Researchers look beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory

Oct 28, 2012
Trying to explain quantum “spooky action at a distance” using any kind of signal pits Einstein’s relativity against our concept of a smooth spacetime. Credit: Timothy Yeo / CQT, National University of Singapore

Physicists have proposed an experiment that could force us to make a choice between extremes to describe the behaviour of the Universe.

The proposal comes from an international team of researchers from Switzerland, Belgium, Spain and Singapore, and is published today in . It is based on what the researchers call a 'hidden influence inequality'. This exposes how quantum predictions challenge our best understanding about the nature of space and time, Einstein's .

"We are interested in whether we can explain the funky phenomena we observe without sacrificing our sense of things happening smoothly in space and time," says Jean-Daniel Bancal, one of the researchers behind the new result, who carried out the research at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. He is now at the Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore.

Excitingly, there is a real prospect of performing this test.

The implications of have been troubling physicists since the theory was invented in the early 20th Century. The problem is that quantum theory predicts bizarre behaviour for particles – such as two 'entangled' particles behaving as one even when far apart. This seems to violate our sense of cause and effect in space and time. Physicists call such behaviour 'nonlocal'.

It was Einstein who first drew attention to the worrying implications of what he termed the "spooky action at a distance" predicted by . Measure one in a pair of entangled atoms to have its magnetic 'spin' pointing up, for example, and quantum physics says the other can immediately be found pointing in the opposite direction, wherever it is and even when one could not predict beforehand which particle would do what. Common sense tells us that any such coordinated behaviour must result from one of two arrangements. First, it could be arranged in advance. The second option is that it could be synchronised by some signal sent between the particles.

In the 1960s, John Bell came up with the first test to see whether followed common sense. Specifically, a test of a 'Bell inequality' checks whether two particles' behaviour could have been based on prior arrangements. If measurements violate the inequality, pairs of particles are doing what quantum theory says: acting without any 'local hidden variables' directing their fate. Starting in the 1980s, experiments have found violations of Bell inequalities time and time again.

Quantum theory was the winner, it seemed. However, conventional tests of Bell inequalities can never completely kill hope of a common sense story involving signals that don't flout the principles of relativity. That's why the researchers set out to devise a new inequality that would probe the role of signals directly.

Experiments have already shown that if you want to invoke signals to explain things, the signals would have to be travelling faster than light – more than 10,000 times the speed of light, in fact. To those who know that Einstein's relativity sets the speed of light as a universal speed limit, the idea of signals travelling 10,000 times as fast as light already sets alarm bells ringing. However, physicists have a getout: such signals might stay as 'hidden influences' – useable for nothing, and thus not violating relativity. Only if the signals can be harnessed for faster-than-light communication do they openly contradict relativity.

The new hidden influence inequality shows that the getout won't work when it comes to quantum predictions. To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed.

Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.

Experimental groups can already entangle four particles, so a test is feasible in the near future (though the precision of experiments will need to improve to make the difference measurable). Such a test will boil down to measuring a single number. In a Universe following the standard relativistic laws we are used to, 7 is the limit. If nature behaves as predicts, the result can go up to 7.3.

So if the result is greater than 7 – in other words, if the quantum nature of the world is confirmed – what will it mean?

Here, there are two choices. On the one hand, there is the option to defy relativity and 'unhide' the influences, which means accepting faster-than-light communication. Relativity is a successful theory that researchers would not call into question lightly, so for many physicists this is seen as the most extreme possibility.

The remaining option is to accept that influences must be infinitely fast – or that there exists some process that has an equivalent effect when viewed in our spacetime. The current test couldn't distinguish. Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly. That such connections are possible defies our everyday intuition and represents another extreme solution, but arguably preferable to faster-than-light communication.

"Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them," says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.

Explore further: Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons

More information: Nature Physics (2012). DOI:10.1038/NPHYS2460

Related Stories

Debunking and closing quantum entanglement 'loopholes'

Nov 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of physicists, including a scientist based at The University of Queensland, has recently closed an additional 'loophole' in a test explaining one of science's strangest phenomena -- ...

Physicists make discovery in quantum mechanics

Sep 23, 2009

(Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- Physicists at UC Santa Barbara have made an important advance in quantum mechanics using a superconducting electrical circuit. The finding is reported in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

User comments : 115

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2012
That information occurs at the speed of light should not be a considered limitation to sending and receiving data over distances using entanglement by decoding sequential changes in the characteristics of an entangled pair. At the simplest level, that would mean changes from one to zero; high to low; tilt this way to tilt that way.
M4dH4TT3r
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
Sounds like a combination of string theory and the butterfly effect, have they considered though that some preexisting strings may well have existed not only since the particles creation but at random (not completely random) based on other localized forces applied to it?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (58) Oct 28, 2012
That information occurs at the speed of light should not be a considered limitation to sending and receiving data over distances using entanglement by decoding sequential changes in the characteristics of an entangled pair.


It's not, but in order to see any such correlation (to decode a message), one must send the results at c, and compare them.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (60) Oct 28, 2012
The implications of quantum theory have been troubling physicists since the theory was invented in the early 20th Century. The problem is that quantum theory predicts bizarre behaviour for particles – such as two 'entangled' particles behaving as one even when far apart. This seems to violate our sense of cause and effect in space and time. Physicists call such behaviour 'nonlocal'.


This apparent 'seam in reality' between classical physics and qm, is an artifact of the conceptualization of Reality, by mind.

Space, time, and causality, are not physical entities of themselves, but relations between things. These concepts are a-priori intuitions of the mind,.. or forms in which the mind orders experience. They are therefore dependent upon mind, not the physical entity being modeled, as is seen at the qm realm.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Oct 28, 2012
.... In other words, the non-intuitive nature of qm, is an epistemological result, not a physical one.

A rough analogy would be as in GR, where there are invariants, truths which are not dependent upon a particular coordinate system description.

Likewise, there must be "invariant" physical truths which are not dependant upon a particular conceptual framework,.... like the one mind evolved with to order experience at the macro scale.

The above experiment should vindicate the Copenhagen interpretation, and the logical positivist approach.
Oysteroid
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
"... in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit" - Well, if it goes like that - astrology, here we come. After all, that's pretty much what it claimed, now the only issue is to... krrhm, "untangle" those influences and make sense of them.
M4dH4TT3r
1 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2012
My theory is that "most" black holes are actually stationary while orbital patterns and the expansion of the universe only make them appear to move but in fact it is actually everything else that is moving.
Of course I have similar theories about photons and their traveling through time and space; I see time kind of like a roll of film as an infinite amount of parallel dimensions we are constantly traveling through while the photon travels on a different path.
If I am right and black holes are stationary theoretically they could be the oldest thing in the universe and the "big bang" could have been cause by the reaction of one in which case the exact expansion patterns of the "known" universe could be estimated.
• Do you mean that if we observe two black holes approaching each other it's in fact the space time shrinking?
If we see to black holes approaching each other it would be my opinion that it is actually a parabola in space & time which is in fact probably because by the 2(or m
M4dH4TT3r
1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
My theory is that "most" black holes are stationary while orbital patterns and expansion only make them appear to move but in fact it is actually everything else that is moving.
Of course photons and their traveling through time and space; I see time kind of like a roll of film as an infinite amount of parallel dimensions we are constantly traveling through while the photon travels on a different path.
If I am right and black holes are stationary they would be the oldest thing in the universe and the big bang(s) could have been caused by a reaction of them in which case the exact expansion patterns of the "known" universe could be estimated.
If we see 2 black holes approaching each other, that it is actually a parabola in space & time which is caused by 2 (or more) black holes. If that parabola in fact closes and the 2 black holes join a portion of time and space is permanently folded over onto itself, probably best explained withthe dots on the paper used to represent Einsteins theor
MrVibrating
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
The implications of quantum theory have been troubling physicists since the theory was invented in the early 20th Century. The problem is that quantum theory predicts bizarre behaviour for particles – such as two 'entangled' particles behaving as one even when far apart. This seems to violate our sense of cause and effect in space and time. Physicists call such behaviour 'nonlocal'.


This apparent 'seam in reality' between classical physics and qm, is an artifact of the conceptualization of Reality, by mind.

Space, time, and causality, are not physical entities of themselves, but relations between things. These concepts are a-priori intuitions of the mind,.. or forms in which the mind orders experience. They are therefore dependent upon mind, not the physical entity being modeled, as is seen at the qm realm.
Relationships between things are themselves spatial and temporal, albeit subjectively so; moreover, mind is itself dependent on space and time. Circular argument!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Oct 28, 2012
Relationships between things are themselves spatial and temporal, albeit subjectively so; moreover, mind is itself dependent on space and time. Circular argument!


Time and space are not physical entities in themselves, discoverable independently of there Application in relating things, ... they are not a 'substance' effecting things, nor mind.

Rather, mind Presumes space and time, as a-priori concepts, ... as a built-in mechanism in ordering experience for consciousness.

So, by definition, one cannot have a "intuitive understanding" (classical physics), except through these concepts.

Relationships between things are themselves spatial and temporal, albeit subjectively so


A circular argument, indeed. Are you saying here that a temporal relation between things is itself temporal? Space and time ARE the relations, not the things being related.
MrVibrating
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
But mind is dependent on space and time - moreover, so is information. Thus space and time, or something having their appearance, is more fundamental than mind, and the information it serves to process.

I believe there must be non-local hidden variables beyond conventional spacetime because i can't accept that causality is subjective - that would be too anthropomorphic. I depend on reality, not the other way around!
MrVibrating
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
A circular argument, indeed. Are you saying here that a temporal relation between things is itself temporal? Space and time ARE the relations, not the things being related.


I meant that distances in space and time are the relations, and they're subjective wrt speed. But the metric is not the medium, and the map isn't the territory... Space and time are very much intrinsic properties of the universe. A more fundamental substrate - as might accommodate quantum causality - with no dependence on space or time, seems oxymoronic.
nevermark
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
In our everyday world the three spacial dimensions and the time dimension are seamless and perfectly orthogonal. Moving a step in direction x, then another in y, back a step in x and back a step in y, and we arrive at the original point.

But Einstein showed that in fact space and time are curved. But we still only see this for high speeds, accelerations and things moving through gravity wells. The illusion in our everyday world is unbroken.

It would also appear that our intuition that space is seamless is wrong.

If every quantum event effecting two particles creates some kind of entanglement between them, then space-time is a tangle of crisscrossed non-local connections. We only notice when we manage to recapture the state of pairs of pre-interacting particles and correlate them. Since that is hard, the everyday illusion that things are only connected locally is maintained.
nevermark
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
The two questions that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics raise are: (1) When space expanded from the Big Bang, how did it settle into a mostly ordered bunch of connections arranged in four space-time dimensions, and (2) why did space also largely settle on a flat shape.

Until we really know how space is constructed at the smallest scale we don't know. And that will require unification of GR and QM.
indio007
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
Once again... anything to save relativity. How many billions of dollars and man-hours of labor have been wasted trying save relativity from QM?

Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
"Trying to explain quantum spooky action at a distance using any kind of signal pits Einsteins relativity against our concept of a smooth spacetime"

We observe the Universe from within the gravitational well of a singularity that has a responding correlating cause and effect with all mass and matter right down to the last particle within the galaxy. Observations at the Quantum level and "action at a distance" may be no more that the effects of frame dragging at the Quantum level,caused by the BH at the Galaxy's core.

If Frame Dragging occurs, wouldn't it effect smooth space time?

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
In AWT model of space-time with water surface the possibility of observation of superluminal phenomena in vacuum is equivalent to answer of question: could we observe the phenomena faster than the surface ripples if we would form a bubble floating on it and if we could observe/interact with the surface via its surface ripples only?
RivertonRat
4 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2012
Isn't nonlocality and quantum entagement already explained by the Holographic Principle(Bekenstein Bound and 2 plus 1 dimensional topology)?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
IMO we could follow an object moving along straight path with superluminal speed, but this object would do a quantum jumps during it like the Schrodinger cat filmed here - it would remain observable just during brief periods of time, when it wouldn't move with superluminal speed. So we could both observe it, both we couldn't.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
As a classical example of such behavior can serve the neutrino, which does quantum oscillations during its motion, which effectively means, it disappears from the sight of our detectors during brief periods of time and it teleports itself with slightly superluminal speed at distance. As a whole the motion of such neutrino still remains subluminal - so if you would follow its motion at the start and target, you could never find something unusual. From this reason we never detected the neutrino during its superluminal motion in OPERA experiment, because these neutrinos were all undetectable during it. We should use three or more detectors along its path to recognize it indirectly.
RivertonRat
not rated yet Oct 28, 2012
Quantum entanglement from the holographic principle

You can find the article here on Arxiv.org
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
IMO the photons are doing the very same trick like the neutrinos: they do move with slightly subluminal speed (the more, the more energetic and heavy they are) - but due the quantum decoherence they dissolve in vacuum less or more periodically: they disappear during it and emerge somewhere else. Because the photons as a whole are moving with speed of light, then it's evident, during their dark period the EM signal must propagate with slightly superluminal speed (scalar wave?). We actually never measured the speed of SINGLE photon along whole its path, because during common light speed measurements we were never sure, we detected the very same photons, like those which we released at start.
Isn't nonlocality and quantum entanglement already explained by the Holographic Principle(Bekenstein Bound and 2 plus 1 dimensional topology)?
Nope, it even doesn't lead into testable predictions. At least I never met some...
gwrede
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2012
I was about to write here my thoughts, but after these comments, it'd only drown in the mass, and be down-voted out of sheer reflex by everybody.

So, instead, I'll just smile smugly at the scientists, and think for myself "they'll get it, eventually". And I can even give a hint: reread your Occam.

Oh, yes, and I expect this post to get a lot of 1's, too. :-)
rah
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
That's interesting, but I have a better idea than an 80 dimensional whatever. It completely explains action at a distance and does not require superluminal nothing. Magic. Lots of everyday things work by magic, radios, tv, lots of stuff.
Tired0
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
The pairs already start/exist in opposite states before they are measured.

If it is a large particle decaying into two other smaller particles those two particles were already in those states before the large one split. They were why the large particle had the characteristics that it had.

If it was two particles initially and they were separated by an oscillating, standing wave, EM wave, etc. what external force is going to change the states again? Would they not stay in opposite states as long as the wave is applied to keep them entangled? How long did it take to move those two particles apart from one another? Slower then the speed of light I bet.

You can do an experiment with visible objects and waves that match the results. Unless there is an external force like "measurement" the two objects will stay synced until friction or some other force comes into play. What else would cause particles that are already in the opposite state to change again?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2012
"Specifically, a test of a 'Bell inequality' checks whether two particles' behaviour could have been based on prior arrangements. If measurements violate the inequality, pairs of particles are doing what quantum theory says: acting without any 'local hidden variables' directing their fate."

That is not really what happens. A loophole is that you could choose to have observables as real only when observed (say, as in Many World Theory as seen from one World). In that case, non-locality appears first in the experiments where the chosen correlations are changed as you go (or mediate observables ahead of the time of change, since that can happen as well). [ Both cases described here: http://www.techno...paradox/ ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2012
Spacetime is emergent, so it is not surprising it can be non-local. Penrose's twistor theory maps a local space and time of an underlying twistor space to separate points in spacetime.

"it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly."
Not really, since most of the universe is _not_ entangled. What happens is that entanglements set up a local delay in the universal clock cosmological expansion sets up. When the entanglement collapses the lightcone catch up.

Presumably these delayed lightcones will not make a problem at the cosmological horizon as they are redshifted out of observability.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
@ Noumenon: "They are therefore dependent upon mind, not the physical entity being modeled,".

Solipsism is cute, but rejected by observation. (Every mechanics has an observational test of reality. In QM it is observation-observables.) Spacetime is emergent, and space and time are observed fundamentals. We build our everyday intuition of spacetime on that, but it fails for non-locality (say).

The classical Copenhagen fails on decoherence.

@ Oysteroid: "astrology, here we come. "

That is not warranted, remember that such signals are explicitly forbidden. Stars would set up correlations with the ultimate speed limit, no matter what correlations could be sent after.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
@ M4dH4TT3r, Valeria T: "My theory"; "AWT". Personal theories is not science. Aether (AWT) is rejected by observation a century ago. This is a science blog.

@ nevermark: Your QM is on the money, I think. Your cosmology is a decade dated: inflation happens within spacetime before big bang (the first moment we can see a space with particles) and it predicts a flat space. It also removes the singularities and planck scale considerations you seem to expect (see Susskind's latest papers; available on arxiv).

@ indio007: QM has been saved from relativity since quantum field theory, which builds on the combination of relativity and QM to predict fields.

That is ~ 90 years old knowledge, I believe. You are 4 generations (@ 25 years) out of date.
Erscheinung
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2012
@torbjorn

Space and time are not observed themselves as independent things, ever,... they're concepts that are applied. You can't see time in a microscope, but can only apply the concept in relating two things. We define time, not observer it. For example, we set a standard; the number of cycles of a cesium atom that is congruent with another event,.... is said to be the "time" of the event. The concept was already presumed before hand.

Intuitions are a-priori to experience,... which is to say the mind operates on experience in various ways to conceptualize Reality, to conform Reality within its built in modes of thought, space, time, causality...as that is what mind does to acquire an intuitive understanding.

I'm not advocating solipsism or idealism,... the opposite in fact. Mind dependent concepts and intuitions should not guide physics as if they were experimentally discovered entities of themselves,.... this is what lead Einstein astray wrt qm.

Noumenon
Erscheinung
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2012
,.. there should not be any such presumptions made about Reality unless it allows for predictions. There is a differenece between Reality as it is in itself, and Conceptualized reality. The latter contains a component that is dependent upon mind, and so has limited applicability. The non-intuitive nature of qm is simply an artifact of the inability to conceptualize Reality consistently in accord with how the mind orders experience in the macro realm.

Noumenon
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2012
AWT is rejected by observation a century ago
Which observation do you mean? This theory didn't exist a century ago.
Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions.
Actually in AWT the observable reality is very high-dimensional too. All forces, which don't follow inverse square law or every refraction cannot exist in just-3D-space. There's a question about upper limit of number of dimensions observable inside the observable Universe, because such a limit would limit the maximal complexity achievable in this universe too.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
Everyone knows, how the pure 3D space looks like. This space follows strictly light speed invariance, so no lensing can appear in it. If such space contains just a very subtle gravitational lens (a blob), it cannot be 3D anymore. The more pronounced and refracting such a lens is, the higher-dimensional object it actually is. From this follows, the ball of water is actually very highly dimensional object from 3D space perspective. Such a hyperdimensional manifold would penetrate the 3D space in non-continuous way: like the mutually insulated atoms which are held together with their short-distance forces only. The common material objects really look like this. The distributed character of material objects is really more understandable, if we would consider them as a hyperdimensional objects penetrating our 3D space. So, if we can observe such an objects routinely, it just means, that the Lorentz symmetry is broken here too.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
.... In other words, the non-intuitive nature of qm, is an epistemological result, not a physical one.

Who will defeat QM?
What makes all humans feel secure is living in a predictable world.
So if QM predictions are right for all the wrong reasons...
Who cares?
ant_oacute_nio354
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2012
spacetime doesn't exist.
the lorentz equations give the dopler effect for transversal waves
x and t are not space and time but wavelength and period of a electromagnetic wave

c^2t^2 - x^2 = S ; S = 1.9121x10^-34 m^2
taka
1 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2012
Anything stands in place if to turn it around. There is no time and there is no space. Both are illusions created by interacting particles and causal relations these interactions have. Particles interact outside of time and space, so it is natural that all these interactions happen instantly. But interactions are partly ordered by causal relations and that is what we preserve as time and space. If there is big number of particles and a lot of interactions involved the space and time seems continuous. So, the space-time theory arise in the same way as molecular movements create hydrodynamic and thermodynamic.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Oct 29, 2012
.... In other words, the non-intuitive nature of qm, is an epistemological result, not a physical one.

Who will defeat QM?
What makes all humans feel secure is living in a predictable world.
So if QM predictions are right for all the wrong reasons...
Who cares?


Yes, exactly,... that's what i'm saying. It only becomes a "problem" when folks insist that qm "should makes sense", by in effect trying to fit reality at the qm realm into our limited intuitive framework.

The classical Copenhagen fails on decoherence. - Torbjorn


No really, as it can be adapted to include it. Decoherence does not explain the measurement problem nor reconciles qm with classical physics.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Oct 29, 2012
I believe there must be non-local hidden variables beyond conventional spacetime because i can't accept that causality is subjective - that would be too anthropomorphic.


Reality is what ever it is, independent of mind. However, the act of knowing reality by definition involves mind, inescapably,.. because then WE force Reality to conform to our a-priori conceptual scheme to "make sense" of it.

This intuitive conceptual scheme is "built-in", or evolved as a mechanism of mind to operate on and order experience for consciousness. It is not possible to conform reality wihin this, in effect, arbitrary and mind dependent framework, consistently.

Why would the mind evolve with concepts that are applicable at all scales? If the mind evolved at the qm realm, it would have mechanisms to order experience at that realm, and so qm would then "make sense".
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Oct 29, 2012
,... as N. Bohr once said to Einstein, in effect, 'who are you to say how Reailty "should be"?'. Abraham Pais regarded Bohr (Heisenberg) as the logical successor to Immanual Kant. Now Kant, anticipated the above epistemological problems, though he could not anticipate how science could progress by dropping the classical presumption of "intuitive understanding".
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 29, 2012
No really, as it can be adapted to include it. Decoherence does not explain the measurement problem nor reconciles qm with classical physics. - Noumenon


I worded this wrong. Of course, the point is to show how the classical limit emerges. We already knew it must.
PresstoDigitate
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
Another bizarre contortion to preserve the mythical "light barrier". In ten years when instantaneous communication over quantum transceivers is common between spacecraft - and, for that matter, between consumer electronics - these outdated superstitions that "nothing goes faster than light" will be no more serious than the "sound barrier" that Felix Baumgartner just jumped through.
gwrede
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
I find most of the writers here are either religious or political zealots, aggressive teenagers, pathetic ignorants of all ages, borderline schizophrenics, religious believers of some kook-"theories", trolls, and the other stupids.

Seems regular people don't write, they only read. That is, if we do have any of them left.

Having said that, it is wonderful to find the odd one every once in a while, who seems to actually have a clue. Torbjorn_Larsson_OM seems to be one, and at times antialias_physorg. There are some others, too (but there's obviously no point in trying to enumerate, lest I miss someone deserving of mention.) And the other day I found albertovailati defending an article here about his own research.

What I find absolutely amazing is, how any of them bother to waste their time throwing their seeds to a hostile and infertile ground.

But I'm happy they do!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2012
A single EM wave-enity, whether a light-wave or a matter-wave, is in instantaneous contact with itself. When its boundary-conditions suddenly change it can instantaneously morph to adapt.

You can also increase the size of a holistic-wave by entangling other separate waves with it: When doing this these waves lose their distinguishability: They cannot be seperately identified anymore. NOT because they are "identical" as is stupidly claimed in the mainstream QM literature. Identical DOES NOT imply indistinguishable.

It is thus possible to have a single holistic matter-wave which, when you entangle an electron with it on one side, an electron disentangles on the other side. There is no motion of an electron from one contact to the other, and therefore the electron appears at the other contact as if it has moved near-instantaneously from one contcat to another.

johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2012
This does NOT violate Einstein's STR, since it is not a separate wave-entity which is moving through space. Since, when an electron disappears on one side of the entangled wave, another appears "instantly" on the other side, a signal can be sent through the entangled wave at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.

I already have the capability to generate such an entangled wave in the laboratory throuh which signals can be sent faster than the speed of light. But as long as the crackpots in charge of mainstream theoretical physics insist to believe in Voodoo concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" we will never be able to guide physics out of the quagmire, of quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, anyons, and other similar unreal stupidities.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Oct 30, 2012
This does NOT violate Einstein's STR, since it is not a separate wave-entity which is moving through space. Since, when an electron disappears on one side of the entangled wave, another appears "instantly" on the other side, a signal can be sent through the entangled wave at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.


Are you talking about group velocities above c of waves(?), because no information (signal) can be carried as you appear to say.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
I already have the capability to generate such an entangled wave in the laboratory throuh which signals can be sent faster than the speed of light.

I think you need to read up on the definitions of entanglement and what a signal (i.e. information transmission) actually is. And then you may notice that the two are incompatible.

While you do so pay especially attention to (required) knowledge of a priori and a posteriori states.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2012
Are you talking about http://en.wikiped..._above_c velocities above c of waves(?), because no information (signal) can be carried as you appear to say. NO I am not, since this is nonsense. You can never get a group velocity that is faster than the velocity of a single coherent wave.

There are no group velocities involved in my experiment, since the transfer of the signal (electron-in to electron-out)is non-local.

Even when an electron-wave moves through free space is must be a coherent wave with a single well-defined frequency, like ALL coherent waves have. If this were not the case, you would not have had a well-defined de Broglie relationship between wavelength and momentum, AND an ensemble of electrons moving with the same speed would not have been able to form a diffraction pattern.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2012
I think you need to read up on the definitions of entanglement and what a signal (i.e. information transmission) actually is.
How about enlightening me by stating what you believe the definitions must be.
And then you may notice that the two are incompatible.
Prove this in terms of your definitions please.

While you do so pay especially attention to (required) knowledge of a priori and a posteriori states.
I am waiting with bated breath for you to explain this!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2012
Are you talking about http://en.wikiped..._above_c velocities above c of waves(?), because no information (signal) can be carried as you appear to say.

NO I am not, since this is nonsense. You can never get a group velocity that is faster than the velocity of a single coherent wave.

Correction: Than the highest-energy coherent wave that takes part in forming the wave-packet!

presentTense
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
Any periodic motion of a particle is accompanied by a corresponding contraction-dilation cycle, which in a sense is present everywhere immediately. A network of resonant association between particles via their contraction-dilation cyclic interaction could field waves of perturbation due to shifting between adjacent equilibrium stations with reference to this network for various particles prone to release or absorb quanta of energy through such shifting. These waves of perturbation might be featured to present probability waves with regard to prospects for shaking down further energy absorption or release events, such as might be featured to manifest cause and effect sequences of optical exchange in the usual sense. This represents my idea of how instantaneous particle interaction might correlate with speed-of-light particle interaction in an integral and seamless way.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2012
...my idea of how instantaneous particle interaction might correlate with speed-of-light particle interaction...


Your whole model is classical physics: When classical physics applies, there cannot be communication that is faster than the speed of light between separate "particles". BTW, the latter concept is also classical physics (an invention of Newton) and should not feature in quantum mechanics at all!

What is called a "particle" is the centre-of-mass of an entity which could be, but need not be the lowest energy manifestation of that entity. To call the motion of a centre-of-mass the motion of a "particle" is moronic.

Even more moronic is to state that there is an uncertainty in the position and momentum of such a centre-of-mass. Mass and centre-of-mass came from inertia which means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which the centre-of-mass must be STATIONARY! NO uncertainty in position, and the momentum is zero: NO uncertainty in momentum either
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2012
The fact that time slows down for an object in motion according to rate of velocity requires a point of reference or in simple terms a speedometer so for an isolated object in motion only a stationary grid that the object moves through can serve as a reference to measure velocity. This implies everything in the known universe is connected by this grid.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2012
The fact that time slows down for an object in motion according to rate of velocity requires
Time does NOT slow down for an object in motion: Einstein's time-dilation formula does NOT compare two SIMULTANEOUS time intervals but two different time-intervals on two clocks which keep exactly the same time.

a point of reference or in simple terms a speedometer so for an isolated object in motion only a stationary grid that the object moves through can serve as a reference to measure velocity. This implies everything in the known universe is connected by this grid.
Very good! But not correct! According to STR only relative motion is possible. Therefore you cannot say which clock is moving: However. if you can suddenly stop time you will find that all clocks within our universe (except maybe for gravity) will show the exact same time. There is a global time rate, just like Newton has assumed. If there is not, simultaneous events will not be possible at all.
visual
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
Um, johanfprins, what are you on about? Do you not understand relativity of simultaneity?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
Um, johanfprins, what are you on about? Do you not understand relativity of simultaneity?


Why do you think I do not understand the relativity of simultaneity? Do you?

Simultaneous events at different positions are not possible when clocks at different positions show different times; as is accepted within textbooks that they do; and as is assumed when constructing Minkowski space.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2012
I am asking again: A very simple question:

If time is a fourth coordinate which changes from one position to the next, how can two events occur simultaneously at ANY two separate positions; as Einstein had assumed is possible?

Is it not a prerequisite that two events at two different positions can only be simultaneous when the clocks at the two positions keep the exact same time?

And since simultaneous events can occur at any two separate positions, does this not demand that clocks at all positions must keep the same time?

And if a "coordinate" at all positions has the exact same value, is it really a "coordinate"? Not bloody likely!

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Nov 01, 2012
A coordinate is merely a means of referring to a event (a degree of freedom.)

As already explained here by me and others,...

Is it not a prerequisite that two events at two different positions can only be simultaneous when the clocks at the two positions keep the exact same time?


Not in general. Two events as Determined to be simultaneous, are only so, for the observer sharing the same IRF as the events in question.

And since simultaneous events can occur at any two separate positions, does this not demand that clocks at all positions must keep the same time?


No. There is nothing special or absolute about positions. It's about inertia reference frames. Two other observers traveling at different velocities may not agree with the initial observer (in same IRF as the events) that the events were simultaneous, nor even agree amongst each other, of which event took place first.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
No. There is nothing special or absolute about positions. It's about inertia reference frames. Two other observers traveling at different velocities may not agree with the initial observer (in same IRF as the events) that the events were simultaneous, nor even agree amongst each other, of which event took place first.

I have NOT disagreed with this at all! So stop playing semantic games, or are you REALLY so slow?

Take a single inertial reference frame: No other motion. If two events occur simultaneously at two different positions which are both stationary within this inertial reference frame, the time at these two positions, as measured relative to this reference frame must be the same: Or do you dispute this?

Do you want to argue that within this inertial reference frame two events at two separate positions, which are stationary relative to one another, can be simultaneous while the times at these two positions are different! Please help me God!
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 01, 2012
Take a single inertial reference frame: No other motion. If two events occur simultaneously at two different positions which are both stationary within this inertial reference frame, the time at these two positions, as measured relative to this reference frame must be the same: Or do you dispute this?


No, that is correct.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Nov 01, 2012
Do you want to argue that within this inertial reference frame two events at two separate positions, which are stationary relative to one another, can be simultaneous while the times at these two positions are different! Please help me God!


I never argued that. If the stationary observer determines the two events are simultaneous, it does not imply that another moving observer (in a different IRF) must also determine the two events to be simultaneous.

The reason is, that the moving observer uses his OWN coordinate system to express the events in question. The physical events are invariants, but the coordinates used to express those events are not, being dependent on the observer. One observers time is a mixture of time and space of another observer in a difference IRF.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2012
lengould100
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2012
So someone proposes that all (near infinite number) individual particles in the universe are each pre-connected to every other (near infinite number) of individual particles by some means of influence which can transfer data about spin and etc.

Sounds a bit unlikely to me. Compared to that, FTL communications and revising relativity are far more likely, just my opinion.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2012
I never argued that. If the stationary observer determines the two events are simultaneous, it does not imply that another moving observer (in a different IRF) must also determine the two events to be simultaneous.


I have not argued otherwise, except to state that time is not a coordinate that simultaneously have different values at different positions.

As you have just now conceded, for simultaneity to be possible within a single IRF, the time at any instant must simultaneously be the same at all coordinate positions within the IRF. Thus the clocks keep exactly the same time-rate independent of where they are situated within an IRF.

In turn, this must obviously be the case for all IRF's since according to Einstein's first postulate they are all equivalent: The same experiment done in any IRF must give the same result.

This in turn demands that all clocks in our universe must be keping the same time whether they move relative to one another or not.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
Einstein was a genius for whom I have great admiration, but he could also blunder as he himself admitted. His insight that the speed of light is the same when measured relative to any object, whether considered to be stationary or moving was pure genius.

His conclusion that this demands that two simultaneous events within an IRF is not observed to be simultaneous by a moving observer was pure genius.

His thought experiment using a train and two lightning flashes to illustrate non-simultaneity, is a blunder, since he violated his own postulate that light must move with speed c relative to both the observer on the platform, and the observer on the train.

His interpretation of time-dilation was another blunder since he only used one half of the Lorentz-transformation and thus assumed that the times on two clocks can simultaneously be different.

His interpretation of length-contraction is another blunder because, in this case, he only used the other half of the Lorentz transformation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/measurements-retroactively-force-photons-to-be-both-wave-and-particle


A photon is a coherent light-wave with the lowest energy that can be detected or emitted given by h*(nu). Like any wave it can split into parts when moving through (say) two slits: The two parts moving through the two slits remain a SINGLE HOLISTC wave. i.e. they are entangled.

When checking through which slit the photon has moved, one must detect the photon. Since one cannot detect less energy than h*(nu), the detector collapses the two parts into a single photon. That is why the two parts cannot then interfere with one another anymore.

When you have two entangled photons one still has a wave that is a single holistic entity. Thus, the two parts which follow different paths are NOT separate photon waves until a measurement disentangles them.

Thus, these experiments can be explained in terms of causality without believing in Voodoo, like John Wheeler did.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2012
So someone proposes that all (near infinite number) individual particles in the universe are each pre-connected to every other (near infinite number) of individual particles by some means of influence which can transfer data about spin and etc.
The subparts of a holistic entangled wave are NOT separate particles; unless you want to believe the Copenhagen Voodoo!

They are parts of a single electromagnetic wave. When the boundary conditions change, for example when making a measurement on a single photon, the two subparts must collapse into a single part or else the detector cannot observe it.

If the wave consists of an entanglement of photon-waves, a measurement can disentangle them. At disentanglement their properties are correlated. But now they are separate entities which cannot communicate at a speed faster than the speed of light anymore.

It becomes quite simple and causal as soon as you reject the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".

Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
We share a common denominator labeled 'lite' (pun unavoidable!)
Lite is constant and consistent (see our ratings!)

Anyway, the last few comments of yours are impressive - I share your view on holism in respect to waves.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
The subparts of a holistic entangled wave are NOT separate particles; unless you want to believe the Copenhagen Voodoo! They are parts of a single electromagnetic wave.
This applies to most lightweight particles only, like the photons (as still there is a big IF). The heavier particles entangled still form a separate particles. They're merely in mutual force coupling with Cassimir and another forces. For example, here we can read about pair of entangled cantilevers - such a cantilevers definitely don't form a "single electromagnetic wave during it". The particle model of vacuum supported with Couder's experiments explains what actually happens here without any philosophizing and incoherent babbling about coherence.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
We share a common denominator labeled 'lite' (pun unavoidable!)
Lite is constant and consistent (see our ratings!)

Anyway, the last few comments of yours are impressive - I share your view on holism in respect to waves.


Thanks! I have just now left another comment on holism for you on another thread.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
The subparts of a holistic entangled wave are NOT separate particles; unless you want to believe the Copenhagen Voodoo! They are parts of a single electromagnetic wave.
This applies to most lightweight particles only, like the photons (as still there is a big IF). The heavier particles entangled still form a separate particles.


On this point we disagree, since I have experimental evidence that electrons also lose their separate identies. First they do so in pairs, for example, a covalent bond. These pairs can in turn lose their separate identities to form double bonds and triple bonds.

When I extract electrons from n-type diamond, millions of electrons form pairs which then again merge to lose their separate identities. One can see the macro-wave with a microscope, and it teleports electrons: superconduction at room temperature.

Thus both photons and electrons can TOTALLY lose their separate identities. Photons=laser beam; electrons=superconductor.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2012
For example, http://iopscience...ulltext/

You are deliberately misleading us. This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal that has not been experimentally proved and is probably impossible since it relies on the concept of Cooper pairs which is also a fallacy.

The particle model of vacuum supported with Couder's experiments explains what actually happens here without any philosophizing and incoherent babbling about coherence.
Again you are misleading us.

The silicon droplets act as sources for the waves which dissipate as the wave-fronts move away. Where does this energy come from in the case of an electron or a photon?

Furthermore, in the illustration of double slit diffraction the "particle" and its "wave" move through a single slit at a time. Thus, all you will be able to observe is two single slit diffraction patterns that overlap.

To even think that this models what happens to and electron- or a photon-wave is ludicrous and farfetched.

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Nov 03, 2012
As you have just now conceded, for simultaneity to be possible within a single IRF, the time at any instant must simultaneously be the same at all coordinate positions within the [same] IRF. Thus the clocks keep exactly the same time-rate independent of where they are situated within an [same] IRF.


Correct.

In turn, this must obviously be the case for all IRF's since according to Einstein's first postulate they are all equivalent: The same experiment done in any IRF must give the same result.


Correct.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
This in turn demands that all clocks in our universe must be keping the same time whether they move relative to one another or not.


Not correct! This does NOT follow from the above two propositions.

Each IRF is by definition a different coordinate system. One moving observer can't just use a different observers coordinate system to describe an event, he must use his OWN system, OR transform anothers result into his own coordinate system.

Given that the speed of light is finite, it must be the case that one observers time (or space) component is a mixture of anothers space and time components, the Lorentz transform,.... in order to keep invarient physical quantites the same for all observers.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
Not correct! This does NOT follow from the above two propositions.


Let me answer your arguments for disagreeing with me.
Each IRF is by definition a different coordinate system.


Correct
One moving observer can't just use a different observers coordinate system to describe an event,


I have not claimed this at all. All I am claiming is that clocks within different IRF's keep the exact same time within their respective IRF's
he must use his OWN system,


Within his own system all stationary clocks keep the exact same time and the space coordinates are Cartesian. His space-time reference-frame is Newtonian. This is the case for ALL IRF's.
OR transform anothers result into his own coordinate system.


Aha! Since he is looking OUTSIDE his own system he is using his own system, which is Newtonian, to COMPARE the transformed coordinates to.

The transformed coordinates do NOT replace his own Newtonian coordinates. (I will proceed
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
Given that the speed of light is finite, it must be the case that one observers time (or space) component is a mixture of anothers space and time components,
Nope! It only means that a passing observer does not observe an event, which occurs within the reference frame he is passing, at the exact simultaneous time. It does not change the fact that his own coordinates are Newtonian.

Consider two passing clocks ater a time tm on the moving clock, this distance Dm according to this clock, between the clocks, must be:

1. Dm=v*tm

This is so since v must be Dm divided by tm.

The LT gives the "corresponding" time on the stationary clock as
t(LT)s, where:

2. t(LT)s=(beta)*tm,

where beta is the inverse of the usual square root. Einstein interpreted this result as time-dilation of the moving clock.

BUT, BUT, BUT, blundered!

According to the LT, the distance of the moving clock from the staionary clock D(LT)s, and is given by:

3. D(LT)s=(beta)*(v*tm),

proceed below
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
Now calculate the speed v(LT)s by dividing D(LT)s with t(LT)s and you get that:

4. v(LT)s=D(LT)s/t(LT)s=v

Thus the time t(LT)s is not longer because the moving clock kept time at a slower rate, but because the stationary observer only see the event after the moving clock has moved further from its position Dm when the event actually occurs to the position D(LT)s when the event is observed by the stationary observer.

In fact when the event occurred at the distance Dm, the distance, as measured from the moving clock must be the same as measured from the stationary clock. If at this distance the stationary clock shows a time ts, one must have that Dm=v*ts: Thus one must have that:

5. Dm=v*tm=v*ts

Which demands that

6. ts=tm

The clocks thus keep the exact same time as they each must.

There is thus NOT a time-coordinate that changes with position. The time-difference obtained from the LT, is caused by non-simultaneity: Not by time dilation on the moving clock.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
Thus the time t(LT)s is not longer because the moving clock kept time at a slower rate, but because the stationary observer only see the event after the moving clock has moved further from its position Dm when the event actually occurs to the position D(LT)s when the event is observed by the stationary observer.


You already made that argument, to which I responded,.. you need to take into consideration that relative movement, (using "gamma" instead of "beta"), as follows,.....
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
,...

dm = y(ds - v*ts) and ds = y(dm + v*tm) ,.... where y = gamma,...

Substitute the 2nd equation into the 1st to find ts , where y = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 = gamma

dm = y(y(dm + v*tm) - v*ts),...
dm = y^2*dm + y^2*v*tm - y*v*ts,.... divide by y^2 ,...
dm/y^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,..... now since 1/y^2 = (1-v^2/c^2),...
dm - v^2*dm/c^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,.... subtract out dm,...
- v^2*dm/c^2 = v*tm - v*ts/y,... divide out by v,...
- v*dm/c^2 = tm - ts/y,....
ts/y = tm + v*dm/c^2,... multiply both sides by y (gamma) ,...
ts = y(tm + v*dm/c^2) ----> the time on stationary clock of the event (the event being the time tm on moving clock, say of a explosion).

ts will show a later time than tm.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
,... as you can see above, you should subtract out v*ts from ds, first, then apply the Lorentz factor to obtain dm, using the appropriate times.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
,... as you can see above, you should subtract out v*ts from ds, first, then apply the Lorentz factor to obtain dm, using the appropriate times.


What is the difference between what you call gamma-movement and beta movement? All you are doing is to try and avoid using the Lorentz-transformation correctly. My proof above is simple and correct.

I have asked you before, and ask you again, what is ds and dm, and why must you suddenly use differentials? So let me repeat my questions:

1. What is the difference between my beta and your gamma

2. And please do your derivation without using differentials which are mathematical entities with no physical meaning on their own: Can you, for example, show me how you physically measure a distance dx?

Mathematics IS NOT physics but only a very handy language to describe physics. Although mathematics might seem self-consistent, like Minkowski space seems to be, it can be physically irrelevant, like Minkowski-space is.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
1. What is the difference between my beta and your gamma


You have not defined your beta, while I have defined my gamma, as follows,...

y = gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2

Typically beta is taken as v/c.

2. And please do your derivation without using differentials which are mathematical entities with no physical meaning on their own: Can you, for example, show me how you physically measure a distance dx?

I'm not using differentials, ..i'm using YOUR variables, ds and dm, .. i just did not capitalize the D.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
I apologise: Since you used a small d for distance it seemed as if you used differentials. But all you did was to derive the inverse Lorentz-transformation: You did not prove that the two clocks keep different time rates: Furthermore my beta is the same as your gamma. To remind you when you transform from Ks to Km, the equations are:

Dm=(beta)*(Xs-v*ts) AND
tm=(beta)*(ts-(v/c^2)*Xs)

And from Km to Ks you have that:

Ds=(beta)*(Xm plus v*tm)
ts=(beta)*(tmplus(v/c^2)*Xm)

Say the time on the moving clock is tm, then the distance from the stationary clock must be v*tm. At this instant an event occur on the moving clock. The coodinate of this event is Xm=0 (ZERO!!!). Thus the distance Ds according to the LT is:

Ds=(beta)*v*tm

And the time on the staionary clock is:

ts=(beta)*v*tm

Both the time and the distance is larger. Thus the time on the stationary clock is the time when the moving clock reaches the distance Ds, which is larger than the distance v*tm when the event occurred.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
ts=(beta)*v*tm


I think you made a mistake here,.. you probably mean to say,..
ts = (beta) tm,...

In any case, if ts is larger, which it would be if you are taking my gamma= beta,... this would imply clock Km is running slower, since ts being "larger" means elapsed more time on Ks compared to Km.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
ts=(beta)*v*tm


I think you made a mistake here,.. you probably mean to say,..
ts = (beta) tm,...
Yes I did. The v should not be there. It should be

ts=(beta)*tm

In any case, if ts is larger, which it would be if you are taking my gamma= beta,... this would imply clock Km is running slower, since ts being "larger" means elapsed more time on Ks compared to Km.
No it does NOT since the distance between the clocks when the moving clock reached the time tm is v*tm, while the distance between the clocks when the stationary clock reads ts, is

Ds=(beta)*v*tm

which is larger than the distance v*tm on the moving clock was when the event occurred. Thus the time ts on the stationary clock is the time on BOTH clocks when they are a distance Ds apart which is larger than the distance at which the moving clock showed the time tm. Thus ts MUST be larger than tm even though the clocks keep exactly the same time.

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 03, 2012
You are speaking of distances rather than coordinates, so perhaps you need to speak of lengths instead, then use the inverse gamma, 1/y, for length contraction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2012
You are speaking of distances rather than coordinates, so perhaps you need to speak of lengths instead, then use the inverse gamma, 1/y, for length contraction.

There is no length-contraction: Einstein assumed that simultaneous positions of the front and rear of a stationary rod can also be simultaneous within a passing inertial reference frame. And this just after he argued that two simultaneous events (which can the positions of an entity) which do not move relative to one another cannot be simultaneous within a passing reference-frame!

In the case of time dilation, he assumed that the time on a moving clock and the LT transformed time from this clock to a stationary clock are simultaneously present on the two clocks. The Lorentz-transformation proves tha it cannot be, since the transformed time can only be present on the stationary clock after the moving clock has moved to a postion Ds so that the time on both clocks is t=ts, since ts=Ds/v.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
there is no length-contraction
This is nonsense. A current-carrying wire is observed to be electrically neutral in its rest frame, and a nearby charged particle at rest in that frame is unaffected by the current. A nearby charged particle that is moving parallel to the wire, however, is subject to a magnetic force that is related to its speed relative to the wire. If one considers the situation in the rest frame of a charge moving with the drift velocity of the electrons in the wire, the force is purely electrostatic due to the different length contractions of the positive and negative charges in the wire (the former are fixed relative to the wire, while the latter are mobile with drift velocities of a few mm per second). This approach gives the correct quantitative value of the magnetic force in the wire frame.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (52) Nov 03, 2012
@johanfprins

But you are speaking about distances, rather than coordinates. If your experiment does not use relative lengths, then you should be using invariant space-time interval, instead.

The distance between events is invariant, which will fix your Ds != Dm issue, and therefore the interpretation of ts running faster than tm.

My apology, I should have known this when I used your Ds and Dm which should have told me to use Xs and Xm instead,... then interpret your problem using the ds^2 = g(ab)dx^a * dx^b,... with g(ab) = kronecker delta with Lorentzian signature.

@velariaT , why rate 1's?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2012
Contraction also leads to an increase of the intensity of the Coulomb field perpendicular to the direction of motion, whose effects already have been observed. Consequently, both time dilation and length contraction must be considered when conducting experiments in particle accelerators. Without relativistic corrections even simply cyclotron couldn't work. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".

An your theory is both ugly, both silly, both violates the experiments. Ironically enough, you're himself using the relativistic contraction in your "explanations" of curvature around particle wave.

velariaT , why rate 1's
Because both of you are off-topic here. Read the rules of PO discussions first.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
there is no length-contraction
This is nonsense. A current-carrying wire is observed to be electrically neutral in its rest frame, and a nearby charged particle at rest in that frame is unaffected by the current. A nearby charged particle that is moving parallel to the wire, ... etc. etc. etc.


I am not going to digress at this stage. One point at a time!

The fact is that when the LT time on the stationary clock is ts=(bet)*tm, the LT distance between the clocks is Ds=(bet)*v*tm where v*tm is the distance between the clocks when the moving clock showed the time tm. After the moving clock has moved further distance Ds, the time on it must be t#m=Ds/v, and since Ds=(bet)*v*tm, one finds that t#m=(bet)*tm=ts. Thus the time on the stationary clock is the time on the moving clock when the latter clock has moved away from it to be at a distance Ds from it. It is not the time on the stationary clock when the moving clock is at a distance v*tm from it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
An your theory is both ugly, both silly, both violates the experiments. Ironically enough, you're himself using the relativistic contraction in your "explanations" of curvature around particle wave.
If spouting BS gave a person spots you would have been a leopard.

In contrast Noumenon acts more like a real scientist: We disagree and when we see ecah other's point we agree! This is how scientits are supposed to interact.

BTW, the explanation for the effects in an accelerator and for cosmic ray muons does not rely on length contraction, but on length dilation. But to try and explain this to you, will be impossible! You just do not have an open enough mind to objectively explore alternatives to what you want to believe at all cost.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
Sorry I jumped ahead by responding to ValeriaT's nonsense!
But you are speaking about distances, rather than coordinates.

YOU are doing this. An event occurs at the moving clock, coordinate 0; LT tells me that this event is observed at a time ts=B*tm, when the moving clock is a distance Ds=B*v*tm from the stationary clock: How the hell can this time be different from the time on the moving clock that has to be also ts when it is a distance Ds from the stationary clock?
invariant space-time interval, instead.
Space-time intervals change with the choice of the origin.

The distance between events is invariant, which will fix your Ds != Dm issue, ...
Does this not mean that the distance between the clocks is the same as viewed from either the moving or the stationary clock?

Thus tm on the moving clock and the simultaneous time ts on the stationary clock must be such that v*ts=v*tm! This means that simultaneously ts=tm. ts derived from LT is not the same!
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Nov 03, 2012
If the event is at coordinate = 0, then you are correct,... but,...

If there are two events defined, one at Xs = Xm = 0, and another some time tm later, then both observers, Os and Om agree on the Space-time distance between the events,

dts^2*c^2 - dXs^2 = dtm^2*c^2 - dXm^2

So the clocks can run at different rates AND both observers agree on the distance between the events, but this assumes you accept Minkowski space-time over Galilean space with Netwonian time, which I know you do not. However this does not mean Einstein blundered, as he would accept Minkowski's geometry once beginning work on GR.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2012
If the event is at coordinate = 0, then you are correct,... but,...

If there are two events defined, one at Xs = Xm = 0, and another some time tm later, then both observers, Os and Om agree on the Space-time distance between the events,
You cannot state this unless you specify the coinciding-coordinates of the latter event relative to both the origins 0s and 0m which are now not coincident.

So the clocks can run at different rates AND both observers agree on the distance between the events, but this assumes you accept Minkowski space-time over Galilean space ... However this does not mean Einstein blundered, as he would accept Minkowski's geometry once beginning work on GR.


Minkowski's space-time is only valid if clocks at different positions within an IRF keep different times; and you agreed that this is not possibe. Einstein's initial instinct about Minkowski space-time (MST) was correct: Accepting MST was his most collossal blunder EVER!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2012
You people disappoint me! The obvious question to ask is whether I believe that Einstein's model for gravity based on space-time curvature is wrong.

In the gravity model one has REAL space-time curvature around mass, owing to the wave-nature of matter. Therefore, the main postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity had to be abandoned: i.e. that light can only move with the speed c.

Einstein's gravity probably relates more to the wave-nature of matter (de Broglie's postulate) than to Minkowski's space-time.

When, for example, light approaches an atomic electron, it has to slow down and become stationary in order to be absorbed by, and add rest-mass energy to the electron-wave; which in turn must then morph ("quantum jump") into a higher energy allowed electron-wave.

For this reason light must slow down when moving through the gravity-field surrounding the electron's mass-distribution.

It is also for this reason why light curves around all objects with mass, including the Sun.
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2012
You people disappoint me! The obvious question to ask is whether I believe that Einstein's model for gravity based on space-time curvature is wrong. - Jp


You made this clear. Nonmenon made this clear.
Your comments made the different geometries you both applied clear with respect to your differences.
View this way I do not understand your disappointment.
I believe the commentary exchange will continue - along the lines
of what motivated the scientific community to abandon the geometry one of you hope to see reapplied.

Speaking only for myself thks for the learning opportunity you both provided.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2012
Speaking only for myself thks for the learning opportunity you both provided.


Yes, Noumenon has been a worthy debater! I congratulate him/her.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
"Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly."
Not yet being up to that kind of stuff & considering the way this article is worded, I am a little unsure as to which of these two definitions is being applied:
http://en.wikiped...locality
http://en.wikiped...locality
The article seems to be using both definitions & switching between them at times & I am finding it confusing, following the changes of use. I wouldn't mind if somebody would be willing to provide more insight, especially for the phrase that I have quoted. Thanks, DH66

DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
Anyway, at this point, IF the 'regular' definition of non-locality is being used, that quoted description above suggests just one thing to me. If we are capable of connecting any bit of the universe to any other bit of the universe, aren't we creating the equivalent of an inter-dimensional tunnel?(this would require travelling THRU the substance that makes up our dimensional 'space', rather than just 'in' it) Another part of my thought process is mathematical(or rather, basic graph geometry) I am sure that many of you remember being taught that EVERY point in space has a unique set of coordinates. I also remember being told that EVERY point in space is a barrier in space (in dimensional terms) Short cutting THROUGH the 'wall' of a dimension(out thru one, & back in thru the other) suggests the possibility of true teleportation (ie not just quantum teleportation), in this case, trans-dimensional.This could well be how that 'spooky action at a distance' works. What do you guys think? DH66
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
"Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly."

This is the conclusion you have to reach when believing rhe Voodoo of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".

After I discovered SC at room temp. in 2000, I realised that the macro-wave causing this SC is not "dual" to "particles". It is a single wave and since there are no separate "particles" also involved, a current consisting of "particles" cannot flow through it: Yet when injecting a current at one contact, a current is ejected on the other side. This is "non-local instantaneous" current transport: The current disappears at the injecting contact, and appears at the other contact faster than the speed c of light.

The latter is NOT possible when the current is transported by separate, distinguishable localised wave-entities. In the latter case current-transfer can never exceed the speed c.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2012
If we are capable of connecting any bit of the universe to any other bit of the universe, aren't we creating the equivalent of an inter-dimensional tunnel

Careful. There's two possible ways of connection (if non-locality is a property of the universe): Connections that allow information transmission and those that don't.
Entaglement would be an example of the latter.
Travelling through such a connection would be an example of the former.

Entanglement ahs been demonstrated so it is a hot contender for a non-local phenomenon.
But as long as "connection" means "connection without information transmission" travel/teleportation via such shortcuts is impossible.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Thus, if you have a single holistic wave-entity, it is in instantaneous contact with itself within the whole volume that the wave occupies. For this reason it adapts instantaneously to an change in its boundary conditions (BC's).

If you inject another wave into it, and it cannot change its BC to entangle with this wave, it must eject the same wave at another contact position. This causes the SC I have discovered.

When an orbital electron-wave around the nucleus of an atom absorbs a photon-wave: The electron-wave instantaneously inflates to accomodate this increase in EM energy. When it emits this energy it instantaneously collapses to now occupy a smaller volume.

Bohr believed that these instantaneous responses are "quantum jumps" by "particles"; and shouted everybody down who wanted to suggest otherwise. He even pursued this bombastic tactic even after he had tired Schroedinger out so much that Schroedinger had to take to bed.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Both light and matter are coherent EM-waves which are moving through space where each wave is in instantaneous contact with itself within the volume it occupies: Light moves with speed c and matter with speed v; less than c.

When the waves are separate, they can only influence each other (communicate) at a speed that has light speed as an upper limit.

But as we know, when the BC's require it, a coherent wave can split up into parts which are not separate waves but, still constitute a single holistic wave.

Take for example an electron p-orbital that consists of two lobes, but is still a single-electron wave. These lobes, although separate are not each a separate holistic wave. They are thus still in instantaneous contact with one another, and can collapse into each other when the boundary conditions change. These subparts of the single electron wave thus remain entangled, even when changing the boundary conditions (i.e. when making a measurement).

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Consider a photon-wave (or an electron-wave) approaching two slits. The slits represent a change in boundary conditions, so that the holistic-wave splits up into two lobes which move through the two slits. When not changing the BCs, just behind the slits, the two lobes interfere, and a diffracted wave-front (DWF) reaches the observation screen.

The screen presents new BCs which consist of a myriad of aborbers of atomic size. To be absorbed by one of these absorbers, the DWF must instantaneously collapse: It thus leaves a spot on the screen. Since there are an even distribution of absorbers, the wave collapses into the absorber with which it first resonates.

Since the DWE has a higher probability to resonate at positions where the wave-intensity is higher, the spots simulates the DWF after many photons have passed through the slits. If you are an utter fool you will conclude that the diffracted wave-intensity is a probability-distribution of where a "particle" will be found!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Consider a photon-wave (or an electron-wave) approaching two slits. The slits represent a change in boundary conditions, so that the holistic-wave splits up into two lobes which move through the two slits. When not changing the BCs, just behind the slits, the two lobes interfere, and a diffracted wave-front (DWF) reaches the observation screen.

The screen presents new BCs which consist of a myriad of aborbers of atomic size. To be absorbed by one of these absorbers, the DWF must instantaneously collapse: It thus leaves a spot on the screen. Since there are an even distribution of absorbers, the wave collapses into the absorber with which it first resonates.

Since the DWF has a higher probability to resonate at positions where the wave-intensity is higher, the spots simulates the DWF after many photons have passed through the slits. If you are an utter fool you will conclude that the diffracted wave-intensity is a probability-distribution of where a "particle" will be found!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
A photon-wave (and an electron-wave) is thus a permanently, self-entangled enitity. But this does not prevent a collection of these waves to entangle and form a single entangled macro-wave, as I have found when I discovered SC at room temperature.

It is possible to emit two photons which are entangled to form a single holistic wave. Although the wave consists of two parts which move into opposite directions, these subparts are NOT separate, holistic waves in their own right, as they will have to be when acting like "classical particles".

They remain in instantaneous contact with one another. If you thus make a measurement on one part, the other part reacts instantaneously and in synchronisation. Thus, if you have two entangled electrons and you measure the spin of one, the spin of the other must be opposite. This would not be possible if the electrons were simultaneously also "particles"; as "wave-particle duality" mandates.

DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
@AA: "...Connections that allow information transmission and those that don't. Entaglement would be an example of the latter. Travelling through such a connection would be an example of the former."
Soo...if I have read your explanation correctly, transmission of information by quantum entanglement is not possible for the latter (hence also no physical travel), but if 'travelling' (ie 'physical teleportation) is possible for your first example, then that kind of connection also allows for 'mere' information to pass as well. That kind of info should be able to pass even more 'easily', as it does not have a physical nature. Apart from that, it would appear that you are agreeing that my hypothesis about this possibility might actually have merit in explaining the (possible) mechanism. Assuming of course, that non-locality within our universe is the correct explanation in the first place. :) If I should be wrong, why? (curiosity mode)....cont
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
THE AHARANOV-BOHM EFFECT:

The mainstream explanation of the Aharanov-Bohm effect is thus pure Voodoo.

The electron-wave splits into two lobes, where each lobe moves through its own slit. The lobes are of equal size and the centre-of-charge of the electron-wave is thus smack bang between the lobes, and therefore, moves smack-bang through the magnetic field between the slits. This deflects the direction in which the wave moves, and this in turn deflects the diffraction pattern.

Photon-waves and electron-waves act thus just as one expects them to act in terms of classical physics. Furthermore, according to Einsten EM-energy is mass energy. Thus a photon wave has distributed EM energy and thus distributed mass energy. Distributed mass has a centre of mass. Similarly for an electron.

Unless there is a force, or any other action (BCs) the centre-of-mass of any entity moves like a "point-particle". Thus, there is nothing strange or bizarre about QM. It dovetails perfectly with classicM.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
cont...I can see what you mean, about the variation in types of 'connections'.They might just next to each other,or they might be so joined that a 'hole' gets created.It would have been nice if the authors had specified & expanded on what they meant, themselves.This is just my thoughts:Personally though, I would think that the necessary 'hole' gets 'punched thru' only when needed by the 'item' (perhaps in the manner/similar to the mechanism of a bullet???)& that the hole closes back up once transmission is complete.That would seem to me to be more logical, as most of these would only be needed once.The idea of 'space' ending up looking like a sieve somehow doesn't seem to make much sense.After all, the quantum vacuum is supposed to be quite elastic.Actually,I was also hoping that you might shed some light on my confusion in my first post, about the two types of non locality wrt to this article.It would also seem that BOTH definitions are valid for my earlier quote? :s Best Regards,DH66
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
@johanfprins: I appreciate that you are making so much effort to give a comprehensive answer. One reason that I am on this site, is to help my learning process along and broaden my horizons. Unfortunately your explanation is (in places)slightly over my head, since I am still an undergrad and still acquiring many concepts. And, equally unfortunately, I think that I had better stick with the duality concept, or else I would probably just confuse myself at the wrong time (most likely under stress, during an exam ;) ) and it IS a part of how mainstream physics is taught. I'm not at the stage where that kind of 'independent thought' is appreciated by my lectures, yet. Best Regards, DH66
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
Personally though, I would think that the necessary 'hole' gets 'punched thru'

If there is non-locality then there aren't any holes that open up or close down. It would just all be interconnected on a very fundamental level (and certain phenomena could be measured to demonstrate that it is)

After all, the quantum vacuum is supposed to be quite elastic

What does that mean?
The quantum vacuum effects seem to be very local (e.g. virtual particle pairs) Elasticity would imply that pushing on one part (restricting particle pair effects - e.g. via a pair of uncharged metal plates that demonstrate the Casimir effect) somehow changes virtual particle pair creation elsewhere. That doesn't seem to be the case.

As for your question:
From the article..look for the paragraph that starts with
However, physicists have a getout:

That is exactly what I was referring to when explaining the two types of possible non-locality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
Zeilinger on YouTube: When you do "not look" when single photons pass through double slits, the spots on the detector screen form a diffraction pattern; while if you look to see through which slit each photon moved, the diffraction pattern disappears: Voodoo!

Reality: If you do not use detectors to try and see through which slit the photons moved, the two lobes which move through both slits, interfere and you get a diffraction pattern.

When using two detectors at the slits to detect through which slit the photon moves, the whole photon can only be detected by the one or the other detector when it resonates with only one of them: The lobes collapse, and no diffraction is observed.

Afshar showed that behind the slits there is a diffracted wave, which can then further on collapse 50/50 into two detectors! This disproves complementarity.

Instead of winning the Nobel Prize, his manuscript was for years rejected, and is still being queried. Physics is under the control of crackpots!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2012
'space' ending up looking like a sieve somehow doesn't seem to make much sense.

That's one of the things you have to let go of. "Sense" is something that is based on our experience of the macroscopic world. Macroscopic experiences are made up of many (averaged) microscopic events. If you average over many events you will not be able to ever get a grasp on the particulars of individual events.
Science is not really about what makes sense or 'feels right', but what agrees with experiment. That's the only thing that counts. If it's wild, unintuitive, crazy, agrees with all observation, makes consistently good predictions and stands up under harsh testing then that's what you should go with.

The article just says that there may be a way to test what kind of non-locality (of the two possibl types) there is. One would necessitate FTL communications (which would be neat to have and also mean that we would need to augment or even replace relativity)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
, equally unfortunately, I think that I had better stick with the duality concept, or else I would probably just confuse myself at the wrong time (most likely under stress, during an exam ;) ) and it IS a part of how mainstream physics is taught. I'm not at the stage where that kind of 'independent thought' is appreciated by my lectures, yet. Best Regards, DH66


It will be interesting for you to take my comments above to your professors and ask them to comment. Although it is unlikely that any modern mainstream physics professor has the ability to think for him/herself! Such people are few and far between: In the USA there is most probably only one such a person: Carver Mead at Caltech.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2012
@AA "After all, the quantum vacuum is supposed to be quite elastic"
That was probably a bit badly worded,I have always associated gravity with having an effect on space as well as time,in the relativity interpretation of space-time. I have always understood that it exerted some kind of pressure on space itself.I know that I am approaching it in a bumbling way. If you can give me clearer wording,I would appreciate it.There is the follow to consider as well.It would appear to support my 'sense' about the concept of involvement of elasticity of the vacuum wrt to my earlier comments: http://cedb.asce....i?137465 http://adsabs.har...32Ghttp:
http://www.encycl...heory_of
http://books.goog...asticity of the vacuum&source=bl&ots=-vavW9fqrh&sig=8vbsF1djtheHGCMKuspdL-J1ltw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Uu2cUMneGMyaiAfG_IHwDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
:)DH66

More news stories

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...