Eise
-
Posts
1975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Eise
-
-
5 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Apparently, Bell was quoting from the EPR article when he listed what he considered to be 'hidden variables.
In which article of Bell? You made the citation, you should know. I did not find it, until now.
5 hours ago, bangstrom said:No hidden variables means there no hidden variables therefore hidden variables have no speed because they don't exist.
I don't see the connection with FTL.
You don't? If there were local hidden variables, there is no need for any signal. The electrons or photons would carry an attribute that would locally determine the measurement outcomes.
5 hours ago, bangstrom said:Also, the cosmos doesn't care about SR.
SR is one of the best proven theories in physics, and essential in QFT, Electro-Magnetism, E = mc^2, and a hell of a lot more. It is intrinsic to the metric of spacetime.
5 hours ago, bangstrom said:The classical channel is for measuring the predicted polarity of the teleported signal. It has nothing to do with the preparation and sending of the signal for teleportation. It is for measurement purposes only.
BS:
From Wikipedia.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:No one is thinking classically and no one is saying entanglement does not exist so your presumptions are 90 degrees off base.
Yes, no one is denying entanglement, but it only exists 'in the quantum world', and in QM there is no need for an FTL signal. Just a correlation that is greater than classically possible. Trying to understand this correlation classically, one would need an FTL signal.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:The singlet state is: In quantum mechanics, a singlet state usually refers to a system in which all electrons are paired. The term 'singlet' originally meant a linked set of particles whose net angular momentum is zero, that is, whose overall spin quantum number s = 0 {\displaystyle s=0}
. From wiki.
Ah, nearly forgot that you have reading problems. From the same article:
QuoteSinglets and entangled states
It is important to realize that particles in singlet states need not be locally bound to each other. For example, when the spin states of two electrons are correlated by their emission from a single quantum event that conserves angular momentum, the resulting electrons remain in a shared singlet state even as their separation in space increases indefinitely over time, provided only that their angular momentum states remain unperturbed. In Dirac notation this distance-indifferent singlet state is usually represented as:The possibility of spatially extended unbound singlet states has considerable historical and even philosophical importance, since considering such states contributed importantly to the theoretical and experimental exploration and verification of what is now called quantum entanglement. Along with Podolsky and Rosen, Einstein proposed the EPR paradox thought experiment to help define his concerns with what he viewed as the non-locality of spatially separated entangled particles, using it in an argument that quantum mechanics was incomplete. In 1951 David Bohm formulated a version of the ``paradox" using spin singlet states.
The difficulty captured by the EPR-Bohm thought experiment was that by measuring a spatial component of the angular momentum of either of two particles that have been prepared in a spatially distributed singlet state, the quantum state of the remaining particle, conditioned on the measurement result obtained, appears to be "instantaneously" altered, even if the two particles have over time become separated by light years of distance. Decades later John Stewart Bell, who was a strong advocate of Einstein's locality-first perspective, proved Bell's theorem and showed that it could be used to assess the existence or non-existence of singlet entanglement experimentally. The irony was that instead of disproving entanglement, which was Bell's hope, subsequent experiments instead established the reality of entanglement. In fact, there now exist commercial quantum encryption devices whose operation depends fundamentally on the existence and behavior of spatially extended singlets.
A weaker form of Einstein's locality principle remains intact, which is this: Classical information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light c, not even by using quantum entanglement events. This form of locality is weaker than the notion of ``Einstein locality" or ``local realism" used in the EPR and Bell's Theorem papers, but sufficient to prevent the emergence of causality paradoxes.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:This is not the same as entanglement where the particle states are indeterminate and the particles frequently far apart.
Except the distance it is the same. Also in bound states the spin states are not determined, until measured, and they are just as well anti-correlated.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:Upon review, I see Markus later explained that his remarks were about the duration of the entanglement and not spin states, in which case, I stand corrected. And we are in agreement about quantum properties not being in fixed positions from start to finish in an entanglement.
Good. So now where do you still have problems with Markus' explanation? It must be somewhere, because it is clear his conclusion is that there is no FTL signal.
0 -
On 12/5/2022 at 12:22 PM, bangstrom said:On 12/4/2022 at 11:20 AM, Eise said:On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:
Hidden variables are, “either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum` mechanics is not complete or (2) two quantum operators cannot have simultaneous reality.”- John Bell
John Bell? Less so: that is from the EPR-article. And you said somewhere 'EPR is invalidated' (whatever that means...) But now it supports your viewpoint? Wow.
If you read the rest of the statement John Bell was listing in the quote the sort of things he considered “hidden variables’ in the EPR article and the hidden variables were what Aspect and Clauser ruled out as invalid fifty years ago.
Seems you did not understand my remark. Your citation is from the original article by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. (That you claim is 'invalidated', whatever that means). It is not mentioned in Bell's 'Bertlmann's Socks'. And I fully agree that hidden local variables are ruled out.
On 12/7/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:Anyhow, the quote was Bell’s comment about what he considered to be ‘hidden variables’ and ‘hidden variables’ were the things from the EPR article ruled out by Bell’s inequalities.
Right. Except that it was E, P and R's comment, not Bell's. But the absence of local hidden variables does not mean that the only alternative is an FTL signal. An FTL signal:
- does not appear in the QM that explains the correlation between the measurements, so you cannot build your argument for an FTL signal on QM. Markus explained this clearly in his post on page 22
- is forbidden by SR in principle
- cannot physically exist because for observers in different inertial frames the direction of the signal can differ. That means they differ about the direction of the causal relationship between the measurements. But in SR all inertial observers agree in the direction of causal relationships.
On 12/7/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:Teleportation works without the classical channel.
Really? You said:
On 12/9/2022 at 1:50 PM, bangstrom said:The radio transmission to the receiving station was automatically transmitted after the teleportation but before the reception across the river. This is the timing of events that makes the experiment so remarkable in that it demonstrates the successful transmission of a quantum property from the identity of a photon left behind to a photon ‘in flight’ away from the source.
Italics by me. So the timing of the classical signal and the measurement are essential. Ask Zeilinger to do his 'teleportation' without classical signal. If you say it is not essential, then you can do without. (But why should the timing be so important...?)
On 12/7/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:To say that entangled particles are anti-coordinated at the end because they have been anti-coordinated since the beginning, that is one of the hidden variables that was ruled out by the Bell test.
Nope. Complete false picture of entanglement. The particles are anti-correlated per definition of what entanglement is. We know the particles are entangled, so that they are anti-correlated. That is exactly what entanglement means:
- the particles are (anti-)correlated
- no measurement was done on the particles yet
We just don't know what the measurements will result to, but if we have a pure singlet state, and we know the spin is up in one direction, then the other particle, measured in the same direction, will be down. But this is based on the correlation between the particles. And in QM this correlation is stronger than we can understand classically. So if you think classically, where such entanglement does not exist, we must conclude that there is a FTL signal. So your way of thinking is already more than 90 years outdated.
On 12/7/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:The particles are not in a singlet state when entangled.
Exactly the opposite: the singlet state is the fully entangled state. Exactly as Markus described.
On 12/10/2022 at 12:00 PM, bangstrom said:I did agree with Markus with the exception of his comment about quantum properties remaining unchanged from the start. That is one of those hidden variables ruled out by the Bell test.
Please give an exact citation where Markus said that. You even agree:
On 12/7/2022 at 9:27 PM, bangstrom said:Obviously, entangled particles are entangled from the beginning of entanglement to the end. They don't take a break in the middle and then resume.
Now what is this 'hidden variable ruled out by the Bell test'? That the particles are entangled? Or is a hidden variable an attribute of the particles from the beginning, that determine which particle will show which spin?
On 12/9/2022 at 1:50 PM, bangstrom said:The reason is that I have an unbiased interest following advances in quantum experiments for the past forty years. So far, you have demonstrated almost no understanding of the experimental side of things and your unsupported personal opinions are fifty years out of touch with the revolution in thinking has taken place with and around this years three Nobel prize winners.
🤣
0 -
37 minutes ago, bangstrom said:
If you read the rest of the statement John Bell was listing in the quote...
Which statement you mean? Please give this 'rest of the statement' and a link to the article where it comes from.
38 minutes ago, bangstrom said:What role does the classical channel play in the success of quantum teleportation? As I said, the classical channel only serves to prepare the receiving apparatus to receive the signal when it arrives.
Does teleportation work when you omit this preparation? If not, then the classical signal is essential.
40 minutes ago, bangstrom said:I understand the statement to say a classical signal lacks an “immediate interaction”, but if it had a FTL signal, it would no longer be a classical signal.
Is that your interpretation or something else?
Nope. You must read it as 'quantum entanglement can only be understood by using quantum mechanics'. There is no FTL signal in the quantum mechanical explanation. QM entanglement cannot be simulated with classical means, unless you allow for FTL communication.
And you evaded my first point. Here it is again for you:
On 12/4/2022 at 11:20 AM, Eise said:On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:"From the beginning"implies one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.
Oh man, trying not to loose your face, you now even have lost sight of what entanglement is. We know that the particles are entangled from the beginning, because they are produced entangled. Do you suggest to show entanglement is real by using particles that are not entangled from the beginning? That is the crux of the 'singlet state': we know the wave function of both particles together, but not of the individual particles. That means we know the outcomes of the measurements must be (anti-)correlated.
0 -
From your link https://kiisfm.iheart.com/content/2022-05-09-best-photograph-of-a-ufo-ever-taken-has-experts-stumped/:
QuoteWhen the pictures were developed, aerial photographer Sergio Loaiza noticed a shiny, round, metal, saucer-like object flying between the plane and a lake below. Neither he nor the others on the plane saw anything strange during the flight but based on altitude, the UFO is believed to be between 120 and 220 feet wide.
I have read similar comments on a lot of UFO photographs. So I am all in for TheVat's '3rd alternative':
10 hours ago, TheVat said:I don't think one can rule out the third possibility of flaws in photo emulsion.
0 -
On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:
"From the beginning"implies one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.
Oh man, trying not to loose your face, you now even have lost sight of what entanglement is. We know that the particles are entangled from the beginning, because they are produced entangled. Do you suggest to show entanglement is real by using particles that are not entangled from the beginning? That is the crux of the 'singlet state': we know the wave function of both particles together, but not of the individual particles. That means we know the outcomes of the measurements must be (anti-)correlated.
On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:Hidden variables are, “either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum` mechanics is not complete or (2) two quantum operators cannot have simultaneous reality.”- John Bell
John Bell? Less so: that is from the EPR-article. And you said somewhere 'EPR is invalidated' (whatever that means...) But now it supports your viewpoint? Wow.
On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:The only purpose for the classical signal is to set the polarizer to the correct position to receive the incoming signal. The incoming signal is already prepared and on the way by then.
The classical channel plays no role in the completed entanglement.
The 'only purpose'? That 'purpose' is central for quantum teleportation to succeed. The classical signal is necessary for teleportation. But I fully agree with Markus that when discussing entanglement in itself, you should not use more difficult setups that make use of entanglement.
On 12/3/2022 at 10:15 AM, bangstrom said:Their correlation upon observation suggests some kind of a signal from the first observed to the second.
If you think classically, yes. But that is exactly what the Bell theorem says: the only way one could simulate entanglement with classical means would need an immediate interaction between the entangled particles. As you think classically, you think it needs an FTL signal.
Your arguments become worse and worse.
Oh my, page 25...
0 -
21 minutes ago, bangstrom said:
The speed of light in a vacuum is a cliche but how can a speed be relative to a vacuum which is nothing at all and also the same for all observers?
Oh, c'mon. c is the lightspeed through vacuum, not relative to vacuum.
23 minutes ago, bangstrom said:He said the anti-correlation was fixed from the start.
Yep, that is what characterises entanglement. The directions of the spins are anti-correlated, meaning that we know from the beginning that if we 'add the spins' (when measured in the same direction), we will get zero.
Just as a remark, in some experiments, with photons e.g. the particles are correlated. But I'll go with your anti-correlated example, no prob.
28 minutes ago, bangstrom said:This was one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test.
Nope. The 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test are properties of the particles that determine in advance what spins will be measured.
30 minutes ago, bangstrom said:There is nothing classical about quantum teleportation
On one side, exactly, but you look with 'classical eyes' on entanglement. That is your problem.
On the other side, no: besides the entangle particles needed in quantum teleportation, there is also a classical signal needed. You know that very well.
0 -
1 hour ago, sologuitar said:
Young, strong, energetic people dropping like flies. This is happening all over the world not just in the United States but people refuse to believe the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. This has to be the most wet behind the ears generation of people in the history of mankind. The democrats are counting on us to get dumber and dumber by the minute. It's very easy to brainwash and control people who are not well-informed. You say?
In the US there are many more Republicans dropping dead than Democrats. Just guess why... Two hints:
- Which group was more vaccinated?
- Which group did take social distancing and masks more serious?
The risks of Covid vaccination are negligible compared to having Covid.
QuoteThe fates of Republicans and Democrats began to diverge markedly after the introduction of vaccines in April of 2021. Between March 2020 and March 2021, excess death rates for Republicans were 1.6 percentage points higher than for Democrats. After April 2021, the gap widened to 10.6 percentage points.
Does this mean that differing vaccine uptake levels between Republicans and Democrats caused the mortality gap? Goldsmith-Pinkham says this study alone doesn’t prove that’s the case. However, he believes it does offer “pretty good evidence” that vaccines are at least an important part of the story.
From More Republicans Died Than Democrats after COVID-19 Vaccines Came Out
3 -
Peter Woit shows the emperor has no clothes:
QuoteThe claim that “Physicists Create a Wormhole” is just complete bullshit, with the huge campaign to mislead the public about this a disgrace, highly unhelpful for the credibility of physics research in particular and science in general.
From 'Not even wrong'.
And a citation in Peter Woit's comment from Brown and Susskind:
Quotebecause nine qubits can be easily simulated on a classical computer, the results of this experiment cannot teach us anything that could not be learnt from a classical computation, and will not teach us anything new about quantum gravity.
0 -
5 hours ago, sologuitar said:
Sorry but I don't understand your descending powers in the denominator for each fraction.
For example, you said (a^3) = (a^4)/(a•a^2).
Can you further explain your work here?
No, I said:
- a^3 = (a^4)/a
There are several other ways to see it, but they all are variations of the same theme:
- a^4 = a x a x a x a
- a^3 = a^4/a = (a x a x a x a)/a = a x a x a
- a^2 = a^3/a = (a x a x a)/a = a x a
- a^1 = a^2/a = (a x a)/a = a
- a^0 = a^1/a = a/a = 1
In short, the obvious rule is that with division of powers, you subtract the powers:
(a^n)/a^m=a^(n - m).
So when n = m:
(a^n)/(a^n) = a^(n - n) = a^0.
But dividing two equal numbers always gives 1. (Except 0^0, which can not be defined.)
0 -
See here:
0 -
One simple way to see it:
- a^3 = (a^4)/a
- a^2 = (a^3)/a
- a^1 = (a^2)/a = a
- a^0 = (a^1)/a = a/a = 1
Does that make sense?
1 -
19 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Entanglement is not a part of relativity and only the ‘second postulate’ and entanglement are not in agreement. The rest of relativity is OK.
The second postulate is that the speed of light is the same for all observers. (And not that c is the limiting speed of material objects.)
18 hours ago, bangstrom said:Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.
As said, 'my light cone' was also of Joigus. AFAIU Joigus' intention with the latest, was to show that your remarks about light cones were much too vague (as usual): they also fit these funny space-time diagrams.
19 hours ago, bangstrom said:In 1676, Olaus Roemer discovered that c was simply a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in the constant ratio of c. He was looking for a speed and discovered a universal constant ratio of time to distance. Unfortunately he called it a speed and it has been known as a speed ever since.
So you are just reinterpreting a piece of science history. I am sure Ole Rømer hypothesized that the anomaly in the orbital times of Jupiter moons was caused by a signal delay, i.e. that the light signals do have some measurable speed. So this is no argument at all.
19 hours ago, bangstrom said:The true speed of light is unknown and unknowable because our units of length, time, and c are all mutually defined.
The units, yes. But light has a fixed speed in vacuum, independent on which units we use, be it inches, cm, meters, seconds, minutes, hours.
19 hours ago, bangstrom said:As I recall, Markus was claiming that the anti-coordination revealed at the end of an entanglement was there from the start. This was one of the first 'hidden variables' ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequalities and debunked by the experiments of Aspect and Clauser.
Yep, this anti-correlation is given, as we are talking about entangled particles. What would entangled particles be without correlation? So the correlation 'an sich' is not a hidden variable at all. The Bell experiments prove that the correlation is stronger than can understood classically. And you are arguing classically all the time, so no wonder you keep hammering on the idea that there should be a signal, interaction or whatever.
20 hours ago, bangstrom said:I agreed with his first statement but the one point about the quantum properties being fixed from the start was where our views parted company.
Where did Markus say that the direction of the spins are fixed?
20 hours ago, bangstrom said:Also, Zeilinger's teleportation demonstrated that an entire series of entangled quantum properties can be reversed remotely and in an instant. This would not be possible if the quantum properties were fixed and unchanging from the start.
Nope. They even had to delay the entangled photon, so that the classical signal would be at the other side first. The correlation between the entangled photons is instantly, yes, but
- that is just an attribute of any form of correlation, like the left and right shoe example.
- quantum teleportation as a whole is not instantly.
0 -
21 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Entanglement would be slightly more difficult to illustrate with a light cone than ordinary events because it would usually require two or more separate but overlapping light cones to illustrate and I have never seen it done.
Eh? Joigus did it:
21 hours ago, bangstrom said:The value of c works perfectly well as a universally observed dimensional constant and it behaves nothing like a speed. Just because c is the ratio of distance over time doesn’t mean it is a speed, and since c=d/t is a constant, that should be our first clue that c isn’t a speed.
It seems you really do not understand EM either. Just take the historical lesson:
- Maxwell discovered the laws of EM, based on the experimental results of Faraday, and his ideas of electric and magnetic fields.
- Maxwell discovered that his equations implied that EM waves should be possible, because he could derive a wave equation from them.
- According to plain old classical wave mechanics, he showed that the speed of the waves should be sqrt(1/(mu_naught * epsilon_naught)).
- As this fitted very well to the known speed of light, he concluded that light is an EM wave.
And now you say that c is not so much light speed????? Oh my.
I also want to mention, that you obviously simply do not understand, or evade all explanations given. On one side, you said you fully agreed with Markus' first explanation (but where for me it was obvious that this could not be, he clearly explained why you were wrong). But then, Markus showed you made the same errors all over again. So you did not understand one word of what he was arguing. Please, learn real physics.
0 -
3 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Yes, as I explained, outside observations, whether the observers are in motion or not, do not affect the results of the experiment which is why our circular discussion about SR and outside observations were irrelevant.
And I explained that nobody was even saying this. So you were beating a dead horse.
So let's try to explain it once again. As a starting point we take a Bell experiment, that closes the communication loophole. This means:
- the measurements cannot influence each other with a light signal, or any slower signal
- the decision which spin direction will be measured is taken after the particles left the entanglement source
So there can't be any causal connection between measurement device A, B, and the entanglement source. Said otherwise, no communication is possible between these 3 components.
To make the example as simple as possible we also assume that detectors and entanglement source do not move relative to each other, and the entanglement source is exactly in the middle, so the measurements are exactly at the same time in the rest frame of the experiment.
Are you with me so far?
Maybe Joigus' drawing helps:
Just take Alice and Bob as other names for the detectors.
So now we ask ourselves what Carla and Daniel will see. Well, it is in the drawing: in Carla's frame of reference the measurement at Bob's side is first, for Daniel's FoR it was Alice's side. It is just a question of perspective, not of changing anything with the experiment of course. Got that too?
Now according SR observers can disagree on the timely order of events, when these events are space-like separated. But that is exactly what the closing of the communication loophole means. But SR also states that Carla and Daniel should at least agree on the physical process. But they don't:
- according to Carla, Bob's measurement determined the outcome of Alice's
- according to Daniel, Alice's measurement determined the outcome of Bob's
But these cannot both be true. So the conclusion is that there is no 'determination relation' between the measurements. So no signal, FTL or not. For Alice and Bob of course nothing changes. In their FoR the measurements are simultaneous, just as before. So Carla or Daniel have no influence at all on the experiment. But they should agree at least on the physics.
1 -
34 minutes ago, bangstrom said:
I said SR is “meta” to the topic of entanglement and how outside observers, with their varied observations, can not change the temporal order of events in an experiment.
Seems you have wax in your ears:
Nobody claims that observers that are in other inertial frames of reference affect the experiment.
38 minutes ago, bangstrom said:I am not saying SR is not important. It just isn't relevant to understanding most experiments involving entanglement, their collection of data, or calculations of the results.
There you are right, for one time. To understand entanglement, one must understand QM. But as said, SR is a 'filter' for possible explanations. If an explanation is in conflict with SR, then it is wrong.
41 minutes ago, bangstrom said:19 hours ago, Eise said:Now it would be interesting to know if you agree with Markus' descriptions.
Yes, that is what I said.
(No, it wasn't, but I let that be.)
Then did you read it well? Or didn't you understand it (again)?
On 11/21/2022 at 4:46 PM, Markus Hanke said:This is purely due to the form of the combined wave function - the outcome of individual measurements on each of the constituents is still purely stochastic, and not (!!!) a function of distant coordinates.
On 11/21/2022 at 4:46 PM, Markus Hanke said:Because the outcome (statistical probability) of local measurements is not a function of coordinates or any distant states, it is completely meaningless to say that this situation is somehow non-local, or requires any kind of interaction, be it FTL or otherwise.
On 11/21/2022 at 4:46 PM, Markus Hanke said:This hasn’t got anything to do with locality at all, but is purely a statistical phenomenon.
0 -
3 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Hopefully, yes. I appreciate your efforts and support the accuracy of your description.
Now it would be interesting to know if you agree with Markus' descriptions.
3 hours ago, bangstrom said:The majority of the 22 pages were not about entanglement but they veered off into circular discussions of unrelated topics such as fine points of SR
'Unrelated'? You simply do not see what the relation is.
One could call SR a 'meta-theory': it describes how space and time transform when seen by different inertial observers. As we all observe physical phenomena in space and time, all fundamental laws of physics must pass the test if they are Lorentz invariant. If they are not, then they are not correct.
An FTL signal does not pass the test, so an entanglement explanation that contains an FTL signal cannot work. That is the whole argument in a nutshell. Even QM must 'obey' special relativity, which it does, as QFT.
0 -
4 hours ago, MigL said:
It helps those of us who wish to understand entanglement more clearly.
And of course a +1 for Markus. At least I understand it a little more clearly now.
0 -
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:17 hours ago, Eise said:
1. One of "Different observers seeing signals going into different directions" and how this is "a well understood phenomenon of SR".
That goes back to the old example where lightning strikes both ends a train simultaneously on both ends relative to an observer in the center.
Oh my. In the entanglement situation we are discussing that different inertial observers, in your interpretation where there is a FTL signal, must see one signal (between the measurements) going into opposite directions, but taking the same trajectory. And now you come with an example with two signals, taking two different trajectories, one of the front of the train to the middle, the other from rear to the middle.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:An observer at the front will say it struck the front first and an observer at the rear will say it struck the rear first.
And this has to do nothing with SR. SR is not about observers being at different locations. That can be handled just as well with Newtonian mechanics. Just take the signal velocity in account, and you are done. SR however is about the different observations by observers in different inertial frames of reference, i.e. observers that move (fast) relatively to each other. Do you know the difference between spacial distant events, and space-like separated events in SR at all?
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:An example of a signal carrying information but not energy would be a signal involving entanglement. That is my answer and I have no other.
I thought so. Case closed.
3 hours ago, bangstrom said:Some say that does violate SR but I say it only violates Einstein’s second postulate about nothing being faster than light. His second postulate was instrumental in formulating SR but it remains a provisional statement that is no longer supported by experimental evidence.
Ah. It only violates one of the two groundstones* of SR, without which SR would be thoroughly false. At the same time SR is essential to our understanding of QFT, it is the basis even of our classical understanding of electro-magnetism, it is practically essential for GPS and particle accelerators, it explains the colour of gold and the liquidness of mercury, etc, but yeah, the invariance of light speed is just a provisional conjecture.
You have no idea how SR is one of the roots of our understanding of the physical world. Every fundamental law of nature must pass the criterion that it is Lorentz invariant, i.e. does not lead to inconsistencies when we apply SR.
* BTW the second postulate is not that nothing can go faster than light, it says that the speed of light is invariant. That no material object can reach the speed of light is a conclusion of SR.
3 hours ago, iNow said:Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
I can’t wait to see what fun the next 21 pages of repeated thread will bring.
He, 22 already! Do not eat too much popcorn...
0 -
7 hours ago, bangstrom said:
Your question is asking for, a real signal transferring information and energy but not entanglement.
Nope.
You said:
On 11/17/2022 at 8:46 AM, bangstrom said:Different observers seeing signals going in different directions is a well understood phenomenon of SR.
For which I wanted an explanation.
Then you said:
On 11/17/2022 at 12:16 PM, bangstrom said:Information has no energy and a signal need not be energy bearing.
And then I asked an example of information transfer, or a signal, that works without a transfer of energy and/or matter.
So maybe I was a bit confusing, but I want two examples:
- One of "Different observers seeing signals going into different directions" and how this is "a well understood phenomenon of SR".
- Information transfer or signal, without any energy or matter involved.
And both not using entanglement, because that would mean you are using your conclusion about entanglement as argument, with other words you would "beg the question".
And I am still waiting for a reaction on my posting:
0 -
1 minute ago, studiot said:
Bodies can be in the same inertial frame so long as they are not accelerating relative to each other.
Nope. An observer with a constant velocity compared to a defined inertial frame will observe distances, durations etc differently from an observer in that defined inertial frame. What is true is that when we have an inertial frame of reference, and an observer is moving with constant velocity relative to that inertial frame, then that observer is also in an inertial frame. But it is another one.
0 -
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:
How is that statement vague? 'Grounded' in the local reference frame means it is based upon the local reference frame or it uses the local reference frame.
So you mean the entanglement source and the detectors are in same inertial reference frame, in other words, they are at rest relative to each other? Then say so.
- Next step: is this a preferred frame of reference? A preferred frame of reference in this context would mean that only in this frame correct conclusions about what physically is happening can be drawn.
- Next step: according to SR there are no preferred inertial frames of reference. Still, all observers, whatever their speed and direction, agree on the physics about what is going on. (However they can differ on distances, durations, timely order of events, simultaneity etc.) That is against 1., so 1. does not apply: the inertial frame of the experiment is not a preferred frame of reference.
- Next step: if there is a physical signal from one measurement to the other, all inertial observers should agree on this signal, especially its direction.
- Next step: for some observers Alice's measurement was first (e.g. Daniel in Joigus' drawing), for others Bob's measurement was first (Carla).
- Next step: Daniel and Carla do not agree on the direction of a hypothesised signal. But as they, according to SR, should agree on the physics of the situation (in this case which measurement determines the other), there can be no signal.
As you see, there is no influence whatever from the different observers.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:That is a bit of confusion that kept things going. I kept saying that outside observations have no effect on the results of the experiment while "joigus" and others kept saying that outside observers see events in a different order so no one can say which came first.
Italics: Nope. Every observer observes the measurements, but they do not agree with each other which was first. So there is no objective first. Just to be sure: that is only true when the measurements are space-like separated, in the SR meaning of that concept. Not just space separated. Which you are using in your next argument:
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:Also consider this, if Alice is next to the detector on the far left and Bob is next to the detector on the far right and the entangled particles reach both detectors at measurably the same instant relative to their origin at the center. Alice will say the particle arrived at her detector first and Bob will say the particle arrived his detector first. This should indicate that they, like all outside observers, are not in exactly the same reference frame as the experiment itself so they are in no position to say which particle was detected first.
Oh my! In SR we talk about inertial frames of reference, not about the position of observers in space! It is 'easy-peasy' for Alice, if she knows the distance to Bob's detector, to conclude that his measurement was at the same time as her measurement. If detectors and entanglement source are in the same inertial frame of reference, Alice and Bob can agree on which measurement was first (or if they were simultaneous). Obfuscation from your side again: you have changed the meaning of 'reference frame'. Or you have a total misunderstanding of SR. Or both.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:Others, and if I recall you are among them, say it is impossible to say which came first because the observation is relative. This is essentially saying outside observers can affect the order of events.
Nope. I say that for space-like separated events there is no objective order of events. And just observing does not change anything. Do you really think we are saying that Carla and Daniel change the 'objective' order events, and that in different directions?
0 -
1 hour ago, bangstrom said:
The entanglement experiment is grounded in the local reference frame of the experiment itself.
Again use of vague concepts. What does 'grounded' mean here? That the experiment happens to be done in an inertial frame?
1 hour ago, bangstrom said:The Alice and Bob scenario involves the SR observations of two outside observers. Their observations have no affect on the timing or calculations of the local reference frame and the experimental setup is blind to both classical and SR variations in timing by its perfectly symmetrical design so SR variations need not be considered.
OK, obviously you need reading glasses. So in a large font, specially for you:
Nobody claims that observers that are in other inertial frames of reference affect the experiment.
The rest of your argument is BS. Observers in other inertial frames, like in Joigus' drawing, Carla and Daniel, see the space-like separated measurements, assuming they were simultaneous in the frame of reference of the experiment, in opposite timely order. Still they must agree on the physical interpretation of the measurements. A signal from one measurement to the other cannot fulfill this condition.
And, BTW, Alice and Bob are in the same inertial frame as the experiment. So what was the difference?
12 minutes ago, bangstrom said:Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum effects.
I said, an example without entanglement. Oh man...
12 minutes ago, bangstrom said:No, a 'preferred frame of reference' is an unworkable cosmological reference frame. That is the kind of "preferred" frame that is prohibited. It's an unfortunate and confusing use of the word 'preferred'.
It is so simple. According to SR there is no preferred inertial frame of reference. But you take the FoR of the experiment as such. I think that is also the reason why you keep sticking to this stupid idea that we think that other observers somehow change the order of events.
0 -
And, oh, by the way, I am still waiting for an example:
20 hours ago, Eise said:So your answer on my question of giving an example of a signal that does not imply transfer of energy is "No, I do not have such an example". Try again. And do not forget: no begging the question. Another example as entanglement.
0 -
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:
I have been discussing the entanglement experiment the whole time and you appear to have been discussing an Alice and Bob scenario and that is a disconnect that appears to have lead to some major confusion.
So what is the difference between the entanglement experiment and the Alice and Bob scenario?
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:That means they can choose to measure the particle that went to the left first- or- they can measure the particle that went to the right first. It all depends on how they setup the experiment prior to each run.
You said I know nothing about SR because I failed to consider the SR observations from outside observers. I explained that SR may work but it does not work across reference frames
What? SR is the theory of how observers in different inertial frames of reference see physical events. It is the theory about how events are seen across different reference frames.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:SR can not change the order of events in the experiment so SR is irrelevant to the experiment and its calculations.
How often must I repeat this? No order of events is 'changed'. Observers in different inertial frames of reference just see them in different timely order, when events are space-like separated. So this is blatantly false:
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:The setup of the experiment itself decides the order of events.
Again: the essential improvement of Aspect's experiment was that the measurements were space-like separated. And when the measurements are, then there will be inertial frames in which the timely order of the measurements is in one direction, and others where it is in the other direction.
4 hours ago, bangstrom said:A “preferred inertial frame of reference” has a specific meaning in physics (look it up) and it is prohibited by SR.
And that is exactly what I am saying. However, you use the inertial frame of reference of the experiment as a preferred frame of reference. Which is prohibited by SR, exactly as you say.
0
ChatGPT logic
in Computer Science
Posted · Edited by Eise
Thanks for the reference!
I must assume now that @bangstrom is a pre-alpha release of ChatGPT, trained with the contents of the internet until about 1935
.
However, I think that the program has some access to the internet. E.g. it knows that Zeilinger got the Nobel price. I assume it uses a Google API, picking some information that seems to fit to the contents of its pre-1935 training program, and somehow seems to support its position. It is clearly mimicking intelligence, but it is way behind its present Big Brother, ChatGPT.