![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
azzamunza wrote:Could Matter be a piece of potential in the form of a wave that holds it's neighbours in a standing wave pattern based on its properties?
azzamunza wrote:Could this Matter wave be endless and link two entangled particles, no matter where they are in the universe. They are locked in the same matter wave. Observing one would cause the wave to collapse into a probability and break its wave connection.
azzamunza wrote:Does the size of matter change on a particle when it's doing laps say around the LHC.
azzamunza wrote:whether the act of a particle flowing around a circle would cause some form of force...Could changing the path by pushing the particle cause a physical push back in the opposite direction?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 5th, 2018, 11:21 am wrote:
Quantum entanglement is "spacelike" relationship between particles, which may be seen as instantaneous or even retroactive (backward in time) but never "causal" or communicating any signal, as that would violate speed limit c. Entanglement is thus considered a nontraversable connection which may serve as the reference (like a shared axis) about which the entangled properties are coordinated.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:Recent experiments to determine the rate at which the changes take place post entanglement find them to be far greater than c. Instant as far as anyone can tell.
bangstrom wrote:When entanglement is lost, ...both formerly entangled particles will be simultaneously and permanently changed ...Something happens at both ends of the entanglement...
bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:
Since faster-than-light travel is equivalent to going backward in time, any such transmission would not be causal but instead retrocausal, the cause occurring after the effect. No such phenomenon has ever been observed nor even allowed in the Standard Model (which incorporates Relativity).
Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.
It works like a long umbilical tether between astronauts in deep space. Even out of sight and without communicating, they can, by prior agreement, both spin oppositely with respect to the tether. This is analogous to a quantum total-spin-zero entangled state with respect to their vx connection.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:…entanglement is an observation of a phenomenon contrary to SR's second postulate …which calls into question the validity of the second postulate about nothing faster than light.
Did you read your own reference? Quantum entanglement
bangstrom wrote:The violation of the EPR effect has been known since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties.
bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:bangstrom wrote:
Did you read your own reference? Quantum entanglement
Of course! More than that, I understood it. Did you? I invite you to provide any quote from it supporting faster-than-light communication. What I find is:
"However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible."
Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?
The physical connection is a wormhole as quoted above. I described it as a "spinhole" three years prior to those noted authors. I further model the exact location of such wormholes, inaccessibly traversing the past (see vx above). Thus, entanglement may only be broken by interaction with one of the entangled particles directly. ~ Beauty! ~
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:…quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information
bangstrom wrote:Then it concludes that the same spacelike “correlation” can not be used a ftl transmission of information but it fails to explain why.
bangstrom wrote:as we know from SR, any two events separated by space are always separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance
bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.
My model (Phyxed) is meant to recover all the observations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (without gaps or weirdness). So, in this case, what you seek is the essence of Bell's experiment. It has many versions, all of which statistically demonstrate two spatially separate, entangled particles share properties as if they were one. He deserves all the credit he's given for this. Phyxed merely reveals where the spinhole resides.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:You mention “spinholes” and you explain what they can not do. I can follow that but it leaves me wondering, What do spinholes do? What observable change do they leave behind that gives evidence that they exist? ... you say spinholes can not do what my understanding is that entanglement does.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 9:58 am wrote:
You've heard of Noether's theorem which states that for each such conservation law there is a corresponding symmetry. No spatial axis is adequate to describe quantum spin. That axis must be non-spatial so that quantum spin can occur in a spatial 3-plane of rotation. (Classical spin occurs in an ordinary 2-plane of rotation.) A spinhole acts as a mutual, extra-spatial axis of symmetry for quantum spin. This is seen as chord vx to the spatial arc (time = t1) above.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist?
bangstrom wrote:[Spinholes] don't appear to do or change anything to the particles involved that is evident to an observer.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:bangstrom wrote:…quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information
Keep it simple. Information is information. A qubit is simply a bit in superposition. That means it can exist in an undecided state (roughly, like a coin in mid flip) and, relating to entanglement, that the state can be correlated.
Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:So, no one in quantum mechanics is saying that entangled particles are swapping (i.e. communicating) information back and forth faster-than-light. Rather, the state is considered distributed over both locations. That may sound like instantaneous communication, and that might be OK, …IF you can understand that instantaneous "motion" isn't really moving, its being (in multiple locations at once).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:bangstrom wrote:If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist?
I consider that a breakthrough in your understanding! How can something be lost unless it had existed in the first place? That's exactly why we believe in spinholes (or more generally, a spacelike entanglement connection).
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:Here's a question you might ask yourself. If entangled particles could somehow communicate faster-than-light, why should that stop on disentanglement? Electrons persist in communicating at speed c with each other (electrically repelling), even when they aren't transmitting light quanta. Should superluminal communication be different?
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:What they do is provide spin correlations (established by observing many pairs of entangled particles) which are statistically impossible without a coordination reference.
Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 6:01 pm wrote:In a single particle, prepared with spin up, the sign (+/- for parallel or antiparallel spin direction) of subsequently measured spin components correlate statistically according to the angle the new axis makes with the prepared axis.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote: the qubit is the most basic unit of information and it is often referred to as simply “information” and that is information in its simplest form. A qubit is a single bit of quantum information about the identity of a particle and it need not be in superposition. “In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
bangstrom wrote:No one in quantum mechanics is saying the transition (loss of entanglement) and the establishment of fixed quantum states at both ends is limited by light speed.
bangstrom wrote:Entanglement is a non-local "spacelike" transfer of information but classical communication is limited by c.
bangstrom wrote:you lost me with the next statement.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
Like other non-binary numerals, a qubit carries more than one bit of information, potentially 2 bits worth.
"It is possible to fully encode one bit in one qubit. However, a qubit can hold more information, e.g. up to two bits using superdense coding."
Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
Right. And no one in QM is saying that information ever communicates faster than speed limit c. Communication and correlation are different phenomena.
Faradave » November 30th, 2018, 1:17 am wrote:
We fundamentally disagree here. Disentanglement represents an instantaneous change of state (e.g. from one to two) not communnication of any sort. If I cut a loaf of bread in half, no matter how long it is, it becomes two half loaves. No communication to the ends required.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 30th, 2018, 10:39 pm wrote:If you don’t like the word “communicated” then tell me what you would call it. John Cramer calls it a “handshake” or “transaction” between two particles or oddly the Catholic word “transubstantiation”seems appropriate.
John Cramer wrote:If a nonlocal signal could be transmitted through measurements at separated locations performed on two entangled photons, the signal would be ``sent`` at the time of the arrival of one photon at one location and ``received`` at the time of arrival of the other photon at the other location, both along Lorenz-invariant light-like world lines. By varying path lengths to the two locations, these events could be made to occur in any order and time separation in any reference frame. Therefore, nonlocal signals, even superluminal and retrocausal ones, could not be used to establish a fixed simultaneity relation between two separated space-time points, because the sending and receiving of such signals do not have fixed time relations. Nonlocal quantum signaling, if it were to exist, would be completely compatible with special relativity. However, it would probably not be compatible with macroscopic causality.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 29th, 2018, 1:53 pm wrote:Non entangled particles (usually electrons) can spontaneously resume entanglement with other particles. Entanglement occurs when two remote particles establish a resonate state where they share a common Schroedinger wavefunction as if they were side-by-side even though they may be well separated in space and beyond speed-of-light contact.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sure, you do.hyksos wrote:I don't want to get too entangled in this thread…
Do you really believe it's "flat? Though appearing so, " Minkowski spacetime represents a hyperbolic geometry. That's the way convention explains the minus sign in the interval equation.hyksos wrote:…what is drawn above is flat Minkowski space.
I'll do even better! V0 and V1 are "tinholes" (timelike intra-connecting wormholes), otherwise known as worldlines. They connect a particle's past to its future.hyksos wrote:You cannot take flat Minkowski space, draw arrows in it, and declare that one of the arrows is a wormhole.
You're being too narrow minded. What about Wheeler's ultra-tiny wormholes? I'm not purporting something big enough to transit a starship. Zero-diameter wormholes are free.hyksos wrote:…Vx here is definitely not a wormhole, a la ER=EPR. Wormholes result from extreme distortions in spacetime…
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You're being too narrow minded. What about Wheeler's ultra-tiny wormholes?
The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles—even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren't opposite—are connected by Planck scale wormholes.
Leonard Susskind wrote:What all of this suggests to me, and what I want to suggest to you, is that quantum mechanics and gravity are far more tightly related than we (or at least I) had ever imagined. The essential nonlocalities of quantum mechanics -- the need for instantaneous communication in order to classically simulate entanglement, parallels the nonlocal potentialities of general relativity.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Correlation is better thought of as coordination than communication. A spinhole can act as a common axis about which intrinsic spins for example, may coordinate at a distance. No signal transmission required.hyksos wrote:An ERB … may even be "infinitely thin" at some points... I do not see how this "explains" entanglement -- at all. Unless and until you suggest some sort of signal is moving through…
Agreed.hyksos wrote:'Equivalent' in many cases actually means both equations can be shown to 'reduce to' each other after pages and pages of algebraic manipulation. They 'imply' one another, in other words.
Yup, I do. If for example, an entanglement connection is not real, it can't be fragile. A broken connection is a connection that was real.hyksos wrote:A person…believe[s] these ERB wormholes are like actually physically and mechanically there.…actual objects existing in actual space. Not mere "mathematical dualisms"… actual extant objects in spacetime…existing physical structures…
I agree some "physicists" have become mathematicians without realizing it.hyksos wrote:The reality is that theoretical physicists are so deep into abstract math to a 3D description with gravity. I'm sure these … have something profound to say about the universe around us -- but what that is exactly nobody knows.
Just an aside, my guess is heat fragility. Note that in sharing a single quantum state, I expect all the particles of a Bose-Einstein condensate to be entangled.hyksos wrote:…most of these black hole EPR papers are reasoning out how three particles cannot be entangled at the same time… because reasons…
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » December 10th, 2018, 7:37 am wrote:1. timelike as "tinholes", which connect a particle’s past to its future. It may be argued they aren't real objects but it can be equally-well argued that in 4D a particle is its worldline. Their unique worldlines is the only way for example, to distinguish two electrons.
2. lightlike as "pinholes", which temporarily connect particles. Their zero magnitude is why I argue photons don't exist. But even a null vector has direction, which suggest pinholes can change direction. pinhole + chronaxial spin = Gaussian field, with a "particular" center.
3. spacelike as "spinholes", which temporarily connect entangled particles. These are notoriously fragile, suggesting that a spinhole is a repurposed pinhole. Any interaction (via pinhole) breaks entanglement, as if the connection was yanked back into a lightlike inclination.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests