Toying with the Truth

[Polymath257]

There is a mystery only if we insist to push our classical intuition to things that are not classical. Once we realize that, there is no mystery left.

This is exactly correct! The problems come from attempting to understand the new, better theories in terms of the old, wrong theories. In the same way, you wouldn't attempt to understand Newtonian physics using the ideas of Aristotle. Neither should you attempt to understand quantum mechanics using the ideas of Newton.

Quantum particles have *probabilities* for various properties (like energy, momentum, time of decay, etc). Quantum mechanics shows how to compute those probabilities. In some cases (entanglement) those probabilities may be correlated. And the wave function is used to find the probabilities. Wave function 'collapse' ultimately is a gain in information produced by an irreversible interaction with the environment. preventing such interaction is why quantum computers are so hard to construct: every interaction is a potential 'measurement'.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

First, Einstein was wrong about certain aspects of quantum mechanics. In particular, he expected the results of the EPR experiment to be different than what actually happened when the experiment was done. The correlations that Einstein saw as 'spooky action at a distance' were, in fact, verified.

Just because an experiment turned out different than one expects, doesn't make you wrong. (not sure if you're responding to me here, it's good to hit the "reply" button at the bottom of a member's post for reference and ID purposes)

That said, quantum entanglement does NOT allow for faster-then-light communication. If you set up an EPR experiment (as Arrow did), then both ends of the experiment (which measure the two entangled particles) have random outcomes. it is only when the two sets of data from the two ends are brought together that the *correlation* between the two data sets can be seen. Nothing that is done on one end can change the apparent randomness at the other end. because of this, there is no possibility of faster-than-light transmission of information.
To say otherwise is to *completely* misunderstand how quantum mechanics works.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If an entangled pair of quantum particles must have, say, opposite charges, then once one is absorbed, it's charge is revealed, as is the opposite charge of its pair, instantly, regardless of distance. And no, that. can't be used for communication purposes. The spooky action occurs in a timeless (time is neutralized) "external" (for lack of a better word) to our universe, environment. Ruth Kastner* calls it "Quantumland". I don't think Einstein understood this, but I don't think he was wrong to characterize it as spooky, since from our perspective, it is.

*Understanding Our Unseen Reality:Solving Quantum Riddles --It's about what I think is going to be shown to be THE correct quantum interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation; it addresses all quantum weirdness. Copenhagen and Many Worlds are already being shown the door. As Einstein said, "Do you really think I believe that the Moon isn't there when I'm not looking at it?" He understood the absurdity that science had sold itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Just because an experiment turned out different than one expects, doesn't make you wrong. (not sure if you're responding to me here, it's good to hit the "reply" button at the bottom of a member's post for reference and ID purposes)

Actually, of course, that is exactly what it means. Einstein claimed that quantum mechanics couldn't be complete because, so he claimed, the universe would not work as predicted in the EPR situation. When the actual experiment was done, the results were as predicted by QM. So Einstein was wrong. He made a prediction based on his ideas and that prediction turned out to not agree with how the universe works. That means he was wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If an entangled pair of quantum particles must have, say, opposite charges, then once one is absorbed, it's charge is revealed, as is the opposite charge of its pair, instantly, regardless of distance. And no, that. can't be used for communication purposes. The spooky action occurs in a timeless (time is neutralized) "external" (for lack of a better word) to our universe, environment. Ruth Kastner* calls it "Quantumland". I don't think Einstein understood this, but I don't think he was wrong to characterize it as spooky, since from our perspective, it mistake to try to understand the quantum world with classical notions.

*Understanding Our Unseen Reality:Solving Quantum Riddles --It's about what I think is going to be shown to be THE correct quantum interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation; it addresses all quantum weirdness. Copenhagen and Many Worlds are already being shown the door. As Einstein said, "Do you really think I believe that the Moon isn't there when I'm not looking at it?" He understood the absurdity that science had sold itself.

Given the size of the moon, and the number of interactions it has with, say background radiation, the decoherence time for the moon is almost instantaneous. Again, a HUGE misunderstanding of what QM actually says.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What I wish to say is this is not fantasy - what scientists observed was with electrons but it can be scaled up to any amount or type of matter - the mechanism whereby God can give form to an entire universe instantaneously already exists in the universe! This is what science has discovered. Science's new toy is nothing less than an ancient property of the universe set in place when God spoke and the inchoate formless universe assumed form.

Aren't we all overlooking the fact that none of this happens at the macro level? You're saying that it can be scaled up - but there's no evidence for that. I challenge you to show me the supporting evidence for that claim.

Quantum studies happen at the quantum level because that's the only place where it seems to make an impact.

Many, many, many people are currently misusing quantum studies in loose attempts to validate their "woo" because it's a relatively unknown topic and it's easy to slide inaccuracies into conversations without getting called out for it - but it's dishonest, even if well-intentioned. I think this whole thread is just another example of that.

"Poof! Here's a nano-particle!" is very different from "Poof! Here's a giraffe!"

 

[Polymath257]

Aren't we all overlooking the fact that none of this happens at the macro level? You're saying that it can be scaled up - but there's no evidence for that. I challenge you to show me the supporting evidence for that claim.

Quantum studies happen at the quantum level because that's the only place where it seems to make an impact.

Many, many, many people are currently misusing quantum studies in loose attempts to validate their "woo" because it's a relatively unknown topic and it's easy to slide inaccuracies into conversations without getting called out for it - but it's dishonest, even if well-intentioned. I think this whole thread is just another example of that.

"Poof! Here's a nano-particle!" is very different from "Poof! Here's a giraffe!"

Yes, exactly. The point is that Planck's constant is *small*. So quantum effects tend to happen at the microscopic (actually atomic) level.

That said, the very first hints that something like quantum mechanics might be needed were seen in the heat capacities of gases. That is a macroscopic phenomenon where the quantum effects become significant (essentially, the fact that energy levels are quantized means that only the lowest levels are occupied for most gases at room temperature, leading to macroscopic effects). Most aspects of solid state physics deal with *how* the quantum level events scale to macroscopic differences.

But, you are correct, things like entanglement tend to not happen at the macroscopic level; it is just too easy for the environment to decohere the state.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Actually, of course, that is exactly what it means. Einstein claimed that quantum mechanics couldn't be complete because, so he claimed, the universe would not work as predicted in the EPR situation. When the actual experiment was done, the results were as predicted by QM. So Einstein was wrong. He made a prediction based on his ideas and that prediction turned out to not agree with how the universe works. That means he was wrong.







Given the size of the moon, and the number of interactions it has with, say background radiation, the decoherence time for the moon is almost instantaneous. Again, a HUGE misunderstanding of what QM actually says.

Einstein couldn't believe that quantum particles could be tied together so that measuring one would reveal the other instantly. But his own experiment disproved his belief with knowledge. It appeared to violate relativity. But the speed limit implied by relativity only applies to particles and energy and gravity within our universe, but it doesn't apply to space (the ether?) itself which has just been found to be expanding at superluminal speeds. And I only point that out because this quality of the ether, and whatever might be the interface between it and the universe, along with the apparently associated dark matter/energy, are not understood, yet holds the explanations for quantum weirdness/quantum timelessness/the double-slit experiment....et al.

 

[Polymath257]

Einstein couldn't believe that quantum particles could be tied together so that measuring one would reveal the other instantly. But his own experiment disproved his belief with knowledge. It appeared to violate relativity. But the speed limit implied by relativity only applies to particles and energy and gravity within our universe, but it doesn't apply to space (the ether?) itself which has just been found to be expanding at superluminal speeds. And I only point that out because this quality of the ether, and whatever might be the interface between it and the universe, along with the apparently associated dark matter/energy, are not understood, yet holds the explanations for quantum weirdness/quantum timelessness/the double-slit experiment....et al.

There is no 'revealing' of the other entangled particle! That is a complete misunderstanding!

The properties of entangled particles have *nothing* to do with dark matter or dark energy. Again, you are conflating things that are not connected whatsoever.

Once again, entanglement is *only* the correlation of probabilities between certain particles that were created together. That correlation persists even after the particles are separated. There is no communication between the particles. Measuring one does not 'reveal' the other. On both ends, the measurements are *completely* random. That is the nature of the quantum world.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no 'revealing' of the other entangled particle! That is a complete misunderstanding!

OK, call it "set" or "known".

The properties of entangled particles have *nothing* to do with dark matter or dark energy. Again, you are conflating things that are not connected whatsoever.

You don't know that, but then again, I don't know that it is either, but I've seen it suggested.

Once again, entanglement is *only* the correlation of probabilities between certain particles that were created together. That correlation persists even after the particles are separated. There is no communication between the particles. Measuring one does not 'reveal' the other. On both ends, the measurements are *completely* random. That is the nature of the quantum world.

'The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the quantum formalism, the result of a spin measurement on one of the particles is a collapse into a state in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down) along the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be random, with each possibility having a probability of 50%. However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they are found to be anti-correlated. This means that the random outcome of the measurement made on one particle seems to have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make the "right choice" when it too is measured.--Rupert W., Anderson (28 March 2015). The Cosmic Compendium: Interstellar Travel (First ed.)."

What do you think is meant by local vs. non-local? What is the speed of light if time is removed? It's what Wheeler was talking about when told Feinman about his epiphany:

"Feinman, I know why all electrons have the same mass and charge."
"Why?"
"Because they're the same electron."

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, *seems* to have been communicated. In fact, there is no communication, just prior correlation. I'd suggest not getting your ideas about quantum mechanics from popular science books. There is a LOT of BS out there about QM and what it says. Instead, why not actually read an actual textbook on QM?

Here is a clue: if someone has never solved a differential equation, you can safely ignore what they say about QM. If they don't know what an eigenvalue is, you can safely ignore what they say about QM. If they have never seen a ket or bra vector, you can safely ignore what they say about QM.

That Feynman was joking about the 'same electron' seems to have escaped you.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, *seems* to have been communicated. In fact, there is no communication, just prior correlation.

The whole conundrum of QM is that a given quality (spin, charge, polarity) is determined at the act of observation/absorption. That was the whole point of the EPR experiment and why they call it a paradox. If it had prior correlation, there'd be no paradox.

That Feynman was joking about the 'same electron' seems to have escaped you.

He (Wheeler, not Feynman) was half joking and making a very salient point. He's not really saying there's only one electron, only that an electron could theoretically be everywhere at once since its actions take place in a timeless, non-local environment. Sometimes you have to look beyond the math to see the Big Picture--which is exactly what he did there.

I'd suggest not getting your ideas about quantum mechanics from popular science books. There is a LOT of BS out there about QM and what it says. Instead, why not actually read an actual textbook on QM?

Here is a clue: if someone has never solved a differential equation, you can safely ignore what they say about QM. If they don't know what an eigenvalue is, you can safely ignore what they say about QM. If they have never seen a ket or bra vector, you can safely ignore what they say about QM.

You apparently feel the need to attempt to intimidate with bluster and bluff and an arrogant patronizing demeanor rather than deal with the facts. For instance, besides not understanding the EPR paradox, I notice you avoided the issues of local vs. non-local and TIQM, in your zeal to pursue an unstated (religious?) agenda.

 

[Polymath257]

The whole conundrum of QM is that a given quality (spin, charge, polarity) is determined at the act of observation/absorption. That was the whole point of the EPR experiment and why they call it a paradox. If it had prior correlation, there'd be no paradox.

This is a misunderstanding. There is a correlation in the *probabilities*. That correlation was formed when the particles were created in the same location. The range of possible observed values (for the spin, for example) is determined by the wave function as are the probabilities for each observation. In entangled particles, the wave function associates the values of one particle with those of another, but the observed values of both are undetermined before the observation.

He (Wheeler, not Feynman) was half joking and making a very salient point. He's not really saying there's only one electron, only that an electron could theoretically be everywhere at once since its actions take place in a timeless, non-local environment. Sometimes you have to look beyond the math to see the Big Picture--which is exactly what he did there.

Actually, that is NOT what he was saying. His original point concerned the idea that anti-particles are the same as regular particles going backwards in time. That allows for there to be a single electron going back and forth in time.

You apparently feel the need to attempt to intimidate with bluster and bluff and an arrogant patronizing demeanor rather than deal with the facts. For instance, besides not understanding the EPR paradox, I notice you avoided the issues of local vs. non-local and TIQM, in your zeal to pursue an unstated (religious?) agenda.

Not at all. I'm just saying that if someone claims to know about QM and has never solved a differential equation, they are basing their views on journalism and not on the science. That means their views can be safely ignored.

QM is a local theory. It is NOT a classical theory. But the equations that determine the evolution of the wave function are *local*. The EPR paradox doesn't change that local nature. it just shows that classical preconceptions are wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps it is a good thing to review what is going on in the EPR experiment.

A pair of entangles particles is created. The entanglement enforces that the spins of the two particles are opposite, but not determined.

Those particles travel in opposite directions and far enough that the distance between them cannot be traversed during the following measurements at anything less than the speed of light.

The spin of one of the particles is measured. It is found to be 'spin up'. After that, but before a light signal could get from the first to the second, the second particle spin is measured. it is found to be 'spin down'. The spins are opposite.

If several particles are created, the probabilities of 'spin up' and 'spin down' are 50-50 for both particles. On either end, the sequence of 'up' and 'down' spins is completely random. There is no way to predict the outcome of the experiment from either side.

But, when the measurements are brought together, it is found that the spins on the two sides are always opposite.

The *correlation* between the two particles was created when the particles were created: the measured values of the spin will always be opposite. But the specific values of any particular measurement are NOT determined.

No 'message' is going from one particle to the other after the measurement. The fact that the spins will be opposite was set when the particles were formed in the entangled state.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This is a misunderstanding. There is a correlation in the *probabilities*. That correlation was formed when the particles were created in the same location. The range of possible observed values (for the spin, for example) is determined by the wave function as are the probabilities for each observation. In entangled particles, the wave function associates the values of one particle with those of another, but the observed values of both are undetermined before the observation.




Actually, that is NOT what he was saying. His original point concerned the idea that anti-particles are the same as regular particles going backwards in time. That allows for there to be a single electron going back and forth in time.





Not at all. I'm just saying that if someone claims to know about QM and has never solved a differential equation, they are basing their views on journalism and not on the science. That means their views can be safely ignored.

QM is a local theory. It is NOT a classical theory. But the equations that determine the evolution of the wave function are *local*. The EPR paradox doesn't change that local nature. it just shows that classical preconceptions are wrong.

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
One-electron universe
"all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time"

I'm done here. I'm tired of putting this stuff up for you just dismiss it.

 

[Polymath257]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
One-electron universe
"all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time"

I'm done here. I'm tired of putting this stuff up for you just dismiss it.

Which is precisely what I referred to in post #51.