Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets limits on Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance,' new research finds

Nov 18, 2010
Attaining strong than quantum non-locality would require us to break the uncertainty principle -- but then there is no telling what may be unleashed! Credit: Illustration by Frans Bartels, concept by Haw Jing Yan.

Researchers have uncovered a fundamental link between the two defining properties of quantum physics. Stephanie Wehner of Singapore's Centre for Quantum Technologies and the National University of Singapore and Jonathan Oppenheim of the United Kingdom's University of Cambridge published their work today in the latest edition of the journal Science.

The result is being heralded as a dramatic breakthrough in our basic understanding of and provides new clues to researchers seeking to understand the foundations of . The result addresses the question of why quantum behaviour is as weird as it is—but no weirder.

The strange behaviour of quantum particles, such as atoms, electrons and the photons that make up light, has perplexed scientists for nearly a century. Albert Einstein was among those who thought the quantum world was so strange that quantum theory must be wrong, but experiments have borne out the theory's predictions.

One of the weird aspects of quantum theory is that it is impossible to know certain things, such as a particle's momentum and position, simultaneously. Knowledge of one of these properties affects the accuracy with which you can learn the other. This is known as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle".

Another weird aspect is the quantum phenomenon of non-locality, which arises from the better-known phenomenon of entanglement. When two quantum particles are entangled, they can perform actions that look as if they are coordinated with each other in ways that defy classical intuition about physically separated particles.

Previously, researchers have treated non-locality and uncertainty as two separate phenomena. Now Wehner and Oppenheim have shown that they are intricately linked. What's more, they show that this link is quantitative and have found an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle.

"It's a surprising and perhaps ironic twist," said Oppenheim, a Royal Society University Research Fellow from the Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Einstein and his co-workers discovered non-locality while searching for a way to undermine the uncertainty principle. "Now the uncertainty principle appears to be biting back."

Non-locality determines how well two distant parties can coordinate their actions without sending each other information. Physicists believe that even in quantum mechanics, information cannot travel faster than light. Nevertheless, it turns out that quantum mechanics allows two parties to coordinate much better than would be possible under the laws of classical physics. In fact, their actions can be coordinated in a way that almost seems as if they had been able to talk. Einstein famously referred to this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance".

However, quantum non-locality could be even spookier than it actually is. It's possible to have theories which allow distant parties to coordinate their actions much better than nature allows, while still not allowing information to travel faster than light. Nature could be weirder, and yet it isn't – quantum theory appears to impose an additional limit on the weirdness.

"Quantum theory is pretty weird, but it isn't as weird as it could be. We really have to ask ourselves, why is quantum mechanics this limited? Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?" Oppenheim says.

The surprising result by Wehner and Oppenheim is that the uncertainty principle provides an answer. Two parties can only coordinate their actions better if they break the uncertainty principle, which imposes a strict bound on how strong non-locality can be.

"It would be great if we could better coordinate our actions over long distances, as it would enable us to solve many information processing tasks very efficiently," Wehner says. "However, physics would be fundamentally different. If we break the uncertainty principle, there is really no telling what our world would look like."

How did the researchers discover a connection that had gone unnoticed so long? Before entering academia, Wehner worked as a 'computer hacker for hire', and now works in quantum information theory, while Oppenheim is a physicist. Wehner thinks that applying techniques from computer science to the laws of theoretical physics was key to spotting the connection. "I think one of the crucial ideas is to link the question to a coding problem," Wehner says. "Traditional ways of viewing non-locality and uncertainty obscured the close connection between the two concepts."

Wehner and Oppenheim recast the phenomena of quantum physics in terms that would be familiar to a computer hacker. They treat non-locality as the result of one party, Alice, creating and encoding information and a second party, Bob, retrieving information from the encoding. How well Alice and Bob can encode and retrieve information is determined by uncertainty relations. In some situations, they found that and a third property known as "steering" enters the picture.

Wehner and Oppenheim compare their discovery to uncovering what determines how easily two players can win a quantum board game: the board has only two squares, on which Alice, can place a counter of two possible colours: green or pink. She is told to place the same colour on both squares, or to place a different colour on each. Bob has to guess the colour that Alice put on square one or two. If his guess is correct, Alice and Bob win the game. Clearly, Alice and Bob could win the game if they could talk to each other: Alice would simply tell Bob what colours are on squares one and two. But Bob and Alice are situated so far apart from each other that light – and thus an information-carrying signal – does not have time to pass between them during the game.

If they can't talk, they won't always win, but by measuring on quantum particles, they can win the game more often than any strategy which doesn't rely on quantum theory. However, the uncertainty principle prevents them from doing any better, and even determines how often they lose the game.

The finding bears on the deep question of what principles underlie . Many attempts to understand the underpinnings of quantum mechanics have focused on non-locality. Wehner thinks there may be more to gain from examining the details of the uncertainty principle. "However, we have barely scratched the surface of understanding uncertainty relations," she says.

The breakthrough is future-proof, the researchers say. Scientists are still searching for a quantum theory of gravity and Wehner and Oppenheim's result concerning non-locality, uncertainty and steering applies to all possible theories – including any future replacement for quantum mechanics.

Explore further: New experiment provides route to macroscopic high-mass superpositions

More information: Journal paper: sciencemag.org/content/330/6007/1072.abstract
Additional info: www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/… nty-nonlocality.html

Provided by National University of Singapore

4.4 /5 (44 votes)

Related Stories

Quantum Mechanical Con Game

May 05, 2008

For the first time, physicists have come up with a scheme that would allow a quantum mechanical expert to win every time in a con game with a victim who only knows about classical physics. Prior quantum cons have typically ...

New light shed on old dispute between Einstein and Bohr

Jan 18, 2010

In classical physics there are no uncertainties - the properties of matter on an atomic level are deterministic, that is to say predetermined. The theories of quantum mechanics, however, only say something ...

Recommended for you

Quantum holograms as atomic scale memory keepsake

Oct 21, 2014

Russian scientists have developed a theoretical model of quantum memory for light, adapting the concept of a hologram to a quantum system. These findings from Anton Vetlugin and Ivan Sokolov from St. Petersburg ...

1980s aircraft helps quantum technology take flight

Oct 20, 2014

What does a 1980s experimental aircraft have to do with state-of-the art quantum technology? Lots, as shown by new research from the Quantum Control Laboratory at the University of Sydney, and published in Nature Physics today. ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jarek
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2010
What is strange about that model representing our (lack of) knowledge is nonlocal?
It's like when we know that there is blue and red ball, when we get known one color, we immediately (faster than light) get information about the second color...
The color distribution could be chosen in some deterministic, but not known to us way - there is nothing strange in that model representing our knowledge on local, deterministic system becomes nonlocal and nondeterministic (another example - maximal entropy random walk).
What is strange is that many people try to see such model representing our knowledge - which can only return probability distribution of scenarios - not as effective, thermodynamic-like, but as fundamental ...
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2010
Actually I don't understand, what's so fundamental about it. The observation of objects in the vacuum with using of light is the analogy of the observation of floating objects at the water surface with using of surface waves. Due the Brownian noise (tiny density fluctuations of environment) the shapes and location of objects at short distances appear undulating and fuzzy. But the very same noise prohibits objects to influence each other at distance - even better to say, it makes such influence indeterministic.
Yevgen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2010
Actually I don't understand, what's so fundamental about it. The observation of objects in the vacuum with using of light is the analogy of the observation of floating objects at the water surface with using of surface waves. Due the Brownian noise (tiny density fluctuations of environment) the shapes and location of objects at short distances appear undulating and fuzzy. But the very same noise prohibits objects to influence each other at distance - even better to say, it makes such influence indeterministic.


This sounds like a different way to derive Bells inequality (which of cause would be just a repeating
a work for 70ties):
http://en.wikiped..._theorem
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2010
This sounds like a different way to derive Bells inequality (which of cause would be just a repeating
a work for 70ties)
Yep, you're right - the limited non-locality just means, every observation is intrinsically indeterministic in quantum mechanics - and no hidden variables (like the remote objects at distance) can influence it.
MaeWest
3 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2010
Wehner-Oppenheim paper entitled "If quantum mechanics were more non-local it would violate the uncertainty principle" submitted to arxiv.org on 14 Apr 2010 (arXiv:1004.2507). If this paper is the same subject matter as this article, what took it 7 months to hit these pages if it is so important and fundamental?
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2010
If this paper is the same subject matter as this article, what took it 7 months to hit these pages if it is so important and fundamental?
The PO is powered mostly with secondary sources: university news, etc. Just after then the original article are mentioned and the preprints from ArXiv are of lowest priority - usually they get some publicity at ArXiv blog or somewhere else, before they appear at PO.

The article disputed was published quite recently.
..We really have to ask ourselves, why is quantum mechanics this limited? Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?" Oppenheim says.
Such "WHY" questions aren't actually very important in mainstream physics, which asks "HOW" first, just after then it asks for causality. Both noncausality, both uncertainty principle are theorems - not axioms of quantum mechanics and they could be derived anytime from first principles.

I'm not judging such approach by now - I'm just describing, how science is working.
Objectivist
3 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2010
"If we break the uncertainty principle, there is really no telling what our world would look like."

Wait--what?
Kedas
4.3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2010
uncertainty principle only says that it can't be measured. It doesn't say the information isn't there or can't be determent by an other ingenious way.
Nature act always the same so sometimes you don't need to measure it to know what is happening.
NeuroPulse
not rated yet Nov 19, 2010
"Attaining strong than quantum non-locality would require us to break the uncertainty principle"

What is that supposed to say???
Going
5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2010
Its good to see a womans name , Stephanie Wehner, on a paper on fundamental physics, a field dominated by men.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2010
Certainty is on as local anti without a unprinciple of. Means, there is not a real distance we can call spooky.
Javinator
not rated yet Nov 19, 2010
It's like when we know that there is blue and red ball, when we get known one color, we immediately (faster than light) get information about the second color


I've always found this concept interesting as I don't believe that we or any computer we make can process information faster than the speed of light (ie. computers are based on components which transfer information within the computer slower than lightspeed. Similar with our brains.)
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
we make can process information faster than the speed of light
I do believe, the parallel processing could violate the speed of light. Only strictly deterministic, point-to-point information spreading mediated with transverse waves of light must follow the relativity, but longitudinal waves are much faster.
stereolove
not rated yet Nov 19, 2010
I'm sorry but Ive got always the feeling that the most scientific glases focussing our minds are leading us far away from finding the simple explanations to understand phenomenas like the Einstein-called spooky action at distance or entanglement far away from explanations you can understand simply by common sense. For me (as Dipl. Communication-Designer) the explanations for this phenomenas looks much easier and far away from beiing spookey or a necessarily breakthrough in understanding. Entanglement is simply existing affinity, which can be both, active and passive. If my brother becomes again father of a child (far far away from me) I'm automaticly become in this moment the uncle of this child. Also without getting a phonecall, or beiing informed of it. Simply by the magic of our interdependence presence. So where is actually the problem!
Foolish1
not rated yet Nov 19, 2010
Lets say Alice and Bob switch from entangled pairs to a good PRNG with the same seed value so that when Alice sees 1 Bob always sees 0 and vis versa.

Is the paper saying "steering" allows a shared game to be won more often using quantum effects than would otherwise be possible with just fake random chance using the above simple PRNG setup?

(This is just an example so I can understand information..not a hidden variable subscriber:)

From what I can make out from the paper they say you can set dependant variables in a coherent system subject to the constraint no information can be conveyed across all possible states but I'm not sure how or if this can translate into anything real such as better chance of winning their shared game.

Are there new previously unknown properties of "spooky" being offered with this work?
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2010
If my brother becomes again father of a child (far far away from me) I'm automaticly become in this moment the uncle of this child.
But you wouldn't know this information in exactly the same moment. There's a time lag in between which is larger than the time a photon needs to travel the distance from your brother. That's why you are not entangled with your brother.
gwrede
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2010
Call me stupid if you want, but I still agree with Einstein. "Spooky action at a distance" is precisely the fitting derogatory phrase for all this nonsense.

Of course, then I need Hidden State. But I've read explanations, books, and listened to Wise Men trying to explain that Hidden State is impossible. (As if we could prove that we DO KNOW EVERYTHING about the two particles.) IMNHO, either they merely cite what they've learned by heart, they pretend they understand any of it, or much worse, their explanation is intractable. Which it is either because the person doesn't understand after all, or he merely can't communicate clearly.

Now, please, someone, anybody, point me to a text that convinces me there can be no hidden state. From then on, I promise to not ever try to understand physics. I'll just Believe whatever they say.
stereolove
not rated yet Nov 20, 2010
_to_frajo_but you wouldn't know this info...
I think you are still entangled. Eentangled in the similiar moment because of getting the new responsability for your new role (in this case as uncle) as part of this common one big event which was established once when you have been together/ or informed that you both exist together. No matter if I have the information about that new existing fact/factor! or not. My role is existing and so my responsibility for this role doesn't starts not only when i'm informed about this fact. So Non information is no excuse for a you as persuasive factor. So „Magic of you're presence“ in this bigevent means your function as sign is existing, doesn't matter you or someone else is aware about this or is informed or not. Thats for me what makes the hidden factor. Because sometimes i have no chance to be welltimed informed in my position.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2010
It is interesting how everybody jumps to discussions and conclusions without considering the entire subject. The problem Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity encounter with "non-locality"is that there is an assumption here completely hinden or, at least, not considered: SPACE
If you read Julian Barbour (http://platonia.com/).
What IF SPACE is something different?
Have you spend a minute on that before engaging in a fierce discussion based on two very incompatible assumptions (GR and QM) about space?
One has to understand that space in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is NOT the same!
While in QM space is STILL Newtonian, GR treats it in a very different way.
I have not enough time or energy to write about this very important difference but if one does not understand this the discussion above is irrelevant.
stereolove
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
_GuruShabu_it is interesting how...
Of course you are right, it's the most important thing i believe to start all this with a concrete, probably radical new understanding of that you call space.
I'm not familiar with the ideas and theories of your Julian Barbour but indeed the personal understanding of all the still „mystical“ aspects depends on from
the question which concept of space and time is yours.
It could be an interesting and knowledge accellerating way to focus on the task finding a simple idea of time and space (IOE) observing the entire subject than to concentating mainly on determimd aspects. This IOE than perhaps could be the platform for developing step by step a theory of everything (TOE) via worldwide internetworking and bundeling all new findings under a commen new angle of view.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
Physicists believe that even in quantum mechanics, information cannot travel faster than light.
This is a view that I disagree with.

Many in the physics community are starting to reinvestigate hypotheses that call for instant information transfer or definitive non-locality. After all, everything can be broken down into wave forms and what we perceive very well could be an illusion created by our interactions with reality.

For example, describe typing using only the fundamental forces and not aspects of language seen outside of fundamental forces. The reality you would draw is wholly different from what your eyes would see.
stereolove
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
_GuruShabu ... and of course I've an own assumption of SPACE coming from the field of communicationdesign (The ideas must not come only from the domain of physics) I simply use Einsteins expression spacetime in the opposite way timespace. Bring it this way back to myself in a more familiar angle of view allowing me to concentrate to me as Observer. What than follows is what famous „observer“ Oswald Spengler has written about 1918. Im concentrating to the most overseen/hidden secret, the experience that we observing our world in 2 ways same time - stereo (symmetrical!?)
1) as Present Perfect/Timepoint (life/nature,wave, impulse/subawarness, roles, Beeing/Reality. Sign/In form-ation ... QM?!) and
2) as Present Tense/Timespace (life/existence, matter, particle, selfawareness,acting, will, Doing/Possibility, Dialog/Communication ... GR?!)
This idea + the intuition that c (constant) is more a distance than a speed makes QRGR easier understandable also as nonphysicist ... at least for me!
dtxx
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
I'm sorry but I fail to see how studying communication design gives you any insight into GR/QM/spacetime. You keep trumpeting that. Why? You sound a bit like our recent biologist friend from Cornell suggesting "light can't go faster than light because of light."
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
Question, given the size of the universe, wouldn't some aspect of the structure of the universe need to be distributed/controlled FTL, so the Universe would know that certain physical laws need to work the same way everywhere? Sort of like some kind of FTL mechanism that keeps everything tuned right everywhere?

As the universe expanded and the four forces emerged from the expanding big bang and all points moved away from each other, wouldn't there need to be something going on that kept the four forces tuned right? I mean, we already know (theoretically) that space itself doesn't violate the FTL limit as it expands, just the objects in that space.
dtxx
3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
The physical laws are a direct result of the underlying structure. Why would consciousness or awareness be required? Put another way, that's like suggesting the path a river takes requires the approval of a river planning committee.

Besides, the Copernican principle is far from absolute or proven. All of our knowledge of extrasolar space is informed by the copernican principle and depends completely on it.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
I mean, we already know (theoretically) that space itself doesn't violate the FTL limit as it expands, just the objects in that space.
Does space exist apart from its embedded/spanning objects?
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
frajo, if I knew that I wouldn't be asking for clarification of stuff that confuses me which is childs play to trained scientists in the field, Heh, I'd be making the big bucks and having a ball at the same time doing real science.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 22, 2010
I mean, we already know (theoretically) that space itself doesn't violate the FTL limit as it expands, just the objects in that space.
Does space exist apart from its embedded/spanning objects?

It would have to otherwise the doppler effect wouldn't be seen in light traversing the void, at least according to current models.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2010
It would have to otherwise the doppler effect wouldn't be seen in light traversing the void, at least according to current models.


Why?

Also, I'm sorry, I know you and others have answered this before, but I have to ask again. What is space(time)? Is it material, or just a description of position (x,y,z,t) relationships between particles? IOW, is spacetime a noun or an adjective? How certain are we about the answer?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2010
It would have to otherwise the doppler effect wouldn't be seen in light traversing the void, at least according to current models.


Why?

Also, I'm sorry, I know you and others have answered this before, but I have to ask again. What is space(time)? Is it material, or just a description of position (x,y,z,t) relationships between particles? IOW, is spacetime a noun or an adjective? How certain are we about the answer?

If spacetime wasn't a medium with impact upon material, and by extension energy, dynamics then light wouldn't stretch, it would simply appear to have a lesser speed.

Think of driving a highway at 60 miles an hour, that never gets longer, but extends at a speed greater than 60 mph and you still get to your destination on time.

Two of those aspects must be false unless your car is growing in size in relation ot the road traveled thus far.
Auxon
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2010
A preprint of the paper is available here: http://www.damtp....rxiv.pdf
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2010
It would have to otherwise the doppler effect wouldn't be seen in light traversing the void, at least according to current models.
How do you define "the void"? Something containing EM and grav fields is not empty in my understanding.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2010
It would have to otherwise the doppler effect wouldn't be seen in light traversing the void, at least according to current models.
How do you define "the void"? Something containing EM and grav fields is not empty in my understanding.

Yes, well just because it's called the void, doesn't mean it's empty. Modern definition would be interstellar space decoupled from the interstellar medium.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2010
What is space(time)?

The answers to questions like these will most likely be the basis of the next revolution in theoretical physics.

Because the two seemingly irreconcilable models of physics that we apply every day, GR and QM, answer these questions completely differently…and yet both yield correct answers.

GR defines spacetime as a geometrical construct. Matter/stress/energy influence this geometry, and vice versa, but in GR spacetime is a purely dimensional phenomenon. However, and crucially, GR does not explain the [i]mechanism[/i] of this interaction, it simply predicts the magnitude of it.

QM on the other hand throws the idea of “empty spacetime” right out the window – there is no “void” in QM, there’s only a seething background of virtual particles, and the closer you look the more chaotic it is.

So briefly: there isn’t an explicit definition of spacetime that satisfies both theories, and theorists are currently working on resolving the question.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
Yes, well just because it's called the void, doesn't mean it's empty. Modern definition would be interstellar space decoupled from the interstellar medium.
I cannot imagine this kind of decoupling. It is not physically possible, I assume.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
I cannot imagine this kind of decoupling. It is not physically possible, I assume.
Well the medium is just the dust and gas that exists sparsely between stars and galaxies. When I say decoupled, I'm speaking more as a matter of ideologically, for purposes of definition. In observation one contains the other. Similar to how the canvas contains the paint and together they form the masterpiece.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
..GR and QM, answer these questions completely differently and yet both yield correct answers...
Actually they don't and can't do (until you consider, science can generate random answers, which are all correct, thus being unfalsifiable each other). The predictions of QM regarding cosmological constant and/or energy density of space-time differs from predictions of general relativity and/or observations in more than one hundred orders of magnitude.

http://en.wikiped...astrophe

What is space-time?
If you consider vacuum as a particle environment, then the space-time is a density gradient of it, comparable to water surface. After then the time dimension is the direction parallel with gradient and the space dimension(s) are the direction(s) perpendicular to this gradient, i.e. parallel with water surface. This simple model for example explains, why time direction has an arrow, wheres the spatial dimension(s) hasn't.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
The same water surface model can explain duality of quantum mechanics and general relativity theories. Try to imagine, you're a observer, who is formed with standing wave or some bubble at the water surface and the surface waves are the only way, how to observe neighbouring 2D reality.

At the close distances all objects will appear deformed, blurred and fuzzy due the dispersion of surface waves with density fluctuations of underwater, resulting from Brownian motion of water molecules. This perspective models the quantum mechanics phenomena.

At the larger distances the surface waves are spreading like so-called capillary waves, which are driven with surface tension of water nearly exclusively. Such waves aren't affected with motion of underwater very much, because the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane for these waves. These waves are mediating perspective of general relativity at large distances, which is background invariant.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
Actually they don't and can't do (until you consider, science can generate random answers, which are all correct, thus being unfalsifiable each other). The predictions of QM regarding cosmological constant and/or energy density of space-time differs from predictions of general relativity and/or observations in more than one hundred orders of magnitude.
Until you consider gravity to be negative energy. The vaccuum catastrophy is addressed by multiple "unifying" hypotheses most of which are being tested in the LHC right now. SFT and LQG being the most notable of the two.

Secondly, the VC comes from the Voyager predictions, not the predictions of GR. This also provides a potential alternate explanation for the voyager anomaly. You wouldn't experince virtual particle pressure differentiated from gravitation until you left the presence of large bodies, ie: the sun.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
..recent biologist friend from Cornell suggesting "light can't go faster than light because of light."
Randy Wayne is claiming it for charged particles, like the electrons, don't he? And he is not just a biologists, but a mathematician experienced in formal modelling more, then any poster here. For example he proposed structure of photon derived from QM equations.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
..Until you consider gravity to be negative energy...
If you would consider gravity to be negative energy, then the prediction of cosmological constant will not fit even the general relativity. The quantum mechanics prediction doesn't use gravity, so that it cannot be affected with such substitution.

It has no meaning to speculate about it: with general relativity all objects should collapse into pin-point singularity - soon or later. Whereas in quantum mechanics all objects should expand into infinity instead. So whenever you're observing some stable object, you can be sure, it violates both theories at the same moment. These theories aren't compatible mutually at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
The quantum mechanics prediction doesn't use gravity, so that it cannot be affected with such substitution.
That's incredibly inaccurate. You need to stay current, Zephyr. Gravity cannot be reconciled directly with QM, but, that does not mean that the energy balance due to gravity isn't considered.
with general relativity all objects should collapse into pin-point singularity - soon or later.
Again, entirely inaccurate.
So whenever you're observing some stable object, you can be sure, it violates both theories at the same moment.
/facepalm
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
It has no meaning to speculate about it: with general relativity all objects should collapse into pin-point singularity - soon or later.


Stupefying. However did you come up with that?

GR predicts that the UNIVERSE, not every object, must be EITHER expanding or collapsing.

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
with general relativity all objects should collapse into pin-point singularity - soon or later.
Stupefying. However did you come up with that?
General relativity provides no attractive version of gravity, so that all forces in it are leading into collapse undeniably. It was derived with analysis of J.A.Wheeler's geon model.

http://arxiv.org/.../9512025

.that's incredibly inaccurate...
That's incredibly vague countergument.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
General relativity provides no attractive version of gravity,


You do know that gravity is ATTRACTIVE don't you? That GR has BEEN tested and it worked. If it had no way to deal with attraction then it wouldn't work?

I thought not. Nothing but that level of ignorance could explain that preposterous statement. Nothing in that link that shows an equal level of ignorance either.]

Do you strap yourself down or something. What is that keep you on the Earth? I use gravity myself.

Stupefying is too mild a word.

Troll is more likely considering you ARE a troll in the first place.

Ethelred
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
SH:
Until you consider gravity to be negative energy.

Kwasniscwszerpski:
If you would consider gravity to be negative energy, then the prediction of cosmological constant will not fit even the general relativity.

Skeptic_Heretic is right. Legitimate scientists know that the gravitational field is a negative energy field. Note the minus sign in the equation for gravitational potential energy:

U = -Gmm/R

Source: http://en.wikiped...l_energy

In fact all binding energy fields possess negative energy, which is why bound systems have less mass than their unbound constituents.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
Legitimate scientists know that the gravitational field is a negative energy field.

You just didn't understand my objection. Quantum mechanics predicts energy density of vacuum 10E+121 GeV/m3 (roughly the inverse value of third power of Planck constant). Whereas from general relativity follows, energy density of vacuum is lower then 10E+14 GeV/m3.

Do you really believe, you could correct such disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude by consideration of gravitational field as a negative energy field? Does the -10E+14 GeV/m3 sound really better in comparison to 10E+121 GeV/m3, then the 10E+14 GeV/m3 value?

http://en.wikiped...astrophe

S_H is just an OT troll - you can ignore him safely.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
You just didn't understand my objection. Quantum mechanics predicts energy density of vacuum 10E+121 GeV/m3 (roughly the inverse value of third power of Planck constant).
No, it doesn't, it did, 36 years ago. Since then the theory has been updated.

You're on the internet, read something, anything, and lose that Oliver Lodge 1810 mentality.
S_H is just an OT troll - you can ignore him safely.
I'm sorry, I have 3 research papers published and peer reviewed, pre-doctorate. I've worked on 2 lineac systems and I did two tours at RHIC. What do you have to support your stance, sophist?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
..I have 3 research papers published and peer reviewed..
You have nothing to prove.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
..I have 3 research papers published and peer reviewed..
You have nothing to prove.

I don't have 42 screen names on Physorg, if that's what you measure as "credit within the field".

People like you put a bad taste in my mouth. You're nbasically the Ray Comfort of Physics, disgustingly ignorant of reality, but ready to act as an authority on everything.

Why don't you crawl back into that Kosovo basement you lurched out of before I start digging onto your internet life as I have Marjon's.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
The strong point of anonymous Internet discussions is, you have arguments - or you haven't. You could be Stephen Hawking with hundreds of articles in your real life - but without real-time arguments just here & now you're actually nothing. Meritocracy doesn't count here.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
Feynman famously said that the initial estimate of vacuum energy density was so high that a single cup of empty space contained enough energy to boil off all the oceans of the world. That was decades ago, before renormalization was applied to the problem - renormalization is the simple and elegant idea that the concept of 'absolute energy' is as meaningless as the idea of 'absolute motion' - that only the *differences* in energy are significant. This led to a new (and miniscule) calculated vacuum expectation value:
the energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated to be one trillionth of an erg

Source: http://en.wikiped...um_state

This 'intrinsic ground-state energy of free space' has since been at least theoretically unified with the cosmological constant to explain 'dark energy,' the highly uniform cosmic energy that's accelerating galaxy clusters apart from one another. There's more about that here: http://en.wikiped...k_energy
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2010
The strong point of anonymous Internet discussions is, you have arguments - or you haven't.
And the determining factor is evidence and logical understanding, which you have neither of.
You could be Stephen Hawking with hundreds of articles in your real life - but without real-time arguments just here & now you're actually nothing. Meritocracy doesn't count here.
If it wasn't a meritocracy, why are you so obsessed with cutting new screen names and re-ranking your own posts?