joigus

Man oh, man. That's a great analogy!!! +1 It's freakin' brilliant. You've made the other person a widow or widower, without actually doing anything to them. You have learnt something about them because of what you've done at one point. You know something about the other person's future. But the other person, and those around her or him, are clueless until the "classical data" are sent to them. Those classical data are under the constraints of delay, because they do have to use a signal.

Yes, you're saying this since day one. I will repeat: SR always applies in sufficiently small regions of space-time. There is no known experimental exception to it, and there's no reason to expect any. Quantum entanglement is every bit as compliant with SR as every other physical process we know. If you think this not to be the case, explain why with theoretical arguments from mainstream physics, or direct us to the experimental evidence. So far you're just parrotting unsubstanciated claims by other people. We are all aware of the existence of these claims, as we are aware of the existence of bad music. There's a thin line separating serious science from free-floating fantasy, and some people take every oportunity wherever they find ambiguity, or a grey area, to cross that line. There's bad science too, you know? I wasn't born yesterday. No. An Entanglement is a property that only very special many-particle states satisfy. It's not a set of entities having properties according to which we can do statistics. The statistics of such properties is hardwired in the state without them being "real" properties of the individual entities. The entangled state is the entity as far as the current theory understands it. No quantum numbers of spin make up the Bell state. The individual quantum numbers are totally undetermined. The eigenstates are totally undetermined. The particle identities are totally undetermined. There's no cohort. There's no set of internal colours, markers, tags. So far as we know today, there isn't. Maybe in the future someone will come up with an idea to weaken the criterion of reality to define these variables and make it all consistent with known physics, but so far it hasn't happened. Entanglement is a property in itself (the ending "-ment" should give it away). A cohort is a set of individuals with properties (like, eg, people aged between 16 and 20, unemployed, and single.) So no, you're not dealing with this topic with any degree of scientific of philosophical care. You're obviously ignorant of relativity, as well as of how and why it's critical in this discussion. Yes. At least @MigL has told him, you @Eise have told him --and he's telling you again--, and I have told him. I had no objection to that anthropomorphic expression either. I think everyone involved in this thread understood it is just a manner of speaking.

I think this is more or less equivalent to what @Janus already mentioned about the old "tired light" hypothesis: More or less what I meant when I said, Although I don't know how light being red-shifted amounts to it becoming 6 times the mass of baryonic matter through the billions of years. Red shift is not the same as photons "staying around." This argument, or similar ones, are bound to be reborn in the minds of people who think they understand the problem. It was ruled out long ago, and I must confess I've never considered it because it's so off the mark in so many directions. DM is a big unknown today. It could be exotic matter, or it could be "quintessence" or... who knows. But it's not light. We do know that much today. Astrophysicists say it's not baryonic, nor EM --so no photons--, nor weak-interacting[?] The Wikipedia quote is, in fact, incomplete: It does not appear to interact with charged particles. Keep in mind the EM field interacts with itself only too weakly. It does not scatter off electrons or ions AFAWK. DM does not interact electromagnetically at all. Photons do. Maybe a mixture of different things... Perhaps. It's either something that clusters very, very loosely, or just a deviation from Einstein's equations. I don't know and, so far as I can tell, you don't know either.

LHC gets tons of data about QCD background and rules out wrong hypotheses and ideas about how matter behaves. It provides an excellent school for engineers and experimental physicists. It fosters collaboration among nations. But maybe you're right. We should throw money at other --more worthy-- causes. Here's another one that's in sorry need for more money:

SR is relevant to everything physics. It's the local limit of GR, it's the basis of QFT. There are no known experimental exceptions to it. Analysis and theoretical discussion on how nothing about QM can contradict its salient facts has been the subject of study for decades. I suggest you study thoroughly how it underpins all of physics. It will be very illuminating. You cannot just say "oh, but this is not SR," and get away with it. About "bickering," If people tell you there are non winged lions, that's not bickering. That's stating something that's very likely to be true. It's for your own intellectual good when people tell you so. There are no winged lions, and there is no contradiction to special relativity. You can take that to your grave. I'll take it to mine.

Oh, don't worry about the words. It could be arranged if you show some equations. What about the virial theorem? It is essential to understand the velocity distribution of objects moving around in a gravitationally-bound cluster. Everything you've said so far is inconsistent with what I know about the virial theorem for galaxies. And you don't need GR for it. A classical calculation would suffice, as the speed of the galaxies is safely within the non-relativistic regime. Mind you, photons themselves are always relativistic, and red-shifted, and subject to gravitational lensing, but the speed of the galaxies due to the presence of photons is not, and could be treated non-relativistically. I want to see how visible radiation from galaxies accounts for a big whopping bulk of mass that represents most of the mass and goes far and far away, well outside of the galactic halos, and somehow stays thereabouts. What you propose is so amazing that I --for one-- demand no less than extraordinarily convincing proof for this extraordinarily outlandish claim. How is the light emitted from a lamp almost 6 times the mass of the lamp? You tell us. (When I say mass I mean energy.)

What do you mean by this? What does it mean "light climbs out more and more the farther away from the source it is?" I don't think that's physics.

This sentence doesn't make sense gramatically, let alone physically. A cohort is a set. I'll get back to you later.

It is insufficient, and exceedingly so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (My emphasis added.)

This is incompatible with the inverse-square law for any conserved stuff that escapes from a source. You seem to be suggesting that more photons are being created the farther away from the source. It's the other way aroung: The farther away from a source, the rarer and rarer the "stuff" becomes, the quantity of stuff per unit of solid angle being approximately constant. Not consistent with the distribution of velocities we observe. Apply the virial theorem and you'll see. Do a google search "virial theorem for galaxies" and get familiar with it. You'll rule out your idea in a matter of minutes. Visible, infrarred, and UV light etc, is how we know there's visible matter there, not the bulk of the matter that we don't see.

That gives a 1/r2 dependence with distance, as Swansont said. Not consistent with the virial theorem for the galactic speeds. And still it is a tiny "contamination" compared to the barionic matter. Crudely, but hopefully clearly, you need a much much bulkier thing, non-interacting --except gravitationally--, and reaching substantially well out of the galactic halos. I don't think that's the issue at all. That would be a minor rearrangement (in the cosmological model) of the matter/radiation/etc terms in the density. The photon having a mass, OTOH, would be something more than just a nuisance, because it would break gauge symmetry, as Markus said, and you would have to spontaneously break it with the Higgs mechanism. By the way, individual photons don't have a mass, but a bunch of photons escaping away from each other do have a centre of energy, so you can infer a collective "mass" for them. They would have a collective speed of the centre of mass less than c. If you want to see it as a mass, that's OK. But that's not the issue. The most important issue IMO is that photons are a fluffly nothing thing in comparison with the enormous bulky mass that DM must be in order to explain galactic velocity distributions. It has to cluster, but it has to do it very dilutely. I'm no expert on this, and I will re-read all the arguments and think more about them, and document more, but to me this attempt is hopeless, has been beaten to death many years ago as a possibility, and would require a total re-vamping of the standard model. I don't even want to start considering what it would do to the electroweak mixings. And on top of that, it's an ugly alternative. But that, and that alone, is just my taste. It's as if --if you allow me the joke-- you detected that there are 70 invisible elephants in your living room by using gravimetric methods, and the explanation you're offering is that somebody left the lights on.

Also, visible light is a tiny fraction of total energy content of the universe, plus it comes in every direction approximately equally. So the idea is really a non-starter. More than likely Kelvin, and many others, in the 19th century already considered it, and ruled it out almost immediately. Radiation does not cluster. I think the idea fails on so many levels that it's difficult to give a complete account of all of them in a few words...

That's exactly the point. Quantum systems do not have "internal cohorts." No internal cohort of elements with attributes can explain their correlations. Read it again, and you may finally understand this. If you insist on these properties to arise from any kind of internal cohort, whatever the wave function represents --either our knowledge of the system or some "real wave" carrying our knowledge of the system-- would have to be updated non-locally. "The internal cohorts" would have to change their composition in a coordinated way, at a distance, even when separated by space-like intervals. But none of this represents any interaction. It represents updating of your knowledge of the system. You now know more about the system than you knew before, that's all. The fact that the position variables play no role, and you can conduct the experiment at one small region of space, and the results would be exactly the same, should give it away.

Dark matter is thought to be about 85% of the total mass in the universe. Radiation from a lamp is certainly not an 85% excess of the lamp's mass when it's turned off. Also, DM is known not to interact electromagnetically, or strongly, or by weak decays. That's what people mean by "dark." If DM interacted as photons do, it would cluster much more than it's known to do. I was about to say more, but I think that's enough food for thought for the time being. And Janus has given a pretty good account of it.

Maybe this one works for "male" and "female"? \male Undefined control sequence \male \female Undefined control sequence \female DDo I think you don't need environment "displaymath" for that one. Simply: \[ T=\sum_{\begin{array}{c} i_{1},\cdots,i_{n}=1\\ j_{1},\cdots,j_{m}=1 \end{array}}^{d}T_{i_{1}\cdots i_{n}}^{j_{1}\cdots j_{m}}E_{j_{1}\cdots j_{m}}^{i_{1}\cdots i_{n}} \] should work. Let's see: \[ T=\sum_{\begin{array}{c} i_{1},\cdots,i_{n}=1\\ j_{1},\cdots,j_{m}=1 \end{array}}^{d}T_{i_{1}\cdots i_{n}}^{j_{1}\cdots j_{m}}E_{j_{1}\cdots j_{m}}^{i_{1}\cdots i_{n}} \]

Yes, it is. It is exactly what you said. Are you suggesting I'm tinkering with the quoting function, or I'm lying?: It is simply not true that every particle, given enough time, will eventually interact with another particle. Two photons that are being lost beyond the cosmic horizon in opposite directions, eg, will never meet again, or interact in any way. It is false. What you said, you said, and it's false. False, shockingly ignorant statement. Entanglement always occurs as a consequence of local interactions. Particles must be brought together for them to entangle. Here. Simple Google search of "what causes particle entanglement": In the case of parametric down conversion, it's the (non-linear) response of the crystal to a laser at a particular location in the crystal. No. It illustrates the moment when the particles disentangle. You're misquoting here, or just plain lying. Point to me where anybody said that "the ambiguous nature of SR events for different observers can reverse the order of time-like (separated) events." This, most likely, is a new half-digested regurgitation from your mind of what others have actually said. Missing the point again. I will rephrase correctly your gazpacho of words and, with any luck, you will see what you said wrongly: The observation of one quantum property cannot indicate the possible outcome of any other incompatible quantum property. The observation of one quantum property completely determines the possible outcome of the compatible quantum property that's tied to it by a conservation law. And that, my friend, is why realism has no business in explaining quantum mechanics. Never underestimate the value of repetition.

Finally. Here it is. I'm sorry that the explanation is quite lengthy. But I hope it's transparent. In order to explain why non-realism is all that's going on, I will try to work out an example that very much amounts to reverse-engineering Bell's deductive formulation of the contradiction between QM and hidden-variable models. I'm going to do it inductively, instead of deductively, trying to figure out what kind of (realist) collectivities you would have to postulate in order to explain quantum correlations. Here's how you do it. Let's take pairs of astronauts, and two space pods. We pick both astronauts from certain cohorts, arranged is some way or other --we'll see about that in a moment-- so that we may hopefully reproduce the quantum correlations. Let's introduce three basic observables for the astronauts: \( \mathcal{G} \) (gender,) \( \mathcal{H} \) (handedness,) and \( \mathcal{M} \) (marital status.) Let's assume the observables to be sharply dichotomic in their spectrum (possible outcomes of observing each property): Gender: \( \leftarrow \) (female), \( \rightarrow \) (male) Handedness: \( LH \) (left-handed), \( RH \) (right-handed) Marital status: \( M \) (married), \( S \) (single) Let's also assume that these properties are mutually incompatible, in the sense that I am allowed to ask the question, "is the astronaut a married person?" But then I'm not allowed to "experimentally ask" whether it's a woman, or whether it's LH or RH. We must ask one, and only one question. This is meant to crudely replicate the concept of incompatibility in QM. Let's also represent our "hidden internal states" with round brackets. Eg. a female, right-handed, married astronaut would be \( \left(\leftarrow,RH,M\right) \). BTW, this is what's not going to be possible. Einstein's hope to claim these internal states as "real" (elements of reality) was that we perfom the experiments for incompatible properties by exploiting a conservation law, and asking the two incompatible questions in different sub-systems. Eg.: Gender for astronaut (1), and handedness for astronaut (2). Let's represent pairings of experimental outcomes with square brackets: Gender for astronaut (1) and marital status for astronaut (2) would be \( \left[\mathcal{G},\mathcal{M}\right] \), while a possible outcome would be \( \left[\rightarrow,M\right] \), which reads: "Astronaut (1) is a male, and astronaut (2) is married." We can, of course, decide to measure for both astronauts the same property. In our notation, that paired measurement would be represented by, eg, \( \left[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H}\right] \) (handedness, handedness.) Now we select two astronauts, put one in one space pod, and the other one in the other space pod, at random: We throw a coin to decide. Very important observation: Now we can have the space pods fly in opposite directions, or we can decide to conduct the experiment in the same place. It doesn't matter. Whether the pods are in the same place or light years apart when we do the measurement is not an issue. Quantum computations give the same result no matter what we decide at this point. That's key. Another very important observation: At some point, you've put your finger on a real conundrum, which is what happens after we measure the properties, and the question of how the quantum state is updated. This is known as the "measurement problem," and it's part of the reason why some kind of formal non-locality could be invoked. "Formal," because no measurable consequences can be extracted from it. But that's another story. It's the story of how Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be taken but as a useful practical rule. Now, back to our "experiment." I said: For this to be the case, you would have to measure pairs of compatible properties. That is: \[ \left[\mathcal{G},\mathcal{G}\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H}\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{M},\mathcal{M}\right] \] As is well known, in this case the results are perfectly anticorrelated (but random!!). Examples: \[ \left[\mathcal{G},\mathcal{G}\right]:\left[\rightarrow,\leftarrow\right],\left[\leftarrow,\rightarrow\right],\left[\rightarrow,\leftarrow\right],\left[\leftarrow,\rightarrow\right],\cdots \] \[ \left[\mathcal{M},\mathcal{M}\right]:\left[M,S\right],\left[S,M\right],\left[S,M\right],\left[M,S\right],\cdots \] \[ \left[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H}\right]:\left[LH,RH\right],\left[RH,LH\right],\left[LH,RH\right],\left[LH,RH\right],\cdots \] If you think about it, in order to get this results alone, and if you insist on the triplet of properties being "real" all along, you would have to pick a cohort like, Or perhaps others, like all \( \left(\leftarrow,LH,S\right) \) in one sub-cohort, and the exact opposites for every property, \( \left(\rightarrow,RH,M\right) \) in the other. There is no other way. It's the assumption of realism that leaves you no other way out. On the other hand, I also said: And here's how. The totally uncorrelated outcomes for incompatible pairings are like, \[ \left[\mathcal{G},\mathcal{M}\right]:\left[\rightarrow,M\right],\left[\leftarrow,M\right],\left[\rightarrow,S\right],\left[\leftarrow,S\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{M},\mathcal{G}\right]:\left[M,\rightarrow\right],\left[M,\leftarrow\right],\left[S,\rightarrow\right],\left[S,\leftarrow\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{M},\mathcal{H}\right]:\left[M,LH\right],\left[M,RH\right],\left[S,LH\right],\left[S,RH\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{M}\right]:\left[LH,M\right],\left[RH,M\right],\left[LH,S\right],\left[RH,S\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{H},\mathcal{G}\right]:\left[LH,\leftarrow\right],\left[RH,\rightarrow\right],\left[LH,\leftarrow\right],\left[\rightarrow,RH\right] \] \[ \left[\mathcal{G},\mathcal{H}\right]:\left[\leftarrow,LH\right],\left[\rightarrow,RH\right],\left[\leftarrow,LH\right],\left[\rightarrow,RH\right] \] All equally likely. Now, if you think about it, in order to get these results, and you insist on having them from statistical cohorts or picking from subcohorts that hold these properties all along, as real attributes, you have no other way but doing it from, IOW, there is no way that you can obtain both statistical behaviours at the same time with any reasonable assumption of cohorts that hold these properties as real. That's my reverse-engineering of Bell's theorem --or its violation by QM, to be more precise-- for you. Note: Sorry, the usual symbols for male and female don't work here, so I've edited the Latex with \( \leftarrow \) for "female" and \( \rightarrow \) for male. (Except in the pictures.)

Excellent arguments here. I would like to add another one of my own. The contention that, however plausible it may be, is not the same as the contention that certain accidental (visual) projections of stellar objects that are many light years apart from each other, by their sheer apparent position in the sky on this planet with respect to closer stellar bodies --Moon, Mars, etc.--, somehow determine our destinies. Swansont has pointed out how information is hopelessly scrambled by thermalisation. Exchemist and MigL have pointed out limitations imposed by quantum mechanics. Bufofrog has pointed out the fundamental obstruction of relativistic causality. The Vat has pointed out how devoid of predictive power such connections are. I just want to point out that the assumptions of astrology and the observation that everything may ultimately be interconected, therefore maybe everything is affected by everything else, are quite different in and of themselves. The first is pure nonsense or extremely implausible at the very least; the second might be true if, in a remote past, everything was causally connected somehow. But, even if true, it would be pretty sterile in terms of prediction and retrodiction. Truisms and reasonable "possibilisms" are not very useful to make solid science. Suppose you tell a paleantropologist: Somewhere out there must be the first rock that a hominid chipped into a stone tool. Go find it! What hope do we have of finding such an object? How would we know for sure it's the first such object? Suppose we find it. What particular aspect --in this case, of human evolution-- would it illuminate?

No. Two photons parting away from each other will never meet. Also, light cones refer to events, not to particles. Read @Eise's comments above, if mine seem obscure to you. No, there's no "remarkable exception." Again, you ignored something I said later. I made a significant addition because I fell in the trap of your ambiguous language of referring to "a light cone" without specifying the generating event, which of course, is meaningless: Here's a drawing of a generic light cone, with a particle trajectory for the purposes of illustrating its role in general. And here's a drawing of the situation in the EPR experiment, with all the light cones that are relevant to it: So, as you can see, every event "carries" its own light cone. Measurement 1 is outside of measurement 2's light cone, and conversely, measurement 2 is outside of measurement 1's light cone; while both are well within the antecedent preparation of the quantum state's big whopping light cone. What's wrong is that, for space-like separated events, time ordering is ambiguous. So the thing that's "happening" before or after, as the case may be, has to be completely ineffectual (for all intents and purposes, just a re-definition of the wave function,) and only in your mind, really. Eise has just explained how the ordering is ambiguous. If it had any consequences --measurable ones, interactions, etc.-- it would be very bad for SR. It doesn't happen.

Yeah, yeah... Blah, blah. Every time you're caught in an embarrassing lack of understanding of the basics of this problem, you choose not to answer and keep blowing smoke in a different direction. Do you or do you not understand the role that the light cone plays in the discussion of causality? This is, of course, a rethorical question, as it's pretty obvious you do not: ⁉️ ⁉️ (my emphasis.) For two arbitrary events, A and B, A can be in the future light cone of B, A can be in the past light cone of B, or A and B can be space-like separated --ie. either one of them is outside the overall light cone of the other. Space-like separated events are never, --repeat, never-- on the same light cone. Events in the same light cone are causally connected. It is for events outside their respective light cones that any discussion of non-locality would make any sense. You are shockingly ignorant of the concept of causality, and of many other physical concepts. Do some explaining and self-correcting, please, because last time you said something about this, you got it completely backwards. And stop blowing smoke. Bad as it is, ignorance is not your problem. Your problem is you think you actually understand something, and are incapable of acknowledging your ignorance. Your problem is the --highly intellectually toxic-- combination of hubris and ignorance. Another possibility is that two space-like separated events are both on the same (future) light cone of a previous event thus including both in the absolute future of such antecedent event. Or both are on the same (past) light cone of a subsequent event, thus including both in the absolute past of such subsequent event. None of these qualifications is in your language. You are either sloppy, or deliberately ambiguous, or both.

You're probably right, but that's the last thing on my mind, as concerns this "debate."

No. It is simply not true that every particle is within the absolute future light cone of another. This proves an absolute ignorance of the principles of special relativity. You know nothing about SR, that's clear enough for everybody here. When the interval between two particles (instants in their respective histories, viewed as events) is of time-like character, then one is in the future light cone of the other, and the character of time ordering between both is observer-independent. When the interval between such two events is spacelike, on the other hand, the time ordering between them is observer-dependent. Of course there is a difference between entanglement and classical interactions. Do I have to go back to square one to explain it to you again? This is the kind of babbling nonsense I have to put up with: Particles are neither space-like or time-like separated. Events are. Local or not is not an attribute of particles. It's an attribute of interactions and/or evolution of the state. When two events are on the same light cone, they are causally connected. Can you get anything, anything!!! right??? Just one little elementary thing. Can you just get one little elementary factoid of SR right?

Yeah, sure. You're waiting. It takes half a minute to dismiss other people's careful arguments with no arguments of your own. But it takes a bit longer to prepare a carefully-thought argument. See my point? With this degree of carelessness it's gonna be hard. When one event is within the absolute future light-cone of another, you don't need to invoke non-locality/violation of relativistic causality to explain it. Maybe thowing a stone would suffice. It's with spacelike-separated events that you do. Do we have to go to the basics of SR every time you say something?

Overlapping symbols test: \mathclap{\fullmoon}\fullmoon \[ \mathclap{\fullmoon}\fullmoon \] Pitty.

Just for the record, I don't see any derivation either. Mathematical abstractions (fields, particles, manifolds) are just constructs to be constantly revised and possibly reformulated. And the argument "how can a particle read our mind" is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever met.