Photon's puzzle.

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 9th, 2017, 6:20 am 

"My understanding of probability waves is that they are an intrinsic part of our spacetime environment like the probability waves surrounding an atomic nucleus that determine the probable location of an electron and their speed is not limited by ‘c.’ In some theories, the universe is nothing but these probability waves."

Probability waves are a human model with which to explain the behaviour of our experiments. They are strictly a mathematical concept which permits scientists to predict where a probability wave will interact with the environment. This is shown quite clearly in the double-slit experiment where particles are produced at the back screen where a probability wave interacts with a photosensitive screen (assuming we are using photons). And, yes, the universe is basically a probability distribution and not, as the established orthodoxy maintains, a 'bottom-up' reality where everything has to be built up from particles. This approach doesn't really work because for one thing, nobody has ever found a 'fundamental particle', and never will because it's always possible in principle to take apart what you have and go further 'down the rabbit hole' creating ever more complexity. This violates Occam's Razor because it is simply not a parsimonious way to create a reality. It attempts to cling to a physical, causal model of reality which has been shown to be incorrect by quantum events such as entanglement, quantum tunneling, superposition and so on. We need a completely new paradigm with which to underpin the classical world (Newton and Einstein) and quantum mechanics. Thus far, no overarching theory has been found and won't be as long as those seeking such a theory take an objective, physical approach. Such an approach is naive and assumes 'stuff' is independently existing 'out there' and we as observers have no part to play aside of acting as passive observers.
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby Braininvat on September 9th, 2017, 9:42 am 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Raises question about the necessity of an observer.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 9th, 2017, 9:50 am 

webplodder » 09 Sep 2017, 12:20 wrote:And, yes, the universe is basically a probability distribution and not, as the established orthodoxy maintains, a 'bottom-up' reality where everything has to be built up from particles. This approach doesn't really work because for one thing, nobody has ever found a 'fundamental particle', and never will because it's always possible in principle to take apart what you have and go further 'down the rabbit hole' creating ever more complexity.

I have asked you to provide some acceptable references supporting your view. Lacking that, your posts will not stay on the Physics side for long.

And please break your long paragraphs up for readability.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 9th, 2017, 11:54 am 



Okay, but how could you ever prove that an observer was unnecessary?

For example, if I was stranded on a desert island and decided to send a message in a bottle and nobody ever saw it and it was eventually destroyed, how could one argue that the message had any meaning aside from when I was writing it since I was an the only observer who had observed it?

How can scientific experiments have any meaning to themselves? What is it that is doing the interpretation of the data rendered by such experiments?

In the quantum double-slit delayed eraser experiment when data from a detector registering a 'particle' is destroyed after information has been gathered by the back screen, when someone looks at it a diffraction pattern is seen. Now, how can this be when the experiment had already taken place before the detector data had been destroyed? Why doesn't the back screen still show a 'particle' pattern?' Deterministic physics does not behave this way.
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 9th, 2017, 12:18 pm 

bangstrom » 09 Sep 2017, 10:04 wrote:
BurtJordaan » September 8th, 2017, 1:57 am wrote:... That packet propagates in macroscopic systems as an EM wave, at speed 'c' relative to every possible inertial frame. It is detected as a localized quantized packet of energy somewhere else.

“Relative to every possible inertial frame” is logically impossible.

This is the way inertial frames are defined, so how can it be "logically impossible"? It does not even involve photons and neither does entanglement experiments involve photons, unless the experiment measures photon entanglement. Probability waves are neither EM waves, nor photons.

Einstein’s, “spooky action at a distance” is just the instantaneous collapse of the wave function, which cannot be explained by classical SR. However, QFT (which includes SR) can.

The two slit experiment presents a conceptual difficulty for wave theory because the wave passes through either one slit or the other or it splits and goes through both slits then interferes with itself.

Huh? I think it is exactly the opposite. EM waves are spread out things and have no problem passing through two or more slits at the same time. W-F Absorber theory has been dropped as viable long ago, but Cramer's is viable and interprets all observations consistently.

In Cramer’s transactional theory, none of his waves are traveling at ‘c’ they are all essentially instant- non-local-action at a distance.

I'm no quantum theorist, but my understanding is that Cramer's retarded and advanced (back in time) waves are just interpreted to cancel each other out and thus cause the illusion of an instantaneous handshake, imagined as a "timeless standing wave" in spacetime. He says in An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation:

Cramer wrote:When we stand in the dark and look at a star a hundred light years away, not only have the retarded light waves from the star been traveling for a hundred years to reach our eyes, but the advanced waves generated by absorption processes within our eyes have reached a hundred years into the past, completing the transaction that permitted the star to shine in our direction.

Again, it is just a man-made explanation, not purported to reflect any more than that. No energy or information are passed faster the what light can travel between the emitter and receiver. That is the reality.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 9th, 2017, 12:56 pm 

BurtJordaan » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:18 pm wrote:
bangstrom » 09 Sep 2017, 10:04 wrote:
BurtJordaan » September 8th, 2017, 1:57 am wrote:

Einstein’s, “spooky action at a distance” is just the instantaneous collapse of the wave function, which cannot be explained by classical SR. However, QFT (which includes SR) can.



How?

The wave function isn't physical. How can it be if it acts instantaneously?
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 9th, 2017, 2:10 pm 

webplodder » 09 Sep 2017, 18:56 wrote:The wave function isn't physical. How can it be if it acts instantaneously?

You should read it in the context of the reply. It was all about interpretations of qauntum physics.

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse, with its ample references, give an adequate explanation of the interpretational "how".

The relationship to QFT is simply described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Classical_and_quantum_fields.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 9th, 2017, 2:58 pm 

BurtJordaan » Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:10 pm wrote:
webplodder » 09 Sep 2017, 18:56 wrote:The wave function isn't physical. How can it be if it acts instantaneously?

You should read it in the context of the reply. It was all about interpretations of qauntum physics.

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse, with its ample references, give an adequate explanation of the interpretational "how".

The relationship to QFT is simply described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Classical_and_quantum_fields.


These references simply show how the wave function is measured, not where it comes from. So don't you think this is telling us something? I think it is telling us that the wave function is essentially information, non-physical and is a result of an experiment which necessarily involves a conscious experimenter. The mathematical models in your references clearly demonstrate that information, in the form of mathematical constructs, is being generated and that here we are dealing with a non-physical, acausal phenomenon that in no way flows logically from a Newtonian/Relativistic model of reality and that could only exist as a creation of an 'eigenstate'. In other words, by a conscious observer.

The problem with the various interpretations of QM is that they make too many assumptions, which tends to violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, cleanest way to interpret what is going on is to assume just two things:

a) Consciousness exists.
b) Information exists (in the form of mathematics and language and instrument data).

Taking just these two elements into account we are led to the conclusion that reality is informational in nature and that a conscious observer is required to complete the process of bringing information into our reality.

To take the 'many worlds' idea. Are we really saying that anytime a fundamental particle has a transition we must create a whole new universe? This seems implausible and wasteful of resources. Transitions are taking place all the time so we would need unimaginable numbers of new universes to satisfy the requirements of this particular 'interpretation.'

The same goes for the other QM interpretations in that they simply make too many assumptions to be viable.

Over the years quantum physicists have become very adept at calculating the effects of QM but are still in many cases clueless as to what underlies it all. The informational model solves all of the problems associated with quantum phenomena. It might mean we live in a virtual reality where information if fed into our reality from somewhere outside of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby Braininvat on September 9th, 2017, 4:55 pm 

Many physical laws are highly involved with real numbers, which points towards the problem of a universal computation that requires an infinite amount of time in a purely digital architecture. From the Ockham perspective you mention, the digital universe theory would tend to favor implementations of universes that were VERY simple and the likelihood of being in such a universe would be very high, so then we would have the problem of why we have such a complex one and one that seems to require so many real numbers to model.

And again, the ease of quantum decoherence, simply as a result of basic interactions with a "noisy" environment, puts the burden of explanation of an observer-dependent universe back on those proposing it.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 10th, 2017, 1:36 am 

webplodder » 09 Sep 2017, 20:58 wrote:These references simply show how the wave function is measured, not where it comes from.

I think they rather say how quantum variables (the eigenvalues) are measured. The wavefunction is an interpretation.

webplodder wrote:The problem with the various interpretations of QM is that they make too many assumptions, which tends to violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, cleanest way to interpret what is going on is to assume just two things:

a) Consciousness exists.
b) Information exists (in the form of mathematics and language and instrument data).

We now drift into philosophy, but suppose consciousness disappears, would the same universe continue to exist?

webplodder wrote:To take the 'many worlds' idea.

We can safely forget about that one because of it's "metaphysical baggage", as prof. John Wheeler said - it only deserves a place in the science history museum.

webplodder wrote:Over the years quantum physicists have become very adept at calculating the effects of QM but are still in many cases clueless as to what underlies it all.

This is true for almost all of sciences. There will always be a level below that we do not understand. But there will always be those that try to delve deeper and there will be those that use the best current knowledge and interpretations to make progress with wonderful machines, treatments etc.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 10th, 2017, 6:41 am 

webplodder » September 9th, 2017, 10:54 am wrote:
In the quantum double-slit delayed eraser experiment when data from a detector registering a 'particle' is destroyed after information has been gathered by the back screen, when someone looks at it a diffraction pattern is seen. Now, how can this be when the experiment had already taken place before the detector data had been destroyed? Why doesn't the back screen still show a 'particle' pattern?' Deterministic physics does not behave this way.

There is a better and simpler experiment demonstrating erasure by observation (if I can ever find it again) but it demonstrates that erasure is possible when the separation is in space but not in time.
I am familiar with the sort of experiment you mention and I don’t doubt the results but I question the interpretation that, “A ‘particle’ is destroyed after information has been gathered by the back screen.”
This experiment has been derisively called a “quantum necropsy” or something to that effect.

The experiment errs in that it uses the classical theory of light where light travels through space and has a measurable speed. In this experiment, the experimenters think, quite reasonably by classical theory, that two entangled particles simultaneously leave the BBO crystal and head in different directions to be detected at different points and that by changing the length of a particle’s path they can delay or shorten its arrival time at the end.

In Cramer’s theory and the others I have mentioned, the emission and absorption of light are simultaneous events so both signals arrive at both ends simultaneously despite having a difference in path lengths.

In this view, there is no information gathered at one end that survives for a time until the which-way information is observed. The destruction at one point is simultaneous with the destruction at the other so there is no need for the one light path to go back in time for a do over- all events are simultaneous. I interpret the experiment as suggesting that there is no measurable time interval between the emission and absorption of light.

Never the less, the destruction of the the interference by the observance of which-way information is still quite amazing.

In Cramer’s theory, light is a direct and instant interaction among electrons and there are no photons or beams traveling through space. Since there are no photons, there are no photons to be destroyed but the electrons are permanent and I find the results to be most sensibly understood as electron to electron interactions.

There is another experiment where a destroyed photon continues to communicate with its living entangled partner and the eraser experiment is somewhat similar but no electrons are harmed in either experiment so it appears that the results most resemble communications among entangled electrons than entanglement among destroyed photons. Do photons even exist?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 10th, 2017, 6:46 am 

Braininvat » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:55 pm wrote:Many physical laws are highly involved with real numbers, which points towards the problem of a universal computation that requires an infinite amount of time in a purely digital architecture. From the Ockham perspesctive you mention, the digital universe theory would tend to favor implementations of universes that were VERY simple and the likelihood of being in such a universe would be very high, so then we would have the problem of why we have such a complex one and one that seems to require so many real numbers to model.


Well, if we suppose the universe is a kind of quantum computer the calculations possible would almost be limitless. Seth Lloyd, for example, who is one of the principle researchers into developing quantum computing, thinks the universe is a quantum computer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd

Nick Bostrom too has argued the case for a simulation hypothesis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis


And again, the ease of quantum decoherence, simply as a result of basic interactions with a "noisy" environment, puts the burden of explanation of an observer-dependent universe back on those proposing it.


The way it may work is that an observation is made which gathers data from the environment which then acts as an input for further observations. Thus we create a feedback loop where whatever we observe changes the information we obtain from it, which in turn changes itself over time. You can see the evidence for this idea in the way science and technology has developed over the years by constantly refining itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital ... rom_bit.22
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 10th, 2017, 8:12 am 

BurtJordaan » September 9th, 2017, 11:18 am wrote:
bangstrom » 09 Sep 2017, 10:04 wrote:“Relative to every possible inertial frame” is logically impossible.

This is the way inertial frames are defined, so how can it be "logically impossible"?

This is either an appeal to dogma or an attack on logic because observers having different velocities should not see a single velocity as the same for all observers. Galileo said something about that.
BurtJordaan » September 9th, 2017, 11:18 am wrote:Einstein’s, “spooky action at a distance” is just the instantaneous collapse of the wave function, which cannot be explained by classical SR. However, QFT (which includes SR) can.

QFT does not hold to the ‘speed of light’ explanation and that is Carver Mead’s field of authority.
BurtJordaan » September 9th, 2017, 11:18 am wrote:Huh? I think it is exactly the opposite. EM waves are spread out things and have no problem passing through two or more slits at the same time. W-F Absorber theory has been dropped as viable long ago, but Cramer's is viable and interprets all observations consistently.

EM waves are thought to propagate in all directions at ‘c’ so what happens to the energy they carry? Is it also spread out and, if so, how does it all gather back together at a point.
BurtJordaan » September 9th, 2017, 11:18 am wrote:
I'm no quantum theorist, but my understanding is that Cramer's retarded and advanced (back in time) waves are just interpreted to cancel each other out and thus cause the illusion of an instantaneous handshake, imagined as a "timeless standing wave" in spacetime. He says in An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation:

Cramer wrote:When we stand in the dark and look at a star a hundred light years away, not only have the retarded light waves from the star been traveling for a hundred years to reach our eyes, but the advanced waves generated by absorption processes within our eyes have reached a hundred years into the past, completing the transaction that permitted the star to shine in our direction.

Again, it is just a man-made explanation, not purported to reflect any more than that. No energy or information are passed faster the what light can travel between the emitter and receiver. That is the reality.

Cramer’s quote is literally the same as what Hugo Tetrode said nearly a century ago in German.

And Tetrode continued in this translation,”The energy loss of one and the gain of the other could occur in a time interval corresponding to their separation; that is, we would have an instance of emission from one atom and absorption by the other.

While according to classical understanding emission is a random event leading to radiation that also random might somewhere at sometime be adsorbed; here in this theory, the source and sink of a radiative interaction are virtually predetermined paired events.”

So the timing we see in light events is “corresponding to their separation” and the spacetime separation we see is one second of time for every 300,000 km of distance for all observers. This is an observed constant that has nothing to do with the timing of the light with its “virtually predetermined paired events.”

We know from SR that we can never observe events as “faster than light” but instantaneous events have been indirectly observed ever since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in 1962. Instant communication by entangled particles has been demonstrated but there is no way can ever observe a communication as instant whenever space and time intrude. And time intrudes in everything we observe whenever space is also observed. The space/time ratio of 'c' is the operating speed of our universe that determines the maximum speed at which we can observe events separated by space and we are stuck in that reality.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 10th, 2017, 8:58 am 

BurtJordaan » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:36 am wrote:
webplodder » 09 Sep 2017, 20:58 wrote:These references simply show how the wave function is measured, not where it comes from.

I think they rather say how quantum variables (the eigenvalues) are measured. The wavefunction is an interpretation.


Well, okay, we either call it a wavefunction or not. Whatever.

The essential point here is that what we are really measuring is an experiment, or, more precisely, the information derived from doing an experiment. And this goes back to what I was saying earlier about changing what data we have derived by further modifying it. For example, when a mathematical model is made of some phenomenon it will then be possible to examine the logical implications of it and, by means of mathematical manipulation, discover whatever implications ensue. Now, whether this information is inherent within the fabric of reality or whether it is something we 'create' is an interesting philosophical point but in any case some kind of observation needs to be made to enable new information to become available to conscious beings.

webplodder wrote:
The problem with the various interpretations of QM is that they make too many assumptions, which tends to violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, cleanest way to interpret what is going on is to assume just two things:

a) Consciousness exists.
b) Information exists (in the form of mathematics and language and instrument data).

We now drift into philosophy, but suppose consciousness disappears, would the same universe continue to exist?


How could it? The thing to remember is that, in the final analysis, we form part of reality, therefore when we are not present or don't exist, reality changes so it cannot be exactly as it was when we were an active participant of it. Certainly, from a subjective standpoint it does not make much sense to assume nothing changes in the absence of conscious observers because we bring with us a set of interpretive perceptive filters that we use to interpret whatever data is being received by us.

webplodder wrote:
To take the 'many worlds' idea.

We can safely forget about that one because of it's "metaphysical baggage", as prof. John Wheeler said - it only deserves a place in the science history museum. [/QUITE]

Good.

webplodder wrote:[QUITE]Over the years quantum physicists have become very adept at calculating the effects of QM but are still in many cases clueless as to what underlies it all.

This is true for almost all of sciences. There will always be a level below that we do not understand. But there will always be those that try to delve deeper and there will be those that use the best current knowledge and interpretations to make progress with wonderful machines, treatments etc.


Very true but there is also a tendency by some to cling onto ideas that really don't answer the data and that some see as possibly introducing an element of superstition, even religion, into science.
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby hyksos on September 10th, 2017, 2:47 pm 

bangstrom » September 3rd, 2017, 11:30 am wrote:Light appears to move as if prescient of its destination and environment which suggests that the path of light is determined prior to emission. And the equality of space/time intervals, independent of any velocity is more indicative of a universal property of spacetime itself than of a velocity.

There are two claims here connected by a "which suggest". Parsing them ,

  • (J) "Light appears to move as if prescient of its destination and environment"
  • (K) "the path of light is determined prior to emission."

(J) is not only true of light. It is true of every particle and boson and fermion known to science and physics.
The Schroedinger wave knows everything, and it loosely suggests where a particle will be found in spacetime upon measurement.

Moving on to (K).

You wrote "(J) which suggests (K)". (K) is most definitely not suggested by (J) at all. You have to be uber-careful about what you mean by the word "determined" here. The formalism of QED predicts that the photon while in mid flight has no path, and instead spreads out everywhere like a wave. Only upon absorption does the photon take on a localized position again. The formalism says the choice of where the photon arrives exactly is probabilistic and not determined by anything at all.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby hyksos on September 10th, 2017, 3:03 pm 

In Cramer’s theory and the others I have mentioned, the emission and absorption of light are simultaneous events so both signals arrive at both ends simultaneously despite having a difference in path lengths.

In this view, there is no information gathered at one end that survives for a time until the which-way information is observed. The destruction at one point is simultaneous with the destruction at the other so there is no need for the one light path to go back in time for a do over- all events are simultaneous. I interpret the experiment as suggesting that there is no measurable time interval between the emission and absorption of light.

First of all, I do not believe you are correctly communicating Cramer's AW/RW theory.

(But if I may leave some remarks about Cramer's theory.) There is no reason at all to insert this 'extra machinery' that Cramer adds with retarded waves from the absorber. The same phenomena is described by the Schroedinger Wave and its inherent non-locality, and it fits the bill far more parsimoniously.

If you are operating under the impression that Cramer's AW/RW is inherently deterministic , you are in for a painful surprise.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 10th, 2017, 6:14 pm 

hyksos » September 10th, 2017, 2:03 pm wrote:You wrote "(J) which suggests (K)". (K) is most definitely not suggested by (J) at all. You have to be uber-careful about what you mean by the word "determined" here. The formalism of QED predicts that the photon while in mid flight has no path, and instead spreads out everywhere like a wave. Only upon absorption does the photon take on a localized position again. The formalism says the choice of where the photon arrives exactly is probabilistic and not determined by anything at all.


The formalism of QED sounds too much like the W-F theory that tries to merge the classical and QM description of light. In the W-F theory, the photon spreads out and takes every possible path between source and sink and travels at every possible speed including all speeds in reverse. What we observe is the single path and speed that conforms to our particular SR reference frame. Everything else cancels.

I find it far better to dismiss with the foton entirely as “extra machinery.” We don’t need no eff in photon.

The choice of which two electrons can swap a quantum of energy depends upon their ability to share a common wavefunction and that depends on their orientation in space, frequency, spin, impedance matching, the presence of other charged particles in the vicinity, and the nature of the space between… clear or obstructed. All these are probabilistic but, once the paired electrons establish a common resonance, the ‘path’ is determined and the energy exchange is a go or no-go. I can’t imagine a photon being “spread out everywhere” looking for a place to land.

hyksos » September 10th, 2017, 2:03 pm wrote:First of all, I do not believe you are correctly communicating Cramer's AW/RW theory.

(But if I may leave some remarks about Cramer's theory.) There is no reason at all to insert this 'extra machinery' that Cramer adds with retarded waves from the absorber. The same phenomena is described by the Schroedinger Wave and its inherent non-locality, and it fits the bill far more parsimoniously.


I could be wrong in communicating Cramer’s theory. I am more familiar with the approachable POAMS theory and I could be mixing concepts.

The two-way wave connection originated with the Wheeler-Feynman theory. Cramer removed most of the ‘extra machinery’ from their theory but I agree that he should have gone one step farther. Einstein brought up the connection between the W-F Absorber theory and Tetrode’s long forgotten article that identified the connection as the Schroedinger wave and I think Tetrode got it right.

Einstein and Bohr paid a visit to Tetrode at his home but they were told he was too ill to receive visitors. Tetrode died of TB shortly thereafter.

hyksos » September 10th, 2017, 2:03 pm wrote:If you are operating under the impression that Cramer's AW/RW is inherently deterministic , you are in for a painful surprise.


I see no alternative but to interpret Cramer’s view as anything but deterministic but the implications are quite unsatisfying. There must be some loop-hole through uncertainty that destroys determinism.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 11th, 2017, 6:14 am 

bangstrom » 11 Sep 2017, 00:14 wrote:All these are probabilistic but, once the paired electrons establish a common resonance, the ‘path’ is determined and the energy exchange is a go or no-go. I can’t imagine a photon being “spread out everywhere” looking for a place to land.

Neither can I, but I can imagine a probability wave (the wavefunction) being spread out everywhere and that the collapse of this (non-material thing) can happen instantaneously. And then it can produce a photon 'somewhere'.

But forget photons, electrons can also do this trick of having a wavefuntion that can be everywhere and when it collapses, the electron can turn up 'somewhere'.

We must also remember that in entanglement experiments, two electrons (say) are entangled locally and then moved apart at subluminal speed. Plenty of time for the probability wave to form (or the 'resonance', if you wish). We observe one electron's quantum state, the resonance collapses instantly, leaving the other with the complimentary quantum state.

'Spooky', but this is apparently how it is. And I'm happy as long as no information is actually transferred superluminally.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 11th, 2017, 9:41 am 

I have split the replies that drifted too far into the philosophy direction into a new thread Universe as Simulation?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 12th, 2017, 4:29 am 

BurtJordaan » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:14 am wrote:
bangstrom » 11 Sep 2017, 00:14 wrote:All these are probabilistic but, once the paired electrons establish a common resonance, the ‘path’ is determined and the energy exchange is a go or no-go. I can’t imagine a photon being “spread out everywhere” looking for a place to land.

Neither can I, but I can imagine a probability wave (the wavefunction) being spread out everywhere and that the collapse of this (non-material thing) can happen instantaneously. And then it can produce a photon 'somewhere'.

But forget photons, electrons can also do this trick of having a wavefuntion that can be everywhere and when it collapses, the electron can turn up 'somewhere'.

We must also remember that in entanglement experiments, two electrons (say) are entangled locally and then moved apart at subluminal speed. Plenty of time for the probability wave to form (or the 'resonance', if you wish). We observe one electron's quantum state, the resonance collapses instantly, leaving the other with the complimentary quantum state.

'Spooky', but this is apparently how it is. And I'm happy as long as no information is actually transferred superluminally.


How do we know that a probability wave is being formed as the two entangled particles are moving away from one another at subliminal speed? What evidence is there for this and, in any case, on measurement, 'spooky action' is instantaneous so this is still not addressed. If such a wave is formed during separation, it does not really explain how it acts instantaneously on measurement on one of the entangled pair. Isn't this approach simply attempting to support a causal 'physical' model of reality by assuming there is something pre-existing (possibly hidden variables?) that enables entangled particles to react to one another?
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 12th, 2017, 5:44 am 

BurtJordaan » September 11th, 2017, 5:14 am wrote:Neither can I, but I can imagine a probability wave (the wavefunction) being spread out everywhere and that the collapse of this (non-material thing) can happen instantaneously. And then it can produce a photon 'somewhere'.

But forget photons, electrons can also do this trick of having a wavefuntion that can be everywhere and when it collapses, the electron can turn up 'somewhere'.

We must also remember that in entanglement experiments, two electrons (say) are entangled locally and then moved apart at subluminal speed. Plenty of time for the probability wave to form (or the 'resonance', if you wish). We observe one electron's quantum state, the resonance collapses instantly, leaving the other with the complimentary quantum state.


I don’t see where this explanation requires the photon to travel through space at speed ‘c’ if electrons can do the same trick as photons, then we have an explanation for light that makes photons redundant so we can… forget photons.
Your comment closely resembles Tetrode’s claim in 1922 and and it is the same principle found in modern theories for light that do not require a photon particle for their explanation.
But electrons and other particles do not leave one location and turn up ‘somewhere’ else in the everywhere. Every particle has a thing called its quantum ‘identity.’ Identity describes a particle’s physical properties that make it different from all other similar particles. These properties are things like spin, polarity, wavefunction, orientation and, location in space. And the thing that gives a particle its identity is a thing called quantum ‘information.’
If all conditions are exactly right, two remote electrons can spontaneously share a common wavefunction no matter what the distance of their separation and the electrons are said to be entangled.
When entangled, the remote particles can share a common Schroedinger wavefunction and resonate together as if they were two halves of a single particle. The identities of both particles are in a state of superposition as long as they remain entangled. Just like Schroedinger’s dead/live they are no longer identified as either spin up or spin down or polarized left or right. Their identities are indeterminate.
When the wavefunction collapses, ‘identity’ returns to both particles but the identities may not be the same as they were prior to entanglement.
This is how an electron’s wavefunction can cause it to appear to leave one location and end up somewhere else. It instantly swaps its identity with another electron. Identity (aka information) is the only thing exchanged and there are no electrons moving through space.
The aspect of an electron that can leave one location and appear ‘somewhere’ else is not the electron itself but its identity. One electron in the spin-up condition can swap spin identity with a remote electron in the spin-down condition while the two are momentarily entangled. An outside observer watching both electrons would say the electrons have instantly swapped places but the only thing that has swapped locations is the electron’s identities. And the only that has been exchanged is quantum information.
In Cramer’s and the other theories, the energy of an electron is part of an electron’ s quantum identity and its energy level can be swapped non-locally with other electrons via entanglement just as entangled electrons can swap spin direction or polarity. Electrons have polarity too. This makes light an exchange of information rather than an exchange of photons and the term ‘photon’ indicates the size of the quantum of energy exchanged rather than either a particle or anything else traveling through space.[/quote]
BurtJordaan » September 11th, 2017, 5:14 am wrote:'Spooky', but this is apparently how it is. And I'm happy as long as no information is actually transferred superluminally.


The exchange of information is transferred superluminally and we can measure it as such by placing observers at the start and finish of the event with synchronized clocks so we have a departure and arrival time. This is how the superluminal speed for entanglement is measured and it also works for light giving us the one-way speed of light.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 12th, 2017, 6:49 am 

webplodder » September 12th, 2017, 3:29 am wrote:
How do we know that a probability wave is being formed as the two entangled particles are moving away from one another at subliminal speed? What evidence is there for this and, in any case, on measurement, 'spooky action' is instantaneous so this is still not addressed. If such a wave is formed during separation, it does not really explain how it acts instantaneously on measurement on one of the entangled pair. Isn't this approach simply attempting to support a causal 'physical' model of reality by assuming there is something pre-existing (possibly hidden variables?) that enables entangled particles to react to one another?

For practical reasons of experiment, the paired particles emerge from an interaction that is known to generate entangled pairs. This is where the connection is first established and it is the only way of generating particles known likely to be entangled. The big problem from that point is verifying that entanglement has been maintained throughout the experiment. It is often lost.

There are statistical ways of determining if the entanglement has been broken prior to the final measurements but there is no way of knowing if an entanglement has been established mid-experiment if it was not there from the start.

The speed of the interaction is measured by independent detectors at the ‘finish’ lines with synchronized clocks at each point. One particle is observed and this breaks the entanglement. An attempt is then made to determine how fast it takes the information to reach the other particle. The speed of the exchange of information can only be calculated in a post analysis when all the information has been gathered and the speed can only be expressed as greater than some value because it is too fast to measure.

Different experiments are designed to rule out different hidden variables and many repetitions are required to rule out the many possible experimental errors.

https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists ... glement-2/
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby webplodder on September 13th, 2017, 11:03 am 

bangstrom » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:49 am wrote:
webplodder » September 12th, 2017, 3:29 am wrote:
How do we know that a probability wave is being formed as the two entangled particles are moving away from one another at subliminal speed? What evidence is there for this and, in any case, on measurement, 'spooky action' is instantaneous so this is still not addressed. If such a wave is formed during separation, it does not really explain how it acts instantaneously on measurement on one of the entangled pair. Isn't this approach simply attempting to support a causal 'physical' model of reality by assuming there is something pre-existing (possibly hidden variables?) that enables entangled particles to react to one another?

For practical reasons of experiment, the paired particles emerge from an interaction that is known to generate entangled pairs. This is where the connection is first established and it is the only way of generating particles known likely to be entangled. The big problem from that point is verifying that entanglement has been maintained throughout the experiment. It is often lost.

There are statistical ways of determining if the entanglement has been broken prior to the final measurements but there is no way of knowing if an entanglement has been established mid-experiment if it was not there from the start.

The speed of the interaction is measured by independent detectors at the ‘finish’ lines with synchronized clocks at each point. One particle is observed and this breaks the entanglement. An attempt is then made to determine how fast it takes the information to reach the other particle. The speed of the exchange of information can only be calculated in a post analysis when all the information has been gathered and the speed can only be expressed as greater than some value because it is too fast to measure.

Different experiments are designed to rule out different hidden variables and many repetitions are required to rule out the many possible experimental errors.

https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists ... glement-2/


Interesting, and personally, I think this kind of process seems to support Wheeler's 'it from bit' idea whereby through conducting the right kind of experiments, we render more and more information about a given phenomenon, and in doing so we develop and change it. It's as if we allow ourselves more 'potential' to 'sculptor' reality, although this sounds a bit poetic, I admit. It'll be interesting to see what the next step is (if there is a next step) and what that leads to eventually.
webplodder
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Oct 2008


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 14th, 2017, 1:01 pm 

bangstrom » 12 Sep 2017, 11:44 wrote:The exchange of information is transferred superluminally and we can measure it as such by placing observers at the start and finish of the event with synchronized clocks so we have a departure and arrival time. This is how the superluminal speed for entanglement is measured and it also works for light giving us the one-way speed of light.

Well, this maybe with your own definition of what information and "superluminal speed for entanglement is measured", but I have not seen that in any proper science paper.

BTW, I could not figure out from whom you quoted in the bulk of your response. It would be helpful if you could give a good reference.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 15th, 2017, 3:00 am 

BurtJordaan » September 14th, 2017, 12:01 pm wrote:
Well, this maybe with your own definition of what information and "superluminal speed for entanglement is measured", but I have not seen that in any proper science paper.


Have you read anything on the topic published since 1962? I have never seen the ‘speed of entanglement’ or the speed of ‘quantum information’ measured as anything other than superluminal or too fast to measure. By this I mean where the measurement of how fast one entangled particle affects the results of the measurement of its entangled partner, with that correlation taking place so fast that it exceeds ‘light speed.’

Bell and Aspect were the first to demonstrate an exchange of information between photons traveling in opposite directions in which case the transfer of information was not measured but it had to be far faster than ‘light speed.’ We know from SR that we can never directly observe the non-local exchange of quantum information as anything faster than ‘c’ but that is explained in the theories I mentioned as the relativistic delay where we observe a one second of time in every 300,000 km of distance. Light is instant. That is why nothing can travel faster than light but we can never observe light as faster than ‘c’ because, in our spacetime environment, includes an interval of time within every observed interval of space.

BurtJordaan » September 14th, 2017, 12:01 pm wrote:
BTW, I could not figure out from whom you quoted in the bulk of your response. It would be helpful if you could give a good reference.


The opinions expressed by one writer on the topic of non-local information exchange agree with those of the others so this is not any one person’s crank point of view especially not mine alone although I may have my own way of understanding parts of it which I have not yet mentioned. I don’t like to reference comments specific to any one writer when what they say applies to all the previously mentioned writers.

The most in depth reference would be John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics but that is a lot to read through. Here is a shorter explanation.
http://ws5.com/spacetime/Cramer%20-%20T ... tation.pdf

The simplest explanation is probably the first explanation given by Hugo Tetrode in 1922. Tetrode’s article is no longer easy to link to but it can be found near the bottom of Kracklaurer’s website “Non-Loco Physics” near the bottom under TRANSLATIONS.

Tetrode said,”Suppose two atoms in different states of excitation are located near each other, normally it is to be expected that they would have little influence on each other; however, under special conditions with respect to positions and velocities, possibly also in the vicinity of a third atom, it might be that strong interactions occur. Such a situation could well lead to an energy transfer between atoms such that their excited states are exchanged.

It could be assumed that the energy exchange Tetrode mentioned is at light speed but Tetrode makes it clear in the paragraphs that follow that the connection is an instant and direct interaction among atoms that could extend from from one star to another and beyond. That is, the interaction is an instant, non-local, action at a distance.

Another reference would be the Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis POAMS which has its own website but a much shorter read can be found here where Pope explains some of the history and philosophy behind the theory
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Arti ... 1/Pope.pdf
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 15th, 2017, 3:41 am 

bangstrom » 15 Sep 2017, 09:00 wrote:Have you read anything on the topic published since 1962? I have never seen the ‘speed of entanglement’ or the speed of ‘quantum information’ measured as anything other than superluminal or too fast to measure.

Actully, I can refer to quite recent papers that disagree with your definition of "quantum information transfer", e.g.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-breakthrough-quantum.html wrote:From stationary to flying qubits at speeds never reached before…. This feat, achieved by a team from Polytechnique Montréal and France's Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), brings us a little closer to the era when information is transmitted via quantum principles.

A paper titled "High-Fidelity and Ultrafast Initialization of a Hole-Spin Bound to a Te Isoelectronic Centre in ZnSe" was recently published in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters. The creation of a qubit in zinc selenide, a well-known semi-conductor material, made it possible to produce an interface between quantum physics that governs the behaviour of matter on a nanometre scale and the transfer of information at the speed of light, thereby paving the way to producing quantum communications networks. {my emphasis}
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 15th, 2017, 6:30 am 

BurtJordaan » September 15th, 2017, 2:41 am wrote:
Actully, I can refer to quite recent papers that disagree with your definition of "quantum information transfer", e.g.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-breakthrough-quantum.html wrote:From stationary to flying qubits at speeds never reached before…. This feat, achieved by a team from Polytechnique Montréal and France's Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), brings us a little closer to the era when information is transmitted via quantum principles.

A paper titled "High-Fidelity and Ultrafast Initialization of a Hole-Spin Bound to a Te Isoelectronic Centre in ZnSe" was recently published in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters. The creation of a qubit in zinc selenide, a well-known semi-conductor material, made it possible to produce an interface between quantum physics that governs the behaviour of matter on a nanometre scale and the transfer of information at the speed of light, thereby paving the way to producing quantum communications networks. {my emphasis}


This appears to be a technique to encode quantum information in the ‘hole’ of a semiconductor and read it out at a later time. Semiconductor ‘holes’ are normally too unstable to hold information. The success of this technique depends on the ability of a triad of atoms of Te, Zn, and Se to share a stable ‘tunneling’ wavefunction that maintains the ‘hole’ in a state of coherence. “The readout is performed by hitting the hole with a laser beam and observing the spin direction of the reflected photon.”

The information about the experiment does not explain how the information in the entangled ‘hole’ (a stationary Q-bit) is transmitted to the entangled photon (a flying Q-bit) or when the entanglement between the hole and the photon begins but it sounds as though the the information in the Q-bit hole is transmitted to the photon at the moment when the two contact. If this is the case, the exchange of information is local and there is no action-at-a-distance. If the exchange of information is after the contact or removed from the location of the hole then the information transfer would necessarily be faster than the speed of a photon in order to catch up.

A Q-bit is an entangled particle and a ‘hole’ is a net positive charge left by the loss of an electron and a Q-bit hole would be an entangled positive charge.

This is not how a photon free theory would explain the same series of events so the explanation is quasi classical. The experiment is new and uses the language of QM but I don’t see where the experiment involves the use of an information exchange via entanglement over any distance so the speed of the information exchange is classical via photons.

This experiment sounds like the quantum equivalent of leaving a letter in the mail box to be picked up by the postman. Then the letter leaves at the speed of the postman.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 15th, 2017, 11:28 am 

bangstrom » 15 Sep 2017, 12:30 wrote:This experiment sounds like the quantum equivalent of leaving a letter in the mail box to be picked up by the postman. Then the letter leaves at the speed of the postman.

Similar for quantum information transfer.

The reason why quantum entanglement cannot do faster than light communication is that you cannot affect which state the local particle goes into. Even if you can observe the quantum states of two entangled particles simultaneously, the pair only 'decide' in which state each will be when you observe one of that them. No information is transferred instantly by that - per the standard definitions of the terms.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby bangstrom on September 15th, 2017, 11:50 pm 

BurtJordaan » September 15th, 2017, 10:28 am wrote:
The reason why quantum entanglement cannot do faster than light communication is that you cannot affect which state the local particle goes into.

This has to do with intelligible information but it places no limit on the speed of a signal. If you flip a coin and send that information (heads) faster than light or by snail mail it has no meaning at any speed without prior communication. Some states can be decided beforehand. For example, placing an entangled electron in a magnetic field can predetermine its spin direction.

BurtJordaan » September 15th, 2017, 10:28 am wrote:
Even if you can observe the quantum states of two entangled particles simultaneously, the pair only 'decide' in which state each will be when you observe one of that them. No information is transferred instantly by that - per the standard definitions of the terms.

A non-local, faster than light exchange of quantum information is necessary if the paired particles are to simultaneously decide their identities. This is not the same thing as intelligible information that we can use but it is an exchange of information just the same. Quantum information.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Photon's puzzle.

Postby BurtJordaan on September 16th, 2017, 12:33 pm 

bangstrom » 16 Sep 2017, 05:50 wrote:A non-local, faster than light exchange of quantum information is necessary if the paired particles are to simultaneously decide their identities. This is not the same thing as intelligible information that we can use but it is an exchange of information just the same. Quantum information.

Bang, I think you have your own private definition of what quantum information and the transfer of such information means. I have not seen any scientific publication that would agree with your definitions. The collapse of wavefunctions, or whatever name you want to give to it, don't transfer information (even of the quantum type) super-luminally.

Maybe there exists some form of "pseudo information" that agrees with you, so I hope a quantum physicist joins this conversation, because I simply don't know enough about the subject to give you the clinching evidence against your position.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests