Electron and Information.

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: Contraction Reaction

Postby Faradave on May 10th, 2018, 11:26 pm 

The power supply on my "good computer" blew out today. It's still under warrantee but will take a few days to replace. Until then, I'll be refreshingly brief to gloriously absent.

mitchellmckain wrote:So it is absurd to think that because something doesn't exist in one of these perspectives then that means the thing doesn't at all. ... The fact that the photon/EM wave vanishes in limiting case of inertial frames going to the speed of light in one direction, only reinforces this conclusion also.


The nice thing about considering spacetime intervals (instead of length contraction and time dilation) is that it is no longer a matter of perspective. Lightlike interval separation is simply zero to ALL observers (i.e. it is invariant).

"Where light goes from a given point is always separated by a zero interval" - R. Feynman p.99

Interval contact is invariant. That physics seems blind to this aspect of light is inexplicable. What in God's name do these "geniuses" think "zero separation" means?

An experiment should help.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Contraction Reaction

Postby socrat44 on May 11th, 2018, 6:27 am 

Faradave » May 10th, 2018, 11:26 pm wrote:
"Where light goes from a given point is always separated by a zero interval" - R. Feynman p.99

Feynman's astonishment can have only one solution:
photon at ''a zero interval'' changes all his parameters
according to ''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''

===========
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Conservation Situation

Postby Faradave on May 11th, 2018, 9:35 am 

Good point socrat!

Realize that the energy of the light quantum is always accountable along a spatial trajectory, even as it bypasses that. At any point that we care to place a detector, the "photon" will have been absorbed. It's like money from your bank account that the bank actually lends to someone else. any time you go to withdraw that money, they put it back there for you. thus, the conservation of mass-energy is never disprovable, in the same way you can never prove the money was gone from your account.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Conservation Situation

Postby mitchellmckain on May 11th, 2018, 3:25 pm 

Faradave » May 11th, 2018, 8:35 am wrote:Good point socrat!

Realize that the energy of the light quantum is always accountable along a spatial trajectory, even as it bypasses that. At any point that we care to place a detector, the "photon" will have been absorbed. It's like money from your bank account that the bank actually lends to someone else. any time you go to withdraw that money, they put it back there for you. thus, the conservation of mass-energy is never disprovable, in the same way you can never prove the money was gone from your account.


This is actually a good analogy, but you have it all wrong. It is absurd to talk about where your money is, as if this were some collection of bills and coins and your account is some kind of box to hold them in. Indeed you can say the money spreads out into the whole economy in much the same way that a quantum field spreads out over space. Nevertheless, you can be damn sure that every penny is accounted for. The conservation of mass-energy is only local in the sense that movement is restricted to the light cone -- not local in the sense you can say at what point in space it resides at all times. Thus your attempt to equate the conservation mass-energy to such a local accounting is a strawman. Even if you don't know what physicists are talking about when they talk about the conservation of mass-energy, they do, and this is something they have demonstrated repeatedly.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 12th, 2018, 3:36 am 

A Surrealistic story for @Faradave and @mitchellmckain
#
It is not absurd to talk about money- mass/energy collection
of a bit-quantum particle: photon.
===
Realize that the photon came to  ''a zero interval'' spending all his money.
No money for drinking, no money for eating, no money for women,
no money for gambling, no money to buy indulgence to save his sinner soul.

But photon does have MasterCard and Visa in his pocket.
Question:
Where and what  is photon's bank at  ''a zero interval'' if the bank
itself has an interval from X to Y ?
==
The conservation and transformation of money mass/energy
is a local act for single quantum particle - photon
and about photon's bank and its location we know nothing.
#
Is bank (with your money) important for you ?
Does photon need bank?
======
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 15th, 2018, 4:42 am 

Notes on The Energy Equivalence of Information
By, Chérif F. Matta and Lou Massa
November 2, 2017

Maxwell’s demon makes observations and thereby collects information.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b09528
=====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: You can bank on it!

Postby Faradave on May 19th, 2018, 2:05 pm 

socrat wrote:Indeed you can say the money spreads out into the whole economy in much the same way that a quantum field spreads out over space.

Almost exactly right! I'll provide an exact model in a future video but for now, a light quantum is a bank deposit (emission of a light quantum) or withdrawal (absorption). Fields are not accidentally lightlike. A field is the probability distribution of such transactions, like an array of ATMs awaiting potential transactions, which make up a light cone.

With light, the energy never disappears, rather it moves directly from emitter to absorber. I argue that emission will not occur unless and until there is an appropriate absorber. Any photon detector constitutes such an absorber.

socrat wrote:...not local in the sense that you can say at what point in space it resides at all times.

There's always confusion in going from a lightlike zero interval back to the space and time it bypasses. The photon doesn't exist at all those places and times because there is no such particle (IMO)! Conservation of mass-energy is nothing more than a promise that if you place a detector anywhere on that trajectory you will find it. That only implies "existence" in between.

socrat wrote:locality

Unfortunately, physics has yet to recognize 4D locality in any particle way. It is simply defined as the set of zero intervals about an event. Physicists childishly deny the vast majority of these, where ∆t =∆x ≠ 0.

socrat wrote:Where and what is the photon's bank at "a zero interval"

Lightlike intervals are defined as having zero magnitude. The light quantum goes by direct interval contact from emitter to future absorber. It's never actually in a bank or anywhere else.

interval time coordinates 2.png
In the limit as spatial and temporal separations of ANY span become equal, interval separation (∆d) vanishes.


interval time coordinates 8.png
A lightlike interval (∆d) is defined as zero and represents direct, 4D "interval contact" (which bypasses indefinite but equal time and space). ∆d =0 can ONLY be reasonably described as CONTACT between emitter and absorber.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby mitchellmckain on May 19th, 2018, 5:18 pm 

Faradave,

You have attributed the first two of those quotes to the wrong person

You have been indulging in equivocation which only muddles the situation. What you call "interval," which is the magnitude of the space-time metric is not the same as distance or separation. The magnitude of the space-time metric is indeed very important for understanding the structure of space-time, which is all about causal relationships. Causal relationships are limited to the past and future light cone, i.e. to intervals ds2 which are less than or equal to zero. A zero interval is merely at the limit (on the light cone) where a causal connection is possible. But it is wrong to say there is no separation between the two events, for causal connection is ONLY ONE WAY! We look up into the sky and see events happening all over the universe and this means the metric interval to those events is indeed zero, BUT only going from those events to us. No causal connection from our present to those events is at all possible. They can effect us but we cannot effect them -- not even close. Thus they are quite firmly in our past.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby Faradave on May 19th, 2018, 9:52 pm 

mitchellmckain wrote:You have attributed the first two of those quotes to the wrong person

Thanks for the correction, with my apologies. I'm not yet accustomed to the quote formatting which socrat employs.

mitchellmckain wrote:What you call "interval," which is the magnitude of the space-time metric is not the same as distance or separation.

I respectfully disagree. First, "interval" is not just what I call it, that's the physics term for 4D separation.

"In four-dimensional spacetime, the analog to distance is the interval."

Now, I agree that an interval is not exactly the same as space or time but, it is no more different from space or time than space and time are different from each other. This is really just a matter of how the proportionality constant c is applied. All refer to separations and all can be expressed in units of duration or distance (as their equation requires). It's perfectly legitimate to consider interval separation in meters for example but this is avoided because of spacetime's clumsy, unintuitive geometry. That's why Phyxed uses interval-time.

mitchellmckain wrote:The magnitude of the spacetime interval … is all about causal relationships.

I wouldn't say "all", though causality is an important consideration. While space and time vary with inertial frame, interval separation has the intended advantage of being invariant. Spacetime intervals are primarily about invariance (of separation). Intervals were sought specifically so that there should be a type of separation we can all agree upon!

"The fundamental reason for merging space and time into spacetime [intervals] is that space and time are separately not invariant..."


mitchellmckain wrote:causal connection is ONLY ONE WAY!

I certainly agree! I've consistently referred to a light quantum transiting directly "from emitter to (a future) absorber". That's one way, a natural consequence when there is a temporal component. I view time as fundamentally one way. That is, I model entropy as resulting from the unidirectionality of time and not the popular reverse.


P.S. When temporal displacement is zero, interval separation is identical to space. When spatial displacement is zero, interval separation is identical to time. When both spatial and temporal displacement are zero, it's classical contact, a subset of all interval contact. What you seem to object to is remote contact, when: ∆t = ∆x ≠ 0. That objection is futile, unless you identify an alternative for the vast majority of additional contacts required by any 4D geometry (compared to classical 3D contacts).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 20th, 2018, 11:24 am 

Erwin Schrödinger - "Do Electrons Think?" (BBC 1949)
45,002 views
QuantenPhysik
Published on Apr 10, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwR1ztUXtU
=============
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Correction Section

Postby Faradave on May 20th, 2018, 2:31 pm 

Hi socrat,

I must also apologize to you for misattributing some MM statements to you.

We have been debating if a spacetime interval is a real span. Spacetime intervals are equivalent to world lines in spacetime geometry which indicate the separation of events in 4D.

"This quantity is therefore something which, like the distance, is "real" in some [i.e. 4D] sense; it is called the interval between the two spacetime points. … we give it a different name because it is in a different [non-Euclidean] geometry, " - Feynman p.97

If a factor of c is applied to the temporal component of an interval, then space, time & interval are all have units of length. If instead, the spatial component of an interval is divided by c, then space, time & interval are all have units of duration. In all cases, intervals report geometric separation of events.

Invariant, lightlike, zero interval separation of events can only reasonably be interpreted as direct, physical, interval contact. Somehow nearly all of physicists exhibit willful denial of this, though lacking any substantive rationale. Thus, many common physical phenomena remain shrouded in mystery.

The inherent unidirectionality of an interval's temporal component limits any mass-energy transmission to forward-only direction.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 21st, 2018, 2:48 am 

socrat44 » May 20th, 2018, 11:24 am wrote:Erwin Schrödinger - "Do Electrons Think?" (BBC 1949)
45,002 views
QuantenPhysik
Published on Apr 10, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwR1ztUXtU
=============


  Erwin Schrödinger asked: - "Do Electrons Think?"
In my opinion, if an electron can keep
different information it means an electron has memory.
If an electron has memory then one single and free electron
has ability to use his memory for thinking. 
(but scientists have ability to manipulate with electron's free will.)
=============
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Correction Section

Postby socrat44 on May 21st, 2018, 2:56 am 

Faradave » May 20th, 2018, 2:31 pm wrote:
We have been debating if a spacetime interval is a real span. Spacetime intervals are equivalent to world lines in spacetime geometry which indicate the separation of events in 4D.

"This quantity is therefore something which, like the distance, is "real" in some [i.e. 4D] sense; it is called the interval between the two spacetime points. … we give it a different name because it is in a different [non-Euclidean] geometry, " - Feynman p.97


i try to understand Feynman's quote.
in my opinion Feynman wanted to say:

the distance  is "real" in an absolute 4-D continuum between
the two spacetime points. … from point X to point Y in
Minkowski spacetime-cone  (non-Euclidean geometry)  but . . .
. . . but such distance is different from the distance
in our Euclidean / Descartes world (from point X to point Y )
#
Maybe, (?!) when Feynman tried to unite these two  concepts,
he at last  wrote: '' . . . you can accept nature as She is - absurd.” (?!)
==========
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Correction Section

Postby bangstrom on May 21st, 2018, 5:07 am 

socrat44 » May 21st, 2018, 1:56 am wrote:
i try to understand Feynman's quote.
in my opinion Feynman wanted to say:

the distance  is "real" in an absolute 4-D continuum between
the two spacetime points. … from point X to point Y in
Minkowski spacetime-cone  (non-Euclidean geometry)  but . . .
. . . but such distance is different from the distance
in our Euclidean / Descartes world (from point X to point Y )
#
Maybe, (?!) when Feynman tried to unite these two  concepts,
he at last  wrote: '' . . . you can accept nature as She is - absurd.” (?!)
==========


I understand time as having two forms. One is the familiar clock time, also known as duration. This is the passage of time we measure with a clock.

The other form of time is “relativistic” time as found in special relativity or Minkowsky spacetime where every interval of distance includes an interval of time at the rate of one second of time for every 300,000 km of distance. Every separation in Minkowski space also includes a separation in time.

The difference between Euclidean / Cartesian space and Minkowski spacetime is that the latter includes a tiny interval of time with every interval of distance.

When both clock and relativistic time intervals are evident, such as with a rapidly moving object covering an enormous distance between points X and Y, the two forms of time add together. For an “at rest” observer, the relativistic interval of spacetime adds to his “clock time” of the moving object so the observer sees the object travel the distance from X to Y in a greater amount of time than does an observer on the moving object.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Getting Real

Postby Faradave on May 21st, 2018, 11:52 am 

socrat44 wrote:In my opinion, if an electron can keep different information it means an electron has memory... ability to use his memory for thinking.

Thinking is a process involving information but information itself is not thinking (nor is every process thinking). If I place a coin on a table heads up, it stores that informational state until disturbed. That's a bit of information, but the coin is not thinking.

socrat44 wrote:Minkowski spacetime-cone (non-Euclidean geometry) but . . .. . . but such distance is different from the distance in our Euclidean / Descartes world (from point X to point Y )

They are different. What makes something "real" is agreement by multiple observers (the more the better). If you dream or hallucinate, you may see things that appear very real to you but no one else sees them, so they aren't real.

Spatial separation varies with inertial frame so it is only real to those who share that inertial frame (i.e. have the same velocity). Einstein wasn't satisfied with this. He much preferred spacetime intervals because they represent geometric separations that all inertial observers agree upon. Interval separation is thus, more "real" than spatial separation.

Similarly, a single "point of contact" (zero interval separation) is agreed by all observers. A trivial subset of those is "classical contact", where spatial and temporal separation are each zero. This is agreed to be contact by all observers but it ignores the vast majority of interval contact where spatial and temporal separations are equal but not zero. I call these "remote contact", referring to their perceived spatial and temporal separations. However, since these perceived separations are not agreed by all observers, they are less "real".

bangstrom wrote:"relativistic" time … where every interval of distance includes an interval of time … [speed limit c].

This is not consistent with Special Relativity. You should use "span" rather than "interval" above, since "interval" already has a different definition. Spacetime intervals may be considered 4-vectors, in that they have direction and magnitude. Along with X, Y, Z direction is a temporal component from which a slope corresponding to speed is derived. Speed, like the spatial and temporal components, is relative, except in one case, c.

Why is universal speed limit c so special? Because its magnitude is zero (indicating a single point of contact)! All observers agree on a single point, which occurs when the interval's slope is lightlike.

"Where light goes from a single point is always separated by a zero interval, … Incidentally, we have just proved that if light travels with speed c in one system, it travels with speed c in another, for if the interval is the same in both systems, i.e. zero in one and zero in the other, then to state the propagation speed of light is invariant is the same as saying that the interval is zero." - R. Feynman p.99 (bold added)

In other words, lightlike interval contact for one is interval contact for all!
Continued denial of this simple truth must take effort. ~Relax~
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby mitchellmckain on May 21st, 2018, 4:19 pm 

Here is another way to look at Minkowsky space-time.

We are dealing with a metric where zero is NOT the shortest separation between two points, because the interval can also be negative. So isn't an interval of ds2 = -4 a shorter separation than ds2 = 0? After all in the former case you don't have hustle or spend so much energy to get there on time. While in the latter case the energy required (for anything with mass) is infinite -- right at the edge of what is possible.

So the reality is that Minkowsky metric is balancing two kinds of separation, spacial and temporal. A zero interval simply means that the two are equal. Positive means we have a spacial separation (with no causal interaction possible) and negative means a temporal separation, where one end is in the past and the other end is in the future (relatively speaking). The zero interval is the limiting case between them. It is still the case that one end is in the past and the other in the future, but massive objects cannot actually get from here to there because of the infinite energy requirement. For a spacial separation you cannot say one end is in the past and the other in the future, not in any absolute way.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Negative Connotations

Postby Faradave on May 22nd, 2018, 1:56 am 

Mitchell,

Thanks making my point that spacetime coordinates are clumsy and unintuitive. I believe this is how things evolved.

Minkowski: Einstein's former professor realized brilliance in Special Relativity and the need for a graphical representation. To give Minkowski spacetime a Cartesian (or "pseudo-Euclidean") representation, he applied i = √-1, typically with speed limit c, to the temporal axis as ict. This meant temporal and spatial components could be inserted in the Pythagorean formula for an interval (∆d): ∆d² = ∆x² + ic∆t)² = ∆x² (c∆t)²

Implicit: As people struggled conceptualizing √-1, a trend developed to drop the term and instead emphasize underlying hyperbolic geometry, where the minus sign is implicit to the relation of space, time and interval. So i tended to disappear from the coordinates along with c, which was conveniently expressed as 1 in natural units. (Similarly, deltas are often dropped.)

Stonewall: What you'll currently find in Wikipedia is a denial that the interval ∆d has meaning of itself. Instead, it suggests the preferred thinking is to consider only ∆d² to avoid the conceptual problem that you mentioned above, negative intervals.

"Rather than deal with square roots of negative numbers, physicists customarily regard [∆d²] as a distinct symbol in itself, rather than the square of something."

That makes about as much sense as suggesting that we only deal with meters² or seconds² if the span happens to be a hypotenuse. LOL

Declaration: I find this more sensible approach in modern literature. The idea is to adopt the appropriate convention for the task at hand. This recognizes Minkowski's application of √-1 to the time coordinate as arbitrary. He could just as well have applied it to the three spatial coordinates. And we're always free to make the change as convenient. Spacetime interval spans depend on the difference of the squares of its components but not their order. For example, adopting a "spacelike convention" (where ∆x > ∆t): ∆d² = ∆x² – ∆t² is used, while adopting a "timelike convention" (where ∆t > ∆x) uses: ∆d² = ∆t² – ∆x². Thus, negative intervals are avoided. Remember, unless we are all superimposed, spacelike separation is real (and not negative). We can't travel at spacelike speeds but the separations exist.

Phyxed: By selecting Euclidean, interval-time coordinates in the first place, there is no hyperbolic geometry, √-1 or minus sign to deal with: ∆x² = ∆d² + ∆t². Interval-time coordinates are a Euclidean lens with which to resolve many outstanding mysteries in physics. As I've said, without non-Euclidean distortion, we see the lightlike interval plainly as interval contact. And of course, there is no negative interval, any more than there is negative length.
Image
As spatial hypotenuse rotates through vertical, it simply changes the side on which the interval is depicted (same as triangles in ordinary plane geometry).

But wait, …there's more! We have a reason for a universal speed limit! c is the absolute speed limit because contact is the absolute proximity limit. You can't get closer than contact. The speed limit is invariant because contact is invariant.

That's just for starters. There's lots & lots to look at with a Euclidean lens, especially if you're the only kid on your block who seems to have one. The Phyxed channel is committed to explaining a new "mysterious" phenomenon every two weeks.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby bangstrom on May 22nd, 2018, 2:05 am 

mitchellmckain » May 21st, 2018, 3:19 pm wrote:
So the reality is that Minkowsky metric is balancing two kinds of separation, spacial and temporal. A zero interval simply means that the two are equal. Positive means we have a spacial separation (with no causal interaction possible) and negative means a temporal separation, where one end is in the past and the other end is in the future (relatively speaking). The zero interval is the limiting case between them. It is still the case that one end is in the past and the other in the future, but massive objects cannot
actually get from here to there because of the infinite energy requirement.

This sounds like a denial of the possibility that two particles separated by space and time can ever have a causal interaction. This was Einstein’s claim demonstrated by the EPR paper but Bell and Aspect invalidated the EPR effect with their experiments that demonstrated the possibility of non-local interaction among particles.

Massive objects may not be able to get from here to there instantly but QM does not require a physical contact for one particle to influence another particle remotely.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby mitchellmckain on May 22nd, 2018, 2:36 am 

bangstrom » May 22nd, 2018, 1:05 am wrote:
mitchellmckain » May 21st, 2018, 3:19 pm wrote:
So the reality is that Minkowsky metric is balancing two kinds of separation, spacial and temporal. A zero interval simply means that the two are equal. Positive means we have a spacial separation (with no causal interaction possible) and negative means a temporal separation, where one end is in the past and the other end is in the future (relatively speaking). The zero interval is the limiting case between them. It is still the case that one end is in the past and the other in the future, but massive objects cannot
actually get from here to there because of the infinite energy requirement.

This sounds like a denial of the possibility that two particles separated by space and time can ever have a causal interaction. This was Einstein’s claim demonstrated by the EPR paper but Bell and Aspect invalidated the EPR effect with their experiments that demonstrated the possibility of non-local interaction among particles.

You have misunderstood this scientific result. There is no non-local interaction among particles. There is only a non-local correlation between random measurements of two particles. No information is transferred there and thus no interaction occurs. The only interaction is the one that linked the particles in the first place. The most you can say is that reality is not completely local.

bangstrom » May 22nd, 2018, 1:05 am wrote:Massive objects may not be able to get from here to there instantly but QM does not require a physical contact for one particle to influence another particle remotely.

Incorrect. Quantum physics builds upon the premise of special relativity in which all causal influences are limited to the future light cone -- also known as the assumption of locality. The abhorrence of Einstein for any action at a distance stands inviolate -- such remains completely fictional.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 22nd, 2018, 2:38 am 

mitchellmckain » May 21st, 2018, 4:19 pm wrote: So isn't an interval of ds2 = -4 a shorter separation than ds2 = 0?



isn't an interval of ds2 = -4 is equal to an interval of ds2 = +4
in the opposite side from the zero interval ds2 = 0?
============
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Faradave liked this post


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 22nd, 2018, 3:02 am 

mitchellmckain » May 21st, 2018, 4:19 pm wrote: So isn't an interval of ds2 = -4 a shorter separation than ds2 = 0?



zero interval is a critical point of a something
if you go inside this zero you destroy everything,
you change one physics laws on an another physical laws
according to ''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''
=======
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby bangstrom on May 22nd, 2018, 5:04 am 

mitchellmckain » May 22nd, 2018, 1:36 am wrote:
You have misunderstood this scientific result. There is no non-local interaction among particles. There is only a non-local correlation between random measurements of two particles. No information is transferred there and thus no interaction occurs. The only interaction is the one that linked the particles in the first place. The most you can say is that reality is not completely local.

A non-local correlation among particles is Bell’s non-locality. Einstein called it ,”Spooky action at a distance.” A common correlation between two or more remote particles is all one needs for a non-local interaction, entanglement, non-local action or whatever you choose to call it and the observations need not be random and the transfer of information is not essential to non-locality.

Also, the initial interaction between particles was necessary for the experimental setup of early experiments involving the generation of entangled particles but an initial physical contact is not a necessary prerequisite for entanglement.

You appear to dismiss the possibility of non-locality as a fiction but Einstein’s anathema of “spooky action at a distance” has been violated since the early sixties.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby mitchellmckain on May 22nd, 2018, 12:03 pm 

bangstrom » May 22nd, 2018, 4:04 am wrote:
mitchellmckain » May 22nd, 2018, 1:36 am wrote:
You have misunderstood this scientific result. There is no non-local interaction among particles. There is only a non-local correlation between random measurements of two particles. No information is transferred there and thus no interaction occurs. The only interaction is the one that linked the particles in the first place. The most you can say is that reality is not completely local.

A non-local correlation among particles is Bell’s non-locality. Einstein called it ,”Spooky action at a distance.” A common correlation between two or more remote particles is all one needs for a non-local interaction, entanglement, non-local action or whatever you choose to call it and the observations need not be random and the transfer of information is not essential to non-locality.

Your effort to avoid clarity and ignore differences amounts to a refusal to understand. An interaction means one object (like a particle) has a causal effect on an other object. But without any transfer of information there is no causal effect and this is the case because the only connection between the separated objects is decoherence which indeed must be random. The lack of any hidden variables determining the results has been proven by experiment.

bangstrom » May 22nd, 2018, 4:04 am wrote:Also, the initial interaction between particles was necessary for the experimental setup of early experiments involving the generation of entangled particles but an initial physical contact is not a necessary prerequisite for entanglement.

Now you are splitting hairs which do not exist. Entanglement is a physical state, and the change to this state is a causal interaction, and that is the only physical contact there ever is. The change from this state also requires interaction but not with each other. Do you imagine that point particles actually touch each other? It is logically incoherent. Particle interactions in Feynman diagrams are about an exchange of energy which alters their physical state. That most certainly is required for entanglement.

bangstrom » May 22nd, 2018, 4:04 am wrote:You appear to dismiss the possibility of non-locality as a fiction but Einstein’s anathema of “spooky action at a distance” has been violated since the early sixties.

Incorrect. In my above statement I stated the possibility of one kind of non-locality allowed by quantum physics and denied the kind prohibited by relativity. You may be willing to discard the results of science in favor of the fantasy of sci-fi tv shows, but I am not. Hiding behind the imprecision of media terms like "spooky action at a distance" does not change this in the slightest.

If you want to understand better look up "why entanglement does not violate relativity."
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Faradave liked this post


Re: Holey Moley

Postby Faradave on May 22nd, 2018, 2:12 pm 

mitchellmckain wrote:Entanglement is a physical state, and the change to this state is a causal interaction, ... The change from this state also requires interaction but not with each other. Do you imagine that point particles actually touch each other?

Well said! We're in agreement on this. ER=EPR has established the entanglement connection as equivalent to a spacelike (i.e. nontraversable) wormhole. That is, a wormhole which has non-zero magnitude (internal span) and a slope (in 4D) which exceeds speed limit c. Though non-traversable, this connection can serve as a reference about which shared properties, such as spin, may correlate (as if sharing an axis of rotation).

By contrast, my lightlike pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole), has slope c and separation magnitude 0 (i.e. interval contact). It is semi-traversable, allowing energy (and the information it conveys) to transit, just like classical contact.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 23rd, 2018, 3:08 am 

The Solvay Conference,
probably the most intelligent picture ever taken, 1927
#
The most famous conference was the October 1927
Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons,
where the world’s most notable physicists met to discuss
the newly formulated quantum theory.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/solvay ... aken-1927/
#
What are Electrons and Photons?
This question is still waiting an answer.
====
Attachments
solvay-conference 1927.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby bangstrom on May 23rd, 2018, 5:27 am 

mitchellmckain » May 22nd, 2018, 11:03 am wrote:
Your effort to avoid clarity and ignore differences amounts to a refusal to understand.


Bangstrom: Believe it or not. I try to understand what you say but it fails to compute. If it helps (likely not) I can go through your most recent post point by point and try to explain my confusion- so here goes.

Mitchellmckainain: An interaction means one object (like a particle) has a causal effect on an other object. But without any transfer of information there is no causal effect

Bangstrom: The causal effect of entanglement is often demonstrated as a co-ordinated change between two particles involving such changes as polarity or particle spin. These interactions do not transfer either information or energy but they demonstrate a causal connection because the observation of one particle determines the state of the other particle. We can have a causal effect without an exchange of information.

Mitchellmckainain: ...and this is the case because the only connection between the separated objects is decoherence which indeed must be random.

Bangstrom: Do you know what decoherence is?

"Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons are described by a wavefunction, a mathematical description of the quantum state of a system; the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction gives rise to various quantum effects. As long as there exists a definite phase relation between different states, the system is said to be coherent. This coherence is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, and is necessary for the functioning of quantum computers. However, when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated, but in contact with its surroundings, coherence decays with time, a process called quantum decoherence. As a result of this process, the relevant quantum behaviour is lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence"

Quantum decoherence is the loss of entanglement among formerly entangled particles so your statement that, “The only connection between separated objects is decoherence.” makes no sense. You are saying the only connection is a disconnection.

Mitchellmckainain: The lack of any hidden variables determining the results has been proven by experiment
.
Bangstrom: True.

Mitchellmckainain: Entanglement is a physical state, and the change to this state is a causal interaction, and that is the only physical contact there ever is.

Bangstrom: OK, close enough.

Mitchellmckainain: The change from this state also requires interaction but not with each other.

Bangstrom: With what are entangled particles interacting if not with each other?

Mitchellmckainain: Do you imagine that point particles actually touch each other? It is logically incoherent.

Bangstrom: OK. But contrast this statement with your previous statement where you said, “the change to this state is a causal interaction, and that is the only physical contact there ever is. I think I understand physical contact without touching but it is confusing to claim we have both without further clarification.

Mitchellmckainain: Particle interactions in Feynman diagrams are about an exchange of energy which alters their physical state.

Bangstrom: True, but Feynman diagrams represent classical physical interactions. They do not represent entanglement.

Mitchellmckainain: But without any transfer of information there is no causal effect.

Bangstrom: The causal effect of entanglement is often demonstrated as a co-ordinated change between two particles involving such changes as polarity or particle spin. These interactions do not transfer information but they demonstrate a causal connection because the observation of one particle determines the state of the other particle. We can have a causal effect without an exchange of information.

Bangstrom: An exchange of energy is not required for entanglement. Not I, but some would say it never happens. An energy exchange among entangled particles would be indistinguishable from a light related event, in which case, it would be light without photons.

Mitchellmckainain: In my above statement I stated the possibility of one kind of non-locality allowed by quantum physics and denied the kind prohibited by relativity.

Bangstrom: Can you mention where you stated the possibility of a one of kind of non-locality allowed by quantum physics and denied the kind prohibited by relativity. I have not found this in the above text.

Mitchellmckainain: If you want to understand better look up "why entanglement does not violate relativity."

Bangstrom: I understand how entanglement does not violate relativity but where can find information about the kind of non-locality consistent with quantum physics that violates relativity? This is a concept new to me. Can you give us an explanation of when entanglement violates relativity beyond just unsupported opinions?
Last edited by bangstrom on May 23rd, 2018, 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby bangstrom on May 23rd, 2018, 5:33 am 

socrat44 » May 23rd, 2018, 2:08 am wrote:The Solvay Conference,
probably the most intelligent picture ever taken, 1927

I often have the feeling they understood the basic principles better in 1927 than we do now.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby socrat44 on May 23rd, 2018, 6:32 am 

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 5:33 am wrote:
socrat44 » May 23rd, 2018, 2:08 am wrote:The Solvay Conference,
probably the most intelligent picture ever taken, 1927

I often have the feeling they understood the basic principles better in 1927 than we do now.



Hmm, yeah . . . the difference that today physicists can better
manipulate with electron / photon,but they stopped to load
the brain with quantum's philosophical questions.
#
Book: ‘'Dreams of a final theory'’.

‘' Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’'
/ By the Nobel laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg, page 66./
==========
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby mitchellmckain on May 23rd, 2018, 1:53 pm 

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: An interaction means one object (like a particle) has a causal effect on an other object. But without any transfer of information there is no causal effect

Bangstrom: The causal effect of entanglement is often demonstrated as a co-ordinated change between two particles involving such changes as polarity or particle spin. These interactions do not transfer either information or energy but they demonstrate a causal connection because the observation of one particle determines the state of the other particle. We can have a causal effect without an exchange of information.

Incorrect. There is no causal connection. The measurement of one particle does not determine the state of the other particle. There is only correlation between the random results when you interact with the particles by measurement. There is no determination of one particle by the other because the results are still completely random even if they are not independent of each other. I REPEAT, the ONLY thing you can say is that the state of the entangled particles is nonlocal and the decoherence is a nonlocal event. But there is no measurable effect of one particle on the other.

Your original response shows the inconsistency of your original understanding of the situation. With a space-like separation you cannot say which measurement happens first. In the structure of Minkowsky space-time they are simultaneous events and any talk of a causal connection between the two is incoherent. Adjust your thinking to this irrefutable fact and your understanding of entanglement will be corrected.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: ...and this is the case because the only connection between the separated objects is decoherence which indeed must be random.

Bangstrom: Do you know what decoherence is?

"Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons are described by a wavefunction, a mathematical description of the quantum state of a system; the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction gives rise to various quantum effects. As long as there exists a definite phase relation between different states, the system is said to be coherent. This coherence is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, and is necessary for the functioning of quantum computers. However, when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated, but in contact with its surroundings, coherence decays with time, a process called quantum decoherence. As a result of this process, the relevant quantum behaviour is lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence"

Quantum decoherence is the loss of entanglement among formerly entangled particles so your statement that, “The only connection between separated objects is decoherence.” makes no sense. You are saying the only connection is a disconnection.

We were talking about the event in which YOU CLAIM one particle is effecting the other. But the decoherence of the entanglement is not one particle effecting the other.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: The lack of any hidden variables determining the results has been proven by experiment
.
Bangstrom: True.

Mitchellmckainain: Entanglement is a physical state, and the change to this state is a causal interaction, and that is the only physical contact there ever is.

Bangstrom: OK, close enough.

Mitchellmckain: The change from this state also requires interaction but not with each other.

Bangstrom: With what are entangled particles interacting if not with each other?

The particles only remain entangled as long as they do not interact with other particles. Thus it is an interaction with other particles which breaks the entanglement between them. And with a space-like interval between the two events, this is simultaneous.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: Do you imagine that point particles actually touch each other? It is logically incoherent.

Bangstrom: OK. But contrast this statement with your previous statement where you said, “the change to this state is a causal interaction, and that is the only physical contact there ever is. I think I understand physical contact without touching but it is confusing to claim we have both without further clarification.

Clarification of the situation is what I am attempting.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: Particle interactions in Feynman diagrams are about an exchange of energy which alters their physical state.

Bangstrom: True, but Feynman diagrams represent classical physical interactions. They do not represent entanglement.

Incorrect. There is nothing classical about Feynmann diagrams. They are a means of calculating the scattering cross-section between particles (i.e. a way of summing up the force between them) when you add up the contributions from all possible ways they can exchange energy.

And of course they do not represent entanglement, BECAUSE ENTANGLEMENT IS NOT AN INTERACTION!!! It is the result of an interaction, but the entangled particles do not interact by virtue of being entangled it is simply a state the two particles are in and you can say that the state of the two particles is non-local.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: But without any transfer of information there is no causal effect.

Bangstrom: The causal effect of entanglement is often demonstrated as a co-ordinated change between two particles involving such changes as polarity or particle spin. These interactions do not transfer information but they demonstrate a causal connection because the observation of one particle determines the state of the other particle. We can have a causal effect without an exchange of information.

No they do not demonstrate a causal connection. You are using the wrong terminology because a "causal" connection between events is where one event is in the past light cone of the other event and this is not the case. The only cause here is the entanglement which is indeed in the past of both particles. But once separated, what you do to one particle has no measurable effect on the other particle. What you are imagining is that the measurement of one particle has an effect on the other. But this is logically incoherent and no such thing occurs. Of course no measurement of one particle can possibly tell you that the other particle "has been measured." It is not even a meaningful statement, because there is no time-like interval is between the two events to say one event in any way happens before the other event.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckainain: In my above statement I stated the possibility of one kind of non-locality allowed by quantum physics and denied the kind prohibited by relativity.

Bangstrom: Can you mention where you stated the possibility of a one of kind of non-locality allowed by quantum physics and denied the kind prohibited by relativity. I have not found this in the above text.

In my first response on May 22nd I said

"There is only a non-local correlation between random measurements of two particles. No information is transferred there and thus no interaction occurs. The only interaction is the one that linked the particles in the first place. The most you can say is that reality is not completely local."

The non-local reality of entangled particles is a non-locality which is implied by quantum entanglement and not prohibited by relativity. But what is not allowed by relativity and not implied by quantum entanglement is a causal connection between two events with a space-like interval between them.

bangstrom » May 23rd, 2018, 4:27 am wrote:Mitchellmckain: If you want to understand better look up "why entanglement does not violate relativity."

Bangstrom: I understand how entanglement does not violate relativity but where can find information about the kind of non-locality consistent with quantum physics that violates relativity? This is a concept new to me. Can you give us an explanation of when entanglement violates relativity beyond just unsupported opinions?

There is no kind of non-locality consistent with quantum physics that violates relativity. Quantum physics builds upon relativity so the very idea of such a thing is quite wrong.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Electron and Information.

Postby bangstrom on May 24th, 2018, 3:38 am 

mitchellmckain » May 23rd, 2018, 12:53 pm wrote:
Incorrect. There is no causal connection. The measurement of one particle does not determine the state of the other particle. There is only correlation between the random results when you interact with the particles by measurement. There is no determination of one particle by the other because the results are still completely random even if they are not independent of each other. I REPEAT, the ONLY thing you can say is that the state of the entangled particles is nonlocal and the decoherence is a nonlocal event. But there is no measurable effect of one particle on the other.

Your original response shows the inconsistency of your original understanding of the situation. With a space-like separation you cannot say which measurement happens first. In the structure of Minkowsky space-time they are simultaneous events and any talk of a causal connection between the two is incoherent. Adjust your thinking to this irrefutable fact and your understanding of entanglement will be corrected.


I noticed one repeated flaw in your analysis of entanglement that should be obvious if you think about it. The timing of events in an experiment involving entanglement is determined by the setup of the experiment. For example, two entangled particles can be sent on divergent paths with polarizing filters to either block or allow the particles to pass. The experimenter knows what to expect from his filters and he controls the timing of events by placing of the filters either closer to the source or farther away so he knows which particle was observed first.
By many repeated runs of the experiment he can determine that the first particle to encounter a filter decides the state of its partner so the measurement of the second particle is not random. There is an observable, non-local, causal connection between entangled particles and this has often been demonstrated by experiment..


mitchellmckain » May 23rd, 2018, 12:53 pm wrote:
There is nothing classical about Feynmann diagrams. They are a means of calculating the scattering cross-section between particles (i.e. a way of summing up the force between them) when you add up the contributions from all possible ways they can exchange energy.

The thinking behind the Feynman diagrams is based on the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory which is clearly not classical so you are right about that but the interactions they depict are classical rather than entanglement.
The W-F absorber theory was discarded long ago as invalid. It was quite predictive but the theory was so whimsical and complicated it could never pass the plausibility test. The theory had infinite numbers of photons taking every possible path between a light signal and receiver and traveling at every possible speed including all speeds in reverse and then they all absorbed into one another except for the one path that conformed to special relativity. The theory worked but it was hard to accept.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests