Physicist suggests Einstein could have beaten Bohr in famous thought experiment

March 9, 2012 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org weblog

(PhysOrg.com) -- Way back in the 1930’s, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr were sparring over ideas related to whether the new field of quantum mechanics was correct. In one thought experiment that Einstein said showed that quantum mechanics was inconsistent, he said the Heisenberg principal could be shown to be inconsistent by imagining a box of photons that could be measured both time-wise and energy-wise at the same time. Bohr knocked down Einstein’s arguments and in the process elevated his stature among their peers. Now, however, Hrvoje Nikoli at the Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Croatia says that Einstein could have won that argument had he used the argument he gave Bohr just five years later in trying to explain how entanglement made quantum mechanics inconsistent. Nikoli has published his reasoning on the preprint server arXiv.

In the first presented by Einstein, he proposed that if the lid were opened on a box full of photons allowing just one to escape, it could be measured time-wise by simply measuring how long the box was open. He then said it could be simultaneously measured energy-wise by measuring the change in the total amount of energy in the box. This he said disproved the Heisenberg principle which meant was inconsistent. After some thought, Bohr replied that if Einstein’s own theory of relativity were brought into the experiment, the apparent inconsistency could be explained away by noting that the measurement took place in a gravitational field, thus, the measurement of the time that the lid was open on the box would depend on it’s position. Einstein was unable to counter Bohr’s argument and lost that round.

Five years later, the two were at it again. This time Einstein said that there was no way quantum mechanics could include both entanglement and the belief that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. If causing a change to one particle instantly caused a change in the other, how could it do so without violating such a basic principle? He called the whole thing “spooky action at a distance.” Bohr was unable to come up with a reasonable argument in response. And neither has anyone else for that matter, though John Bell made it more palatable in 1964 by declaring entanglement a wholly new kind of phenomenon, which he dubbed "nonlocal."

This is where Nikoli comes in. He says that had Einstein put forth his arguments regarding entanglement five years earlier during their debate about the Heisenberg principle, he could have won by suggesting that the photon escaping from the box was entangled with the box itself, thus quashing any possible response from Bohr. But alas, that was not to be, Einstein didn’t think of that and thus, Bohr went on to win that first round, one of just a few such occurrences in Einstein’s illustrious career.

Explore further: New light shed on old dispute between Einstein and Bohr

More information: EPR before EPR: a 1930 Einstein-Bohr thought experiment revisited, arXiv:1203.1139v1 [quant-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1203.1139

In 1930 Einstein argued against consistency of the time-energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly triumphed over Einstein by arguing that the Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was right. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonlocal "EPR" quantum correlations, five years before the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper.

via Arxiv Blog

Related Stories

New light shed on old dispute between Einstein and Bohr

January 18, 2010

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

Quantum optical link sets new time records

August 17, 2011

Quantum communication could be an option for the absolutely secure transfer of data. The key component in quantum communication over long distances is the special phenomenon called entanglement between two atomic systems. ...

Recommended for you

A quantum magnet with a topological twist

February 22, 2019

Taking their name from an intricate Japanese basket pattern, kagome magnets are thought to have electronic properties that could be valuable for future quantum devices and applications. Theories predict that some electrons ...

Sculpting stable structures in pure liquids

February 21, 2019

Oscillating flow and light pulses can be used to create reconfigurable architecture in liquid crystals. Materials scientists can carefully engineer concerted microfluidic flows and localized optothermal fields to achieve ...

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

perrycomo
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2012
Every particle in the universe has a unique state . There is only one exception . Entanglement is the condition in which two particles have for 100% the same characteristics . That makes it a quite unique situation In fact they are equal and therefore one and the same particle , connected in the same way to the point of singularity . singularity is the base of the universe in which there are no dimensions of space , time or mass , because of that it is not possible to describe it . That is the reason why entangled particles are in fact one and the same particle and seemingly different particles . It is like schrödingers cat , it is dead and alive . Also a change in one entangled particle and the other entangled particle a light year apart changes the other immediately . It is because they are the same particle because they have the same unique connection to the singularity in which there are no limitations of space time and mass .
baudrunner
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2012
So if one could force the state of a locale of particles far away into the same state as all of the particles that comprise one then one would exist in two places at the same time. Maybe then going to that other locale in this way might be no more difficult then simply preferring to be there.
rowbyme
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2012

perrycomo,
very interesting comment. care to elaborate on how we conceptualize the singularity as the base of the universe? Thx
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2012
I think Bohr was right in that the non-intuitive nature of entanglement is an epistemological problem, resulting from conforming reality within our a-priori conceptual intuitions of space, time, and causality.

Remember, we supply these concepts and apply them to realty, expecting consistentcy. But reality as it is in itself (unconceptualized), has no need for such intellectual ordering faculaties. These concepts have evolved in us to operate and order experience on the macroscopic scale. We Kant expect to subject reality to conditions for the understanding and maintain consistentcy at all scales.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2012
,... this notion that qm is "incomplete" is merely an intuitive bias, .. an unrealistic human desire that Reality conform to and satisfy our intuitive expectations. This is as unnecessary and redundant as the old aether concept, wrt scientific progress.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2012
Entanglement is the condition in which two particles have for 100% the same characteristics

Except position. So they're still in a unique state.
Mumrah
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2012
I'm surprised that it never occurred to Einstein to explain entanglement via 'relativity'. For example, suppose you have two electrons with entangled opposite spin. The traditional way to think about this is that they both have a definite but unknown spin. This is an absolutist way of looking at things. Instead you might say that spin is a relative property and that the electrons only have opposite spin. Their collective spin relative to the rest of the universe isn't determined (yet).
gwrede
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2012
the Heisenberg principal
Please!!!
perrycomo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2012
at Rowbyme . In my opinion singularity is also counter intuitive . Firstly you can say it is one object of planck length but it is also an infinite number objects of planck length . Sorry for the word object , in fact it is not possible to visualize it . It is something like a Bose Einstein condensate billions of atoms acting as one . Those objects of Planck length do not not have space , time , mass like our universe. Singularity is the cause of our universe . The Catalyst is is an infinitely small difference that always must be present because there cannot be an eternal state of equilibrium in whatever system . It is like the number pi , it is never exact . It is an infinitely small cause that causes an infinitely small result . Even the singularity cannot be in equilibrium . So singularity was present 13,5 billion years ago it is now present and will be after the disappearance of our universe . If there is no singularity the universe could not exist .
Pyle
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2012
Ok, somebody help me with this.
We can't exactly measure position and momentum. This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, right?
What is the link with time and energy? How are they related to "disallow" exact measurement of them simultaneously? Why is time even in this conversation since it is part of the "fabric"?

Knowing exactly when a photon left a box is supposed to limit how exactly we can measure that photon's energy? Why?

Anybody have any thoughts on this? I can understand the introduction of nonlocality, but I find it unnecessary since a measured time of escape and measurement of total energy in the box seem not to conflict in my opinion. The energy is what it is, measuring the box doesn't "set" the photon's energy, not measuring it doesn't leave it grey as with spin, et al. Then again, maybe it just does and that is my problem. Help?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2012
@ Pyle, the way I "understand" it is that Time and Energy are treated in the same way as position and momentum in qm,... in that they are conjugate variables and so are Fourier transforms of each other; In Hilbert space they are two different sets of bases in which to represent the wavefunction. Heisenbergs uncertainty principal applies to conjugate variables.

To answer your question, since energy of a photon or any particle, is related to its (waveform) frequency, the shorter in time one examines it, the less waveform one has available to determine it's energy,... i.e. a time so short that you only see part of a frequency cycle.

Why is time even in this conversation since it is part of the "fabric"?


There is no tangible "fabric". Time is merely a relation between to events. IOW, time is not a discoverable entity, it is only applied as a relation of things.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2012
Einstein proposes using a box of photons at a particular energy level and measuring the change when one is released at a specific moment. But, if particles and photons obeyed uncertainty, the moment when the photon was released would be subject to error and the energy level of the collection of photons couldn't be assured any more than the energy of a single photon. It appears Einstein is assuming the non-existence of uncertainty to prove its non-existence.
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2012
@julian:
Very helpful. that makes more sense to me than the duration of the opening I was struggling with. I think Einstein also has an issue with whether the photons are even in the box due to uncertainty as well. This whole thing stinks of a classical experiment used to prove or disprove QM, which doesn't work.
The certainty of confinement goes out the window at the quantum level.
XQZME
2 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2012
Noumenon: "There is no tangible "fabric". Time is merely a relation between two events. IOW, time is not a discoverable entity, it is only applied as a relation of things."
So, if a universe has only one object, time does not exist. Does length, width and height exist? If a universe has two objects displaced by a static distance, I would surmise time still does not exist. However if the distance between them changes, then I surmise time has started to "exist". Does the existence of two objects affect the dimensions of length, width and height.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2012
Every particle in the universe has a unique state . There is only one exception . Entanglement is the condition in which two particles have for 100% the same characteristics .
Both ideas have their limits. You can have weak and strong entanglement and different states of particles are effectively indistinguishable each other.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2012
Who would have thought Newton's 3rd law would apply in the quantum realm? Even taking precedence over GR and QM?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2012
In classical terms matter stays where it is (stars stay stars, planets planets).

Quanta moves though, quantum uncertainty is about quantum jumps. Can an electron from over here suddenly go missing here and appear over there.

If there were a perfect box that didn't allow any leaks of electrons, could the electrons leave the box?

The quantum world says that it is impossible to know whether an electron is bound only by one region of space because the quantum field fluctuates. It so happens that generally the fluctuation is extremely local, you can't prove that the single electron doesn't reside in all locations simultaneously either. Reality is a weird combination of chaotic events. Particles of the body are fireballs. Electromagnetic charges. Water is made of fire.

In the quantum world: Hydrogen is a little fireball. Oxygen is a little fireball. They combine into an H2O molecule.

In the classical world (relativistic): those particles of fire are wet water.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2012
For someone who is interest, now we could show that Einstein is correct in his concept of hidden variable, please see detail in

http://www.vacuum...id=19=en
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2012
In the classical world (relativistic): those particles of fire are wet water.
The enhancing of differences between particular areas of physics is maybe good approach for teachers, but not so good approach for their pupils and those who are looking for TOE, connecting all areas of physics. In dense aether model all particles are behaving like soliton waves at the water surface: they're of wave character, but they make water surface deformed for another waves and i.e. they're behaving like the particles, which are influencing each other. The common understanding is, the waves at the water surface are penetrating mutually like the ghosts, i.e. they do follow Bose statistics like bosons. But in fact every wave slows down the spreading of another waves at least a bit, because the undulating water surface is of larger area. As the result, we can model many quantum effects rather faithfully just with surface waves and their solitons. http://www.physor...511.html
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2012
In one thought experiment that Einstein said showed that quantum mechanics was inconsistent
You aren't required to be a broody hen for being recognized an aged egg. In implicate geometry of causal space all theories are inconsistent in sufficiently extensive perspective, or they couldn't remain predictable. You may imagine the theories like higher rank tensors connecting and extrapolating the scalar postulates like lines are connecting the points in space. If the postulates would be fully consistent, we could substitute them mutually and we could get the theory of single postulate, i.e. tautology, because we cannot draw the single line trough one point in space. This is a geometric form of Goedel's theorem: every theory must remain inconsistent a bit for remain predictable. Therefore the question isn't whether QM is inconsistent or not, but in which aspects its inconsistency manifests.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2012
inconsistency could be explained away by noting that the measurement took place in a gravitational field.... entanglement is nonlocal spooky action at distance... he could have won by suggesting that the photon escaping from the box was entangled with the box itself
From the above at least two insights follow: 1) gravity is the field in which entanglement of massive objects manifests itself 2) the gravity field is nonlocal and it applies to these objects with superluminal speed. Both insights have a good meaning in water surface model of dense aether theory. In this model the particles are solitons at the water surface and they do interact not only with surface ripples (which are playing an analogy of transverse waves of light), but with underwater sound waves too, which are analogy of gravitational waves in AWT and they're indeed much faster, than the surface waves. In this analogy the entangled objects are objects connected with deformation of space-time in extradimensions.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2012
The common understanding is, the objects are entangled only when they do share all their characteristics, but entanglement actually doesn't work so. Even at the boson condensate the atoms aren't fully entangled and their atom nuclei are still moving independently (we could orient them more with using of external magnetic field, which enables to achieve negative thermodynamical temperature). Analogically, the gravitational field can be understood as a sort of weakly entangling fields, enabling the massive objects to move in coherent way trough space (Moon always follows the Earth in solar system), but still independently enough. The "true" entanglement, which would synchronize the phase of all ways of energy forming/representing the massive objects is effectively impossible, particularly because their gravity field is such considered as a way of their energy too - and no interaction can synchronize itself.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2012
The contemporary physics avoids the concept of superluminal field and it replaces it with "nonlocal" term for the sake of relativity - but we should realize, it's really the very same stuff, just observed/described from dual perspective of space-time deformation. From the nice article above follows, whereas the Bohr and Heisenberg were extremists, Einstein was more insightful and more reasonable in his critique of quantum mechanics, which contemporary theorists avoid obstinately, because they have a too many new theories developed and based on it. But Bohr was correct too with his insight, just the general relativity, which makes the QM inconsistent can explain inconsistencies of QM. How is it possible? Both QM, both GR rely to fluctuations of vacuum, which are both making them inconsistent at the global perspective, both they can serve for the explanation of this inconsistency.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2012
So, if a universe has only one object, time does not exist. Does length, width and height exist? If a universe has two objects displaced by a static distance, I would surmise time still does not exist. However if the distance between them changes, then I surmise time has started to "exist". Does the existence of two objects affect the dimensions of length, width and height.


Time and space exists only when one ask such questions of two objects. They are relations between things, not things in themselves. They are real aspects of phenomenal reality, yes, if "phenomenal reality" is understood as reality perceived by mind, otherwise it is meaningless to surmise that time exists "out there" independent of its use (by mind), in ordering experience.

In qm, this conceptual structure that we submit reality to, cannot be applied with rational consistently, so such intuitions are exposed as a-priori artifacts of the mind, and not fundamental to reality itself. QM is non-intuitive.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2012
If a universe has two objects displaced by a static distance, I would surmise time still does not exist..
Isn't the time just the way, in which we are detecting the space, i.e. with time required for energy to travel from place to place? Anyway, in AWT the Universe is random, because it's the most probable and natural state of things. Every particular state, including the zero state is less probable. After than we can ask about probability of the occurrence of two events of the same category - and this is what the time and space means in AWT. Inside of every gas the density fluctuations follow random walk, but some of them remain at place during this (a Boltzman brains). The time and space emerged from random reality, because we are random fluctuations of it, which managed to move trough it at single place.
Ironhorse
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2012
"Time and space exists only when one ask such questions of two objects. "

The problem is that there is and assumption that 'we' have to ask the question. Actually, the quantum world asks these 'questions' continuously, so of course they exist, whether we choose to recognize them or not.

At the heart of quantum dynamics is a limitation of the energies that may be exchanged between particles, the shorter the wavelength the higher the energy, and hence the uncertainty-shoot plastic beads at a house made of tissue to determine its shape, and you rip the tissue apart by the time you use sufficient energy to see the smallest features.
Urgelt
not rated yet Mar 10, 2012
Forgive my idiocy, but I have an idiotic question to advance.

Might the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be only an artifact of limitations in our measurement techniques, rather than a fundamental law in quantum mechanics?

What would happen to the Uncertainty Principle if we were to fortuitously develop the means to observe a particle that did not perturb the particle?

Nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum, obviously, can yield such an observation method. So the question is very academic. And yet, are we certain there can never be such an observation method? As we dig deeper into the fabric of space-time and discover the secrets of virtual particles and gravity, is it truly impossible that we might discover a means to observe particles without perturbing them?

Does even the *possibility* (however remote) of discovering such observation techniques open a theoretical can of worms?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2012
Might the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be only an artifact of limitations in our measurement techniques, rather than a fundamental law in quantum mechanics?

The principle is a result of the information gathered. If you do not interact with a particle (i.e. perturb it) the you do not get information. The uncertaninty principle is independent of whichever way you measure (there are ways of squeezing one entity at the expense of having the other more uncertain. But there's no free cake , here)
Moebius
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2012
,... this notion that qm is "incomplete" is merely an intuitive bias, .. an unrealistic human desire that Reality conform to and satisfy our intuitive expectations.....


If QM doesn't meet our intuition, our intuition is wrong or QM is incomplete. My intuition says that spooky action at a distance is not possible and that our ideas about measurement are wrong. Of course we can't measure something without affecting it if the measurement is intrusive (active sonar as opposed to passive sonar for example) and it probably has to be intrusive in the case of particles. If we ever find a way to make passive measurements then the I think our ideas will be radically be changed.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2012
As we dig deeper into the fabric of space-time and discover the secrets of virtual particles and gravity, is it truly impossible that we might discover a means to observe particles without perturbing them?


@Urgelt & Moebius,
When Heisenberg explained uncertainty by invoking the intuitive example of trying to observe the position and momentum simultaneously of a particle without disturbing it, he was giving only an intuitive and qualitative description. It is more profound than this. It's not merely about what we can know as a matter of practicality, it's what is meaningful to say about a particle,... its a limit on the definition of concepts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2012
If QM doesn't meet our intuition, our intuition is wrong or QM is incomplete. My intuition says that spooky action at a distance is not possible and that our ideas about measurement are wrong.

Where did you get your intuitions (of space, time, causality)? They evolved in a biological blob (mind) as a means of ordering experience for consciousness on the macroscopic scale of things. Why should one expect reality at the qm level to conform to these notions? Reality, as it exists apart from being conceptualized by mind, has no use for these concepts,.. so it is no wonder that we have discovered the seam in reality between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world,.. by which I mean the non-intuitive nature of the qm realm.
NMvoiceofreason
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2012
perrycomo's argument is gobledygook. Entanglement is a real, experimentally verified facet of our Universe. Yet there is no explanation, no model, no theory, that doesn't start off with some religious pablum about "the Universe is one" and proposing infinite speeds. Intellectual rigor requires better answers, testable answers. We must test entanglement at greater and greater distances to know what the speed of nonlocal action is, the best to date is 18KM. We must propose real mechanisms, test real actions, and demonstrate what is and is not true about nonlocal action.

Early arguments about quantum mechanics tried to describe whether the Universe was real or unreal, local or non-local. Real or un-real is a philosophical dispute we can never answer. Local or nonlocal has been determined by experiment: the Universe is non-local, for some set of actions. If there are only four forces, then our candidates are decided: gravity, em, strong, weak. Which of these participates in nonlocal actio
NMvoiceofreason
not rated yet Mar 10, 2012
perrycomo's argument is gobledygook. Entanglement is a real, experimentally verified facet of our Universe. Yet there is no explanation, no model, no theory, that doesn't start off with some religious pablum about "the Universe is one" and proposing infinite speeds. Intellectual rigor requires better answers, testable answers. We must test entanglement at greater and greater distances to know what the speed of nonlocal action is, the best to date is 18KM. We must propose real mechanisms, test real actions, and demonstrate what is and is not true about nonlocal action.

Early arguments about quantum mechanics tried to describe whether the Universe was real or unreal, local or non-local. Real or un-real is a philosophical dispute we can never answer. Local or nonlocal has been determined by experiment: the Universe is non-local, for some set of actions. If there are only four forces, then our candidates are decided: gravity, em, strong, weak. Which participates in nonlocal action?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2012
Early arguments about quantum mechanics tried to describe whether the Universe was real or unreal...

Rather than "real or unreal", I would suggest that two different perspectives were in play, 'scientific realism', Einstein and Schrodinger, and 'scientific positivism', Bohr and Heisenberg. IMO, positivism has won out resoundingly.

Also, it's not one of the four forces Causing non-locality,... it's that a entangled system can only be consistently described as one entity.
perrycomo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2012
So if one could force the state of a locale of particles far away into the same state as all of the particles that comprise one then one would exist in two places at the same time. Maybe then going to that other locale in this way might be no more difficult then simply preferring to be there.

When you go to sleep tonight you will exist in two places at the same time , so you don't need entanglement . good night .
_ucci_oo
not rated yet Mar 11, 2012
What did Feynman have to say about all this?
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2012
What did Feynman have to say about all this?
He would probably evade the answer with reply, the "true" science doesn't bother with WHY questions, it deals only HOW questions. Which is indeed a hypocritical stance, because just the Feynman's multiple path integral approach to quantum mechanics is based on superluminal longitudinal wave spreading by Huyghens principle which has a very good meaning in dense aether theory: in its water surface analogy of space-time the quantum phenomena are mediated with underwater waves which are spreading trough extradimensions a way faster than the surface ripples in similar way, like the gravitational waves do propagate through vacuum in superluminal way, so that they manifest itself as a CMBR noise. The Feynman's formalism is therefore based on artifacts, which can be never seen with light waves, yet they still exist.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2012
After all, whole the formalism of quantum theory is based on the Hamiltonian mechanics developed at the beginning of the 19th century for description of energy spreading trough inhomogeneous elastic massive environment.. Anyway, it's surprising how long the mainstream science managed to cover the dense aether model before the publicity, while it's using the formal models, which have no physical meaning outside of it. It's both the masterpiece of religious propaganda, both the demonstration of stupidity, incomparable to anything which we known from history.
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2012
Glaring syntactic error as usual:
The principal principle, principally concerns itself with principals, not principles, whereas the principal principal principally determines principles. Amazing how they can't get that right, like "their" instead of "there" and "they're," used quite interchangeably, and "the phenomena IS" instead of the singular "phenomenon is" and plural "phenomena are." It seems academe is getting progrssively illiterate, grunt, grunt...
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2012
Glaring syntactic error as usual:
The principal principle, principally concerns itself with principals, not principles, whereas the principal principal principally determines principles. Amazing how they can't get that right, like "their" instead of "there" and "they're," used quite interchangeably, and "the phenomena IS" instead of the singular "phenomenon is" and plural "phenomena are." It seems academe is getting progrssively illiterate, grunt, grunt...
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2012
The single postulate just defines the tautology, so that every theory requires at least two postulates for being able to formulate the implication vector and extrapolation of it, i.e. the prediction. It's similar to drawing the arrow through two points.

Now, if these postulates would be fully consistent in the sense of formal rigor, then we could substitute one postulate with another one and we could get a single universal postulate. But our theory would change into tautology again (you can draw infinite many arrows trough single point).

From the above follows, your postulates must always remain inconsistent at least a bit, or your theory will not remain predicative anymore. It means, you cannot have fully consistent and useful theory at the same moment - the validity scope of every theory will remain limited, if it shouldn't serve as a tautological circular reasoning.

This is essentially, what the geometric representation of Goedel's theorems means in implicate geometry of AWT.
Bryan_Sanctuary
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2012
So if you say this thought experiment is explained by non-locality, then explain to me, pray do, what non-locality is, without using words like quantum weirdness.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2012
I'm not sure if you're asking just me, but in AWT the quantum nonlocality is mediated with longitudinal waves of vacuum, which are known as a scalar or gravitational waves or gravitons and which do propagate with superluminal speed. In AWT the water surface can play a low dimensional analogy of space-time and after then the interactions can be mediated both with surface ripples (which do play an analogy of light waves at vacuum), both with underwater sound/pressure waves (which are longitudinal and which are propagating way faster and they're analogous to the gravitational waves.)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2012
Real glitch. Another article discusses Alcubierres drive (spacetime bubble). The spacetime bubble encompasses the ship when the bubble radius gets smaller than the Schwarzchild radius. The bubble surface being the event horizon. Causing greater density behind the ship causes the ship to move forward. Quantum tunneling. The ship is encompassed in a spaceless timeless state. Applying directionality moves the ship without traveling space, without the passing of time. The ship arrives at the new location after passing zero space, in zero time.

Nonlocality is nothing more than a spacetime jump. A wormhole is one way of visualizing this process. Another way of visualizing this process is simply a glitch in Universal programming. The particle is misplaced into another region.

Evidence for nonlocality can be found through experimentation. 1. Casimir effect. 2. Virtual particles - Photon production from vibrational energy (phonons).
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2012
Information nonlocality is evidenced through experimentation on entangled particles.

Entangle two particles. Take 1 far away. Change the direction of spin for 1 particle and the spin of the other changes. The particles act as if they still comprise the same chunk of matter (molecule in this case) even though they've been physically separated.

Entangled particles act as if they are together even with space between them.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 14, 2012
Entangle two particles. Take 1 far away. Change the direction of spin for 1 particle and the spin of the other changes.


Almost but not quite: Entangle two particles. Take 1 far away. Measure the direction of spin for each particle within a time much less than their separation. When the spin of the first is measured, that of the other becomes defined. The value measured for the first is random (and which is first is frame dependent since they are spacelike separated). Obviously it can't work if you already know the spin of one because by definition it must already have been measured, and since the first result is always random you can't use the effect to convey information.
Pyle
not rated yet Mar 14, 2012
@Fleet, tell me the difference between entanglement and my analogy.

Take two pieces of paper. Go into a dark room and scribble on one. Photocopy the first onto the second paper without looking at it. Still without looking seal both in envelopes.

Before we open an envelope what may be on the paper is random. Once we open one we know what the second one looks like.

In what ways can we tell that spin is unmeasured/random rather than just unknown? Once we measure it the spin is "fixed" (the whole, observation determines reality schtick). But how do we know it isn't really fixed all along and not "random"?

I don't know your eye color so it may be brown, or blue, or green, etc. That doesn't mean your eye color is random until I see you. It just means I don't know it.

@Turrit: No good. You can't change the state of one by changing the other. Only "determine" it through observation/measurement. Fleet said this, but I thought it worth repeating.
Pyle
not rated yet Mar 14, 2012
To beat this down...
How does a particle with "determined" spin act differently than a particle with "random/unmeasured" spin? When you measure one of the two entangled particles there is no difference observed in its pair. You have only discovered the result of a measurement on the second if you chose to make it.

I can't figure out how my analogy is any different.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2012
Before we open an envelope what may be on the paper is random. Once we open one we know what the second one looks like.

In what ways can we tell that spin is unmeasured/random rather than just unknown? Once we measure it the spin is "fixed" (the whole, observation determines reality schtick). But how do we know it isn't really fixed all along and not "random"?


Your analogy is not representative of qm entanglement, it is still a classical experiment. You need to use a Bell theorem compatible analogy.

Each observer measures spin at independently chosen angles, and maintains a log of results to be compared. There is a probability for measuring each combination of angles and results.

For an entangled pair, there is no way to account for the statistical correlation through any type of a classical analogy.

In your example the statistics work out fine , and there is no "problem". See wiki "Bell theorem".
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2012
2 quanta of energy are interacting. Both causing each other to act a certain way. Lets say 1 has a negative spin the other has a positive spin. Lets give an attribute, charge, negative spin given negative charge. Positive, positive. The positive spin quanta induces negative spin quanta, the negative induces the positive. Interacting quanta, interdependent, feeding each others spin (momentum), and charge (energy). The 2 quanta pulsate: spin; charge; spin; charge;...

The two tangled particular quanta when separated pulsate in phase, they spin in phase.

The test of entanglement is to change the state of one of the pair at a distance. If one reacts to the change in the other (whatever, shake one up and down, if the other reacts to the shaking that's an entangled state of the quanta).

For instance (Up quark): quark antiquark pair pulled from neutral field. Opposite charge and spin. Changing the spin of one changes the other. What happens when they are separated?

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2012
Polarity shift is easier to achieve than spin inversal.

Virtual up quark anti-up quark pair made real. Flipping 1 polarly causes the other to flip. The pair has common polarity with inversed spin and charge. They are entangled spacialy, their spin, their charge, their polar field. Particle antiparticle pair after realization. While tangled they share all these characteristics that mutually sum up. All characteristics are opposite other than polarity (which is the result of wave directionality the pair deviated from).

Changing the polarity of the antiup quark causes the change in the polarity in the up quark.

With entangled particles this takes place nonlocally.

The quark antiquark pair is a momentary deviation of quantum field fluctuation before annihilation. Should sufficient energy be employed annihilation would be averted. An entangled state between the 2 would still require a change in the state of the other even with physical separation.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2012
If change in the state of 1 doesn't cause some type of reaction in the other, then the 2 are no longer entangled.
NMvoiceofreason
not rated yet Mar 19, 2012
Entanglement is a real, experimentally verified facet of our Universe. Yet there is no explanation, no model, no theory, that doesn't start off with some religious pablum about "the Universe is one" and proposing infinite speeds. Intellectual rigor requires better answers, testable answers. We must test entanglement at greater and greater distances to know what the speed of nonlocal action is, the best to date is 18KM. We must propose real mechanisms, test real actions, and demonstrate what is and is not true about nonlocal action.

Early arguments about quantum mechanics tried to describe whether the Universe was real or unreal, local or non-local. Real or un-real is a philosophical dispute we can never answer. Local or nonlocal has been determined by experiment: the Universe is non-local, for some set of actions. If there are only four forces, then our candidates are decided: gravity, em, strong, weak. Which participates in nonlocal action?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2012
We must propose real mechanisms, test real actions, and demonstrate what is and is not true about nonlocal action.
The AWT uses water surface model of space-time for explanation of entanglement. The objects floating at the water surface interact mutually with both transverse waves (which are analogy of light waves in vacuum), but with underground pressure waves through underwater (which are analogy of gravitational waves in dense aether model). These waves are way faster, although it's questionable, whether they're really superluminal. They're manifestation of extradimensions of space-time. IMO this mechanism is pretty real and imaginable.

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.