String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[viole]

From http://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interact physically. A laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal can cause individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons.

The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more.

When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance.

Well, it does not. There is no transfer of state, since the only state that has some information is the composite state, that says that, at any time, any observation will result in observing the particles in opposite states.

As my classical example illustrates. Did the observation of Alice influenced the state of Bob's ball instantaneously? [yes/no]


Ciao

- viole

P.S. Are you confident with the concept of density matrixes in QM?

 

[First Baseman]

I once found a watch in the Mojave Desert. I immediately assumed that it must have been formed randomly over millions of years.

You actually have a better chance of finding a watch assembled randomly than you do a living cell somehow coming about randomly.

Explosions create things all the time. For example, Hiroshima...

 

[McBell]

I once found a watch in the Mojave Desert. I immediately assumed that it must have been formed randomly over millions of years.

You actually have a better chance of finding a watch assembled randomly than you do a living cell somehow coming about randomly.

Explosions create things all the time. For example, Hiroshima...

It is sad that you so often refer to math claims that you refuse to show the math for.

 

[First Baseman]

It is sad that you so often refer to math claims that you refuse to show the math for.

You need math?

 

[McBell]

You need math?

I do when you make outrageous math claims.

So, are you going to show your math?
Hell, are you going to show any math at all?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I once found a watch in the Mojave Desert. I immediately assumed that it must have been formed randomly over millions of years.

You actually have a better chance of finding a watch assembled randomly than you do a living cell somehow coming about randomly.

Explosions create things all the time. For example, Hiroshima...

If you believe everything was created then how do you distinguish the watch from the rest of the environment? Unless you know the rest of the environment wasn't created and thus is distinguishable from the creation?

Also evolution, abiogenesis, planetary formation et all isn't a random, chaotic process but structured and ordered based on relationships between objects. Which is why any such argument's from design false analogies are fallacious. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
This is a strawman too, because creationists build their probability based on modern cells (which came about through millions of years of evolution) rather than the very simple Ur cells and lipid bilayer encased simple self-replicators which actually came about through abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

 

[First Baseman]

I do when you make outrageous math claims.

So, are you going to show your math?
Hell, are you going to show any math at all?

I don't need any math. It's common sense. If you want to do the math, go for it. I couldn't care less.

 

[First Baseman]

If you believe everything was created then how do you distinguish the watch from the rest of the environment? Unless you know the rest of the environment wasn't created and thus is distinguishable from the creation?

Also evolution, abiogenesis, planetary formation et all isn't a random, chaotic process but structured and ordered based on relationships between objects. Which is why any such argument's from design false analogies are fallacious. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
This is a strawman too, because creationists build their probability based on modern cells (which came about through millions of years of evolution) rather than the very simple Ur cells and lipid bilayer encased simple self-replicators which actually came about through abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

Without a creator you have randomness. You certainly cannot prove that the universe started out in an orderly manner without a creator. Heck, you can't explain where anything came from without a creator or how it came about.

Abiogenesis is an interesting, yet unintelligent concept. Which theory of abiogenesis do you buy into?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Without a creator you have randomness.

Nope. Without a creator physics still works in such a way because things which exist have relationships with other things that exist based on their properties. Those properties are describable and predictable, even when we don't have all the values. No creator necessary.

You certainly cannot prove that the universe started out in an orderly manner without a creator. Heck, you can't explain where anything came from without a creator or how it came about.

Neither can you WITH a creator. 'Goddidit' isn't an explanation, it's just a substitution for your ignorance. And god of the gaps is not an acceptable answer. It wasn't when people were convinced lightning couldn't have come about without a god forging and throwing it, and it isn't now in respects to our cosmological history.

Abiogenesis is an interesting, yet unintelligent concept. Which theory of abiogenesis do you buy into?

There is only one abiogenesis theory and different mechanisms it describes, and it's quite interesting and intelligent. I'm skeptical of how much you've looked into it, given your record of going to the aforementioned probability sourced from strawmen.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, it does not. There is no transfer of state, since the only state that has some information is the composite state, that says that, at any time, any observation will result in observing the particles in opposite states.

As my classical example illustrates. Did the observation of Alice influenced the state of Bob's ball instantaneously? [yes/no]


Ciao

- viole

P.S. Are you confident with the concept of density matrixes in QM?

 

[First Baseman]

Nope. Without a creator physics still works in such a way because things which exist have relationships with other things that exist based on their properties. Those properties are describable and predictable, even when we don't have all the values. No creator necessary.


Neither can you WITH a creator. 'Goddidit' isn't an explanation, it's just a substitution for your ignorance. And god of the gaps is not an acceptable answer. It wasn't when people were convinced lightning couldn't have come about without a god forging and throwing it, and it isn't now in respects to our cosmological history.


There is only one abiogenesis theory and different mechanisms it describes, and it's quite interesting and intelligent. I'm skeptical of how much you've looked into it, given your record of going to the aforementioned probability sourced from strawmen.

Thank you for expressing your opinions.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thank you for expressing your opinions.

Thank you for expression your concession.

 

[First Baseman]

Thank you for expression your concession.

Nice try. I shall be nice to you no more!

 

[viole]

And? Can you show me at what point in the movie he says that relativity is violated? And how it is violated? At what point does the Bell theorem destroy relativity, in your opinion?

So, again, are you confident with the concept of density matrix in QM? I ask because that is what you need to discuss the degree of entanglement and things like locality or lack thereof.

Or do you gather all your information about physics from google and Time magazine?

But if you really think that a video on tube can overturn relativity, then here is my competent critique of some aspects of classical astronomy (LOL):

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Einstein claimed that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. If, however, we are studying two linked particles that are distant from each other, a change in one produces an instantaneous change in the other. It is believed that some form of communication occurs between the two particles. Said communication would need to proceed faster than the speed of light because the time at which the change occurred and the distance at which the particles were exceeds the speed of light.

The real question is "how in the world is it doing that", not by going faster than light as far as we know.

How is it that a photon is able to violate general or special relativity when light itself is part of the equation, I mean we use it as a way to measure space and time dilation? The way a photon seemingly travels faster than the speed of light is by dilating space and time the way physics says objects going closer to the speed of light do. Quantum entangled objects don't need to travel 100 miles because they are connected at a single point in space in which case only needs to travel an inch to reach a thousand miles, in theory anyway.

 

[Ouroboros]

The real question is "how in the world is it doing that", not by going faster than light as far as we know.

How is it that a photon is able to violate general or special relativity when light itself is part of the equation, I mean we use it as a way to measure space and time dilation? The way a photon seemingly travels faster than the speed of light is by dilating space and time the way physics says objects going closer to the speed of light do. Quantum entangled objects don't need to travel 100 miles because they are connected at a single point in space in which case only needs to travel an inch to reach a thousand miles, in theory anyway.

Maybe there's no space between two entangled quarks, so nothing is really violated? Perhaps they represent a form of warped space.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe there's no space between two entangled quarks, so nothing is really violated? Perhaps they represent a form of warped space.

I'll add that the phenomenon doesn't involve motion.
If a particle exceeded the speed of light, then that would disprove both theories of relativity,
& their precursors (which predict that infinite energy would be needed just to reach light speed.)
But entanglement doesn't do that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Actually, there are theoretical particles that can travel faster than (but NOT at the speed of) light--back to the OP and tachyons. The theories of relativity point out that nothing that has mass can travel at the speed of light.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, there are theoretical particles that can travel faster than (but NOT at the speed of) light--back to the OP and tachyons. The theories of relativity point out that nothing that has mass can travel at the speed of light.

Show me a tachyon.
And I want a new one, not some dirty old one.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I said that they're theoretical, meaning no one has found one yet...except apparently Kaku, but he hasn't published any of his evidence yet, so no Nobel for him! They're not disallowed by relativity, and their detection would not disprove relativity.