosmic oneness crowd.

originally posted by: quintessentone
We really don't know our quantum stuff.

We may never get there.

It’s not a great analogy, but how can a 2-D being really understand what’s happening when a 3-D object enters their world? By necessity you’d have to come up with complex physics laws that seem to universally describe the manifestation of the 3-D object in the 2-D universe, but it would all be based on a fallacy.

QM leads to logical paradoxes and brain-melting experiments (double slit) that nobody can explain. I think we’re looking at phenomena and their manifestations from the 109th floor and we should get to the first floor to truly understand what’s happening, but we can’t get there.