Entanglement is an inevitable feature of reality

September 1, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

(Phys.org)—Is entanglement really necessary for describing the physical world, or is it possible to have some post-quantum theory without entanglement?

In a new study, physicists have mathematically proved that any that has a classical limit—meaning that it can describe our observations of the by recovering classical theory under certain conditions—must contain entanglement. So despite the fact that entanglement goes against classical intuition, entanglement must be an inevitable feature of not only quantum theory but also any non-classical theory, even those that are yet to be developed.

The physicists, Jonathan G. Richens at Imperial College London and University College London, John H. Selby at Imperial College London and the University of Oxford, and Sabri W. Al-Safi at Nottingham Trent University, have published a paper establishing entanglement as a necessary feature of any non-classical theory in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

"Quantum theory has many strange features compared to classical theory," Richens told Phys.org. "Traditionally we study how the classical world emerges from the quantum, but we set out to reverse this reasoning to see how the classical world shapes the quantum. In doing so we show that one of its strangest features, entanglement, is totally unsurprising. This hints that much of the apparent strangeness of quantum theory is an inevitable consequence of going beyond classical theory, or perhaps even a consequence of our inability to leave classical theory behind."

Although the full proof is very detailed, the main idea behind it is simply that any theory that describes reality must behave like classical theory in some limit. This requirement seems pretty obvious, but as the physicists show, it imparts strong constraints on the structure of any non-classical theory.

Quantum theory fulfills this requirement of having a classical limit through the process of decoherence. When a quantum system interacts with the outside environment, the system loses its quantum coherence and everything that makes it quantum. So the system becomes classical and behaves as expected by classical theory.

Here, the physicists show that any non-classical theory that recovers classical theory must contain entangled states. To prove this, they assume the opposite: that such a theory does not have entanglement. Then they show that, without entanglement, any theory that recovers classical theory must be classical theory itself—a contradiction of the original hypothesis that the theory in question is non-classical. This result implies that the assumption that such a theory does not have entanglement is false, which means that any theory of this kind must have .

This result may be just the beginning of many other related discoveries, since it opens up the possibility that other physical features of quantum theory can be reproduced simply by requiring that the theory has a classical limit. The physicists anticipate that features such as information causality, bit symmetry, and macroscopic locality may all be shown to arise from this single requirement. The results also provide a clearer idea of what any future non-classical, post-quantum theory must look like.

"My future goals would be to see if Bell non-locality can likewise be derived from the existence of a classical limit," Richens said. "It would be interesting if all theories superseding classical theory must violate local realism. I am also working to see if certain extensions of (such as higher order interference) can be ruled out by the existence of a , or if this limit imparts useful constraints on these 'post-quantum theories.'"

Explore further: Envisioning a future quantum internet

More information: Jonathan G. Richens, John H. Selby, and Sabri W. Al-Safi. "Entanglement is Necessary for Emergent Classicality in All Physical Theories." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.080503

Related Stories

Envisioning a future quantum internet

May 4, 2017

The quantum internet, which connects particles linked together by the principle of quantum entanglement, is like the early days of the classical internet – no one can yet imagine what uses it could have, according to Professor ...

Drawing a line between quantum and classical world

July 21, 2015

Quantum theory is one of the great achievements of 20th century science, yet physicists have struggled to find a clear boundary between our everyday world and what Albert Einstein called the "spooky" features of the quantum ...

Mapping the edge of reality

April 28, 2017

Australian and German researchers have collaborated to develop a genetic algorithm to confirm the rejection of classical notions of causality.

What is quantum in quantum thermodynamics?

October 12, 2015

(Phys.org)—A lot of attention has been given to the differences between the quantum and classical worlds. For example, quantum entanglement, superposition, and teleportation are purely quantum phenomena with no classical ...

Recommended for you

Unusual sound waves discovered in quantum liquids

July 20, 2018

Ordinary sound waves—small oscillations of density—can propagate through all fluids, causing the molecules in the fluid to compress at regular intervals. Now physicists have theoretically shown that in one-dimensional ...

A phonon laser operating at an exceptional point

July 20, 2018

The basic quanta of light (photon) and sound (phonon) are bosonic particles that largely obey similar rules and are in general very good analogs of one another. Physicists have explored this analogy in recent experimental ...

A physics treasure hidden in a wallpaper pattern

July 20, 2018

An international team of scientists has discovered a new, exotic form of insulating material with a metallic surface that could enable more efficient electronics or even quantum computing. The researchers developed a new ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rogerdallas
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2017
I always thought that classical features emerged as the result of statistics-- large ensembles of particles whose properties can only be measured in the aggregate tend toward a "central limit", as in samplings from a population of variables with finite variance. And in that case, a system only appears classical because information is lost, blurred into an average value. But these authors seem to be assuming that the classical limit represents some "real" feature of reality, rather than a crude approximation, or merely a statistical property of aggregate matter. I'm not sure what to make of this approach.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
We are pretty much stuck with Entanglement until we have a new theory of space and dimensions and causality.
Wave/particle duality is effectively a particle entangled with itself. (from two slits to one point)
Until we can bin the Copenhagen interpretation and explain how a particle can be distributed and then instantly point-like; we cant lose the weird quantum consequences.

Until we can access the Planck scale where the dimensions and strings hang out we may be stuck with quantum statistics. Even if we had a better theory we couldn't test it except via statistics.
JongDan
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
Until we can bin the Copenhagen interpretation and explain how a particle can be distributed and then instantly point-like; we cant lose the weird quantum consequences.

Bohmian mechanics, and it doesn't get rid of any quantum consequences that you want to get rid of.
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2017
Until we can access the Planck scale where the dimensions and strings hang out we may be stuck with quantum statistics. Even if we had a better theory we couldn't test it except via statistics.


https://arxiv.org...9002.pdf and https://arxiv.org...4064.pdf
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2017
Until we can bin the Copenhagen interpretation and explain how a particle can be distributed and then instantly point-like; we cant lose the weird quantum consequences.

Bohmian mechanics, and it doesn't get rid of any quantum consequences that you want to get rid of.


Given that the core ontology of the scientific method is observation/measurement, who or what observes or can ever observe the pilot wave of all of existence?
KBK
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
The universe necessarily becomes a logic and thought experiment, and dat line, dat line.....about it all being a sea of interactive information..that's it's all electrons, or that it is about intelligence and matter is a farcical circular analysis, or any given particle is a nil - a dimensional pairing schism...thus infinite energy at light speed is explained, etc

..that line comes back full force..and is possibly the only observation point that allows a 'person' (3d self labeled mass aggregate) to ponder realization outside of th given matrix it is ensconced within.

The reality and necessity of philosophy as the father of all the sciences comes back full force...due to objectivity and scientism/dogma finding it's head up it's ultimately twisted back on itself mobius ass. In engineering terms, scientism finds itself hoisted by it's own ass (tied to the origins of the word engineer, which were originally dark age urine stirring bomb makers who blew themselves up)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2017
Wait, QM is not a theory! Only you may except the nonsense as well as the possible; however, you cannot define the world with the nonsense, i.e. an Axiomatic Theory! It is Not!
Hyperfuzzy
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2017
I see everything as a sea of charge, i.e. its field; from its center to infinity, within any volume, continuos, conserved, always was, always will be. What is time? Take a snapshot, an instant, the field every where, each wrinkle a part of its source, undisturbed, unless other charges! You may take the entire field and a charge away, ... i.e superposition, simulation, volume, proximity, naturally, .. w/o, with controls ..

QM? Like playing with blocks, not reality!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2017
Entanglement? LOL, always, in a crowd, what are you trying to measure?
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
I recon the clues are all there we just need another Dirac or Feynman to make the maths work.

What is it about 'space' that can be manipulated or strained to form a single charge (mass attracts mass of General Relativity); two charges (+/- electric of QED); or three charges (RGB of QCD) but no known four charge force?
What is 'spin'? Why does it behave like some kind of Mobius strip (720 degree rotation) in space?

Why don't photons exhibit Fourier sidebands even when extremely compressed in time?

All these and other questions for a genius near you?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
We've already seen this in the fluctuation theorem (FT): we recover classical thermodynamics, specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT), which is not time-reversal symmetric, from fully time-reversally symmetric nonclassical quantum mechanics (QM), and in fact one of the explicit postulates required by the FT to recover the time-reversal asymmetric 2LOT is that QM be time-reversal symmetric.

With these new results from the paper discussed in this article in hand, it's my expectation that the researchers' investigations will indeed indicate that recovering classical mechanics from a non-classical quantum theory requires that the quantum theory violate the Bell Inequality. This will be interesting to watch.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
@roger, the question they're asking is *why* the aggregates result in classical mechanics that lack the features of the underlying nonclassical theories, and they are finding that these features are *required* in any underlying theory in order to get classical mechanics that lack these features. This is distinctly counter-intuitive. It's not turtles all the way down; when you go below a certain limit, suddenly you stop finding turtles and start finding rabbits, and in fact they have to be rabbits for there to be turtles farther up.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
@sirdump, those were excellent papers. Your question of @Jong was also well thought. Thanks for both those posts which got 5s from me. I'll be reading those papers for quite a while.

I have a pet conjecture regarding interpretations of QM, strongly influenced by the FT: all interpretations of QM must necessarily violate our intuitive concepts in order to correctly describe quantum reality. This is bolstered by the current article and its underlying paper's conclusion that these counter-intuitive concepts are necessary to derive the intuitive ones we are used to. Feel free to argue either way. I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2017
I recon the clues are all there we just need another Dirac or Feynman to make the maths work.
You may be right, @Eye.

What is it about 'space' that can be manipulated or strained to form a single charge (mass attracts mass of General Relativity); two charges (+/- electric of QED); or three charges (RGB of QCD) but no known four charge force?
This is a deep question, and the answer appears to be, the dimensionality of our spacetime. We require 3+1 dimensions for gravity, another dimension for EM, two more for the weak force, and three for QCD. Are there more? Not that we see. Experiment seems to show that there are no more, so far. I wouldn't put them in the order you do; U(1) is EM, SU(2) is weak (and it's actually U(1) + SU(2) for electroweak in current formulations), SU(3) is color (AKA "strong"), and no one has found a group theory for the 3+1 of gravity (this would be a quantum gravity theory which we have not yet discovered).
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
[contd]
Given that the SU(3) theory of the color force seems to be confined, it's possible that higher order group theories describe higher dimensions and more complex forces, and that these are even more confined than the color force, and possibly weaker than gravity, and therefore undetectable. But that's not even a conjecture; it's a rank speculation.

What is 'spin'? Why does it behave like some kind of Mobius strip (720 degree rotation) in space?
This is not such a good question. First of all, this is only the laws of spin and statistics for fermions; it's not true of bosons. Second, this is fully described and explained by those same laws of spin and statistics. You should make sure you understand them; the probability amplitude is the distinguishing factor here.

Why don't photons exhibit Fourier sidebands even when extremely compressed in time?
Because they are bosons. See laws of spin and statistics.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2017
Err, @Dingbat, why I won't talk to you: that is, in fact, string theory. It assumes Kaluza-Klein is correct, for starters.

Maybe if you knew something more than the buzzwords I might pay more attention. Or if, after all your posturing as an expert, you actually turned out to know anything about what you're posting all those buzzwords about. But you keep posting stuff like this and it makes it obvious you're attempting to participate in a conversation you aren't qualified to say anything about.

So, how much do they pay you to post here? Just askin'.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Sep 01, 2017
sirdumpalot:

Given that the core ontology of the scientific method is observation/measurement, who or what observes or can ever observe the pilot wave of all of existence?

Bulk-5 electrons, but which existence?
A lone ambiguous black hole's event horizon, (thus features are trivial)
Tachyon condensates
Weyl and toy universe models, but once again which existence.
Maybe we can read enough Maxwell Demon minds and put them together into a Laplace's one.
Machine learning for a Heisenberg Compensator and complementary properties of quantum clones.
If this is wrong, it is still happily existential.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2017
@Dingbat, no you're not going to get away with posting an article that contains the quote:

This isn't good news for string theorists, but it doesn't invalidate string theory either. The original idea for this experiment was always a bit of a long shot, more an attempt to come up with something - anything - that could be used to test aspects of string theory using today's technology.
"...but it doesn't invalidate string theory either." Your false claim: "...the observation of extradimensions has been excluded by collider research..." Nothing's been excluded. This is an outright lie about the contents of the very article you linked.

Welcome to reality, comrade.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
Hahaha, here comes the cadre with a bit of string math in order to prove how much @Dingbat knows.

Waiting's over, @Dingbat. You're a committee, comrade.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Parsec
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2017
This result brings to mind an old adage. The universe is as complicated as it needs to be, and no more. In this context I read this as meaning that if it was possible to construct a universe without the complications of entanglement, that is probably the way it would be constructed. One question that did arise however from the comments is a the question of how many posters do a lot of serious drugs. Many of the comments seem so far over the line into cractpotism they imply a deeply disturbed mental condition.
Dingbone
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2017
Pitiful; @Dingbat couldn't even get a cadre who knows enough string theory to talk about it here.

Sorry, comrade, you blew it. Whatever you were here to make political posts about, that's blown too, comrade. Sorry, PLA 61398, you're done here.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@Dingbat couldn't even get a cadre who knows enough string theory to talk about it here.
Maybe no-one wants to talk of a FACOOL IT with your OBVIOUS mischaracterizations of @Dingbone's comments and your GRATUITOUS insults based on your own 'version' of what is being actually said! Are you 'hitting the bottle' again, or is your EGO getting the better of your intellect/manners again today? So LISTEN, LEARN, DS; instead of KNEEJERKING again (bad habit; not broken yet despite YOU not being actually up to date or fully comprehending of what YOU allude to in your own SPECULATIVE prognostications which mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the REALITY science scheme of things being developed as we speak.

At least @Dingbone is being RELEVANT pointing out flaws/alternatives; while all YOU do is post PERSONAL insults to him.

@Dingbone's WATER (underwater/surface waves/solitonic features etc) DIMENSIONAL perspectives are VALID; as EINSTEIN HIMSELF used similar analogies! OK?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
...fluctuation theorem (FT): we recover classical thermodynamics, specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT), ...
That's already understood/treated via CHAOS THEORY techniques/principles. No need to p[retend you have 'discovered' a deeper connection, DS. Besides, FT is a MATHS abstraction in STATISTICS construct; while CHAOS THEORY actually addresses the actual entities and probabilities for SELF-ORGANIZATION (reversal of entropy) and FURTHER entropic and aggregative INTERACTIONs between self-organized 'features' and 'waves/solitons etc which range up/down the potentially stable states/scales DEPENDING on inherent spatio-temporal persistence/evolutionary possibilities and BPU*NDARY conditions/limitations.

So, DS, please stop insulting others while YOU are just as lost in confused speculations due to confused CONFLATION of "REALITY PHYSICAL DIMENSION" and "ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL DIMENSION" (especially CONFLATED BADLY in MATHS-based HYPOTHESES).

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2017
@Dingbone.
The extradimensions manifest itself ...The effects of underwater (i.e. additional dimension)...
I will now risk letting some of my Reality-based ToE Insight 'cats' out of the bag, just for you. :)

ONLY THREE REAL DIMENSIONAL 'contexts' for real phenomena:

- 'passive' REAL SPACE in balance but always subject to CHAOS effects;

- 'active' ENERGY-space which arises from CHAOS phenomena imbalances in previously 'passive' space context; and

- 'emergent' VACUUM consisting of emergent RANGE of 'sub-quantum/higher aggregation' activity/entities manifesting observable physical effectiveness/interactions etc.

AL OTHER DIMENSIONS 'context' (as currently used/alluded to by MATHS 'theories' like String/QM/SR/GR etc) are ALL ANALYTICAL 'abstractions contructs' thus having NO DIRECT EFFECTIVENESS meaning in real DYNAMICAL phenomenological MOTIONS/DIRECTIONS in ALL THREE above REAL 'contexts'.

Your perspective comes closest, but not quite 'there' yet, @Dingbone. :)
Phonic
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2017
The air is thick with phanstasies
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2017
sirdumpalot:

Given that the core ontology of the scientific method is observation/measurement, who or what observes or can ever observe the pilot wave of all of existence?

Bulk-5 electrons, but which existence?
...
If this is wrong, it is still happily existential.


I'm not sure how the above examples relate. Those may be considered physically beyond observations (and hence still verifiable, with some level of tech), but a QM observer observing All QM system is a logical fallacy (unless reflexive observation makes sense, and 'X=X' - the tautology - has always been a 0 information observation). De-Broglie Bohm simply can't be extrapolated from observing (n-1) QM objects to observing n QM objects. Without the observation, you lose the science.
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2017
That string theory is currently unfalsifiable and unverifiable is not great, but happens within science.. For me the problem is the one extra dimension of strings: it's a tweak, it has no basis in hypothesis or observation and it poses new issues: Why only 1D for objects? The way I see physical reality is 'if it's possible to do a thing to x, you can do it to nx', so where are the 2D planes, 3D objects 4D...nD objects? If objects are only ever strings of one dimension though, then that one dimension adds a level of concreteness that both special and general relativity (no absolute time, no absolute space) will likely be uncomfortable with. If the properties of that one dimension are observer dependent - how is it not just a convoluted QM, if not - how is it science?
Jayarava
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2017
In which case, everything is an emergent property.
Jayarava
not rated yet Sep 02, 2017
In his book The Big Picture Sean Carroll observes that:

"It's not possible to specify the state of a system by listing the state of its subsystems individually. We have to look at the system as a whole, because different parts of the system can be entangled with one another." (2016: 100)
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thingumbobesquire
not rated yet Sep 02, 2017
A further corollary of this theory would be that since from the retrodictive classical standpoint quantum non local entanglement necessarily infers irrationality, all non classical theories must be irrational. (Like belief in Einsteinian spooks for example.) Therefore these eminent theorists are as nuts as the day is long, QED, nincompoopis. See Jonathan Swift'S tale of Laputa for an almost clairvoyant summary of the situation.
J Doug
1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2017
Phys.org, on September 1, 2017, comes up with this paper, "Entanglement is an inevitable feature of reality" It does very little to explain just why they even bothered with the report on it.
"The physicists anticipate that features such as information causality, bit symmetry, and macroscopic locality may all be shown to arise from this single requirement. The results also provide a clearer idea of what any future non-classical, post-quantum theory must look like."
I had read this several years ago and while I sure don't fully understand the concept of why and how Quantum Entanglement matters, this paper and how it was reported did a better job that this current piece from Phys.org.
"Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds Usually a finicky phenomenon limited to tiny, ultracold objects, entanglement has now been achieved for macroscopic diamonds at room temperature" December 1, 2011
J Doug
1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2017
#2 Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon by which two or more objects share an unseen link bridging the space between them—a hypothetical pair of entangled dice, for instance, would always land on matching numbers, even if they were rolled in different places simultaneously."
https://www.scien...glement/

Since Phys.org. spends so much time trying to convince readers that CO₂ is an evil devil in the sky that must be feared and if possible eliminated from the earth due to all the imagined consequences of its very existence, such as hurricanes, hemorrhoids and heat waves. Because Phys.org has such a struggle trying to connect the dots regarding CO₂ where, since they can find no proof of what they are asking people to believe, they must approach this subject of Quantum Entanglement with the same approach that makes whatever they say that they believe to be basically beyond most folk's ability to comprehend.

Ojorf
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2017
...so where are the 2D planes, 3D objects 4D...nD objects?


Might higher dimensional objects not just be too heavy to exist, except under unbelievably extreme conditions?
I'm just speculating, but the largest conceivable particle accelerator might be many orders of magnitude away from reaching the energies to reveal a 2D or 3D "particle".

The universe as it is now might just not contain any?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2017
the cow at meadows see it simple, whereas we can see it more complex
Of course. This is why cows cannot collapse the wave function.

They can only stomp it into the ground and drop a large pile on it.
Shootist
1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2017
I recon the clues are all there we just need another Dirac or Feynman to make the maths work.


Dyson made the maths work. Feynman had the vision.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2017
And shootist shot the potty miss (as usual), what happened to your antigoracle and waterprophet sock ?
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2017
"@Dingbat, no you're not going to get away with posting an article that contains the quote..."

Dinggnat, jdung and his riot of puppets got entagngled into another round of circle jerk, the night is still young and we're going to have some more fun :D
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2017
"@Dingbat, no you're not going to get away with posting an article that contains the quote..."

Dinggnat, jdung and his riot of puppets got entagngled into another round of circle jerk, the night is still young and we're going to have some more fun :D

Very appropiate
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2017
Asking why! When a pair of gloves are placed in a box; if the right is taken, the other is left. So a pair of gloves are entangled; but only some of the time, So classical theory does not explain this and QM does?
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
For time to pass, we must move thru' chaos observing the laws of physics on a macroscopic scale. Hence, in our experience, all macroscopic things must be classical but microscopically quantum.
rogerdallas
5 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2017
All of a sudden I am reminded that the classical atom could never be stable: in the classical regime the orbiting electrons would radiate away their energy and spiral into the nucleus. It took quantization and the Bohr orbitals to save the atom.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2017
That string theory is currently unfalsifiable and unverifiable is not great
It's actually not unfalsifiable; it's just that we don't have enough cosmic ray data, and we can't build accelerators big enough to get it now. "Unfalsifiable" doesn't mean "unfalsifiable in practice;" it means "unfalsifiable in principle," and string physics is certainly not that. As far as verifiability, string physics makes many predictions, and you should review Regge theory to see some of them. For example Regge theory predicted that the hadrons were not fundamental particles-- in 1960. Long before quarks became mainstream.

For me the problem is the one extra dimension of strings: it's a tweak
Actually, it's not really an "extra dimension." It's an extension of physics from point particles to multidimensional particles. We now have mathematical theories, incorrectly called "string theory," which work with 2D and higher order "branes."
[contd]
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2017
This article is such pure unadulterated psycho-babble that I think Schneibo must be the author.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2017
[contd]
It's important not to confuse this with the addition of realistic extra dimensions via Kaluza-Klein theory and the further extensions of it that also include the flavor and color forces. "Strings" are the generalization to multidimensional *particles* from the specific point particle theories of the SM in which all particles are considered to be 1D. The dimensionality of the particle representations is separate from the dimensionality of the spacetime in which they act. And I use the word "act" in its full physics meaning relating to the physics term "action."

Why only 1D for objects?
It's not only 1D. See branes.

The rest of your arguments are based on this thesis which is shown incorrect. What do you think now?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2017
The various physical mathematical theories that have emerged from the original so-called "string theory" will take generations to analyze. This was predictable; Einstein himself shuddered away from the original proposal by Theodor Kaluza showing that the very equations Einstein had proposed for gravity not only emerged from a 5D spacetime but proved the derivation of the Maxwell equations, naturally from the spacetime just as GRT had emerged from 4D spacetime. It took Oskar Klein to show how the universe could have 5D spacetime and we not be able to directly detect it.

When Regge theory emerged it was stonewalled by physics theorists for years. It was not until Gell-Mann and Nishijima developed the eightfold way that these academics began to accept it, and they have not admitted that string physics was essential to the development of the SM to date. Even physics theorists can be clannish and deny reality; the difference is, only so long, then they get caught.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
@sirdumpalot:" De-Broglie Bohm simply can't be extrapolated from observing (n-1) QM objects to observing n QM objects. Without the observation, you lose the science. "
Exactly, but you buy the relational theory. Who says it has identity as such? It is a problem of dicotomy. If EPR=ER and entanglement is both the early universe not decoupling from its white hole like nature, and the partitioning of spacetime fading as black holes decay, we might just find a twice over impossible empty, self referential as recombinatorial anthropic tables for electrons. A pressureless pressure that cools, from naught but self interaction more apt and compact. Timelike. If that doesn't would why not near missing highly improbable positive and negative pressure in an unapt configuration space over forever. Spacelike.
So space as a resource to cool a lack of hotness or time as a resource to configure space.
mrlewish
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
All of a sudden I am reminded that the classical atom could never be stable: in the classical regime the orbiting electrons would radiate away their energy and spiral into the nucleus. It took quantization and the Bohr orbitals to save the atom.


I myself think that minimal orbit of Bohr's thingy is a bit off. Or at least a bit is missing, as to why. I think that the electron radial wave function is related to time as in the electron occupies all the volume for its given energy as a wave in a given length of time. I think it would be somehow related to planck time. What the relationship is, is beyond me.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
Bohr didn't have the math to discuss the shapes of the orbitals. We didn't find out how that worked until much later.
NoStrings
not rated yet Sep 04, 2017
Entanglement is so much everywhere, and everything is so entangled, that it is impossible to untangle. No saying what is entangled to what and why, because everything is entangled.
If someone can show how this theological argument influences the standard model, it would be worth something. It doesn't.
One more of Lisa's favorite zen nonsense one hand claps. Ommmm... My wave funktion collapsed.
Parsec
not rated yet Sep 04, 2017
AmritSorli
not rated yet Sep 04, 2017
In space is always ans only NOW. Space is the direct infornation medium of entanglement.
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Sep 04, 2017
@Da Schneib

Even physics theorists can be clannish and deny reality; the difference is, only so long, then they get caught.

"Only so long" can be an awfully long time.......
Dingbone
Sep 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sirdumpalot
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
@sirdumpalot:" Exactly, but you buy the relational theory. Who says it has identity as such?


A relational ontology and epistemology fixes many things - no Zeno paradoxes because permanent entities are not evident. You don't have to get your head around an endless cause and effect, because with no concrete entities or properties, you don't have to ask 'what was the first cause', works well with a local flat spacetime, works well with conservation laws, works well with the fact that no 'thing' has ever been observed to last for ever (even protons and black holes). Anatta is a neat solution to most all philosophical problems, there is no longer any notion of determinism for any notion of a whole.

Newton had absolute Time, absolute Space, absolute Property and absolute Object. Relativity has worked for the first two, why not the last two?
sirdumpalot
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Copenhagen is not De-Broglie, which is the Tawheed of QM interpretations. But Copenhagen does allow for a measure of Essentialism, that is to say observer independence, as a property of a measured quanta is a fixed property to all observers until some next observation, even if that property were only observed by one observer - everyone else gets observation-free info.

So long as observer independence is allowed and observer independent inferences are followed, you will end up with problems and paradoxes. Maybe the choice is that observer independent theories provide more consistency but less completeness, whilst observer dependent theories offer something complete but inconsistent! In fact, is anyone still searching for something complete and consistent in the science world?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2017
Entanglement is so much everywhere, and everything is so entangled, that it is impossible to untangle. No saying what is entangled to what and why, because everything is entangled.
If someone can show how this theological argument influences the standard model, it would be worth something.

Not really. Science is about getting knowledge and information.
Information is only existent in a state if there is an alternative to a state.
(E.g. if there was no "0" bit state then all bit states on your computer would be "1" and you could not store any information - because everything you store would look like everything else and you could never tell the difference)

If you just say "everything has property X" then you're not adding information.
(That's the main scientific problem religion has, BTW. They say "everything is god" - which by the above means that the concept of 'god' is utterly meaningless.)
sirdumpalot
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
...so where are the 2D planes, 3D objects 4D...nD objects?


Might higher dimensional objects not just be too heavy to exist, except under unbelievably extreme conditions?
I'm just speculating, but the largest conceivable particle accelerator might be many orders of magnitude away from reaching the energies to reveal a 2D or 3D "particle".

The universe as it is now might just not contain any?


I do like that for further gedankenexperiments - just add more patches to fix the boat rather than getting a new one, but then verifiability escapes even further! :)
Dingbone
Sep 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
The problem is the simplistic idea. None caussal science, Like an equation with two unknowns witout initial conditions!
CCCCUBED
not rated yet Sep 06, 2017
Entanglement is the key to faster than light communication. We will use this in the future to communicate faster than light. This is also why SETI has not picked up many radio broadcasts if any from other worlds. They use entanglement communication.
Of course, the creator would enable us to not only travel faster than light but also to communicate faster than light. These features were part of the intelligent design of this reality.

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.