To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Quantum Entanglement
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Good Elf
Hi All,

This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.

Hi Dave,

That article Quantum Entanglement is excellent for winding anyone up slowly to a lot of new concepts. If starts simple but sometimes fails on a difficult concept because it simply states a fact. That's OK though, because it may cause that person to go off and look for the answer. You can't do everything can you. huh.gif

Some of the page's statements that were made are not free standing and should have an explanation. Your page is good at the "Dick and Dora" concepts but then suddenly assume deep insight towards the end to arrive at some of the results.

That’s OK too since the comments at the end attempt to sort all that out (and usually quite well too). I thought the comment by Professor Anthony E. Siegman was insightful in describing "photons" that are entangled as a single entity (not to say that other insights weren't equally useful). The description alludes to the Simple Harmonic Oscillator and the confinement of the system leading to the stationary entangled states of quanta.

I think coherency is tightly associated with the concept of entanglement. I am not a Professor but I will add my 5 cents worth. Temporal emission of photons (hard to speak of it in any other way) in the rest frame of the "photons" themselves, connect sources and destinations (where they are created and absorbed) by null world lines (they travel at the speed of light). From that point of view all events to an idealized photon pair system happen simultaneously and "apparently" contiguously. The separation in space (sometimes by galaxies) is an artifact of "our" rest frame. It is no wonder that they transfer the "essence" of the original states (they actually "touch" each other) and respond "instantly". They are effectively one impulse of electromagnetic energy, which has been "truncated" in the time domain, but seen by us in the frequency domain (resulting in a wave packet, an ensemble of wavelets, described according to Fourier Theory) and transferred across an infinitesimal gap (the null world line), which may be many light years relative to our frame of reference.

That's the real mystery. It is as though the "photon(s)" moves in a domain of reciprocal space compared with our space. The relationship between frequency and time is T = 1/f in natural units - reciprocal.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi All,

This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.

I am also sorry that the sequence is now a bit jumbled and may not make sense to others who "jump" in.

I think this post is better placed here......

Hi ARTone and Z,

Yeah... about the astronauts. Tracking it down now is harder than it seems. You had to be there at the time eh! (some of us are older and these events predated the internet). Like I said it is forgotten history and some may say - not even history at all.

Speed itself in the abstract does not cause clocks to get out of wack. This is because to get clocks into "wack" they need synchronization. If you start from rest and then travel at high speed you cannot get around the fact this is the distinguishing feature that sets clocks apart. In the case of the classic time travelling twin, he really must undergo an acceleration to distinguish his clock from those left behind.

The details of this process was given by me in an earlier post in a different topic.

For others see PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> General page 5 (Good Elf).

How to measure the real passage of time? ARTone - it seems from your posts that you seem to be thinking that that there must be some special effect like in movies that will somehow indicate that you are undergoing time travel. The point is there can never be any "internal" indication that this is happening. We are all time travelling relative to almost anything are great distance from earth since all that "stuff" is moving relative to us. The real issue is that there are no clocks out there that have been synchroniized with clocks on earth. This not only refers to the "rate" of the clocks but also to the "zero" that has been agreed on. See the post for that if any of you have not been following.

Almost all clocks when brought together will indicate the same intrinsic rate of ticking. The tricky bit is the respective zeros. When I compare my watch with any "good" time it always seems to be slow. This is not due to special or general relativity. I have a crummy watch I purchased from Radio Shack (plastic). Although I do wear it in the shower and I have had it for about 10 years.

This is a difficult problem that is why when we want to see these effects in the macro world because there is a limitation in velocity (very hard getting Boeing 747's up to the speed of light) with big objects the measurements are tiny fractions of a second. Even with the best Caesium Clocks you still can't measure rate differences you are forced to measure elapsed time differences. These will initially be Pico-seconds but the longer you continue the experiment the more the difference in elapsed time becomes relative to "stationary" clocks on the ground. Sufficient to say given the operating budgets of Universities this relativity effect has been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy. This does not mean that the Scientists with the clock feel distinctly younger than the other members of his research team that were left behind to tend the stationary clock.

Whatever the case.... even if he spent 100 years travelling in a 747 the theory will not be any surer than it is now - even if the time differential was a couple of minutes. The essence is that our "time traveller" does not notice and there is no experiment internally that is able to show that this has occurred. The differences are external to his little pocket of turf and only by a comparison in some way will it be possible to see the effect.

In the world of atomic particles Kaons have short half lives and the rate of their clocks are appreciably slowed when you measure them in cosmic rays. This results in Kaons lasting several times longer if they are travelling near the speed of light compared with a similar beastie "born" in the frame of reference of the lab. Here the rate difference is relatively obvious and could be measured directly (if we knew how).

It should be iterated again that there are two effects - one due to special relativity and the other due to general relativity. Both these affect clocks.

Remember that Special Relativity says that all inertial frames are equivalent and General Relativity says that all accelerations are equivalent be they by a rocket pushing, or the earths gravitational field acting. There are some geometrical differences between the two but if presented to an observer who can perform only "local" experiments the postulates will hold and have never been seen to fail no matter how many times these two postulates have been tested.

Hi Z, Your time dilation causing a internal distortions and changes to the spin fields may be true but they are explained by special and general theory to a high degree of accuracy. These properties are also "mechanical" and any internally perceptible effects would go un-noticed seen from the frame of reference of a "very small" observer on one of these particles. He would also see some "externally" interesting effects but interpret them as something that "we" are doing.

To convince you that something strange is going on consider a wheel with spokes and a rim marked out in equal intervals. Stationary - you will be able to measure that the circumference equals 2*pi*Radius. Now spin the wheel at high speed. External observers will see that the radius does not "appear" shorter but the circumference is "apparently" foreshortened. Duh! Does this mean that pi's value has changed? No - not if you apply Einstein’s correction. In the frame of reference of the wheel, a very giddy observer would see no apparent internal effect since the wheel is "stationary" in his frame of reference (though an attempt to drink from a glass of water will have interesting results). Viewing the external Universe spinning around him... it will appear that all the planets and stars appear fore-shortened in the radial direction but OK when he looks vertically along the axis. He says - something is wrong but it's not me. We are all on a spinning earth and there is an additional effect of a gravity field so in theory we too are suffering from similar delusions.

In actual fact the effects of Special Relativity has led to curving space-time and warped space. This is how Special and General Theory are directly linked. This has created Dr Who's Tardis where its bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. See TV is educational. Unlike Dr Who though inside this Tardis from his reference frame everything appears normal and pi is still pi. It only appears curved seen by external observers.

As to how to measure time better. First we will need to understand time better first. Our clocks are primitive and are based on medieval principles (they are good though). But that is why we need Einstein - to tell us how to read clocks.

By the way - the increase in inertial mass also goes un-noticed from the frame of reference of the particle travelling near the speed of light. If it had an observer - it goes without saying that "he" would measure the increase in inertial mass of "us” and that would be his explanation of events. The event would be symmetric and Einstein says that both measurements from either frame are correct. The "virtual" mass would disappear if you bring the two systems to the same frame of reference showing it's only a measurement or perception problem of viewing the moving systems. It would not matter if you brought one up (down) to the speed of the other or met 1/2 way in the difference in velocity between them.

The bit about the mirror at Alpha Centauri - that's my contribution - you saw it first here.

Cheers

Hi Elf

to answer your point which I think refeers to anything moving hyperthetically through time, I believe that we all exist in what I would describe as NOW and that this NOW frame is a set amount of time which is extreamly small.

If a person were to be able to take a step forward in time they would move into a frame in which most of us dont exist thereby dissapearing. I am not relating this in any way to time dilation where a person is supposed to age differently.

Ill repeat this again I do not believe that the effect seen with clocks in aircraft is anything to do with what Einstein described as time dilation. and that the effect is something to do with traveling through our atmosphere at high speed or rates of acceleration.

The only proof will come when man can be sent into space at extreme speeds or acceleration and return.

The concept of time is very difficult to tie down we know we are existing together at this moment and as Z says we see happenings, events which occur in parrallel if at the same time but sequentially if not. There is never any perception of time moving any way but forward. We are each at the centre of our personal universe in which we only know exist because we see events happening. Is there a true concept of time or is this just a sequence of events to which we have given a name.

If you were to create a robot or computer which could think would it have any notion of time.

Life is complex enough, I think, therefore I am, to think through the eyes of others is impossible and leaves us all wondering how others see the world.

To want a better explanation of time and of NOW is probably the concern of those worried about death and hoping to find answers. I try not to do that. I much rather concern myself with: was this universe an accident or a designer model.

You seem to have an unnatural obsession with clocks, watches and time most of which is unprovable at this time, see youve got me at it now.

AR

Hi ARtone,

It is not I that has an obsession with clocks but clocks are all we have to measure the phenomena (relativity). That is unless you want to talk about psychological time vs. clock time. That also is an interesting subject.

It is an interesting point about the quantization of time. Is time quantized??? Is there a shortest period of time capable of "being"? With everything else it is assumed that time is a continuous function. It's built in from the bottom up. Even quantum mechanics assumes that time itself is continuous. What you are suggesting is that time is a flickering phenomena sort of like watching motion picture movies with the realism caused by a "persistence of vision" with a fair bit higher rate than 15 frames per second.

If time is quantized then you need to assign values to the quanta and this is difficult if you have space quantized and energy quantized etc... Are there then "big" time quanta and "small" time quanta? It is an extra layer of complexity.

Do big time quanta only interact with objects which are big and small time quanta only interact with things that are small. Or do big and small quanta get absorbed in large objects and only small quanta get absorbed by small objects? The absolute passage of time would then be related to how many and possibly what type of quanta (big or small or both) were absorbed by an object. The state of motion may also affect it too. The construction of clocks by humans is an attempt to create a mechanical system that measures this quantity independent of scale. This might be the wrong strategy for us - this is going to be a problem to explain why Physics works with continuous functions of time. A lot would need to be changed to shoe it in!

Of course this may be very difficult for us who are trapped in time ... because we may not even exist between the ticks of a cosmic clock. It may be possible to detect times granularity over extended spaces. Not all points in space may experience the same time quanta at the same time.

The concept of time that I am implicitly using is that a step forward in time (relative to another person travelling in a different frame of reference) results in a slowing of the "rate" of time for the traveller relative to the non-traveller (he ages more slowly - this is not suspended animation and is not “organic” - it is imperceptible from his frame of reference). To tell the traveller from the non-traveller you would need to measure their respective accelerations subsequent to the setting of their "zero" of time (starting of the synchronized stopwatches). The accelerated one is a time traveller.

Notice that this time travel is not reversible.

This slowing of time would need to be uniform and without jumps or discontinuity to be compatible with my interpretation.

On you’re other point.... A robot would have a notion of clocks. Since all his microprocessors will be subject to timing pulses. Not the same - but similar. Of course a robot may not have any "notions" at all.

Of course the topic is the impossibility of something travelling faster than light. It is wound up in all these issues for the speed of light is determined by the use of "suitably placed " clocks. It's not an obsession - it is the way we measure "stuff".

Cheers
20/11/2004
Hi All,

Why is this such a big problem. I assume that people just don't get it!

Regarding the Twin (clock) Paradox. It's all about clock synchronization. You cannot compare clocks from different reference frames without understanding that you do not apply maths without an understanding. Unless you first understand the problem your maths will just screw you up. I notice that almost all arguments speak nothing of the problems of synchronization and the choice of the arbitrary zero, or indeed the frames of reference. The discussion will get nowhere without them.

What people see or observe is NOT the same problem as the problem of the observation of the time relative to the observer. There is really only one measure of time for both "moving" and "stationary" observers, that is the clock on their respective walls (in their own frames). Seeing stuff is going to cause you all to falter because optical effects are bizarre.

The observations of high-speed distant objects have a lot of gotchas in them. Ignore them at your peril. Do not suppose that what is seen is what "is".

Think it through OR look up my article on this matter to sort your ideas out. See:
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Nanotechnology & Quantum Physics -> Quantum physics -> THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY (Good Elf)

For more on the visual effects see:
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> General -> The impossibility of something faster than light (Good Elf) Nov 9th

Unless this is sorted, you will forever wander in darkness. Some "get it" others want the answer before they fully understand the concept and make errors. The original article on which this thread was based is flawed because it does just this.... arbitrary use of maths without the full picture. I think that the author has become confused about what relativity is used for and mixed it up with some common misconceptions.

It is good to ask questions – like in this forum – but it is bad to be a Guru with half the truth. I do not know if this is deliberate or mistaken (I neither know nor care, the result is the same) - it is just wrong! I have seen flat earth and religious cranks arguments using this form of illogic and it can be there to create total confusion and to blindly force acceptance of a particular point of view. Remember a lot of confusing questions can be posed and they will usually be greeted with stunned silence and then worship. Unless you can place your feet on solid ground and sort it out you will be dragged down into the quicksand.

Some of these individuals have an axe to grind (not this guy though). Grind your axes in someone else’s backyard, Physics is not really a philosophical argument it is testable physical fact. Science is neither moral nor political (you can discuss these issues but it is not physics). Then you need an interpretation and it must be consistent. All the rest is politics and religion. Discuss the interpretation, remember it is Physics we want to understand physics, not these other issues here. Gain what you will from them but not here please. sad.gif
Cheers







yquantum
Hello,

I just do research, guess you could say I am in the box with the kittens?

Just for your consideration to a great and ongoing question.

Bell derived correlation in equalities that can be violated in quantum mechanics but have to be satisfied within every model that is local and complete -- so-called local hidden-variable models. Bell's work made it possible to test whether local hidden-variable models can account for observed physical phenomena. Early and ongoing recent experiments showing violations of such Bell inequalities have invalidated local hidden-variable models and lend support to the quantum-mechanical view of nature. In particular, an observed violation of a Bell inequality demonstrates the presence of entanglement in a quantum system. Heard this and read this so many times, correct.

Then comes Franson's paper showing that the timing constraints, this experiment were not adequate as he states. So we review Aspect estimate of this time based on the speed of a photon and the distance between the polarizers and the detectors. Then Eberhard and later Fine.

I know math would be much better in this reply (H), (Ga) & (L) etc, but maybe a kind of sub-quantum soup in which the photons travels, and I am not talking about the (E) word, or some mysterious unknown but the photon going in different directions, the energy that is propagating them, there seems to be some kind of energy source, and that is leaving my neck out, but if I say I understand it I really do not as the sayings goes.

They could be connectted by this energy, that we just do not have the proper tech. to detect. Give me credit please, I did not bring in FTL theory! Not there yet. I know it is very dangerous to use classical imaging to QM, but it would be like a yard stick (energy) infinitely long and small, connected to the photons (say spherical shape or 720 degree spin) when observed it would not be so much a collapse state, but as if one is (up) then the other due to the connection by energy (yard stick in Flatland) would be (down) or vice versa. I hope this is not to fuzzy, but who am I kidding?

My point:
Just a different spin, but I have never felt the photon (QM electromagnetic energy that is decrete) obeys the same laws as our macro and micro obey. Remember, they are timeless right? If you believe the 1905 papers. Time Dilation!!

Nothing earth shaking but love to hear from someone who believes he has different point of reference and understands, because I try to keep a very open mind - there is so much to be learned. Is there a connection on an energy level of a photon?
unsure.gif
Good Elf
Hi yquantum,

yquantum Posted: Mar 21 2005, 01:50 PM
QUOTE
Nothing earth shaking but love to hear from someone who believes he has different point of reference and understands, because I try to keep a very open mind - there is so much to be learned. Is there a connection on an energy level of a photon?

You have been followed the thread on "Perceptions and Probability Waves" in this section. I think that the existence of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is intimately tied with the topic of so called "entanglement". I can take no credit for this idea it is a relatively old idea I just "discovered" it for myself "anew".

You appear to have resurrected this "old" topic because it is more appropriate to discuss this idea of entanglement with a fresh perspective. I have been toying with the idea of contacting the original experimenters and ask a couple of questions about how this phase effect is truly affecting spacetime topologically.

Clearly in the "space" affected by this effect there is no "macroscopic" field of electric or magnetic fields. The particles which are sent through that space are incidental to the effect since they merely "detect" the changed state of the spacetime. What the experimenter appears to indicate is that there is no "particle to particle" interaction.

What is seen is a "force field" in the purest sense. True "action at a distance"? It extends through the space apparently instantly as a kind of "dislocation" in spacetime if the "superconducting bar" was a single entity.

Please do not make too much of this visual "toy" ("Gedanken" Experiment). A sort of visual simile for the Aharonov-Bohm single double slit effect would be a normal slip fault if it was in the earth (maybe at 90 degrees).
user posted image
Consider the "potential" as a "flat plain" and this slip fault "propagating" away from the "double slit" (source). The only thing is you can switch this "fault" on and off with a switch or you can increase or decrease the offset with a "magic" potentiometer connected to the solenoid inside the superconductor. Particles that are affected by magnetism can travel on this surface and they "feel" there is a "high road" and a "low road" (as in the song - "you take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and I 'll be in Scotland before you").

As in the song the "low road" gets to Scotland before the "high road" since there is a phase ahead or phase retard on the wavelets passing along each "road". Sort of like a potential energy phenomena. Of course we knew that because this is a vector or scalar "potential" isn't it? How much ahead is this affect? The answer seems to be "How much do you want to be ahead - just dial it up with a potentiometer".

Alternatively you can make that little "Stargate" where you have the equivalent of a double dislocation and it winds away the phase and the distance... just as in quantum barrier penetration only this is a little macroscopic "eyelet" of influence. Have we created a quantum teleporter of charged particles?
"Stargate"
user posted image
How far do they go? How far do you want to go just dial it up! How fast do they go? As fast as the propagation velocity. Almost anything could be affected by this "eyelet" surely even photons because they are influenced by magnetic field and can result in polarization. Perhaps even "entangled" photons. How fast do photons travel - the speed of light. How fast does this Aharonov-Bohm influence travel at? "Action at a distance" travels instantly. The photons are frozen in time and can be made to "leap" across spacetime and skip phase. Another form of "optical antimatter"?

Interesting don't you think. biggrin.gif All right then what is wrong with this?

Cheers
yquantum
Greetings Good Elf,

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
~T. S. Eliot

I am glad you are willing to go out of the box. Let me talk to some colleagues and get back with you on this, we need this. I would also like to explore everything you have mentioned, you deserve that.

I believe we both appreciate this forum. My obligation is to keep it in the forum of possibilities of good QM.

If you think it impossible, then most likely it can happen in Quantum Mechanics. Right?

Also I missed a few nights of sleep, and need my coffee very black right now!

dry.gif
yquantum
Hi Good Elf,

Had some rest, was not able to talk to my friend, sorry!

I might be still sleepwalking, but if memory serves me right, their was a paper by Weyl's (gauge theory) that A.E. had a problem with, I am sure if you are interested - it is in the archives. But with a few mathematical adjustments or scaling from gauge theory to complex it just might fit into your Aharonoy-Bohm effect, as you have mention.

This is where not enough sleep gets me into trouble but let me go way back, and if I recall that far back the A-B effect involves a charged particle which if I read your response could be connected to the approach of Kaluza-Klein theory x^5. ( 5 dimension)

This has merit I believe. (Kaluza-Klein) What do you think?

I know you have read these papers somewhere in your time line and if a bond between the x^4 and let us keep it simple x^5 then who knows other dimensions could be the energy station for the Photon and still be a factor of entanglement. Please keep me informed with new data!

Happy magnetic flux, screw dislocation and x^5 or
x^n hunting, being tired it is hard to stay focused and for this I apologize.

As you say, Cheers

Right now, typo's are to be expected. cool.gif s
Good Elf
Hi yquantum,

Elf here...Good to think that you feel there may be something here...
yquantum Posted on Mar 22 2005, 08:17 PM
QUOTE
This has merit I believe. (Kaluza-Klein) What do you think?

There is a way to test the possibility directly without the requirement to make a strong case for the Kaluza-Klein extra spatial dimensions argument just at this point.
Kaluza-Klein Theory
The "eyelet" form of the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be made equivalent to a "matched " transmission line with a "gizmo" at each end (Like Tonomura and his colleagues had made).
user posted image
One end (entrance) could be made "phase retard" and the other end could be "matched" as "phase advanced" (exit). There are some precedents for this configuration using negative refractive index materials and quantum tunnel photons through the space. You are probably aware of this "optical antimatter" with "photonic metamaterial crystals". This is another "analog". Have a look at this paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants... an interesting paper by Jian Qi Shen where the abstract says...
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This has merit I believe. (Kaluza-Klein) What do you think?

There is a way to test the possibility directly without the requirement to make a strong case for the Kaluza-Klein extra spatial dimensions argument just at this point.
Kaluza-Klein Theory
The "eyelet" form of the Aharonov-Bohm effect can be made equivalent to a "matched " transmission line with a "gizmo" at each end (Like Tonomura and his colleagues had made).
user posted image
One end (entrance) could be made "phase retard" and the other end could be "matched" as "phase advanced" (exit). There are some precedents for this configuration using negative refractive index materials and quantum tunnel photons through the space. You are probably aware of this "optical antimatter" with "photonic metamaterial crystals". This is another "analog". Have a look at this paper...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants... an interesting paper by Jian Qi Shen where the abstract says...
This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc.. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas.

It is very interesting. Now look at this article where you can do more...
Reversing Light Negative Refraction by Pendry and Smith
On page 6 of this article a form of optical "teleportation" may occur using the properties of "optical antimatter" in photonic metamaterial crystals. I quote...
QUOTE
an n = −1 slab draws light to a perfect focus; b ) shows how the focus is achieved by the negative slab ‘unwinding’ or negating the phase acquired in passing through free space; c) focusing can occur through two more complex objects provided that one is the inverse mirror image of the other; d) a graphical statement of the optical cancellation mirror antisymmetric regions of space optically annihilate one another. A negative medium is in effect a piece of optical antimatter.

Pendry is the authority in this field. In effect we are speaking of a type of optical quantum tunneling extended in space by this "optical antimatter". This can not be extended to material particles very easily. It seems to be restricted to photons. Just a point of interest is the fact that optical metameterials using substances such as synthetic alexandrite are already being rushed into development in that field (I am led to believe). ohmy.gif

However the Aharonov-Bohm effect overcomes the difficulties of material refractive media and substitutes a "force field". The other point is this works with charged particles. Admittedly high speed (de Broglie Wave) charged particles. Two of these devices providing appropriate phase advance and phase retard on either end to "match the line" might behave like a particle teleportation device. The intervening space could be "canceled" away with effectively no phase change across the void between the two devices. In one end and out the other. cool.gif The good bit is the equipment is "off the shelf" and all that is required is to do the experiment and see what happens...

I think Kaluza-Klein Theory would be an interesting approach and I am not sure about speaking of "Unified Field Theories" or "extra spatial" dimensions here yet but you may have gathered that I find string theories too complex and untestable so I gravitate toward some of these older ideas such as Kaluza-Klein and Einstein's Unified Field Theory as excellent starting points. So much has been "opening up" in the last couple of years with negative refractive index materials and quantum entanglement. I am not sure that these older theories can be able to completely describe "modern physics" but they are interesting and are so uncomplicated. smile.gif

Its just the Aharonov-Bohm effect took me by surprise and I think there is something "sleeping" here... There are deep principles involved with fundamental properties that we have no way to measure absolutely and we need to resort to topological "tricks" to even "see" it. Truly the most hidden variable of them all. dry.gif

I also do not like the current "methods" of quantum teleportation where you have a cycle of matter disintegration followed by integration to teleport luckless ducks across space (like the 1954 "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century Cartoon") ... very intellectually unsatisfactory. Neither this elf nor any of the fairies at the bottom of the garden want to travel through space like that. biggrin.gif This is more like "Stargate".
user posted image

Back to you... huh.gif

Cheers
yquantum
Good afternoon, Good Elf

I went over your paper, I do understand many would not want to encourage this type of research but as you have stated many Physicist's are working on it as we speak. (Nice to be outside of the BOX). The ones who would not, the idea will pass them at the speed of ©, and they will read about it in the Journals in the coming weeks or years.

I will try and get away and read your reference when the chance presents its self, I want to see what it has done so far.

Yes, you are right about the Super String, we will get there one day but it is very complex, but this I believe could tie indirectly to what you are saying. Just a thought. I do believe T.O.E, is out there, and someone will stumble on it - one day!

I will try and get away ASAP, I love learning and there is so much to learn!

Thank you, and best regards,
yquantum cool.gif
yquantum
cool.gif Hi Good Elf,

Hope your having a great weekend, must work.

Aharonov-Bohm for instance, it may also be that a more complete understanding of Quantum theory will incorporate a fuller explanation of non-locality than we have at present, at a fundamental level.

For instance You two have approached the problems of Quantum theory from a space-time perspective (Entanglement), building on the idea of particles as geons (Wheeler) ISBN 0-393-31991-1 / 416 pages. Entanglement in the space-time continuum! which was conceived by Einstein, G. R. - and in as you said like to read Feynman who worked at CalTech at the same time, same department, his office was literally beside another giant of the physics world, but which met with serious problems at that time. We have come a long way. ( Oh, talking about Gell-Mann.)

Physicists had some success in resolving these problems and using something Wheeler has mentioned in his book (I gave it to some friends, now I must go and buy another copy), who studied with Niels Bohr, taught Richard Feynman, to explain? Quantum weirdness? by giving a fully general-relativistic treatment, taking into account the distortion of time as well as of space, another hero of ours - Einstein and the EPR I believe were working on similar lines had considered only space (this is just an assessment of my few brain cells so please look into the math and see what you think, love those Papers - but it seem that way to me as a sub-QM approach to a great debate?).

Although the actual solutions of general relativity required maybe what you have stumbled on or found, this could well prove to be a promising avenue of exploration.

I wish you luck,
yquantum blink.gif ph34r.gif
Good Elf
Hi yquantum,

Hmmm.... you have been digging around into my back cupboard. Yes... I am a fan of Feynman and I have most of his books including the "Lectures" series. Love it. You are dead right that I do take another "path" (not as popular nowadays). While I do accept the results of Quantum Mechanics... I "see" with the clear eye of "hindsight" rather than "foresight", that there is nothing really wrong with an alternative way to interpret quantum mechanics. While everyone is trying to fit the round block of relativity into the square hole of quantum physics I have been attempting to use my little wooden hammer to drive the square block of quantum physics into the round hole of relativity. I "feel" this will work nowadays from the perspective that the popular path requires 11 dimensions (or so) and is "totally" untestable, whereas this path may be much more "compact" and testable "electromagnetism" first theory.

The unification of the forces has taken the "high" road of "high energy" to seek a very grand "Grail". I take a more "penitent" approach, the "low" road...he he he! biggrin.gif

I confess I do not "fully" understand Aharonov-Bohm effect (and I guess no one ever will) but I would love to see what experimentalists could find at the "edge", I want a deeper knowledge of this "pretty pretty". I sense a "feeling" of excitement here.

I am intrigued by what you have said about Wheeler and his "book"... I assume you mean "Gravitation". I will dust mine off (if I can still lift it) and see if I can find what you are alluding to there. It was a tour de force, though much has happened since he wrote that.

That statement referring to Einstein is interesting. I have never considered any other approach! I will give what you said a "little thinky".

You have referred to my approach as "sub-quantum mechanics". I think of it as a "dual" approach. When "particles" are "propagating" they are waves and when they "interact" they are particles. I see these as different realms, maybe even different dimensions (spatial or something else?). I am quite comfortable with doing away with "particles" altogether. All could be energy and geometry with a few laws thrown in.

You have been reading my stuff so you will have noticed that I consider one mode of propagation as a "frequency" and the other mode is an "impulse" (wave particle duality). These are mathematically "reciprocal" and complementary concepts or domains (frequency and time) and I do not think they are both easily mapped into the one domain. I do know that if you truncate a propagating wave (spatially or temporally) you will surely get a "packet" of propagating wavelets from fourier or spherical harmonics or whatever considerations. Emission and absorption is "truncation".

All that remains to be added is the so called stationary states of the quantum. Conventional approach has adopted a pragmatic "who cares lets just push on with solving this stuff" approach. It deserves more. This phenomenon has just got to be linked to "systems" and energy. "Systems" can tie up energy just as only systems can extract energy. My approach (I seem to be paradoxically alone with this??) looks at energy as simply the capacity for work rather than some "universal" fluid that "leaks" away when electrons whiz around in circles!! Fair cop in 1920, now as dated as "the Charleston" in the 21st Century.

Obviously the Aharonov-Bohm effect deals with stationary "potentials". There is energy there but the relationship is still "obscure".

Appreciate any comments you may have about this or where you may be in disagreement. rolleyes.gif

Cheers
yquantum
Hi Good Elf,

Will let you know when it is worth your time! Still searching in my spare time!

yquantum -- sad.gif smile.gif
johnphantom
I spent some time looking around on Wikipedia and here, but I cannot find an answer to this question:

Can entanglement be "weak" or "strong" or is it simply always a 100% transfer of information?
Zephir
QUOTE (johnphantom+Oct 8 2006, 04:18 PM)
Can entanglement be "weak" or "strong" or is it simply always a 100% transfer of information?

Now you'll need to understand the AWT explanation of entanglement (1, 2) and the above question of yours. The entangled particles can share just a mutually commutative quantity, like the spin.

So we can say without problem

"...if we know the spin with 100% precision at detector A ... "

but not

"...if we measure the velocity with 100% precision at detector A ... "

For example, the velocity isn't commutative property, because each particle from the entangled pair can have a totally different speed and it doesn't care about the speed of the other member, whereas the uncertainty principle remains intact.

On the other way, if some member has a certain spin, we can be perfectly sure, the other member of the entangled pair has right the opposite spin due the Pauli exclusion principle. But it says nothing about uncertainty of measurement of the spin of both the members at the same time.
Farsight
You're not alone Good Elf. I think I share your view on "particles" and energy.
johnphantom
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 8 2006, 06:32 PM)
The entangled particles can share just a mutually commutative quantity, like the spin.

So we can say without problem

"...if we know the spin with 100% precision at detector A ... "

but not

"...if we measure the velocity with 100% precision at detector A ... "

For example, the velocity isn't commutative property, because each particle from the entangled pair can have a totally different speed and it doesn't care about the speed of the other member, whereas the uncertainty principle remains intact.

On the other way, if some member has a certain spin, we can be perfectly sure, the other member of the entangled pair has right the opposite spin due the Pauli exclusion principle. But it says nothing about uncertainty of measurement of the spin of both the members at the same time.

Hehe, excuse me for being lost. I understand that we are talking about the spin, and if I understand you correctly, this spin is a 100% transfer. The spin will not be off, even slightly?

I, in an uneducated way, think that it would make sense that there could be a stronger or weaker link of the spins. Is this wrong?
Zephir
QUOTE (johnphantom+Oct 9 2006, 12:51 PM)
I ... think that it would make sense that there could be a stronger or weaker link of the spins. Is this wrong?

Yes and no... wink.gif The energy transfer between embers of entangled system is quantized and proceeds in finite number of steps. But the number of this steps increases with the count of members of entangled systems (i.e. the number of quabits shared). By such way, the entanglement level between bosons in two clouds of EB condensate is nearly continuous on the macroscopic level by the same way, like the entanglement between two groups of photons in coherent photon pulses.

With accordance of this, the entangled laser pulse undergoes the gradual process of so called decoherence during passing the longer way in optical cable. But this results just in increasing of noise/signal ratio, not in the change of entanglement state as such.
johnphantom
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 9 2006, 11:21 AM)
Yes and no... wink.gif The energy transfer between embers of entangled system is quantized and proceeds in finite number of steps. But the number of this steps increases with the count of members of entangled systems (i.e. the number of quabits shared). By such way, the entanglement level between bosons in two clouds of EB condensate is nearly continuous on the macroscopic level by the same way, like the entanglement between two groups of photons in coherent photon pulses.

With accordance of this, the entangled laser pulse undergoes the gradual process of so called decoherence during passing the longer way in optical cable. But this results just in increasing of noise/signal ratio, not in the change of entanglement state as such.

OK. Next question: say we're talking about the spin of an electron in an atom being entangled to the spin of an electron to another atom. Could I have the first atom's spin entangled with the spin of two or more atoms?
Zephir
QUOTE (johnphantom+Oct 9 2006, 03:11 PM)
Could I have the first atom's spin entangled with the spin of two or more atoms?

Being more specific, just the single particle spin is the defined quantity. So we can say, just two or more electrons (in different atoms, supposedly) can have spin entangled, not the atoms as a whole. Furthemore, here's a Pauli exclusion principle, so such number of electrons in each atom will be always odd-numbered. The magnetic domain in ferromagnetic can serve as the volume area, containg the atoms in atom lattice, which are sharing the unpaired electrons entangled.

As you can see, the magnetic domains are always containing the atoms with fully entangled spin, no intermediate states are allowed here.
johnphantom
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 9 2006, 12:39 PM)
Being more specific, just the single particle spin is the defined quantity. So we can say, just two or more electrons (in different atoms, supposedly) can have spin entangled, not the atoms as a whole. Furthemore, here's a Pauli exclusion principle, so such number of electrons in each atom will be always odd-numbered. The magnetic domain in ferromagnetic can serve as the volume area, containg the atoms in atom lattice, which are sharing the unpaired electrons entangled.

As you can see, the magnetic domains are always containing the atoms with fully entangled spin, no intermediate states are allowed here.

Excellent, thank you!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.