Possible new physics, ER=EPR / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Possible new physics, ER=EPR

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Conundrum

Fri Apr 24 2015, 06:09PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

,d.ZGU

It is entirely possible, I'd be intrigued to see the math.

-A

Sulaiman

Fri Apr 24 2015, 07:32PM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140

From the article referenced;

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once â€” a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe

I guess I'll never understand quantum mechanics because statements like the above boggle my mind,

Has this faster-than-light entanglement been experimentally proven ?

Ash Small

Fri Apr 24 2015, 08:06PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I read a bit further, Sulaiman, and I interpret it as meaning there is no need for 'dark matter', which I've always felt was dubious anyway, a bit like 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.

It's obviously early days yet, though.

Bjørn

Fri Apr 24 2015, 11:30PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Sulaiman wrote ...

Has this faster-than-light entanglement been experimentally proven ?

"Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the light travel time between them. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly. It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds"

Conundrum

Sun Apr 26 2015, 08:09AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

Yeah, pilot waves and all that.

Could it be that entanglement is indeed the "glue" that holds the Universe together?

Dr. Slack

Sun Apr 26 2015, 09:03AM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

Conundrum wrote ...

Yeah, pilot waves and all that.

Could it be that entanglement is indeed the "glue" that holds the Universe together?

Interesting google result for quantum mechanics, an article in New Scientist

suggesting that entanglement is the thing that makes time appear to pass, at least in a toy universe consisting of two photons.

Another article very recently in the same august publication that I can't find is suggesting that a couple of researchers are having good results re-deriving QM starting from the total information within a system, and might stand a good chance of incorporating GR. They reckon that the wierd behaviour only happens when you observe part of a system, say just the photon source, slits and screen of a two-slit experiment. I'm a bit puzzled as to where the line gets drawn round the system, is it always the entire universe, and that if the wierd behaviour becomes explainable, what the Bell/Aspect results actually proved could not be happening?

Conundrum

Mon Apr 27 2015, 07:42AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

That sounds plausible, so if this is indeed the case could a quantum computer actually be modeled as a time machine?
If so then this puts another nail in the coffin of quantum computing, as Hawkings "Chronology Protection Conjecture" would thus apply.
Unless the quantum system was totally isolated in a closed timelike curve (or a self contained region of subspace time) and never allowed to interact with the environment except during initial programming and output ?
The mind does indeed boggle.

Bjørn

Mon Apr 27 2015, 08:42AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

For those with an interest, this is a sober source of information with most of the hype and free fantasy stripped out.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Uspring

Mon Apr 27 2015, 10:02AM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Sulaiman wrote:

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once â€” a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe

I guess I'll never understand quantum mechanics because statements like the above boggle my mind,
Dr. Slack wrote:

Another article very recently in the same august publication that I can't find is suggesting that a couple of researchers are having good results re-deriving QM starting from the total information within a system, and might stand a good chance of incorporating GR. They reckon that the wierd behaviour only happens when you observe part of a system, say just the photon source, slits and screen of a two-slit experiment. I'm a bit puzzled as to where the line gets drawn round the system, is it always the entire universe, and that if the wierd behaviour becomes explainable, what the Bell/Aspect results actually proved could not be happening?

I don't think involving GR in this weirdness really helps. The problems mentioned arise in standard, i.e. non GR quantum mechanics. IMHO the root of the problems comes from the the Kopenhagen interpretation of QM, which presupposes a special role of an observer making a measurement. Specifically it says, that a measurement collapses a wavefunction to a certain state. But why does an observer have such a particular role? Does he need to be sentient? Would a fully mechanical artificial intelligence, provided it is intelligent enough to interpret the results, measure something different? At what stage of apparatus complexity will collapse occur?
The Kopenhagen interpretation suggests, that nature makes a decision at the point a measurement is made.

The Schroedinger equation, which describes the evolution of a wavefunction in time, does not predict any collapsing. It describes a smoothly evolving wavefunction. The Schroedinger equation implies something different, i.e., that the measurement apparatus goes into a superposition of states, each state being a possible outcome of the experiment. So no decision is made.

But lets get back to the pair of entangled particles, the particles being very far from each other. Scientist A makes a measurement on particle A. He and his measuring device will go into a superposition of states. One state describing a clockwise rotation, the other state a CCW rotation. The same thing will happen with scientist B working on particle B. No communication between the particles and or the scientists is necessary for this to happen.
That there is a correlation between the measurements only becomes apparent at the time, the scientists communicate. The communication involves an interaction between the doubled up (i.e.superposed) scientist A and the doubled scientist B. The outcome of communication is a superposition of the states:
1: Scientist A has measured CW and scientist B has measured CCW.
and
2: Scientist A has measured CCW and scientist B has measured CW.

In both cases, the scientist will agree, that there is a correlation of the measurements.
The hard part to understand about this is, that nature doesn't decide on the outcome of a particular measurement, but that for each part of the superposition it seems, like that is the case. Wrt to Dr. Slacks comment, the weirdness goes away, once you see both particles and scientists and their communication as a system.

Bjørn

Mon Apr 27 2015, 11:41AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Now we seem to have an infinite universes with an infinite number of copies of each observer, all in superposition. And the questions about the observers gets more complicated. Why are you the observer you are and what decided what part of it all you observe.

It does not appear less weird or more complete than the other explanations, just different.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob