NIST team proves 'spooky action at a distance' is really real

November 12, 2015
NIST physicist Krister Shalm with the photon source used in the 'Bell test' that strongly supported a key prediction of quantum mechanics: There are in fact 'spooky actions at a distance.' Credit: Burrus/NIST

Einstein was wrong about at least one thing: There are, in fact, "spooky actions at a distance," as now proven by researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Einstein used that term to refer to quantum mechanics, which describes the curious behavior of the smallest particles of matter and light. He was referring, specifically, to entanglement, the idea that two physically separated particles can have correlated properties, with values that are uncertain until they are measured. Einstein was dubious, and until now, researchers have been unable to support it with near-total confidence.

As described in a paper posted online and submitted to Physical Review Letters (PRL), researchers from NIST and several other institutions created pairs of identical light particles, or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be measured. Researchers showed the measured results not only were correlated, but also—by eliminating all other known options—that these correlations cannot be caused by the locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein thought we lived in. This implies a different explanation such as entanglement.

The NIST experiments are called Bell tests, so named because in 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, pre-existing (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.

The research team achieved this feat by simultaneously closing all three major "loopholes" that have plagued previous Bell tests. Closing the loopholes was made possible by recent technical advances, including NIST's ultrafast single-photon , which can accurately detect at least 90 percent of very weak signals, and new tools for randomly picking detector settings.

"You can't prove quantum mechanics, but local realism, or hidden local action, is incompatible with our experiment," NIST's Krister Shalm says. "Our results agree with what quantum mechanics predicts about the spooky actions shared by entangled particles."

The NIST paper was submitted to PRL with another paper by a team at the University of Vienna in Austria who used a similar high-efficiency single-photon detector provided by NIST to perform a Bell test that achieved similar results.

The NIST results are more definitive than those reported recently by researchers at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

In the NIST experiment, the photon source and the two detectors were located in three different, widely separated rooms on the same floor in a large laboratory building. The two detectors are 184 meters apart, and 126 and 132 meters, respectively, from the photon source.

The source creates a stream of through a common process in which a laser beam stimulates a special type of crystal. This process is generally presumed to create pairs of photons that are entangled, so that the photons' polarizations are highly correlated with one another. Polarization refers to the specific orientation of the photon, like vertical or horizontal (polarizing sunglasses preferentially block horizontally polarized light), analogous to the two sides of a coin.

Photon pairs are then separated and sent by fiber-optic cable to separate detectors in the distant rooms. While the photons are in flight, a generator picks one of two polarization settings for each polarization analyzer. If the photon matched the analyzer setting, then it was detected more than 90 percent of the time.

In the best experimental run, both detectors simultaneously identified photons a total of 6,378 times over a period of 30 minutes. Other outcomes (such as just one detector firing) accounted for only 5,749 of the 12,127 total relevant events. Researchers calculated that the maximum chance of local realism producing these results is just 0.0000000059, or about 1 in 170 million. This outcome exceeds the particle physics community's requirement for a "5 sigma" result needed to declare something a discovery. The results strongly rule out local realistic theories, suggesting that the quantum mechanical explanation of entanglement is indeed the correct explanation.

The NIST experiment closed the three major loopholes as follows:

Fair sampling: Thanks to NIST's single-photon detectors, the experiment was efficient enough to ensure that the detected photons and measurement results were representative of the actual totals. The detectors, made of superconducting nanowires, were 90 percent efficient, and total system efficiency was about 75 percent.

No faster-than-light communication: The two detectors measured photons from the same pair a few hundreds of nanoseconds apart, finishing more than 40 nanoseconds before any light-speed communication could take place between the detectors. Information traveling at the speed of light would require 617 nanoseconds to travel between the detectors.

Freedom of choice: Detector settings were chosen by operating outside the light cone (i.e., possible influence) of the photon source, and thus, were free from manipulation. (In fact, the experiment demonstrated a "Bell violation machine" that NIST eventually plans to use to certify randomness.)

To further ensure that hidden variables such as power grid fluctuations could not have influenced the results, the researchers performed additional experimental runs mixed with another source of randomness—data from popular movies, television shows and the digits of Pi. This didn't change the outcome.

The experiment was conducted at NIST's Boulder, Colo., campus, where researchers made one of the photon detectors and provided theoretical support. Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Pasadena, Calif.) made the other detector. Researchers at NIST's Gaithersburg, Md., headquarters built random number generators and related circuits. Researchers from the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign, Ill.) and the University of Waterloo and University of Moncton in Canada helped develop the photon source and perform the experiments. Researchers at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology in Spain developed another random number generator.

Explore further: Three's a charm: NIST detectors reveal entangled photon triplets

More information: L.K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B.G. Christensen, P. Bierhorst, M.A. Wayne, D.R. Hamel, M.J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, M.S. Allman, K.J. Coakley, S.D. Dyer, C. Hodge, A.E. Lita, V.B. Verma, J.C. Bienfang, A.L. Migdall, Y. Zhang, W.H. Farr, F. Marsili, M.D. Shaw, J.A. Stern, C. Abellan, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, T. Jennewein, M.W. Mitchell, P.G. Kwiat, R.P. Mirin, E. Knill and S.W. Nam. A strong loophole-free test of local realism. Submitted to Physical Review Letters. arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189

Related Stories

Physicists break distance record for quantum teleportation

September 22, 2015

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have "teleported" or transferred quantum information carried in light particles over 100 kilometers (km) of optical fiber, four times farther than the ...

Experiment records extreme quantum weirdness

November 9, 2015

Researchers from the Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore and the University of Seville in Spain have reported the most extreme 'entanglement' between pairs of photons ever seen in ...

Recommended for you

Researchers control soft robots using magnetic fields

March 29, 2017

A team of engineering researchers has made a fundamental advance in controlling so-called soft robots, using magnetic fields to remotely manipulate microparticle chains embedded in soft robotic devices. The researchers have ...

How to outwit noise in quantum communication

March 29, 2017

How to reliably transfer quantum information when the connecting channels are impacted by detrimental noise? Scientists at the University of Innsbruck and TU Wien (Vienna) have presented new solutions to this problem.

156 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TopCat22
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 12, 2015
what must be happening is that there is one (or more) hidden dimensions at play. Its not that there I as a "spooky action at a distance" involved but rather there is ... "a spooky distance where the action is coming from" ... located in another dimension where time and distance do not exist there in a way we cannot understand it using todays level of ignorance.
Peter Morgan
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2015
Do arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189 an arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190 together establish that there was synchronized submission? It's pretty hard to get two papers uploaded without something slipping in between.
Peter Morgan
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2015
1511.03189 includes a relatively gentle hedge against superdeterminism, "In our experiment the only assumptions that remain are those that can never -even in principle- be removed", whereas 1511.03190 has the more dismissive "we reduce the possible local realist explanations to truly exotic hypotheses". Similarly, in Wiseman's doi:10.1038/nature15631, one has "Some almost metaphysical loopholes remain open", and in Hensen et al.'s doi:10.1038/nature15759, one has "Strictly speaking, no Bell experiment can exclude all conceivable local-realist theories".

Jan-Åke Larsson's review, J. Phys. A 47, 424003 (2014), arXiv:1407.0363, admits superdeterminism cannot be ruled out but dismisses it in one line, "it's necessary for there to be no superdeterminism to do science in the first place", which, taken seriously, would seem to mean that classical mechanics and classical statistical mechanics are not science. The standard rhetoric is overblown. But whatever.
jorma_jorko
3 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2015
Do we give the Nobel to people at Delft or NIST? That's the question. Delft was first, but NIST made it better. Maybe in honor of the topic the prize could be split in two entangled ones.
richardwenzel987
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2015
Exotic local realism isn't much of an improvement over spooky action at a distance. In either case the universe isn't working the way we thought it did, and we're left with something that probably can't be modeled in terms that make any intuitive sense.
reversechapter
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2015
"Photon pairs are then separated..."

You'll always find this kind of language in articles about "Bell" tests. They always brush aside the beginning of the experiment, where the particles are correlated locally; and the end of the experiment, where scientists - who are also made up of quantum particles (also brushed aside) - must split to (locally) record every possible measurement. Measurement equals entanglement, and the scientists are measuring something. They become correlated. They aren't standing outside of the universe. The only "spooky" thing that happens is that everything happens. Erwin Schrodinger first pointed this out in a lecture in 1952, although he was reluctant to do so. Everything REALLY happens, LOCALLY first.
ECat
Nov 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DavidW
3 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2015
"Photon pairs are then separated..."

You'll always find this kind of language in articles about "Bell" tests. They always brush aside the beginning of the experiment, where the particles are correlated locally; and the end of the experiment, where scientists - who are also made up of quantum particles (also brushed aside) - must split to (locally) record every possible measurement. Measurement equals entanglement, and the scientists are measuring something. They become correlated. They aren't standing outside of the universe. The only "spooky" thing that happens is that everything happens. Erwin Schrodinger first pointed this out in a lecture in 1952, although he was reluctant to do so. Everything REALLY happens, LOCALLY first.


Opps, accidentally hit the one star. I totally agree. Just like how some say life doesn't matter while using life. I bet that are less earths than 170,000,000 to one.
"..thing that happens is that" -> only that which can truthfully happen can
someone11235813
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2015

@jorma_jorko4

Do we give the Nobel to people at Delft or NIST?


The committee should follow the precedent set by the discovery of the CMBr, and award the prize based on luck. In this case it would be appropriate to use their own random number generator to decide.
TopCat22
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2015
Entanglement is another proof that other dimensions must in fact exist. Dark mater and dark energy are more proof that there are more dimension than we can understand at work in our universe.
theon
3 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2015
Good heavens, this tsunami of nonsense because nobody realized the silly error made by Bell. Really nobody? The contextuality loophole can not be closed, and it was not closed in these two experiments. Information just travels with the particle pair, e heard of near fields?
just_think_it
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2015
Einstein wasn't "wrong", nor "dubious" about spooky action at a distance. Simply put: he wasn't comfortable with it. By the way, gravity's effect also qualifies as spooky action at a distance. Prior to 100 years ago, all good physicists were uncomfortable with it.
inkosana
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2015
Einstein was not wrong when he claimed that there cannot be instantaneous contact between two "particles". When two electrons or two photons ""entangle" the result is NOT "two particles lurking in a probability wave": Two electromagnetic waves coherently superpose to form a SINGLE wave with continuously distributed EM energy within its volume. Such a wave is in instantaneous contact with itself within its whole volume since there are not free space-intervals between points through which one can only communicate by means of a electromagnetic light-signal: The whole volume is continuously distributed EM-energy.

Take two electrons which "entangle": The electrons lose their separate identities to form a single wave: when measuring the spin at one position of the wave, this spin requires that the wave must dis-entangle into two separate waves. Since the entangled wave is in instantaneous contact with itself,. the two electron-waves that form must have spins that correlate. No "spooks".
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2015
It is the generally-accepted mechanism of TIME itself which is wrong. TIME is not a constant onflowing river, but a subjective experience caused by our ("our" meaning the "universe" we think we live in) perspective of the path thru' chaos dictated by our "laws" of physics.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2015
@johanfprins (inkosana), the space in which the wavefunction describing two or more entangled particles evoles, must be taken as a tensor product space [mathematical as opposed to 'physical'],..... so can not be said to evolve in regular 3D space such that the wavefunction can be said to be a physical thing.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2015
what must be happening is that there is one (or more) hidden dimensions at play. Its not that there I as a "spooky action at a distance" involved but rather there is ... "a spooky distance where the action is coming from" ... located in another dimension where time and distance do not exist there in a way we cannot understand it using todays level of ignorance.


Why add even more scaffolding when it has become clear that scaffolding isn't a structural component on which the underlying quantum reality depends? IOW, conforming the underlying quantum reality to the artificial concept of space, ... is what leads to inconsistencies to begin with.

In any case, the Bell inequalities rule out local hidden variables.


Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2015
... "Bell" tests. They always brush aside the beginning of the experiment, where the particles are correlated locally; and the end of the experiment, where scientists - who are also made up of quantum particles (also brushed aside) - must split to (locally) record every possible measurement.


The facts established by experiment, independent of theory, refute both locality and counterfactual definiteness being concomitantly tenable.

Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2015
There are MANY experiments which "prove" that the reality we experience does not conform to our explanations of how it works. Surely, anyone can see that there is something fundamentally wrong with our interpretation of reality.
What could it be?
There is one obvious candidate, our perception of time.
Established science persists in assuming that "time" is a constantly flowing medium in which we and our universe exist.
There is absolutely no proof that this is so, only our perception of it which is subjective to say the least.
I stand by my argument that "time" is simply a manifestation of the position of the fundamental particles of matter, which exist and move in a chaotic way. "Time" is simply our path thru' the chaos as dictated by the "laws" of physics and each "moment" or quantum of time is the next set of positions which conform approximatley enough in macro to the pattern required to meet the "laws" of physics. Look a bit deeper, and there is no conformation...
Mark Thomas
2.7 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2015
TopCat22 Wrote: "Entanglement is another proof that other dimensions must in fact exist."

Agreed, this needs to be seriously considered. It would also help explain related quantum mechanical tunneling by both photons and matter effectively traveling faster than the speed of light through a barrier they should not be able to penetrate. I had understood M Theory to require a 4 dimensional spacetime brane on a bulk having up to 11 dimensions. Unless M Theory is wrong, it would seem we have plenty of extra dimensions to consider. Perhaps Einstein was right about the speed of light, but only in 4 dimensional spacetime.
TopCat22
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2015
Mark, the other proofs can be found in things like;

gravity not having a graviton ... the graviton may exist and act from another dimension of our universe. The same can be said of dark mater and dark energy where we see the effects from elements existing in other dimensions of our universe.

The material falling into a black hole goes to the another dimension of our universe.

Important to distinguish that these extra dimensions we are talking about are existing in our space-time but are difficult to comprehend. Not the sci-fi versions where aliens pop out of.

All these spooky actions may be all related as more proofs.
SuperThunder
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2015
Entanglement is another proof that other dimensions must in fact exist. Dark mater and dark energy are more proof that there are more dimension than we can understand at work in our universe.

How do you know we're even capable of seeing all of the "dimensionality" of our familiar ones? What if we're just wrong somehow about dimensions themselves? Is there no other possibility than other dimensions of space?

Important to distinguish that these extra dimensions we are talking about are existing in our space-time but are difficult to comprehend. Not the sci-fi versions where aliens pop out of

Now that's an extraordinary claim. What laws of physics prevent higher structures from forming in these dimensions? What physics have been measured across their domain that predicts no stars, no planets, and no possibility of life?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2015
Entanglement is another proof that other dimensions must in fact exist.

Or there exist less than we think (holographic principle/holographic universe theory). Entanglement is not proof (nor even indication) of more or less dimensions.
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2015
Man, asking questions on this site is the only thing that ever gets me one starred. You all love my jokes universally, so I am sticking with those.
TopCat22
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
the dimensions I am talking about are in addition to those we understand and experience... an example of another dimension ...might be the thickness of the space-time membrane that can be squished by gravity and one of its properties would be that if you squish it strong enough it absorbs energy faster than the speed of light (no reason why the speed of light needs to be constant in another dimension of our space time. There could even be a dimension where time is running backwards in a loop from the end of our forward moving time... just speculating
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
Mark, the other proofs can be found in things like;

gravity not having a graviton ... the graviton may exist and act from another dimension of our universe. The same can be said of dark mater and dark energy where we see the effects from elements existing in other dimensions of our universe.

The material falling into a black hole goes to the another dimension of our universe.

Important to distinguish that these extra dimensions we are talking about are existing in our space-time but are difficult to comprehend. Not the sci-fi versions where aliens pop out of.

All these spooky actions may be all related as more proofs.

You have no case at all.
TopCat22
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
dear my2cts .... what I clearly have is a theory. And my theory is much more advanced that your 2 cents on this subject. I have provided a scientific theory based on observation which is a valid hypothesis to explain what is currently not known. Until you come up with something better I rest my case.

you on the other hand offer nothing at all but some wasted pixels expressing your contentment to not knowing and not wanting to know an answer. You have not added two cents worth of thought.

Perhaps you are a religious zealot that believes we should not look for answers to the spooky actions of our universe and just say it is evidence of god showing us we will never know and we should just accept the magic as magical intervention without doing any thinking as you have done.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
You have a theory in the common conversational meaning of the word.
An unsubstantiated intuitive hunch.
That does not constitute a physical theory.
You have no case at all.

You also have some theories about me, equally unfounded.
You could have found ample evidence for my atheism, on this blog, but you seem to be sloppy.
Mark Thomas
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
"Entanglement is not proof (nor even indication) of more or less dimensions."

It is suggestive to at least two of us and possibly even consistent. What evidence can you cite that entanglement is not an indication of more dimensions? If we had a well-supported alternative to explain entanglement and tunneling that clearly excluded extra dimensions that would be different, but we don't, or at least none is cited here.

"An unsubstantiated intuitive hunch."

So what, it may still be right. By all indications, Einstein was right about the speed of light, so we need to go beyond that to explain effects using entanglement and tunneling because the net effect is occurring much faster than c. If your position is that QM is understood well enough to clearly exclude extra dimensions, then prove it. Use peer-reviewed science to disprove "[a]n unsubstantiated intuitive hunch," not conclusory statements that amount to no more than, "I am right and you are wrong."
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
"Einstein was wrong about at least one thing: There are, in fact, "spooky actions at a distance," as now proven by researchers at NIST."
The correlation cannot be due to action at a distance, because QM fully complies with SR. That's what's spooky. So Einstein was not wrong in saying this.
Mark Thomas
2.7 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
Mark's unsubstantiated intuitive hunch: Quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions.

There, I said it, now prove me wrong with real science, if you can.
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
What evidence can you cite that entanglement is not an indication of more dimensions?

This is known as Russell's teapot:
https://en.wikipe...s_teapot
"An unsubstantiated intuitive hunch."
So what, it may still be right.

Yeah what the heck !
... Einstein was right about the speed of light, so we need to go beyond that

This is known as a non-sequitur.
https://en.wikipe..._(logic)
to explain effects using entanglement and tunneling because the net effect is occurring much faster than c.

That is in breach of SR.
If your position is that QM is understood well enough to clearly exclude extra dimensions, then prove it. Use peer-reviewed science to disprove "[a]n unsubstantiated intuitive hunch,"

Double Russel's teapot.
"I am right and you are wrong."

And a straw man: I said: you don't have a case, not you are wrong.
https://en.wikipe...traw_man
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
You should thank me for lecturing you about logical fallacies.
You seem to be unaware that your entire line of reasoning is a sequence of them.
Improve yourself.
Rating me 1 star does not change the fact that your are incapable at present of reasoning.
Read the post again. Maybe you can learn something. If not, sayonada.
TopCat22
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
I have given my two cents on what can explain "this spooky action at a distance" observation with the entanglement evidence given.

My answer is better than saying its just spooky. It may be wrong or it may be right but on this thread its the best explanation offered by any commenters.

If you have a better hypothesis that this then I will concede to yours, otherwise mine is better than your assertions
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2015
@johanfprins (inkosana), the space in which the wavefunction describing two or more entangled particles evoles, must be taken as a tensor product space [mathematical as opposed to 'physical'],..... so can not be said to evolve in regular 3D space such that the wavefunction can be said to be a physical thing.


"'spooky action at a distance' is really real..."

-as opposed to being merely factually real?

Sorry I was trying to say something philo-like.

So do philos get licences to practice or can anybody be factually a philo just by espousing -uh- philo?

IOW is a degree enough or is there a state-sponsored test to determine a minimum level of competence?

Is competence even the correct word I wonder?
my2cts
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
So you say the explanation is extra dimensions. That statement is your entire theory.
Congratulations then.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
@johanfprins (inkosana), the space in which the wavefunction describing two or more entangled particles evoles, must be taken as a tensor product space [mathematical as opposed to 'physical'],..... so can not be said to evolve in regular 3D space such that the wavefunction can be said to be a physical thing.


"'spooky action at a distance' is really real..."

-as opposed to being merely factually real?

Sorry I was trying to say something philo-like.

So do philos get licences to practice or can anybody be factually a philo just by espousing -uh- philo?


Evidently, you're not qualified to critique my comment in any case, as clearly you don't know enough QM to know that I had not made any philosophical comments in that post. How embarrassing for you.
Mark Thomas
2.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
Wow, my2cts, can you cut my sentences into even smaller pieces before mis-characterizing and critiquing them?

You can dodge and parry and dance around Russell's Teapot all you like, but TopCat22 and I are making a point here that you have NOT refuted with science. You also provided no basis for arguing that one or more extra dimensions are "scientifically unfalsifiable," so Russell's Teapot does not apply.

You also need to keep up on your reading, both QM tunneling and collapse of QM entanglement due to measurement appear to be instantaneous processes, i.e., much faster than c. You can either toss SR out the window or work to reconcile SR with the facts. SR has been a very successful theory by all accounts, so the reconcile path seems promising. Once way to reconcile SR and QM effects happening FTL involves one or more extra dimensions. You obviously don't like the idea, but you have done nothing to disprove it.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
Mark's unsubstantiated intuitive hunch: Quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions.

There, I said it, now prove me wrong with real science, if you can.


Empirically it may not possible to do so, therefore your hunch would qualify, at best, as an interpretation,.... and if an extra dimension could be considered a "local hidden variable", then on account of the Bell theorem, would even be refuted experimentally.

Imposing the condition of "intuitive sense" for all scales of inquiry, is imo rather ad hoc, and is asking too much from physics.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
Once way to reconcile SR and QM effects happening FTL involves one or more extra dimensions.


SR is already reconciled with QM, in the Dirac equation. Furthermore, you're making an unfounded assumption that wavefunction collapse of two entangled particles implies FTL. There is no experimental reason for thinking the wavefunction is a physical wave.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
Evidently, you're not qualified to critique my comment in any case, as clearly you don't know enough QM to know that I had not made any philosophical comments in that post. How embarrassing for you
?? Is not 'evoles' a philo term?

I'm sorry but I'll have to see your credentials.

I assume you're licenced in the state of moral decrepitude?

Hawaii maybe?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2015
And might I point out that reciting the ingredients of a souffle does not make you a chef.
Mark Thomas
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
"Empirically it may not possible to do so . . ."

Can you describe any reasons that support the idea that quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions?

Can you describe any reasons that refute the idea that quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2015
Evidently, you're not qualified to critique my comment in any case, as clearly you don't know enough QM to know that I had not made any philosophical comments in that post. How embarrassing for you
?? Is not 'evoles' a philo term?

I'm sorry but I'll have to see your credentials.


Trolls like you are the reason I would never do that.

Obviously I was speaking about physics, in particular the Hilbert space formulation,... with is the standard mathematical structure of the theory,... and you failed to tell the difference between this and philosophy,... therefore your qualifications are apparent. Had you been qualified to critique me, you would have known that.

Evolves? The Schrodinger equation describes how the wavefunction evolves, how it changes in time and space.

Mark Thomas
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
"Furthermore, you're making an unfounded assumption that wavefunction collapse of two entangled particles implies FTL."

So just how fast do you think instantaneous is? You are making an unfounded assumption that wavefunction collapse of two entangled particles does not imply FTL.

"Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance"
http://phys.org/n...nce.html
my2cts
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
QM does not allow FTL.
SuperThunder
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
So just how fast do you think instantaneous is?


Instantaneous does not imply "fast." A hundred quadrillion trillion bazoonhajillion times the speed of light is still slower than instantaneous by infinity.

What is it you're arguing? That instant is a velocity?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
Can you describe any reasons that refute the idea that quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions?


If the extra dimension is considered a local-hidden-variable, this was refuted experimentally, and independent of theory; Bell inequality experiments.

However if not, then nor can I that they are the result of god. The point is, if the experimental results are the same either way, your extra dimension hypothesis is no more than a Interpretation of QM.

You would have to show how your extra dimension component reduces the space-time distance commensurate with the requirement of <=c even though the x,y,z components could be arbitrarily large!
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2015
"Furthermore, you're making an unfounded assumption that wavefunction collapse of two entangled particles implies FTL."

So just how fast do you think instantaneous is? You are making an unfounded assumption that wavefunction collapse of two entangled particles does not imply FTL.


You misunderstood me. You're making the assumption that the wavefunction is a physical wave of some substance that travels through space. If it doesn't travel through space, it doesn't violate c.
my2cts
2 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
Wow, my2cts, can you cut my sentences into even smaller pieces before mis-characterizing and critiquing them?

I asee you do not like to be lectured.
That's probably also why you are so bad at science:
you never took a course.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
I see the truth hurts my2cts.

You did not address the substance of anything I wrote, I am done wasting time with you.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
Noumenon, FTL stands for "faster than light," as in fast, faster, fastest. I did not invent the term. If we are talking about FTL the subject of how "fast" something travels is relevant.

"You would have to show how your extra dimension component reduces the space-time distance commensurate with the requirement of <=c even though the x,y,z components could be arbitrarily large!"

I believe you are getting it, although you cannot yet be certain <=c would be a requirement in an extra dimension. But let's go with that. Suppose the extra dimension is simply shorter than the shortest x, y, z dimension? Entangled particles could be 80 miles apart in x, y, z, but still "touching" in another dimension, or their wavefunction still unified in another dimension making the collapse appear simultaneous.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but I agree with TopCat22 that these QM effects may be evidence of extra dimensions.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015


Entangled particles could be 80 miles apart in x, y, z, but still "touching" in another dimension, or their wavefunction still unified in another dimension making the collapse appear simultaneous.

Is your mailbox "touching" your neighbors mailbox just because one of the coordinates has the same value?

You still should have a space-time distance, between the two entangled particles, where you would need to show how that distance reduces in such a way that the SR <=c is maintained with the wavefunction collapse on account of that extra (w) dimension....

s² = Δt² - Δw² - Δx² - Δy² - Δz²

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
Noumenon, FTL stands for "faster than light," as in fast, faster, fastest. I did not invent the term. If we are talking about FTL the subject of how "fast" something travels is relevant.


Yes, I know what it means.

Entanglement can't be used to send 'information' FTL, so nothing is really traveling through space FTL when two entangled pairs show correlation upon measurement.

A rough analogy is this; if you shine a laser beam at the moon and move it quickly from one side of the moon to the other, requiring only a small angle at the source but marking a large angle on the moon, in principle, you could make the laser-dot "travel FTL",.... but yet the light that makes up the dot is not actually traveling FTL.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
Whether or not you construct an alternative theory with extra dimensions or not, the experimental results are the same [unless you theory predicts other effects],... so therefore 'extra dimensions' is just an interpretation of QM.

It is better at that point imo to just make use of an epistemological interpretation and recognize that space and time are mind-dependent intuitions which we evolved with to synthesize experience at the macro scale, so that those concepts are effectively an artificial layer WE impose upon experience rather than the other way around (Kant's Copernican revolution),.... and that it happens that quantum phenomenon can't be so ordered consistently.

bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2015
* Entanglement can't be used to send 'information' FTL, *

So Far !! If, of course, it's not just an artifact of a flawed experimental process.

Heavier than Air flight will never be possible. - some other sad sack.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
......
I don't agree with invoking extra dimensions or 'degrees of freedom' unless they are justified through conservation laws or symmetry conditions. In entanglement the only motivation is to fix the incompatibility with intuition,.... but "intuition" is merely a mind dependent artifact.

Another anology; The temperature of a gas can be equated to the kinetic energy of the molecules that make up the gas, via Boltzmanns constant. However, for more complicated molecules, it was noticed that there wasn't a one-to-one correspondence between amount of heat added (to increase the kinetic energy) and the temperature reading. In this case invoking more 'degrees of freedom' to maintaining conservation of energy was appropriate; the internal movements of each molecule absorbed the extra energy in this case.
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
Noumenon, your description of an extra dimension looks like any other dimension so we would be able to experience it at the macro scale. This is obviously incorrect. By analogy, consider if universe appeared like a two dimensional piece of paper. One dot on a piece of paper were displaced 3 cm on the x axis and 4 cm on the y axis compared to another dot, so you would calculate the dots to be 5 cm apart. If another dimension (z) allowed the paper to curve by 180 degrees, with the proper alignment, the dots could be right next to one another in the z axis. Traveling from dot to dot in "normal" x-y space means traveling 5 cm, traveling in z space would make the distance much shorter. However, this can't be the whole story or stuff would be leaking all over the place, but this does provide a way to shorten travel with another dimension and enable seemingly "instantaneously" QM tunneling and entanglement effects.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2015
Whether or not you construct an alternative theory with extra dimensions or not, the experimental results are the same [unless you theory predicts other effects],... so therefore 'extra dimensions' is just an interpretation of QM.

It is better at that point imo to just make use of an epistemological interpretation and recognize that space and time are mind-dependent intuitions which we evolved with to synthesize experience at the macro scale, so that those concepts are effectively an artificial layer WE impose upon experience rather than the other way around (Kant's Copernican revolution),.... and that it happens that quantum phenomenon can't be so ordered consistently.


I completely agree, and have advanced this theory many times in the past.
pongobongo
3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2015
Man, asking questions on this site is the only thing that ever gets me one starred. You all love my jokes universally, so I am sticking with those.


You really should just STFU. No one loves your jokes, universally or otherwise. They are actually very trite and flat. So when you get to feeling that you are "on", you should really back away from the computer.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
If another dimension (z) allowed the paper to curve by 180 degrees, with the proper alignment, the dots could be right next to one another in the z axis. Traveling from dot to dot in "normal" x-y space means traveling 5 cm, traveling in z space would make the distance much shorter.


You don't need extra an dimension for that, ....you would need a metric to describe the 'connection' between the two points,... the curvature of spacetime, .... as in wormholes in GR.

I'm not saying your wrong per se,.. just that you're asking too much of physics to provide an "explanation" as opposed to just modeling what is observable,.... for which QM based field theories already do well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
Trolls like you are the reason I would never do that
Well I know that you probably dont have a formal backround in physics or you probably wouldnt be saying stuff like this:
nothing is really traveling through space FTL when two entangled pairs show correlation upon measurement
-when genuine physicists will say things like this:

"According to research by Prof. Juan Yin and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai, the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light."
Obviously I was speaking about physics
Yeah you can speak about it all you want. But pretending that you are discussing physics with the intent of communicating or clarifying it, by using WORDS, is futile.

Physicists use words as substitutes for the equations which everyone in their discipline is familiar with.

Philos dont. They cant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
For instance
if you shine a laser beam at the moon and move it quickly from one side of the moon to the other, requiring only a small angle at the source but marking a large angle on the moon, in principle, you could make the laser-dot "travel FTL",...
-indicates very clearly that you dont understand what this guy is referring to as 'entanglement dynamics'.

"the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons (at least as we know it) is simply impossible. The team simultaneously measured several properties of both photons, such as phase, when they arrived at their villages and found that they did indeed have a spooky awareness of each other's behaviour. On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light — something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible."

-Sure. Words like awareness and communicate are undefinable.
Mark Thomas
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
"I'm not saying your wrong per se,.. just that you're asking too much of physics to provide an "explanation" as opposed to just modeling what is observable,.... for which QM based field theories already do well."

You may be right, and I have no intent to challenge GR, SR or QM, but I am far from the only one hoping you are wrong and an "explanation" consistent with them all will be discovered.
TopCat22
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2015
I was just thinking about how one can communicate using entangled particles today.

If you take two entangled photons. one is trapped on earth the other is aimed to travel at the speed of light to an exoplanet two light years away. in two years when the photon hits the exoplanet and is effected we should see an effect on the particle trapped on earth..

If this can be done with a stream of entangled photons an image with information could be made out but the entangled photons that remained on earth.

This could be called "entanglement topography"
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2015
Trolls like you are the reason I would never do that
Well I know that you probably dont have a formal backround in physics or you probably wouldnt be saying stuff like this:
nothing is really traveling through space FTL when two entangled pairs show correlation upon measurement
-when genuine physicists will say things like this:

"According to research by Prof. Juan Yin and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai, the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light."


LOL, he's not confirming that anything travels FTL, you half-wit,... in fact he's doing the opposite! The consensus amongst physicists is that SR is correct in that c is an upper limit intrinsic in nature. And yes I have formal education in physics and yes philosophy. Do you see how google-knowledge fails you and why it's futile for me to "debate" you?

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015


Obviously I was speaking about physics
Yeah you can speak about it all you want. But pretending that you are discussing physics with the intent of communicating or clarifying it, by using WORDS, is futile. Physicists use words as substitutes for the equations which everyone in their discipline is familiar with.

Actually I'm quite familiar with the mathematical formulation of GR, QM, etc, as you have been told. Are you? This is a comment section which does not even have Latex much less a reason for posting equations. Are you more interested in leveling groundless accusations than in discussing substance?

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
I was just thinking about how one can communicate using entangled particles today.

If you take two entangled photons. one is trapped on earth the other is aimed to travel at the speed of light to an exoplanet two light years away. in two years when the photon hits the exoplanet and is effected we should see an effect on the particle trapped on earth.


To the observer on earth the measurements of the photon (say polarization) would just be random. This would also be the case for the observer on the planet. Only when both sets of results are compared, using traditional communication, can a correlation be seen that exceeds what would be expected had they not been entangled .

ECat
Nov 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
For instance
if you shine a laser beam at the moon and move it quickly from one side of the moon to the other, requiring only a small angle at the source but marking a large angle on the moon, in principle, you could make the laser-dot "travel FTL",...
-indicates very clearly that you dont understand what this guy is referring to as 'entanglement dynamics'.

"the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons (at least as we know it) is simply impossible..."


- your own guys quote you used states that "direct communication" is "simply impossible" because that communication would have to be "100,000 times faster than the speed of light ". Your ignorance not only failed to refute me, but in fact supported by statement. Good job, Google-face.

Oh, and I like how you left off this from my quote,... "A rough analogy is this; if you shine a laser...."

Do you even know what 'analogy' means, or 'rough', or 'honesty'?
Mark Thomas
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
TopCat22, we don't how to "bias" the entanglement so that the desired result is imparted to the photon (or particle) pair when the entanglement collapses. If you could cause the entanglement to collapse the way you wanted it to, video could be sent instantaneously to people carrying half the entangled pairs, violating SR for information, at least in four dimensional space-time. It will be Nobel Prize time for the people who solve this, if it can be solved, but I feel confident a whole host of commenters here would jump all over you for even suggesting it if this thread weren't getting so old.

Such communications would certainly come in handy as folks push deeper and deeper into space. Conversations with our brethren at Alpha Centauri are going to be really drawn out affairs at >8 years for an unanticipated question to get a response.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
I see the truth hurts my2cts.

How , when ? No truth in your post.

You did not address the substance of anything I wrote, I am done wasting time with you.
Spot on! There is no substance in anything you wrote.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2015
Whether or not you construct an alternative theory with extra dimensions or not, the experimental results are the same [unless you theory predicts other effects],... so therefore 'extra dimensions' is just an interpretation of QM.

Agree. An interpretation I reject out of hand using Occams chainsaw.

It is better at that point imo to just make use of an epistemological interpretation and recognize that space and time are mind-dependent intuitions which we evolved with to synthesize experience at the macro scale, so that those concepts are effectively an artificial layer WE impose upon experience rather than the other way around (Kant's Copernican revolution),.... and that it happens that quantum phenomenon can't be so ordered consistently.


Why not just accept that you do not understand? Lees words, less reading of Kant and the result is better: realising there is something you don't understand is the beginning of science.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
QM does not allow FTL.


Voting down a statement like this is a clear sign of being a crank. Judging from the score of 1.7 out of 6, there are 5 cranks active.

"Empirically it may not possible to do so . . ."

Can you describe any reasons that support the idea that quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions?

Can you describe any reasons that refute the idea that quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions?

Please answer first the same questions for the existence of unicorns.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2015
"I'm not saying your wrong per se,.. just that you're asking too much of physics to provide an "explanation" as opposed to just modeling what is observable,.... for which QM based field theories already do well."

You may be right, and I have no intent to challenge GR, SR or QM, but I am far from the only one hoping you are wrong and an "explanation" consistent with them all will be discovered.

This experiment is consistent with all of them.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
Why not just accept that you do not understand? Lees words, less reading of Kant and the result is better: realising there is something you don't understand is the beginning of science.


That's what considerations of epistemology in fact implies, ....delimiting what can be known, what is valid knowledge, what elements are artifacts of acquiring understanding.... IOW the Copenhagen interpretation... that QM is a theory of observable experience not of 'independent reality'. Why not understand why there may be intrinsic limits to understanding reality?

Mark Thomas
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
"Why not just accept that you do not understand?"

Because that is the path to mediocrity and failure.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
"Why not just accept that you do not understand?"

Because that is the path to mediocrity and failure.


QED is the most successful predictive theory ever devised by man,... clearly not a failure,.... despite that it does not provide intuitive understanding. Science is about predictive knowledge, not intuitive explanations for the understanding.

Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
@Noumenon
You said:-
It is better at that point imo to just make use of an epistemological interpretation and recognize that space and time are mind-dependent intuitions which we evolved with to synthesize experience at the macro scale, so that those concepts are effectively an artificial layer WE impose upon experience rather than the other way around (Kant's Copernican revolution),.... and that it happens that quantum phenomenon can't be so ordered consistently.

I am impressed by the concise summing up of the theory. Did you take it as an extract from someone else (if so, who? And why did I miss it?) or compose it yourself - if so, I would like your permission to quote it (attributed to you) in future lectures/books.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
I am impressed by the concise summing up of the theory.


Thank you. It is not a theory per se, but rather an interpretation of theory.

Did you take it as an extract from someone else

The quote is mine, however, the idea is certainly not new, as it is the premise underlying the scientific-positivist, and the Copenhagen interpretation with 'wavefunction collapse'.

There are many physicists who have expressed likewise in various ways, not necessarily as 'Kantian' as me,….. N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg, John von Neumann, B. d'Espagnat, Hermann Weyl, S. Hawking, Wigner, … et al..

I would like your permission to quote it (attributed to you) in future lectures/books.


You can quote it, but I don't wish to give my name here, for the above reasons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
LOL, he's not confirming that anything travels FTL, you half-wit,... in fact he's doing the opposite!
Hahahaha read this...

"According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly. It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds."

-Meaning 1) that the effects of measurement (quantum dynamics) indeed travels faster than light, and 2) it is not 'classical information'.

Now read this again...

"spooky action at a distance" – is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light'

-What prof juan yin and others are doing is to try to determine a lower limit to this dynamic IOW whether it is instantaneous or not.

SOMETHING is traveling ftl between entangled particles but it is NOT classical info.

So when you say
nothing is really traveling through space FTL
-youre quite obviously wrong.

This is a pretty serious misperception. Take some time and fix it.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
@GhostofOtto,

By invoking the phrase "FTL", one is de facto implying [an observable entity, i.e. classical information is] "traveling through space", because that is the basis and concern of SR (classical observable information, through space).

The only thing observable wrt distant quantum-entangled entites are correlations between sets of measurements. These correlations are only knowable by traditional communication that is less than or equal to C.

Your reference was establishing the impossibility of classical influence causing the correlation,... because it would have to be 100,000 times C,... which as they stated is impossible!

SR does not concern itself with "non classical information" because it is a classical theory.

Try again.

The only reason entanglement is a "puzzle" is on account of self-inflicted condition of thought, ...because the concept of space is presumed a-priori as a structural component of quantum entanglement. Evidently, it's not.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
SOMETHING is traveling ftl between entangled particles but it is NOT classical info. So when you say
"nothing is really traveling through space FTL" -youre quite obviously wrong.


Perhaps you should read my posts before putting them in your parsing-blender....

My full statement is,... "Entanglement can't be used to send 'information' FTL, so nothing is really traveling through space FTL".

SR is a theory of observable entites, photons, electrons, ... "traveling through space",... and establishes an upper natural limit, C, for such entities.

You state "SOMETHING is traveling ftl between entangled particles", implying through space,... but yet the Bell inequality experiments have demonstratably refuted any such "local hidden variables" that could account for the correlation.

Reg Mundy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
I am impressed by the concise summing up of the theory.


Thank you. It is not a theory per se, but rather an interpretation of theory.

Did you take it as an extract from someone else

The quote is mine, however, the idea is certainly not new, as it is the premise underlying the scientific-positivist, and the Copenhagen interpretation with 'wavefunction collapse'.

There are many physicists who have expressed likewise in various ways, not necessarily as 'Kantian' as me,….. N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg, John von Neumann, B. d'Espagnat, Hermann Weyl, S. Hawking, Wigner, … et al..

I would like your permission to quote it (attributed to you) in future lectures/books.


You can quote it, but I don't wish to give my name here, for the above reasons.

Thanks. Natually, I am already familiar with most of the stuff you quote, it was your actual phraseology I wish to borrow.
I will attribute it to Neumenon via phys.org
Cheers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
These correlations are only knowable by traditional communication that is less than or equal to C
"Things get really interesting when two electrons become entangled," said Ronald Hanson from the University of Delft. "They are perfectly correlated, when you observe one, the other one will always be opposite. That effect is instantaneous, even if the other electron is in a rocket at the other end of the galaxy."

-The effect is assumed to be instantaneous although the knowledge of that effect cannot be transmitted faster than C.

Prof juan yin and others are exploring this instantaneous effect by establishing what it must be faster than; in this case, AT LEAST 10,000 times C.
You state "SOMETHING is traveling ftl between entangled particles", implying through space,... but yet the Bell inequality experiments have demonstratably blah
Throw all the words at it you want. When one entangled particle is measured, the other one correlates FTL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
You state "SOMETHING is traveling ftl between entangled particles", implying through space
Im not implying anything. Im surprised you havent evoked one of your unknowable transcendent netherworld realities as a medium.

Are you saying that NOTHING tells one particle to match its entangled partner when measured? If so then what are these scientists trying to ascertain the speed of?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
"Three different research papers claim to have closed loopholes in 50-year-old experiments that demonstrate quantum entanglement...

"Things get really interesting when two electrons become entangled," said Ronald Hanson from the University of Delft. "They are perfectly correlated, when you observe one, the other one will always be opposite. That effect is INSTANTANEOUS, even if the other electron is in a rocket at the other end of the galaxy."

"In 1964, physicist John Bell proposed that quantum entanglement could be demonstrated by separating the particles at a great enough distance that any correlating effect on both particles could not possibly be caused by local environmental factors... However, the Bell Test experiments had some significant loopholes

"The large distance between our detectors ensures that neither the detectors, nor the electrons can exchange information within the time it takes to do the measurement, and so closes the locality loophole..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2015
link for the above article, dtd November 19, 2015
http://www.cnet.c...glement/
The only reason entanglement is a "puzzle" is on account of self-inflicted condition of thought, ...because the concept of space is presumed a-priori as a structural component of quantum entanglement. Evidently, it's not
So how do you account for one particle changing to match its measured partner instantaneously?

The 3 different papers cited in my link provide confirmation that they do so ftl, and the fact that other scientists are trying to establish lower limits to this correlation speed means they agree.

It seems to me that you are again trying to refute mainstream science via mystical wordmongering ala 'Kant... N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg, John von Neumann, B. d'Espagnat, Hermann Weyl, S. Hawking, Wigner, …

And by 'et al' youre implying a limitless supply of such wizards.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
It seems to me that you are again trying to refute mainstream science


I have never refuted mainstream physics here. Your dishonesty and ignorance is on display....

Let's start again; Your original objection to my post was to this statement....

"nothing is really traveling through space FTL when two entangled pairs show correlation upon measurement" - Noumenon

To which in irrelevant response you invoked your reference as follows....

"According to research by Prof. Juan Yin and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai, the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light." - Otto

Yet, I had clearly stated "THROUGH SPACE",... and did not reference the speed of wavefunction collapse. You're conflating the two because you don't understand the difference. Again, your own source states FTL -INFLUENCE,.. is impossible.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
....

The 3 different papers cited in my link provide confirmation that they do so ftl, and the fact that other scientists are trying to establish lower limits to this correlation speed means they agree.


The purpose of which is to REFUTE the notion that there is any communication,... information exchanged,... between the entangled pairs, accounting for the correlation found.

IOW, they are saying that that is the speed information-transfer would have to take place to account for the speed of wavefunction collapse,.... but since this is impossible 'through space' on account of SR,... they are in fact demonstrating non-locality.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
Well what do you mean by 'space' and why are you so sure we know everything there is to know about it?

And why do you not understand that classical info is different from entanglement dynamics?

And what is it about investigating 'the lower limit to the speed of entanglement' makes you think that the scientists are trying to prove some a priori notion that it doesn't exist?

The title of the article I referenced makes it clear that their experiments strengthen the idea that it does.

The scientists conducting these experiments are mainstream, and they use the word 'instantaneous'. You deny 'instantaneous', therefore you are refuting mainstream science.

These scientists are not trying to find the medium through which entanglement dynamics conducts itself - they have merely confirmed that the phenomenon exists.

Why are you oblivious to this?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
Bell did not dispute the simultaneity of entanglement dynamics. He said it occurs even when entangled particles are far enough apart that no local phenomena could account for it.

HE believed in instantaneous correlation. Why don't you?

And you attributed a quote to me which was actually copy/pasted from the referenced article. It is not MY conclusion that 'spooky action at a distance' happens at a speed faster than 10,000 C, but that of a mainstream scientist.

You made the statement that correlations are only knowable at speeds of C or less. This is not true. Equipment using synchronized clocks can record correlations the instant they happen, and scientists can communicate the results at C or less.

You seem to be saying that the correlation didn't actually happen until the scientists were able to compare the results... yes or what?

This is in keeping with your spooky science at a distance as conducted by your team of wizard mystics.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
Well what do you mean by 'space'

As defined by SR.
And why do you not understand that classical info is different from entanglement dynamics?

I'm the one who pointed that out to you.
'the lower limit to the speed of entanglement' makes you think that the scientists are trying to prove some a priori notion that it doesn't exist?

What?
You deny 'instantaneous', therefore you are refuting mainstream science.

In fact I stated the opposite, by excluding "through space".
These scientists are not trying to find the medium through which entanglement dynamics conducts itself - they have merely confirmed that the phenomenon exists.

They're ruling out "through space" and so demonstrating non-locality. I just told you this.
[Bell] said it occurs even when entangled particles are far enough apart that no local phenomena could account for it.

I'm the one who mentioned Bell inequalities. I know what Bell proved.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
they're ruling out 'through space'
Where did you get this? I saw nothing about the medium of propagation, only the search for the lower limits of speed.

Tell you what. I admit we got this 'through space' thing misconstrued.

Just state that you agree that waveform collapse, or entanglement dynamics as the scientists call it, happens instantaneously, no matter how or what the medium or mode of transport, and we'll call it a day.

Okay?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
HE believed in instantaneous correlation. Why don't you?

If I stated that FTL communication is ruled out and thus rules out "through space", this obviously implies that the "collapse of the wavefunction" occurs instantaneously. Stop with you baseless accusations.
You made the statement that correlations are only knowable at speeds of C or less. This is not true. Equipment using synchronized clocks can record correlations the instant they happen, and scientists can communicate the results at C or less.

Factually incorrect. The data is recorded instantaneously upon measurements, yes. However, each measurement appears RANDOM at each entangled particle observation. ONLY upon comparing recorded data via <=C communication can one know of any correlation greater than what would be the case classically.
You seem to be saying that the correlation didn't actually happen until the scientists were able to compare the results

NO, can only be known to have happened.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
Tell you what. I admit we got this 'through space' thing misconstrued.

Just state that you agree that waveform collapse, or entanglement dynamics as the scientists call it, happens instantaneously, no matter how or what the medium or mode of transport, and we'll call it a day.

Okay?


We can stop once you stop misrepresenting the discussion and making accusation style baseless charges. If you are not sure what I think or know than form a question.

- Actually, "WE" didn't get anything misconstrued,... YOU did. I made the distinction "through space" all along, to which you took exception, erroneously.

- I have never stated nor implied that "waveform collapse, or entanglement dynamics" does not occur instantaneously,... in fact I have probably a hundred posts at phys.org stating that it is not a physical entity to begin with, and so does not evolve in regular space (pointed out to inkosana above), that it is non-local.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
this obviously implies that the "collapse of the wavefunction" occurs instantaneously
No it doesnt. And the scientists who are looking for a finite speed seem to agree with this.
each measurement appears random
-So what? They're not, whether they are ever checked or not.

The data does not change when it's checked.

Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it? Of course it does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
in fact I have probably a hundred posts at phys.org stating that it is not a physical entity
-So why are scientists trying to constrain the speed of it?
so does not evolve in regular space
Well scientists don't know where it 'evolves' so how can you draw conclusions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
So you are apparently incapable of making a positive statement 'the waveform collapse propagates instantaneously per mainstream science.'

How come? Fear of committing yourself? Fear of ending an argument?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
they're ruling out 'through space'

Where did you get this? I saw nothing about the medium of propagation, only the search for the lower limits of speed.

They're assuming you understood the point of the experiment.

Because as I attempted to explain above,..."through space" is what is implied in SR by the natural speed limit of c,.... SR is de facto about dynamics "through-space"... ...so by experimentally placing a lower limit on the speed in which physical influence "would have to" occur to account for the correlation, 100,000 X c, they are in fact concluding that there could not be any such physical influence through space,.... that the phenomenon is NON-LOCAL,... which implies instantaneous.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
So you are apparently incapable of making a positive statement 'the waveform collapse propagates instantaneously per mainstream science.'

I already addressed this above. You didn't understand it. I have no reason to deny and every reason to accept an experiment that shows it to have occurred at minimum 100,000 x c.

It doesn't even matter which particle is measured "first",... and further that SR itself refutes absolute simultaneity in any case (had each measurement been in significantly different inertia reference frames).

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
in fact I have probably a hundred posts at phys.org stating that it is not a physical entity
-So why are scientists trying to constrain the speed of it?


Explained above more than once.

so [wavefunction time/space evolution via the Schrodinger equation] does not evolve in regular space
Well scientists don't know where it 'evolves' so how can you draw conclusions?

I'm not making a philosophical statement here, I referencing the mathematical space in which the superposed wavefunction evolves,... Hilbert Space. Each entangled particle or each particle described in the single wavefunction, gets it's own set of axis (basis) of possible observable values,... so that the "space" in which the wavefunction evolves is a tensor product space generally.

I was pointing out to inkosana that it can't be that the wavefunction is a physical wave in regular space,..... and clearly entanglement and "collapse of the wavefunction" supports this.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
this obviously implies that the "collapse of the wavefunction" occurs instantaneously
No it doesnt. And the scientists who are looking for a finite speed seem to agree with this.


Actually no, they're not trying to establish a "finite speed",... they're establishing a lower possible speed limit, ...a minimum possible speed,... i.e. It would have to occur AT LEAST 100,000 times faster than c.

Since SR disallows "through space" communication faster than c,... then it logically must occur instantaneously, at least wrt the meaning of that word as it references time and space,... i.e. non-local.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
So, Mark Thomas,... now that you have troll rated all my posts a 1, would you care to explain where and how they are all wrong? Or are you just upset at having been schooled, when you should be thanking me instead?
Mark Thomas
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
Noumenon wrote to TheGhostofOtto1923, "Yet, I had clearly stated "THROUGH SPACE",... and did not reference the speed of wavefunction collapse. You're conflating the two because you don't understand the difference. Again, your own source states FTL -INFLUENCE,.. is impossible."

This supports Mark's unsubstantiated intuitive hunch: Quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions. If the wave function collapse cannot be through four dimensional space time as you wrote, that suggests an alternative mechanism such as one or more additional dimensions or some other mechanism that needs to be understood, not just accepted blindly because of the predictive value of QM. This is not a purely mathematical exercise, something real is happening here that requires science, not blind acceptance. QED
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
You troll-rated several of my above posts because of your "unsubstantiated intuitive hunch" didn't coincide with my factual posts?
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
"So, Mark Thomas,... now that you have troll rated all my posts a 1, would you care to explain where and how they are all wrong? Or are you just upset at having been schooled, when you should be thanking me instead?

All too often you misread and a mischaracterize the points others are trying to make. Try to understand what the person is writing before responding and you will get a far better rating. The rating reflects your written responses, not your intelligence. Otto was making good points that should have been addressed, even if it ultimately turns out he is wrong. Ad hominem attacks, like the ones you posted about me and others are not going to be well received.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015

All too often you misread and a mischaracterize the points others are trying to make. Try to understand what the person is writing before responding and you will get a far better rating. The rating reflects your written responses, not your intelligence. Otto was making good points that should have been addressed, even if it ultimately turns out he is wrong. Ad hominem attacks, like the ones you posted about me and others are not going to be well received.


What "Ad hominem attacks" did I post about you?

What point did Otto make that was not in fact a misrepresentation of mine, as that is all he did above and is well known for.

Give me specific examples of my posts that were factually wrong. I asked you to explain where and how they are all wrong.
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
Noumenon, re-read all the posts in this thread from the other person's view point and you will have your answer. Is that how you speak with others? I hope not for your sake.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015
Noumenon, re-read all the posts in this thread from the other person's view point and you will have your answer. Is that how you speak with others? I hope not for your sake.


I read the posts in this thread. I'm wondering if you did.

I want YOU to justify your troll rating me 1's.

-Where did I attack you with ad hominems?

-What did I post that was factually wrong in response to Otto,.... whom was the one who was obviously insulting to me, as is patently clear from his very first post in response to me.

If you can't give me specific examples, or do not apologize then I will assume you are a troll.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2015
Re-read Otto's first several posts to me in this thread to see his unprovoked ad hominem's toward me. Then continue to re-read to see how he never put forward his "point of view" (in fact admitted as much),... but instead attempted and failed to use his google-knowledge to try to give the impression that I don't know what i'm talking about.

Did you buy into that fraud because your knowledge is even less than his google-knowledge? I will assume this and/or that you're a troll, unless you correct your mistake.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2015
Explained above more than once
-Explained wrongly. They arent trying to disprove it, theyre trying to constrain it.
I made the distinction "through space" all along, to which you took exception, erroneously
No, you were arguing with somebody who was proposing extra dimensions. You were positing 'through space' as a counter-argument, as if that were the only possible medium.

And then you declared that the waveform collapse was non-physical... an artifact of human cognate limitations... an illusion.

This declaration is indeed non. Its non-scientific.
Quantum mechanical entanglement and tunneling are both evidence of one or more extra dimensions
-or something else. We simply dont know yet.
Re-read Otto's first several posts to me in this thread to see his unprovoked ad hominem's toward me
-Oh not you. I hate all philos, religionists, and mystics equally. You all gum up the works with fantasy and pretense. You impede progress.

Have I not made this clear?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2015
BTW
Did you buy into that fraud because your knowledge is even less than his google-knowledge?
You imply that whatever can be found on google is unreliable.

This is factually incorrect.
So, Mark Thomas,... now that you have troll rated all my posts a 1
In my case you troll-rated me first. In my book it says 'wie du mir so ich dir'.

What does it matter? You always uprate yourself to compensate.
Mark Thomas
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
Otto, well stated IMHO.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Otto, As any honest person can see, original objection to my post was to this statement....

"nothing is really traveling through space FTL when two entangled pairs show correlation upon measurement" - Noumenon

To which in erroneous objection you invoked your google-knowledge as follows....

"According to research by Prof. Juan Yin and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai, the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light." - Otto

Your own source is not saying something travels through space at 10,000 times c. They're establishing the impossibility of that on account of SR.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
And then you declared that the waveform collapse was non-physical...

This declaration is indeed non. Its non-scientific.


Factually incorrect, the notion that the wavefunction is not a physical wave is standard mainstream physics, since the time of Born and Schrodinger.

an artifact of human cognate limitations... an illusion.

I never said anything about an illusion. More dishonesty.

I hate all philos, religionists, and mystics equally. You all gum up the works with fantasy and pretense. You impede progress.

I'm an atheist, and clearly know way more physics than you do, and i'm not so naive and childish to "hate" a entire valid branch of thought,... philosophy of physics, ...that all physicists engage in as a matter of practice in their field,... as that is what interpretations are. You maintain that "something" is traveling FTL,... sounds like philosophy to me.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
... and definitely not science as science rests on observability.

Did you buy into that fraud because your knowledge is even less than his google-knowledge?


You imply that whatever can be found on google is unreliable.

This is factually incorrect.

I never said any such thing. Another expected misrepresentation.

Reciting the ingredients of a souffle off the internet does not make you a chef. You didn't know enough QM to know that your google-knowledge was misused and misunderstood.

You always uprate yourself to compensate.

Of course, why should I allow incompetence obscure the value of my posts? Your ratings and Mark's ratings are now invalid. Mark failed to answer my questions to justify his 1-ratings of me, so he is corrupt and/or ignorant,... so probably knows you personally.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
They're establishing the impossibility of that on account of SR
?? What is it about

"the lower limit to the speed associated with entanglement dynamics – or "spooky action at a distance" – is at least 10,000 times faster than light"

-that you dont understand??
and i'm not so naive and childish to "hate" a entire valid branch of thought,... philosophy of physics
-And Ive given you many quotes from many leading scientists who feel the same way I do. Are you calling them childish as well? Bottom line is - they never consult you all when doing their work.

You physphilos are irrelevant.
that all physicists engage in as a matter of practice in their field
-Only because philos SAY they do, a pathetic attempt at legitimacy. Most any physicist will tell you that their work does not involve any classical philosophy whatsoever.

And no, the first scientists werent philos. They had discovered the scientific method which obsoleted classical philosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
Born and Schrodinger
"Quantum mysticism first appeared in Germany during the 1920s when some of the leading quantum physicists, such as Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg, leaned toward mystical interpretations of their theories."

And you forgot niels bohr
https://books.goo...;f=false
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
And then you declared that the waveform collapse was non-physical... This declaration is indeed non. Its non-scientific.


.... the notion that the wavefunction is not a physical wave is standard mainstream physics, since the time of Born and Schrodinger. - Noumenon


"Quantum mysticism first appeared in Germany during the 1920s when some of the leading quantum physicists, such as Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg, leaned toward mystical interpretations of their theories." -Otto


Again your google-knowledge has failed you. I was referring to Born's |Ψ|² probability interpretation of the wavefunction and Schrodinger's failed substantiation of a physical justification for the wavefunction. Standard QM in every textbook.

What is orders of magnitude worse than religionists and mystics wrt impeding scientific literacy here, is corrupt trolls and their google-pseudo-knowledge and deliberate and corrupt obfuscation.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
.... and the half-wits who are fooled by them, as is evidenced by the ratings.

Philosophy_of_physics, ... all physicists engage in as a matter of practice in their field, as that is what interpretations are.
Only because philos SAY they do, a pathetic attempt at legitimacy.

You don't know enough history to understand that 'philosophy of physics' is what interpretation of theory IS, and that it had great historical influence in scientific progress in terms of motivating the approach taken even to this day,... realist vs positivist.

I only reference physicists who engage in philosophy of physics,... not non-scientist "classical philosophers", nor, (if you even want to make an even easier point), the medieval scholastic philosophers.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2015
'philosophy of physics' is what interpretation of theory IS
Philos write their own history. And theyre the only ones who read it.
non-scientist "classical philosophers"
Kant was a non-scientist. a religiously-motivated obscurantist of the worst sort.

Re the term "classical philosophers", I was searching for something to differentiate between gentlemen in tweed jackets who make a living writing the stuff that nobody reads but their compatriots, vs the kind of 'personal philosophy' which you guys want to commandeer as part of your discipline.

When someone refers to their personal philosophy of life, they are certainly not referring to anything that contains terms such as epistemology, ontology, teleology, metaphysics, and etc.

They dont know the difference between realist vs positivist, and they dont care. And neither do most all scientists who never refer to these terms in the course of their work.

And its absurd for you guys to regard them as if they did.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
"something" is traveling FTL,... sounds like philosophy to me
Well thats easy to explain - everything sounds like philo to you.

Note the paucity of formal philo terms. Note the lack of speculation.

"[Dan] Dennett self-identifies with a few terms: "[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."

Funny how a new school comes along every gen or so which says essentially the same things about previous schools. And then someone chooses to resurrect an old school and call it 'neo'.

And all the time none of you ever gets anywhere... not counting when you tag along behind the scientists who DO.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?

I provided a list of prominent physicists several times who write on 'philosophy of physics', to which you respond by disparating them rather than admitting it is relevant. And yes, every educated physicist knows the difference between a Realist and a Positivist. This rules out you.

Of course this is a stupid pointless debate, one you steer the "discussion" to because you don't know enough physics, mathematics, nor philosophy of either , to substantiate anything more than accusationary style trolling.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?
I hear they all suffer from erectile dysfunction.
I provided a list of prominent physicists several times who write on 'philosophy of physics', to which you respond by disparating them
I didnt disparage them I discredited them.
And yes, every educated physicist knows the difference between a Realist and a Positivist
Well some probably do. Its just that the understanding has nothing to do with their work.
because you don't know enough physics, mathematics, nor philosophy of either
I dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.

This is how science works, nicht wahr?
substantiate anything more than accusationary style trolling

https://www.youtu...WBcPVPMo
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
And yes, every educated physicist knows the difference between a Realist and a Positivist

Well some probably do. Its just that the understanding has nothing to do with their work.

Right, because as we all know, a Positivist is just as likely to put forward a Realist hypothesis, NOT.

I provided a list of prominent physicists several times who write on 'philosophy of physics', to which you respond by disparating them

I didnt disparage them I discredited them.

You're deranged if you think you're even qualified to discredit their cat,... Roger Penrose, Hermann Weyl, Heisenberg, d'Espagnat, Wigner, Hawking, Mach, Schrodinger, N. Bohr, Pais, von Neumann, ....

because you don't know enough physics, mathematics, nor philosophy of either

I dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.

And you promptly misuse that google-knowledge as demonstrated above.

Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2015
@Otto
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?
I hear they all suffer from erectile dysfunction.
I provided a list of prominent physicists several times who write on 'philosophy of physics', to which you respond by disparating them
I didnt disparage them I discredited them.
And yes, every educated physicist knows the difference between a Realist and a Positivist
Well some probably do. Its just that the understanding has nothing to do with their work.
because you don't know enough physics, mathematics, nor philosophy of either
I dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.

This is how science works, nicht wahr?
substantiate anything more than accusationary style trolling

https://www.youtu...WBcPVPMo

So, you "dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.".
Have you ever considered actually thinking for yourself?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?

I hear they all suffer from erectile dysfunction

Oh, so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Since the present article is about entanglement, I will state categorically that Einstein's Realist bent motivated him to produce his EPR paper in an attempt to show the incompleteness of QM. Further, that Heisenberg and Schrodinger each took a different mathematical approach to QM based on their respective Positivist and Realist philosophical outlooks, despite their mathematical equivalence ,... subsequently being argued in favour of Heisenberg by Bohr, Pauli, Jordan, von Neumann, among others,... while Einstein never accepting QM's completeness, despite the accumulating evidence. Just one examples of how philosophy of physics, especially epistemology as Einstein acknowledged , as I have defined it, not as you wish to,... is relevant in physics and anyone wishing to know what it all means.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2015
So, you "dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.".
Have you ever considered actually thinking for yourself?
Uh huh. So when scientists rely on experimental results and data collected by other scientists, you would ask them why didnt they do that work themselves?

And when they use formulae devised and refined by earlier scientists as the basis for further experiments, you would ask them why they didnt do that work themselves?

And when you need your transmission rebuilt, you would rather take it apart yourself rather than get an expert to do it for you?

We routinely build on the work done by others.

Im not an expert and dont pretend to be. I rely on those who are for knoowledge and informed opinions.

Why dont you try real hard and think of an intelligent question all by yourself?
so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently
Oh grow up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2015
You're deranged if you think you're even qualified to discredit their cat,...
Listen, retard, you know full well that I discredited them by referencing experts who had already DONE so.

You argue like a religionist. Another clue.

"... almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead... Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics... Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge... [new theories] lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it"

-Theories which philos are not capable of devising, critiquing, or even understanding.

The excerpts above are recent quotes by a mature and wise stephen hawking. If they disagree with those you are fond of using it is because he has obviously changed his opinions over the years.

So did einstein.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
I'm interested in 'philosophy of physics' as expressed by physicists and related philosophy of knowledge,.... I'm not interested in classical philosophy by non-physicists for which Hawking was referring. I'm also interested in physics and it's mathematical and historical development. You?

For example, I agree with Hawking here....

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of Time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others" - Stephen Hawking

"This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works." - Stephen Hawking

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
You're deranged if you think you're even qualified to discredit [Roger Penrose, Hermann Weyl, Heisenberg, d'Espagnat, Wigner, Hawking, Mach, Schrodinger, N. Bohr, Pais, von Neumann]


..you know full well that I discredited them by referencing experts who had already DONE so.


LOL, so your experts discredited my experts? Do you not know the names on that list,... they are world renowned physicists who have written on philosophy of physics. I could list many more.

Logically, I only need to reference one such physicist to refute your infantile notion that philosophy-of-physics has no place in science, particularly modern physics. You refuse to understand that interpretations of QM are in fact philosophy of physics.

Hawking's above acceptance of an epistemological philosophy of positivism by Popper and others, motivates his point of departure.

Einstein likewise recognizes the importance of epistemology wrt science.

Adults talk about philosophy.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
Again, for posterity,.....

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of Time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others" - Stephen Hawking

Here we see your own reference, S. Hawking, referencing, and I quote, "PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE" directly as the basis for "ANY SOUND SCIENTIFIC THEORY". This is what motivates his approach to hypothesis. Fundamentally important.

And this is precisely the same reason for me mentioning Immanuel Kant and epistemology here,... to REFUTE Realism and metaphysically tainted motivated science.

There is zero basis for claiming that he has changed this opinion.

QED
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
[edit]
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
@Otto
So, you "dont need to. I rely on the opinions of experts in various fields who DO.".
Have you ever considered actually thinking for yourself?
Uh huh. So when scientists rely on experimental results and data collected by other scientists, you would ask them why didnt they do that work themselves?
We routinely build on the work done by others. etc.

Im not an expert and dont pretend to be. I rely on those who are for knoowledge and informed opinions.

so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently
Oh grow up.

Oh dear, you are mixing two different quotes....
I think the difference between you and me is that you seem to accept what you are told without question (at least, that is what you infer if the source is an "eminent" scientist). Me, I only accept it after consideration, and then, sometimes, I reject it as demonstrable piffle. Would you like me to quote a few examples of "eminent" scientists talking piffle...?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
All too often you misread and a mischaracterize the points others are trying to make. Try to understand ...
@ Mark Thomas
Nice try, but you will ultimately fail (sorry) - but i agree with you

Noumenon isn't here for any science (especially not evidence driven science)

Nou is here for the argument, regardless of the topic, hence his quotes like
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?
please note that he is a philo... so anyone who doesn't agree that philo's are important are beneath him, hence the condescension, denigration as well as circular nonsense non-evidenciary arguments

he can't comprehend that subjective arguments are not evidenciary, nor are they quantifiable

when you're itching for a fight, any fight will do, and any side will suffice for a philo without evidence
sides don't matter as much as the argument itself
(and the perception of a "win")

like a troll, but with a better vocabulary
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2015
@inkosana, the space in which the wavefunction describing two or more entangled particles evoles, must be taken as a tensor product space [mathematical as opposed to 'physical'],..... so can not be said to evolve in regular 3D space such that the wavefunction can be said to be a physical thing.


There is a simple experiment: After the first spin-measurement which finds correlation, do a second spin measurement along a different direction and see if there is still a correlation. I do not think there will be since the actual entangled wave that stre6tches over 1.3 km has now collapsed. If you are correct the second measurement must also give correlation.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
@inkosana, after the first measurement, that finds correlation, the single wavefunction no longer describes both particles. If the wavefunction is a physical wave, how is that reconciled with failure of Bell inequalities to hold?

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
@Stumpy, You are not objective nor honest, and unlikely even read this thread.

- Mark claimed that I made Ad hominem attacks toward him. Where? I actually tried to help him, to which he repaid me with 1's. Stumpy, show me where I did this to him prior to this charge. Show me the "evidence".

- Mark claimed "Otto was making good points that should have been addressed, even if it ultimately turns out he is wrong.". Yet I did address them by showing objectively that he misunderstood the point of his own reference and that it did not apple to my post in any case.

-Mark claimed "Ad hominem attacks,[...] are not going to be well received.",... yet GhostOfOtto1923's first several posts were Ad hominem attacks toward me. He ignores this fact as do you, thus is not honest.

-Mark claims "All too often you misread and a mischaracterize the points others",... yet this is precisely what GhostOfOtto1923 has done above to which I enumerated just some examples above.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
he can't comprehend that subjective arguments are not evidenciary


Your entire post contains only subjective arguments and ad hominem's toward my character and knowledge. Yet, an objective reading of this thread, demonstrates that I bring actual substantive and standard physics into discussions at phys.org.

What do you do? You simply ask for "evidence" and "PR studies" of cranks,..and never tell them WHY they're wrong.

Why don't you ask Mark for evidence for his "extra dimension",.or Otto for evidence that "something travels" FTL between two entangled particles?

when you're itching for a fight, any fight will do.


What is the point of your post here,..clearly to instigate a fight. You're an expert an extending the length of threads with cranks, all with zero substance. Your "critiquing" of ones form of argument is simply a means for you to avoid the actual substance being discusses, and earns you easy 5's by the neophytes you're only qualified to impress.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
Yet, an objective reading of this thread, demonstrates that I bring actual substantive and standard physics into discussions at phys.org
@Nou
substantive and standard physics... is that why you said
Your philosophy professor raped you didn't he?
that is neither
1- when challenged, especially about your subjective philosophical arguments, you lash out (see above for proof) - this suggest: https://www.psych...ttle-ego

2- if you were bringing "substantive and standard physics" argument; why ask if someone was raped by their Philo prof because they don't believe philo is required of PHYSICS?

As long as physicist continue to ask ONE simple question (WHY?) then there will never be a need for "philo speculations or interpretations"
What is the point of your post here
1- Because i do NOT like your philo subjectivity screwing up a discussion that requires evidence

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
@nou cont'd
2- b/c you still can't comprehend the difference between OPINION (subjective argument) vs EVIDENCE
http://www.auburn...ion.html

PROTIP- think of an argument like a target, and you are the gun
if you continue to load OPINION, it's like loading blanks into the gun... you'll never hit anything.. . just make a lot of noise and likely irritate folk
load EVIDENCE, it's like loading bullets... you might be off target with the evidence or spot on

but no matter how hard you try, you will still never hit the target with blanks... even when you find other blanks (opinion) to help shore up your own opinion
no matter how many OPINIONS you find to match yours, it doesn't make it FACT
it only shows people believe like you do
NOT FACT... just OPINION

because they're NOT EVIDENCE

get it yet?
just because someone else believes in opinion (or philo) doesn't make it EVIDENCE
or real
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
@nou last
clearly to instigate a fight
NO... i have been trying to make this point to you for a long, long time... but you can only see your own biased perspective

is there a need for philo? yes... but NOT, and i repeat NOT, in an evidenciary based argument (science)
Philo is applicable in a courtroom for speculation... it can work
it can be great for belief and self awareness
it can even be helpful in the softer sciences-psychiatry, sociology...

BUT IT IS NOT EVIDENCE

in the past few threads, i've pointed that out till i was blue in the face
this is one of the first things that i learned in college Philo class as well... and considering you claim to have an education, i would have thought it was taught to you as well

so why do you continue to ignore the FACTS?

it doesn't matter how many people share your opinion if it is an opinion
this is no better demonstrated than religious fanatics and philosophers

GET IT YET?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
one last thing for all the cranks... not just nou
I actually tried to help him, to which he repaid me with 1's
SO WHAT?
so he doesn't like you... i am not a mod. if i were a mod, i would require him to substantiate his argument, but i would never say "you can't vote your own way"
i might even ask WHY he voted... but i would never tell him how to vote
Why don't you ask Mark [or Otto] for evidence
because YOU brought the argument to me, and tried to use it as a model for your evidenciary based scientific argument

but yet, the absolute first comment i read was
Oh, so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently
that is exactly the first thing i saw when the page stopped loading

how would YOU have reacted had the tables been turned, mr philo-boy, or any other crackpot?
had I been the poster who put that up there yall would be all over it...

so don't whine because you got outed as a crackpot
suck it up, princesses

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Your claim that I don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion is simply an idiotic ad hominem insult, that you repeat ad nausea. Who doesn't understand that difference?

Mark gave his opinion that entanglement is evidence of an extra dimension. I asked specifically how that would work in terms of defining a space-time distance mathematically. He then explained one of the dimensions would be curved. I then responded that an extra dimension is not required and he would need a metric instead.

Where did I post ad hominem attacks to Mark? Where did I misrepresent another posts here? Are you going to answer these questions?

I sometimes give my opinion here, and sometimes state facts of standard physics. Are you the thought-police? You're not qualified.

Here's another question;

What specifically I'm I posting here that is my opinion as opposed to fact? Are you capable of specifics as opposed to vague ad hominem accusations?

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
I'm not interested in debating the worthiness of philosophy in general because that is idiotic in the extreme,... nor is your vague and vacuous accusations of evidence vs opinion, substantive.

Even the most prominent physicists have opinions, and form hypothesis, that have varying degrees of supporting evidence, or none at all. This does not mean that such discussions are not scientific nor valid. My boy, the entire history is full of such hypothesis.

However, most of my posts in this thread were plainly factual mainstream physics. So, Give me an example, with context and quote, of me making a statement that you object to here. State why you object to it substantively,... not just that "it's my opinion and not evidence" because that is vacuous.... but rather substantively, that is, pertaining to the actual point being made.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015


Oh, so they couldn't rape you, and that's what angers you, apparently


that is exactly the first thing i saw when the page stopped loading


That was a joke to Otto, and was at the end of the discussion. Why not read the beginning of the discussion, instead.

Where did I post ad hominem attacks to Mark? Where did I misrepresent another posts here? Are you going to answer these questions?

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
Your claim...I don't understand ... insult
@nou
no, it is evidence based: i shall prove it
you gave opinion as evidence
They were opinions from climatologists who read the Karl study
I pointed out
you didn't link the source
as well as told you opinion isn't evidence (see above also)
you stated
the above questioning has to do with the validity of the analysis of evidence, ... certainly not raw evidence, which if existed he wouldn't have been able to move the furniture around
i asked for proof/evidence of this, which you then supplied (guess what) OPINION
I also said
if you are gonna quote evidence, you should also link or quote the source
which you never did
you never linked PROOF of wrongdoing, only accusation

conclusion: you ASSume opinion is equivalent to empirical evidence, and that historical evidence isn't relevant in an ongoing investigation
ALL proven here: http://phys.org/n...eet.html
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
@nou cont'd
Where did I post ad hominem attacks to Mark? Where did I misrepresent another posts here? Are you going to answer these questions?
NOPE
it's not relevant to the point i am trying to drive home to you
also: it isn't relevant to the point i posted to Mark, which is what caused you to froth at the mouth
However, most of my posts in this thread were plainly factual mainstream physics
and again... this is the red herring

we're not discussing the factual parts... we're discussing your philo double-speak and typical opinion based argument
why?
because THAT was my point to mark, and you said i was WRONG about that
except that i proved myself, time and again, WRT to this specific topic

not with my words, mind you
but your's NOU...
YOUR WORDS

the whole reason you are mad is because i am right
well... and this
https://www.psych...ttle-ego
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Why don't you ask Mark... for evidence


because YOU brought the argument to me, and tried to use it as a model for your evidenciary based scientific argument


Factually incorrect.

You entered this thread only to instigate a jerry-springer fight. You appear to be referring to another thread in which bshott made a post that you failed to retort with substance or relevancy....

The point I made there was that because of your vacuous style of argument, you failed to address his post that there are in fact no observable photon's between two magnets that account for the force experienced.

While you were wasting time posting your SUBJECTIVE OPINION of his state of knowledge, you failed to know his statement was actually true,.... i.e.. you failed to understand the difference between substantive discussion and ad hominem accusations that one 'doesn't know the difference between evidence and subjective opinion',...

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
They were opinions from climatologists who read the Karl study


That was a difference thread already hashed out to long, You made a statement about my form-of-argument in THIS thread. I asked you for an example.

However, most of my posts in this thread were plainly factual mainstream physics


we're not discussing the factual parts... we're discussing your philo double-speak and typical opinion based argument


Of course, you don't want to discuss the factual parts, because that interferes with your claim that I don't know the difference between opinion and evidence based fact !!

Your ill informed opinion of my philosophical based interpretations (aligned with Hawking's above) is itself your subjective opinion, without even the courtesy of actual substance, and presumes a-priori that I don't have valid basis for those opinions.

You've demonstrated that you're not qualified to be the thought-police, and I am entitled to state my opinion.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
NOU
Why don't you ask Mark... for evidence
ME
because YOU brought the argument to me, and tried to use it as a model for your evidenciary based scientific argument
NOU
Factually incorrect
sigh - you specifically brought me to this thread with the following
... but even less so by simply posting links with no supporting effort of articulation. The only way of determining that is by direct engagement, not shooting link-arrows and proxy-quotes. HERE, is an example of such a failed google-attack on me, and how useless that is in the wrong hands
"HERE" is linked to the following:
http://phys.org/n...nce.html

we were arguing evidence & validation vs regurgitation and unsubstantiated or false claims
it is all in the thread (carried over from here:http://phys.org/n...eet.html and many other arguments)

therefore factually correct
you just didn't like my assessment of you to mark
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
That was a difference thread already hashed out to long
still not resolved... because you carry on the same tactics in at least THREE separate threads
here, this one ( http://phys.org/n...ity.html ) and the above
You made a statement about my form-of-argument in THIS thread. I asked you for an example.
and i gave you said example
I also linked your historical examples, which validate my argument and prove that you don't care about evidence or facts, only about your personal biased perceptions and the argument

i think there is plenty of evidence for that in these three threads alone to prove that... and this also substantiates my assessment of you to Mark above
you don't want to discuss the factual parts, because that interferes with your claim that I don't know the difference between opinion and evidence based fact
Uhmmm.... except i proved you don't know the difference above

redundant... you are circling the drain
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Yes sorry, I lost track of the cross-threading.

Please read this carefully,...

For now on, if you have an actual counter-argument,... that is,.. a specific substantive objection that you are able to articulate yourself without proxy, to an opinion or fact that I post,... then I may entertain it if I think it may lead to a discussion.

However, if your only point is to object to the form-of-argument, whether you a-priori presume it to be opinion, philosophical, or factual,.... and instead level ad hominem accusations about my state of understanding wrt opinion or evidence,... you will be called out and subsequently ignored.

Your claim that I "don't care about evidence or facts" is what a trolling idiot would say. I in fact care so much about facts and evidence that I study the mathematical foundation of modern theories and epistemology to determine what valid knowledge even IS. What do you do but avoid such relevant discussions with your ad hominems and link chaff?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Yes sorry, I lost track
understood. accepted
For now on, if you have an actual counter-argument blah blah blah blah...you will be called out and subsequently ignored
lets get a few things straight:
1- i don't care what YOU think at all

2- if you are going to argue "a specific substantive" argument, with evidence, then i typically don't reply to you at all

3- your "state of understanding wrt opinion or evidence" is fatally flawed, and i proved that
if i can learn, so can you

4- i don't care that you don't like my posts; they ARE important to some folk
B/C
5- as long as you continue to post philo-drivel, then i will continue to point out the failure of your subjective argument, because... and this is important:

too many people (especially here) have problems differentiating evidence from non-factual claims (bs, eJim, alchie, cantdrive, etc)

if anyone is going to learn facts, they must first be able to recognize evidence
period
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2015
your experts discredited my experts?,... they are world renowned physicists who have written on philosophy of physics. I could list many more
... many of whom have been declared mystics by more than one critic. I could list many more such critics.
Logically, I only need to reference one such physicist to refute your infantile notion that philosophy-of-physics has no place in science, particularly modern physics
Really? You could list one selectively deranged physicist who wears a wizard robe and waves a wand during his off-hours.

You need a consensus plus some kind of evidence which proves that your ersatz sciphi has aided in designing an experiment or formulating a theory.
You refuse to understand that interpretations of QM are in fact philosophy of physics
ONLY ACCORDING TO YOU PHILOS. The scientists who do the interpreting and experimenting by and large dont consult with you wizards and dont care what you have to say.

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.