The universe really is weird, and a landmark quantum experiment proves it

October 22, 2015 by Howard Wiseman, The Conversation
Measuring the photons in an entangled state was part of the experiment. Credit: Flickr/Alexandre Normand, CC BY

Only last year the world of physics celebrated the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem, a mathematical proof that certain predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with local causality. Local causality is a very natural scientific assumption and it holds in all modern scientific theories, except quantum mechanics.

Local causality is underpinned by two assumptions. The first is Albert Einstein's principle of relativistic causality, that no causal influences travels faster than the speed of light. This is related to the "local" bit of local causality.

The second is a common-sense principle named after the philosopher Hans Reichenbach which says roughly that if you could know all the causes of a potential event, you would know everything that is relevant for predicting whether it will occur or not.

Although is an immensely successful theory – it has been applied to describe the behaviour of systems from subatomic particles to neutron stars – it is still only a theory.

Thus, because local causality is such a natural hypothesis about the world, there have been decades of experiments looking for, and finding, the very particular predictions of quantum mechanics that John Bell discovered in 1964.

But none of these experiments definitively ruled out a locally causal explanation of the observations. They all had loopholes because they were not done quite in the way the theorem demanded.

No loopholes

Now, the long wait for a loophole-free Bell test is over. In a paper published today in Nature, a consortium of European physicists has confirmed the predictions required for Bell's theorem, with an experimental set-up without the imperfections that have marred all previous experiments.

A Bell experiment requires at least two different locations or laboratories (often personified as named fictional individuals such as Alice and Bob) where measurements are made on . More specifically, at each location:

1. a setting for the measurement is chosen randomly
2. the measurement is performed with the chosen setting
3. the result is recorded.

The experiment will only work if the particles in the different laboratories are in a so-called . This is a quantum state of two or more particles which is only defined for the whole system. It is simply not possible, in quantum theory, to disentangle the individual particles by ascribing each of them a state independent of the others.

The two big imperfections, or loopholes, in previous experiments were the separation and efficiency loophole.

To close the first loophole, it is necessary that the laboratories be far enough apart (well separated). The experimental procedures should also be fast enough so that the random choice of measurement in any one laboratory could not affect the outcome recorded in any other laboratory be any influence travelling at the speed of light or slower. This is challenging because light travels very fast.

To close the second, it is necessary that, once a setting is chosen, a result must be reported with high probability in the time allowed. This has been a problem with experiments using photons (quantum particles of light) because often a photon will not be detected at all.

The experiment

Most previous Bell-experiments have used the simplest set up, with two laboratories, each with one photon and the two photons in an entangled state.Ronald Hanson and colleagues have succeeded in making their experiment loophole-free by using three laboratories, in a line of length 1.3km.

In the laboratories at either ends, Alice and Bob create an entangled state between a photon and an electron, keep their electron (in a diamond lattice) and send their photons to the laboratory in the middle (which I will personify as Juanita). Alice and Bob then each choose a setting and measure their electrons while Juanita performs a joint measurement on the two photons.

Alice and Bob's measurements can be done efficiently, but Juanita's, involving photons, is actually very inefficient. But it can be shown that this does not open a loophole, because Juanita does not make any measurement choice but rather always measures the two photons in the same way.

The experiment, performed in the Netherlands, was very technically demanding and only just managed to convincingly rule out local causality. This achievement could, in principle, be applied to enable certain very secure forms of secret key distribution. With continuing improvements in the technology one day this hopefully will become a reality.

For the moment, though, we should savour this result for its scientific significance. It finally proves that either causal influences propagate faster than light, or a common-sense notion about what the word "cause" signifies is wrong.

One thing this experiment has not resolved is which of these options we should choose. Physicists and philosophers remain as divided as ever on that question, and what it means for the nature of reality.

Explore further: Researchers find a way to close both loopholes in testing entanglement with Bell's inequality

Related Stories

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past

April 23, 2012

Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) have, for the ...

Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism

November 30, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. By performing an experiment ...

Recommended for you

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

A nano-roundabout for light

December 8, 2016

Just like in normal road traffic, crossings are indispensable in optical signal processing. In order to avoid collisions, a clear traffic rule is required. A new method has now been developed at TU Wien to provide such a ...

Electron highway inside crystal

December 8, 2016

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
It finally proves that either causal influences propagate faster than light, or a common-sense notion about what the word "cause" signifies is wrong.


The experiment relies on the implicit assumption that the measurements were actually random instead of resulting from the same cause as the states of the electrons.

Also, the Bell theories were not only about local causality, but localism, causality and realism. Locality and causality can be preserved if we reject realism, which means that the properties we are trying to measure do not exist prior to measurement, and are in fact artifacts of the whole experimental setup.

In other words, the electrons do not have spins until measured and interacted with, and the two electrons spins do not correlate in reality: the correlation is found only when the results of the two experiments are brought together later in time and space, because the information about what has happened changes due to the new interaction.

Eikka
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2015
The whole point of the entanglement setup is to isolate the electrons' spins from any interaction with their environment until they can be measured, so that other things wouldn't collapse the superposition and force the pair into a definite state.

But when nothing is observing the electrons' spin, does the electron have a spin?

Intuition would say "no", because from the point of view of everything else, things can't just appear and dissapear. Energy and information must be conserved, so in order to make something dissapear from sight we must remove its energy and information contents - essentially destroy the object. So, in order to put the two electrons into an entangled superposition state where the spins are indeterminate, we have to remove the spins of the electrons entirely.

And so, if the electrons have no spins, the results of the two halves of the experiments likewise do not exist until both are observed, which is when the correlation gets created.
Eikka
4 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
The above logically results in a multi-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Since reality is created locally by the interaction of information arriving from other points in time and space - where and when you are is essentially a separate universe from where and when I am.

It's kinda like the idea that the entire universe, its history and all, was created last tuesday - except it's happening continuously right now, everywhere.

bschott
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
Eikka, excellent description of why the results are what they are.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2015
One thing this experiment has not resolved is which of these options we should choose. Physicists and philosophers remain as divided as ever on that question, and what it means for the nature of reality.

Much like there are conjugate variables in physics (e.g. position and linear momentum) localism and causality might be conjugate variables. You can squeeze one in favor of the other, but never get 100% of one (much less of both).

The experiment relies on the implicit assumption that the measurements were actually random instead of resulting from the same cause as the states of the electrons.

The experimental setup was chosen faster than the possible speed of light transmission of information. So it cannot have the same cause. The independence of the random number generator is guranteed, as any non-independence would have easily shown up in a correlation between choice of experiment and electron state.
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
The experimental setup was chosen faster than the possible speed of light transmission of information. So it cannot have the same cause.


Think again. The mutual cause can come from when the two electrons got separated, carried along by the rest of the system. It's got nothing to do with exchange of information between the parties during the experiment.

The loophole is that the random number generator they have, or indeed the whole test setup might be causally primed to produce the correlated result because the whole thing comes from the same source in history. In other words, the two experiments may not be truly independent.

They can be truly independent if the time of measurement at each location is truly random, but they can't prove that. That's one of the loopholes that Bell himself actually proposed.
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
as any non-independence would have easily shown up in a correlation between choice of experiment and electron state.


How exactly?
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2015
If "the whole thing" comes from the same source in history, wouldn't that source be the BB, ultimately? Another question would be, if non-locality would hold prior to inflation, then it seems that parts of the universe today could be "connected" to parts of the universe that are far outside the BB causal horizon imposed by light speed. If that sort of connection exists, then events could occur that would make absolutely no sense in terms of any local influence, but if you had access to the REALLY big picture, then those events would make sense. It's hard for me to make sense out of some of this...
betterexists
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2015
No matter how far apart particles are, they will always be connected i.e entangled.
That's Right -- 2 Lovers' Brains/neurons in their Brains thinking about each other at the same time even though they happen to live thousands of miles apart!
Dog & Devotees' Connection TOO!
1 in Hell and the other in Dog Haywhen!
betterexists
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2015
1 Good Example is 2 Commentators on a Forum ARE entangled!
A new comment/reply is The Result!
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
The mutual cause can come from when the two electrons got separated, carried along by the rest of the system.

Again: that would lead to a correlation of the electron spins and the chosen setup. Because if it is a common cause (let's call it cause X) then X is correlated with the spins (let's call them Y) and X is correlated with the setups chosen (i.e. the random number generator which I'll call Z) - so if you get uncorrelated results between Y and Z (as the experiment demonstrates) then either Y is not correlated with X or Z is not correlated with X (i.e. they cannot have a common cause)
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
How exactly?

Simply as in "when I choose setup A I mostly measure spins pointing this way, but when I choose setup B I get spins pointing that way"

What you are asking for is a common cause that would somehow induce the random number generator to negate any correlation due to the cause (i.e. something that creates negative information. Something that isn't in the cards according to anything we know)
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
If "the whole thing" comes from the same source in history, wouldn't that source be the BB, ultimately?


Essentially. Absolute determinism of the entire universe is one of the loopholes that Bell identified, because then there are no "events", just like the act of reading a book; you don't cause the things on the next page to happen, they are determined to happen from the beginning.

Non-locality would mean that time and causality loses meaning because you can't establish the order in which things happen. Basically, in a non-local interpretation of QM, a particle exists everywhere at once and when you interact with it, the information spreads everywhere instantly.

Same thing with non-causality. If things can move faster than light, then things can happen before their cause, which breaks all laws of physics.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
Simply as in "when I choose setup A I mostly measure spins pointing this way, but when I choose setup B I get spins pointing that way"


That's still begging the question that you indeed can choose one or the other, which is the same hidden assumption that the RNG is actually random.

If the system is totally deterministic, you choice to whichever measurement is determined at the point when the electrons are put to entanglement, because it's not only about you and the electrons in isolation. The whole of reality is involved in what you're doing. You couldn't choose to make any other measurements except the ones that find the correlation, because the entire universe conspires against you to maintain self-consistency, because it cannot break its own rules.

In practice, you could do both setup A and B but you can't do them simultaneously on the same electron, so the choice is meaningless. The system can change between the tests.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
which is the same hidden assumption that the RNG is actually random.

There are statistical tests for randomness. As said before - what you would be asking is for a RNG to be skewed towards a particular outcome while at the same time still passing all these tests. That would require negative information.

You couldn't choose to make any other measurements except the ones that find the correlation, because the entire universe conspires against you to maintain self-consistency

That's the same argument as saying: "Nothing is causal - everything is random. That we think we perceive order is just a total fluke ofthe dice." or "God exists"
It's a pointless argument.
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2015
There are statistical tests for randomness.


There is no definitive statistical proof for randomness. You essentially cannot prove that something is or isn't random.

what you would be asking is for a RNG to be skewed towards a particular outcome while at the same time still passing all these tests.


We don't need an inherently skewed RNG. Again, there's a hidden assumption that the RNG actually creates its own signal out of nothing, which would violate the laws of physics by creating new information. Any actual RNG merely samples the background noise as it happens by, and amplifies it. In other words, if the universe is deterministic, the RNG output would be determined by the particular circumstances it is in.

It's a pointless argument.

But you cannot rule it out, which is what is being claimed here.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
But you cannot rule it out, which is what is being claimed here.

You're asking to prove a negative - which is pointless. You're assking "God exists - prove me wrong" - and as has been pointed out to a lot of the rabid religious fanatics on here: that's not how science works.
If you have an extraordinary claim (total causality exists as well as locality) then you must back it up with an experiment (or at the very least with the idea for an experiment).

Just claiming "total causality preordained that my experiment to show that total causality exists would fail" is not a valid line of argument.

which would violate the laws of physics by creating new information

Erm. Please look up the term information. A RNG does not create information.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
It's a pointless argument.


Or to put it in yet another way: the universe doesn't have to act in a way that is convenient to you.

The determinism loophole for the Bell inequalities still exists whether or not you want it to.

You're asking to prove a negative - which is pointless.


No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that the determinism loophole hasn't been closed. I am not claiming that the universe is or isn't deterministic - I am simply pointing out a flaw in your and their argumentation.

Erm. Please look up the term information. A RNG does not create information.


Information is basically synonymous to energy, because it's a change in the state of the system, which requires the ability to do some amount of work. A RNG that would produce actual random output would need to perform work to change the state of a system without any source of energy - i.e. without cause. With a source of energy, they always have a cause for their outputs.

Eikka
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
In theory it's perfectly fine to say for example, that we have a red ball on the shelf and a blue ball on the floor, and exchanging the order would not result in a difference in potential energy and therefore no work is required.

But in practice you have to lift one ball and drop the other, and so the exchange requires work.

So suppose we have a random number generator that samples something. Let's say it samples the spin of an electron. The energy it spends to measure the electron and change its output also changes the electron, and no matter how well you isolate the electron from anything else, you can't isolate it from the source of energy that the machine uses.

Then, without knowing whether the electron is truly behaving in a random fashion, we cannot prove that it is by any finite statistical sample, because we can't rule out the possibility that there's external causes leaking in through the power supply.
ogg_ogg
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
Going to Phys.org for physics is like going to kindergarten for calculus.
bluehigh
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
Phys.org is a science NEWS site. If you want to learn Physics go to school.
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2015
One more fallen idol to an old equation richly due for make over.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2015
QM is not a theory! It's a tool to define possibilities of a potential and an actuality, or kinetic, statistically. It is a representation of classical physics and Maxwell without well defined causality by design, i.e. unknown initial states. Although a great tool for working with the sub-atomic and many particles, many possibilities may exist at the same time, i.e. non-causal, but definable for a very large number of sub-atomic particles to define actuality. Actual events are a sub-set of the predicted events from QM. However, applying QM as actual theory is an error in logic! Hence any single "point" item still reflects the possibilities, but only a real theory "collapses" the possibilities to actuality because a real theory is causal! Therefore each point within the field may be defined as a 4D vector. Note that the Poynting vector can only be properly defined in 4D. QM will be a set of multiple possibilities based upon the sum of particles present.
TheWalrus
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2015
"...it is still only a theory."

I can't believe I just read that in a Phys.org article.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
*puts on moon-howler hat, the one with the sparkles*

If you run the experiment backwards in time, it looks like the RNG creates the entanglement, therefore the future must happen first.

*takes of hat, puts on dunce hat, the one with the ribbons, and stands in the corner*

I have no input beyond jokes, I am just so happy to see a discussion in the comments where neither side comes off as obviously crazy. I love you guys.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
"...it is still only a theory."
I can't believe I just read that in a Phys.org article.
@TheWalrus
you know... that is a great point... especially WRT Quantum Mechanics

the author (Howard Wiseman, The Conversation ) is a PhD and "did his PhD on quantum measurement and feedback theory (1992-4)" (see link below)
http://theconvers...man-9982

surely it would be better known among scientists that the word "theory" has certain connotations?

interesting
Spaced out Engineer
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2015
Does this rule out the setting-independence loophole or do we need quasars?

I know ontologically the waveform is to be taken as a representation, but what constitutes energy and locality independent from context or fetching? Clearly energy for informational purposes to be used has to have a frame of reference. Either that or we need to formulate new theorems of exceedingly complexity to describe clustering, emergence, and chunking. Can we even throw away this game? Who is to say chirality or even helicity have to play in handedness and this is more of a limitation of our instrumentation?

In my opinion we may never have a classical description simply because we cannot get baysian independence. The constructivist might be right mathematically, but the pragmatic approach gets interpretable results. I'm just glad positivism is dead.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2015
Does this rule out the setting-independence loophole or do we need quasars?

In my opinion we may never have a classical description simply because we cannot get Bayesian independence. The constructionist might be right mathematically, but the pragmatic approach gets interpret able results. I'm just glad positivism is dead.


Try a definition without guess work or reliance upon probability of existence. Define the existence then test against actuality under a set of defined conditions. Classical? Only when you through away the bull $hit. There's a particle coming toward you, do you see the wave first or the particle? Slit experiment!??? Classic BS!
ichisan
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2015
It only means that space (distance) is an illusion. But we did not need this experiment to figure this out. It's easy to show that the existence of space or distance leads to an infinite regress.

One day, in the not too distant future, we'll develop technologies that allow us to travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly.
ralph638s
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2015
The case for retrocausality, and if nothing else, a short and entertaining read:

http://arxiv.org/...12v1.pdf
theon
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2015
This hype is just a hype. Bell assumed that data from different contexts can be combined. Violation of his inequality shows that they can not. The contextuality loophole can not be closed. Bell inequality violation only shows that quantum mechanics works, it says nothing about communication at distance. Information is quite likely passed on by the deformations of the vacuum that travels with each of the pair of partcles.
nevermark
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2015
The above logically results in a multi-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics.


Exactly. This is the most literal reading of quantum mechanics so should be considered the most likely to be true.

Even superposition of single photons locally clearly indicates that multiple versions of particles really exist, and their interference is the obvious proof. Decoherence is simply when alternate versions of information stop interacting in obvious ways, so they each appear to be the only history to observers within them, even though their are now alternate observers.

This avoids all kinds of philosophical hoopla, including causeless randomness, the poorly explained collapse from many states to only one, the problems with conservation of information in a situation where randomly choosing only one alternative clearly would be an information generating event, etc.
nevermark
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2015
Information is quite likely passed on by the deformations of the vacuum that travels with each of the pair of particles.


The point of the Bell inequality is to show that this is not a possible explanation. Experimenters at each end make choices about how they measure that are communicated the distance faster than light. This is not information the particles could have carried with them from their origin.

The obvious implication is that even though space and particles seem to be neatly ordered in 3D on large scales that we see in ordinary life, it is actually only mostly ordered, with frothy connections at the smallest scales and what we would interpret as long distance connections even at the largest scales.

But to the particles, they are simply connected or not and its only on large scales and where correlations of individual particles have been lost in the noise that the illusion of a strictly 3D-connected universe that we experience emerges.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2015
Educators that wonder why there's decreasing interest in pursuing STEM subjects need look no further than this article and discussion.

Completely bonkers.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2015
The obvious implication is that even though space and particles seem to be neatly ordered in 3D on large scales that we see in ordinary life, it is actually only mostly ordered, with frothy connections at the smallest scales and what we would interpret as long distance connections even at the largest scales.

The other alternative is that we do live in a holographic universe - and that what we perceive as large distances actually aren't (while at the same time what we perceive as localized objects are smeared out over large spaces in said holographic representation)

Information is basically synonymous to energy, because it's a change in the state of the system, which requires the ability to do some amount of work. A RNG that would produce actual random output would need to perform work

I think you're very confused about the terms energy and information (maybe you mean ENTROPY and information).
Until you get these straight there's really no point arguing, here.
Ryan1981
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2015
Can someone point me to a primary school level explanation as of why the states of the entangled particles is not determined at the point of entanglement instead of at the point of measurement? I assume the double slit experiment is the most common one but from what I have found online so far there is too many variables for me to get a clear picture.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2015
Can someone point me to a primary school level explanation as of why the states of the entangled particles is not determined at the point of entanglement instead of at the point of measurement?

It's necessary that the states cannot be known at creation of the entangled entities. This is somewhat counterintuitive until you realize that if you could set the states beforehand then quantum teleportation would actually allow for faster-than-light classical information transmission (classical information transmission is: setting a state, transmitting it, reading it. In spooky action at a distance the 'setting' part isn't possible so quantum information transmission does not count as classical information transmission)

The reason why you cannot set it at creation is that the act of setting constitutes a measurement (you have to interact) - and measurement breaks the entaglement.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nevermark
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2015
Can someone point me to a primary school level explanation as of why the states of the entangled particles is not determined at the point of entanglement instead of at the point of measurement? I assume the double slit experiment is the most common one but from what I have found online so far there is too many variables for me to get a clear picture.


I don't have a link, but the way that we know information is communicated directly between the now distant particles, as apposed to shared information, is quite simple.

The information communicated between the particles includes choices of how the experimenters choose to measure the particle at one end or the other. The experimenter's choice is not determined by the particle at all, so could not be information that that particles shared and carried with them.

So the particles are being used as a conduit for information they did not have.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hat1208
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2015
@antialias

Does this result imply that in the multi-verse the test is being done and we are seeing the results of their measurements. And this is what we see in entanglement when measuring something changes its state we are simply seeing the other phases of that entanglement.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2015
Does this result imply that in the multi-verse the test is being done and we are seeing the results of their measurements.

I think it's a bit early to jump to conclusions about multiverses. There's issues with a multiverse interpretation as a multiverse would mean infinite mass/energy (if stuff exists in all possible states then each state that has mass/energy here must have energy in an infinity of other multiverses). Since we are positing a bleedover of the probabilities from one multiverse to the next (i.e. the outcome being different in all multiverses) it is difficult to see how all that mass/energy could not affect other universes. But as far as I know when dealing with the issue of multiverses the jury is still out and no one has a clue how to test for it.

I think the holographic interpretation is much simler. One universe - but we'll have to come to grips that our notion of "locality" is just a (for humans convenient) point of view.

Hat1208
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2015
@antialias

I thought one version of multi-verse or superstring theory was there are a limited number of other universes/dimensions and I think the number is 11. Also don't the laws of physics preclude multiple mass/energy states even if there are multiple phases of any universe the mass energy would be equal/same in all possible universes. Much like the past exchanges between Hawking and Susskind over the loss of energy/information in so called black holes.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2015
The way I understand it the multiverse interpretation is something entirely different from string theory. Multiverses are essentially universes like ours, but in which stuff happens slightly differently (i.e. each of them has its own spacetime). In string theory the extra dimensions are firmly within our universe but are only apparent/effective at very small scales (they are not spacetime dimensions).

Also don't the laws of physics preclude multiple mass/energy states even if there are multiple phases of any universe the mass energy would be equal/same in all possible universes

However the sum overall universes would be infinite. And since all are so close as to affect each other (otherwise there would not be a "everything that can happen does happen somewhere") we get the problem of such amassive amount of energy somehow being fully insulated from each other while being probabilistically fully connected. Not impossible but sounds rather far fetched.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2015
To better understand, look at Plank's constant and Faraday's law. Note a mole has the same number of particles. I prefer to simply divide mass by the sum of (Me + Mp), or the the number of charge pairs. Hence we see the state of these particles, no matter the configuration they weigh the same, "m", therefore ... com'on this is simple, without thinking about magic or creating "stuff". Quantum experiments therefore defines a given set of states and is an inexact science, i.e. multiple solutions for a single set of things that are in a definite state, or energy, yet undetermined. So, yeah, which state? This is not some puzzle about magic! So you have the energy of the particles, but how many states are allowed at this energy, Boltzmann. The particles don't change into radiation, only relative motion may determine that! All of this "yang" about mystery, the mystery is by design! I can't say it any better than that. But then, to remove confusion, one must study.
docile
Oct 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2015
The multiverse is your misinterpretation of QM. Of course there are multiple solutions, it's a statistical measurement based upon a set number of particles and a set energy. This does not define the actual existence of all the states at the same time, i.e. multiverse. Are we insane or what? See a system of your design within a 4D space without QM but only that the field away from any particle is proportional to the charge divided by the area of the sphere at the point of measure about the particle. Exact, not multiple actual solutions. Get real!
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
Just more support for LaViolette's SQK theory: Once interacting, two electrons are connected by a physical transmutation wave propagating through the underlying etheric medium, much like a sound wave in air where a ringing bell resonates in your ear. Listen!

Don't be confused by the word 'physical'. The mechanism is physical, but lies wholly within the medium composed of an ocean of diffusively mixed elementals that are simply too small individually to be detectable by the larger sub-atomic structures detectable within our universe. Thus, we believe that the intervening space is empty, when actually space is full to the brim with these elementals.

The two waves each propagate toward the other electron, ring the opposing electron so that the two become synchronized. Simple really. Only the density of the medium is so extreme, that the propagation speed can even exceed light speed. And don't think of this medium as having mass, etc. Those are characteristics of our universe.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
Those are characteristics of our universe.[/e]

Close, with the correct tools we should be able to physically see a single electron here upon the planet or among any star system. I could go through the optics and the math for correction and calibration, but we are not ready yet. First calculate these fields for models of each element, define actuality against the model, build this attribute into your telescope or microscope. Yea, for a single electron from a distant star is almost impossible, yet frequency and polarity may be known ... so maybe "not so impossible." If I ran this project to create these instruments, not sure about the time frame, sw, yeach! five years with a clever team, 30 normally from what I've seen in the industry. What I see here, and the papers presented, dunno ..
Egleton
not rated yet Oct 25, 2015
Abandon Time.
Speed =distance/time.
My understanding is that Bells inequality supports the quantum erasure experiment results. The past is adjusted to support the observation.
Further evidence in support of this view (and radically silopsistic ) interpretation is the extremely fine tuning of the fundamental "constants".
I have created the necessary past that is required to support my observed reality.
The problem then becomes "Do I accept the intuitive notion that You exist?"
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2015
Abandon Time.
Speed =distance/time.
My understanding is that Bells inequality supports the quantum erasure experiment results. The past is adjusted to support the observation.
Further evidence in support of this view (and radically silopsistic ) interpretation is the extremely fine tuning of the fundamental "constants".
I have created the necessary past that is required to support my observed reality.
The problem then becomes "Do I accept the intuitive notion that You exist?"

How about a completely empirical model without the guesswork of QM?
Egleton
not rated yet Oct 26, 2015
Unfortunately we have to take the empirical evidence seriously. It is not guesswork. We've done the experiments, the data are in.
The truth has been collapsed. The boundaries of verisimilutude are set. Everything outside those boundaries is guesswork.
Returners
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2015
But when nothing is observing the electrons' spin, does the electron have a spin?


The only way "nothing" could be observing an electron would be if nothing else existed.

Everything that exists in the universe is constantly "observing" everything else.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2015
Everything that exists in the universe is constantly "observing" everything else.


Almost, since they are all connected within a limited range only, by the underlying transmutation waveform propagating there-between, much like a sound wave has limited range until the strength dissipates to the level of the background random motions of the medium molecules.

LaViolette speculates that range is likely no more than about 10K Lyrs. Thus, the influence of gravity would also be limited in range. Seems far more logical than Everything being connected, as Everything is a lot.
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
not rated yet Oct 27, 2015
I'm not exactly sure that a universe evolving in time can be absolutely deterministic. Consider the initial state. All future states of the universe are determined at every moment by that initial state. It seems then that a cause is acting on states vastly far away in terms of space and time, with no delay whatsoever. But you could also argue that the state of the universe at ANY given time is determining the state you observe at any other moment in the future or past. Unfortunately, there are ambiguities of place and time that can't be resolved easily, due to the finite speed of light and the well known relativistic effects. It seems that an absolutely deterministic universe would have to spring into being all of a piece, as a finished work, if you will. Either that, or you must accept information propagating at infinite speed.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.