A Universe from Nothing?

[`mud]

Hey Poly,
What happens if your 'split' coin lands on either of it edges,
even before it is split ?
I guess it depends on the 'angle', or phase, before observing.
So....it depends on the reality of 'real' particles compared to 'waves'.
I don't really know, but it's quite arguable, isn't it ?

 

[godnotgod]

Not the entanglement, but the wave function. The wave function is what gives the probabilities of possible measurements. When an observation is made, it 'collapses' to a single value.

I put scare quotes on this because the collapse itself is a problematic concept. Think of it like This: split a coin so that there is a 'heads' part and a 'tails' part. Don't look at which is which and send one part off to observer A and the other part to observer B. Nothing quantum is going on here. There is a 50-50 probability on each side of detecting a 'head'. if A detects a 'head', then B will detect a 'tail' with 100% confidence. The 'probability' collapsed upon observation. No 'signal' was sent and nothing *physical* changed, though.

So Einstein was deluded into thinking that something 'strange' was going on, when all the while, QM is perfectly 'explainable' in the most rational of terms.

I don't think so.

The true nature of Reality is far, far more compelling than the sterile reductionist 'explanations' that materialist science is feeding us.

"Oh, consciousness is nothing more than the emergent phenomena of so many complex elctro-chemical reactions", and a human being is "nothing more than a meat-sack", as the atheists would have it.

 

[godnotgod]

Here are a couple leads for those hammering me for information re: replicated studies of the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum set of brain nonlocality experiments:

Sabell A, Clarke C, Fenwick P. Inter-Subject E.E.G. correlations
at a distance—the transferred potential. Proceedings of the 44th
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. New York,
NY: Parapsychological Association; 2001: 419–422.

Standish L, Kozak L, Johnson LC, Richards T. Electroencepha-
lographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between
the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects.
J Altern Complement Med.. 2004;10(2):307–314.

Standish L, Johnson LC, Richards T, Kozak L. Evidence of
correlated functional MRI signals between distant human
brains. Altern Ther Health Med. 2003;9:122–128.

Wackerman J, Seiter C, Keibel H, Walach H. Correlations be
tween brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human
subjects. Neurosci Letters. 2003;336:60–64.

Standish L, Kozak L, Johnson LC, Richards T. Electroencepha-
lographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between
the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects.
J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10(2):307–314.

Nonlocal Mind_ A (Fairly) Brief History of the Term - Explore: The ... - MAFIADOC.COM

 

[Jimmy]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

for me a beginning would need and ending of that which i dont ever see coming

 

[Polymath257]

So Einstein was deluded into thinking that something 'strange' was going on, when all the while, QM is perfectly 'explainable' in the most rational of terms.

I don't think so.

The true nature of Reality is far, far more compelling than the sterile reductionist 'explanations' that materialist science is feeding us.

"Oh, consciousness is nothing more than the emergent phenomena of so many complex elctro-chemical reactions", and a human being is "nothing more than a meat-sack", as the atheists would have it.

Einstein didn't like the randomness of QM. He didn't like that the predictions are probabilistic and not deterministic. Ultimately, he believed there was a hidden-variable description underlying QM.

And ultimately, Einstein was wrong about this. Bell's inequalities weren't found until after Einstein died and the thought experiments in the EPR paradox weren't made into *real* experiments until much later. When they were, the results showed that Einstein't intuitions didn't correspond to reality.

 

[Polymath257]

You are saying that the influence starts earlier, with the correlation in states going from the point at which the particles became entangled, so it remains local?

I guess I'm just flummoxed at how one can still call QM a "local theory". Many theorists seem to bluntly refer to "quantum nonlocality" and "non local correlations" - implying (or stating up front) that local realism is dead, whereas for you only realism is dead but localism is salvaged?

The probability waves propagate in a local fashion.. Correlations are produced when the entanglement is formed and are preserved under the propagation of probabilities. That is a local thing.

In fact, in QFT, one of the necessary axioms is that *new* correlations don't happen outside of a light cone.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet you would contest this assertion of "nonlocality"? Are we to assume that Professor Steinberg and Zeilinger whom he awarded the Bell Prize, are both in error when contending that the "nonlocal nature of quantum entanglement" is now beyond reasonable doubt? Professor Zeilinger has claimed: "Recent experiments have perfectly verified the fact that quantum correlations between two entangled particles are stronger than any classical, local pre-quantum worldview allows. Thus, it appears that on the level of measurements of properties of members of an entangled ensemble, quantum physics is oblivious to space and time."

At least part of the problem here is definitional. The term 'non-local' has a couple of different connotations and they clash in this setting.

The authors of your article use a definition that is, in essence, 'violates Bell's inequalities'. And their experiments did show that Bell's inequalities are violated and wrapped up the last (rather meager) objections to previous experiments showing they are violated. In *that* sense, the results show non-locality.

But there is a different sense: that the wave functions themselves propagate in a local fashion. So, the correlations are NOT produced when the observations are done, but rather when the entangled particles are formed. THAT is what QM claims and that is what was verified by those experiments.

Violation of Bell's inequalities shows that no local (no effects go faster than light), realist theory can be consistent with QM (or now with reality). But QM is NOT a realist theory! Particles do NOT have definite properties between measurements in QM. And it is this non-realism, and not the non-locality (in the technical sense Bell used) that exists in QM and allows the inequalities to be violated.

In the entangled particles of the experiment, the state of the particles before measurement is |+->+|-+>. That state is formed at the creation of the particles and is preserved until the measurement. After the measurement the state is either |+-> or |-+>. There is no faster than light influence here. Just propagation of the state to both sides.

 

[Vouthon]

The probability waves propagate in a local fashion.. Correlations are produced when the entanglement is formed and are preserved under the propagation of probabilities. That is a local thing.

In fact, in QFT, one of the necessary axioms is that *new* correlations don't happen outside of a light cone.

But "locality" has a very different meaning in QFT from QM, does it not? If possible, I would ask that we stick to QM (so that my head doesn't implode lol!). I'm trying to figure out if we are actually at cross-purposes or simply using completely distinctive definitions of what constitutes "locality" and "nonlocality".

If I can firstly give my definition: my understanding of the terms "locality" and "nonlocality" are defined squarely in the context of the EPR controversy. Realism would imply that each particle has its own attributes that it carries around with it, and locality would seem to require some form of exchange of communication to respond to the attributes of other particles.

Within this framework, "locality" refers to action at one point having an influence at another point mediated by something in the space between the points, such as a field. Courtesy of Einstein's GR, we know that this projected "influence" cannot exceed the cosmic speed barrier (speed of light). This is the "no-signalling" condition: no energy or whatever can propagate from one point to another faster than light.

When a quantum system is entangled, measurement of one particle in the pair at a single point in space instantaneously collapses the state of its twin at a another distant point in space. As such, this violates locality because they are very distantly spacelike separated and we know from experimental evidence that no signal has passed between them in space time.

John Bell analysed 'local hidden variable models' and proved that correlations consistent with them satisfy "Bell inequalities" which are violated by predictions of QM. His revolutionary discovery was that not everything in physics can be explained using only local variables. Violating a Bell inequality therefore shows that an experiment is truly quantum in nature and there are no “local hidden variables” at play.

Some eminent physicists have consequently concluded that Nature is somehow non local and that it is acting according to a "law" of nonlocal randomness in which perfectly random but intensely correlated events are produced at the same time in distant locations, such that local/causal explanations of their occurrence fail.

That is why Nicolas Gisin, a Swiss quantum physicist and professor at the University of Geneva (who was the first person to receive the Bell Prize and pioneered quantum cryptography and has also extended the tests of quantum entanglement and nonlocality (the EPR experiment) to many kilometers from his lab in Geneva) has stated in relation to this:

Quantum physics, which offers an explanation of the world on the smallest scale, has fundamental implications that pose a serious challenge to ordinary logic. Particularly counterintuitive is the notion of entanglement, which has been explored for the past 30 years and posits an ubiquitous randomness capable of manifesting itself simultaneously in more than one place.

This amazing 'non-locality' is more than just an abstract curiosity or paradox: it has entirely down-to-earth applications in cryptography.

There is no story in space and time to account for nonlocality. This is of course because the collapse of probabilities is instantaneous (not therefore "in time?") and happens everywhere (surely "in all space?").

We have seen that any proper violation of a Bell inequality implies that all possible future theories have to predict nonlocal correlations. In this sense it is Nature that is nonlocal. But how can that be? How does Nature perform the trick?

Leaving aside some technical loopholes, like a combination of detection and locality loopholes, the obvious answer, already suggested by John Bell, is that there is some hidden communication going on behind the scene. A first meaning of "behind the scene" could be "beyond today's physics", in particular beyond the speed limit set by relativity. We have seen how this interesting idea can be experimentally tested and how difficult it is to combine this idea with no-signaling. Hence, it is time to take seriously the idea that Nature is able to produce nonlocal correlations.

​

How can one refer to an "ubiquitous randomness" which manifests itself "simultaneously in more than one place" as being local? It is apparently oblivious to space and time.

It is the synchronized randomness of the properties of the post-measurement, space-separated particles that prevents me from grasping how it can still be local.

To my untrained eyes, it does not appear that Professor Gisin is merely employing a different definition. His position seems to conflict with the one you have outlined, or am I just missing the fine print?

If he does conflict, then there seems to be a difference of opinion between theorists on this?

 

[Vouthon]

At least part of the problem here is definitional. The term 'non-local' has a couple of different connotations and they clash in this setting.

The authors of your article use a definition that is, in essence, 'violates Bell's inequalities'. And their experiments did show that Bell's inequalities are violated and wrapped up the last (rather meager) objections to previous experiments showing they are violated. In *that* sense, the results show non-locality.

Yes, because it excludes any local hidden variable. On this, we agree.

But there is a different sense: that the wave functions themselves propagate in a local fashion. So, the correlations are NOT produced when the observations are done, but rather when the entangled particles are formed. THAT is what QM claims and that is what was verified by those experiments.

Compare with this statement by Professor Gisin, in an article published a few months ago:

There is no story in space and time to account for nonlocality. This is of course because the collapse of probabilities is instantaneous (not therefore "in time?") and happens everywhere (surely "in all space?").

Back in 1935 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen realized that two quantum particles can be in a state such that a measurement on one particle instantaneously affects the other – no matter how far apart they may be. This effect, more commonly referred to today as entanglement, upset the trio because such “spooky action at a distance” would require information to travel faster than the speed of light.

We now know than entanglement emerges thanks to correlations between measurements made on the two particles, and that entangled particles have much stronger correlations than are allowed in classical physics. But it was Bell’s breakthrough in 1964 that laid the groundwork for this phenomenon​

I think that Gisin is a proponent of the idea that non-locality is generic: (almost) all pure quantum states generate non-locality.

Violation of Bell's inequalities shows that no local (no effects go faster than light), realist theory can be consistent with QM (or now with reality). But QM is NOT a realist theory! Particles do NOT have definite properties between measurements in QM.

Agreed.

And it is this non-realism, and not the non-locality (in the technical sense Bell used) that exists in QM and allows the inequalities to be violated.

In the entangled particles of the experiment, the state of the particles before measurement is |+->+|-+>. That state is formed at the creation of the particles and is preserved until the measurement. After the measurement the state is either |+-> or |-+>. There is no faster than light influence here. Just propagation of the state to both sides.

Thanks, I need to think more about this when time permits!

 

[godnotgod]

There is no faster than light influence here. Just propagation of the state to both sides.

As I understand it, at least according to field theory, all particles result from excitations of their surrounding fields. Isn't the field instrumental in what is going on in entanglement and the collapse of the wave function, and which would explain the idea of a 'faster than light' condition, essentially being that of a hologram?

Is there a scientific sense with which you are using the word 'propagation', because in the ordinary sense, it means 'to spread'. IOW, it is an action. So after measurement, some action has spread, or been propagated to both sides. IOW, there has been a change from one state to another, and not just a revealing of what is already present.

 

[godnotgod]

Einstein didn't like the randomness of QM. He didn't like that the predictions are probabilistic and not deterministic. Ultimately, he believed there was a hidden-variable description underlying QM.

And ultimately, Einstein was wrong about this. Bell's inequalities weren't found until after Einstein died and the thought experiments in the EPR paradox weren't made into *real* experiments until much later. When they were, the results showed that Einstein't intuitions didn't correspond to reality.

So what, exactly, was he referring to by saying 'spooky ACTION at a distance'? Was this assessment a mistake on his part, or one on the part of the Quantum physicists conducting the experiments?

 

[godnotgod]

for me a beginning would need and ending of that which i dont ever see coming

Beginning and ending are always Now, Past and Future being only concepts created by the mind.

 

[Jimmy]

Beginning and ending are always Now, Past and Future being only concepts created by the mind.

well im talking in terms of life as we know it

 

[Polymath257]

But "locality" has a very different meaning in QFT from QM, does it not? If possible, I would ask that we stick to QM (so that my head doesn't implode lol!). I'm trying to figure out if we are actually at cross-purposes or simply using completely distinctive definitions of what constitutes "locality" and "nonlocality".

If I can firstly give my definition: my understanding of the terms "locality" and "nonlocality" are defined squarely in the context of the EPR controversy. Realism would imply that each particle has its own attributes that it carries around with it, and locality would seem to require some form of exchange of communication to respond to the attributes of other particles.

Yes. And QM is NOT a realist theory.

Within this framework, "locality" refers to action at one point having an influence at another point mediated by something in the space between the points, such as a field. Courtesy of Einstein's GR, we know that this projected "influence" cannot exceed the cosmic speed barrier (speed of light). This is the "no-signalling" condition: no energy or whatever can propagate from one point to another faster than light.

Correct.

When a quantum system is entangled, measurement of one particle in the pair at a single point in space instantaneously collapses the state of its twin at a another distant point in space. As such, this violates locality because they are very distantly spacelike separated and we know from experimental evidence that no signal has passed between them in space time.

This is where I disagree. The two ends are correlated. That everyone agrees to. What it means to say a wave function 'collapses' is a very different matter. For example, if Alice and Bob are on opposite sides of the experiment and Alice measures her photon to be 'spin up', and Bob measures his photon, it will measure 'spin down'. But nothing actually went between the two sides. And, even more, the correlation won't be visible to either Alice or Bob *until* they bring their measurements together to compare them.

After Alice's measurement, Bob can go on using the same, old, non-collapsed wave function *and get correct predictions for his probabilities*. From anything Bob can do, the wave function looks to him to be non-collapsed. He

Both sides look completely random. No test that stays on either side will be able to detect anything other than complete randomness. ONLY if the measurements are compared will the correlation be visible.

John Bell analysed 'local hidden variable models' and proved that correlations consistent with them satisfy "Bell inequalities" which are violated by predictions of QM. His revolutionary discovery was that not everything in physics can be explained using only local variables. Violating a Bell inequality therefore shows that an experiment is truly quantum in nature and there are no “local hidden variables” at play.

Let's be clear. The violation of Bell's inequalities means there can be no *realist* local hidden variables.

Some eminent physicists have consequently concluded that Nature is somehow non local and that it is acting according to a "law" of nonlocal randomness in which perfectly random but intensely correlated events are produced at the same time in distant locations, such that local/causal explanations of their occurrence fail.

Yes, QM is NOT a 'causal' theory. it is inherently a probabilistic theory. So we *expect* causal explanations to fail. Well, the probabilities are caused, but not the specific results of measurements.

How can one refer to an "ubiquitous randomness" which manifests itself "simultaneously in more than one place" as being local? It is apparently oblivious to space and time.

OK, what happens in this experiment? A pair of photons is produced at some central location so that they are entangled. What does that mean? it means that the *subsequent* results of observations will be correlated. That correlation is preserved until measurements are done. It moves along with the particles from that central location to the two ends, where the photons are observed. The correlation moves from the central location out to the ends, *not from end to end*. And it moves at less than the speed of light.

It is the synchronized randomness of the properties of the post-measurement, space-separated particles that prevents me from grasping how it can still be local.

Because the particles are 'synchronized' when they are formed. That synchronization moves along with the particles until they are measured.

I think part of the problem is thinking of the probability wave function as being something physical, rather than a description of what an observer can know. The 'collapse' is an increase in information on one side or the other. But the *other* side does not change in information at that point. The results will look *identical* on the other side whether or not Bob computes with a collapsed wave function.

 

[Polymath257]

As I understand it, at least according to field theory, all particles result from excitations of their surrounding fields. Isn't the field instrumental in what is going on in entanglement and the collapse of the wave function, and which would explain the idea of a 'faster than light' condition, essentially being that of a hologram?

Is there a scientific sense with which you are using the word 'propagation', because in the ordinary sense, it means 'to spread'. IOW, it is an action. So after measurement, some action has spread, or been propagated to both sides. IOW, there has been a change from one state to another, and not just a revealing of what is already present.

The problem is that the propagation is NOT after the measurement: it is *before* the measurement. The correlation is produced when the particles are created and propagated with the particles out to the ends where they are measured.

 

[Polymath257]

So what, exactly, was he referring to by saying 'spooky ACTION at a distance'? Was this assessment a mistake on his part, or one on the part of the Quantum physicists conducting the experiments?

If you attempt to understand the results of these experiments while assuming that particles have definite properties at all times, then it *looks* like there is a 'spooky action' connecting distant entangled pairs.

But, and this is crucial, QM does NOT give particles definite properties at all times. Instead, it assigns *probabilities* to various properties.

If, for example, a particle is in a mixed state (and all entangled particles will be, by definition of entanglement), then properties like spin, or energy, or momentum, or position will NOT have definite values.

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is that the propagation is NOT after the measurement: it is *before* the measurement. The correlation is produced when the particles are created and propagated with the particles out to the ends where they are measured.

Here is what you previously said:

"In the entangled particles of the experiment, the state of the particles before measurement is |+->+|-+>. That state is formed at the creation of the particles and is preserved until the measurement. After the measurement the state is either |+-> or |-+>. There is no faster than light influence here. Just propagation of the state to both sides."

This looks like you are saying the propagation occurs AFTER the measurement, unless I am reading this incorrectly.

 

[godnotgod]

If you attempt to understand the results of these experiments while assuming that particles have definite properties at all times, then it *looks* like there is a 'spooky action' connecting distant entangled pairs.

But, and this is crucial, QM does NOT give particles definite properties at all times. Instead, it assigns *probabilities* to various properties.

If, for example, a particle is in a mixed state (and all entangled particles will be, by definition of entanglement), then properties like spin, or energy, or momentum, or position will NOT have definite values.

...until measured, right?

 

[Polymath257]

...until measured, right?

Yes, but only with the property measured. Other properties will still be random.

So, if you measure spin along the x-axis, the spin along the y-axis will still be random. If you then measure along the y-axis, the x-axis gets randomized.

 

[Father]

A sentient Being from nothing is just as absurd if you apply Human Logic. the issue is, we lack the probable understanding to comprehend either. however, if a Sentient being can come from nothing why not a universe? was there ever truly nothing? does anything need a beginning? I make my stance based on my logic and rationale. but it does not make the assumption any less strange. but most assume time as a line. or a ball of twine. I see time as something else. time. Eternity. to me is a Ring. it has no end or start. it loops back around and changes with flow.

so whether its nothing into everything or everything has always been for nothing. it all holds some logic some rationale even if outside our sight. its the fun of trying to figure it out that makes Life worth living.

God: “You’ve been unhappy because you’ve desired things that cannot be.”
Lucifer: “That’s what desire is. The need for what we can’t have. The need for what is readily available is called greed.”

And the Knowledge of some things we cant have. cant understand. but I shall try and learn it anyway. and if I must pay an eye to do so, il make myself an eyepatch.