imatfaal

Ok - lets ignore the poker. But the take-home point is that if you can model it with a system which is classical (or mimics a classical system) then it does NOT model quantum mechanics. Two unknown sets of cards are just that - two separate sets; they re not sharing a single state of superposition

So you have gone from one mathematical truism to another* (presuming you have the algebra correct) - the question is "and...?"

*the sum of two positive numbers (they are counts remember) divided by the sum of two other positive numbers is always gonna be between 0 and infinity unless denominator or numerator is zero in which case you either get zero or undefined

Sorry but I am pretty sure you have still messed up your primed and non-primed. Why not use a,b,c=a' and d=b' ? Much easier to follow

This was a nice puzzle - just realise I didn't post my results. Will see if I still have them and check they correspond

OK - that makes sense if you are dividing both denominator and numerator of the LHS by (b+a') . Which is allowed - but was not at all clear

Can you elaborate on the last line?

As I know next to nothing about Poker and less about programming that all went a bit over my head.

I will say that I do not think you are fully conceptualizing the difference between an entangled state in which two objects share a single state of superposition and the classical model when there are two unknown and inter-related states.

Young's modulus relates stress, which is in this case is the energy put into spacetime, to the strain, which is the distortion or curvature of spacetime. Just speculating here, but isn't strain considered dimensionless which is why the units are units of pressure. If we consider the strain to be the curvature and has dimensions, does that change anything?

Just as an aside, my real name is Thomas Young. But I bear no resemblance physical or intellectual to the 19 century British physicist I share the name with.

Yes it would change things - I would have to think what the resultant dimensions would be.

And Thomas Young is a pretty cool scientist to share a name with

You do realize that I am not argueing against entanglement, but that my agruement is based on the corelations that Bell was basing his theory on.

My post was directed to the OP - not to you. I have replied to you in your thread

Just no. You can only divide through by a factor for instance (a+b) and cancel when the factors are multiplied

[(a+b)(c+d)]/(a+b) = 1*(c+d)

but

[(a+b)+(c+d)]/(a+b) Does not equal 1+(c+d)

Just sub in numbers for a,b,c,d and you will see that it cannot be the case

and - by the by - technically that formula is closer to CHSH than Bells original which relies on correlation values.

Please get some basic education in before trying to overturn what is commonly regarded as one of the best pieces of modern science

Glad to read that you are still working on it. To be honest I think you need to separate in your head the logic, the maths, and the experiment. I believe you are coming up against what you think is a mathematical / logical conundrum but in fact it is a misunderstanding of the experimental set up.

Remember that Bell's work whilst being accessible and not burdened by huge amounts of recondite higher maths is also very subtle and clever; Bell radically changed things with a short 6 page paper which threw EPR into a completely new light and did what people like Van Neumann had been working on for years.

I haven't read in detail (the format makes it difficult to take in). But Delayed Quantum Eraser does not require someone to know anything - the interference is lost if you measure the idler in such a way as to preserve path information and the interference is maintained if you measure the idler in such a way which does not tell you which path.

The spooky thing is that you can delay measurement of the idler by a significant period of time such that you have already taken all your measurements for the signal - the measurement of the idler STILL destroys the interference. There is no need for conscious knowledge or a primer knower - the measurement is sufficient there is no need to interpret, understand or know the result

Not sure if that is entirely kosher - it is basically saying that the stiffness of spacetime is the coefficient between the Einstein Tensor G and the Stress-Energy Tensor T. Now that makes quite a lot of sense in heuristic terms G describes the curvature of spacetime, and T describes the stuff that is making it curve; it makes sense that the multiplier is related to the stiffness. The speed of light to the fourth power on the bottom means that is gonna be a small small number.

But I think of stiffness as being measured in Newtons per metre - not seconds squared per kilogram metre. I also think of stiffness being a number which the higher it is the harder it is for a certain amount of oompf to distort something (being deliberately vague); ie you need more Newtons to produce a displacement in the SI measure of stiffness

The 8 pi G over c^4 is in the wrong position for that - the higher that coefficient the easier it is to produce distortion. I think that number would be better called flexibilty (the inverse of stiffness - think of resistance and conductivity) - but I am quite prepared to believe that space time is very stiff, but not entirely convinced yet.

Thinking a bit further - if you think of it as 1/stiffness that would be metres / Newton

metres / Newton = metres / (kilogram . metres per second^2)

= seconds^2 per kilogram

Which is very similar to the dimension you gave from your video, but not exact which is disturbing. It is not the same as the inverse of pressure either which I think would make a lot of sense (Youngs Modulus has same units as pressure)

I was watch the Ligo video and the energy to form the gravitational wave they detected was about 3 solar masses and that caused spacetime to stretch and relax a thousandth of the size of the proton. If there is a spacetime field as is being theorized, that is a pretty stiff medium.

I haven't even done a back-of-the-envelope calculation but I would just say that whilst that is a supreme amount of energy for a very small change - it is over a sphere of unimaginable size. That black-hole interaction was 1.6 billion light years away - and we felt it! Admittedly we only felt it with the most sophiticated tool every built - but all the same.

The maths behind the quadrapole gravitational radiation is nasty - I know that the signal is not uniform around the sphere but I have a feeling that the energy radiated is uniform. That stretch/squeeze that we felt was one part of the ringdown - with a maximum amplitude as you have said. So that three solar masses worth of converted energy did not just deform one bit of spacetime less than a thousandth of the width of a proton - it distorted vast unimaginable swathes of spacetime many many times . So maybe it is stiff maybe not so much - but you need to do more sums to say for sure

Great find - sometimes youtube really is good

 

Right, so it is outside SR bounds.

 

Ok, but then what theory can be applied in order to compare the time of the photon with our time? I remember reading that for a photon there is no time, no past, no future ... but if there is change, it should also be time.

"...for a photon there is no time, no past, no future ..." that is normally connected to the above misunderstanding of SR - I don't think we have any reason to say it otherwise. Photons move, change (red-/blue-shift for example), they are emitted, they are absorbed - they obviously exist within time.

I am not sure we have a valid concept of what time is for a massless particle - but then I am not sure we have a particularly valid concept of what time is for a hairless ape. We must not anthropomorphise light; photons hate that (they are shy as well as being massless quantum mechanical objects) - what sort of notion of the passing of time would such a thing like that have?

If a rocket is traveling with almost the speed of light, the static observer "can" see that the time in that rocket is dilated, i.e. things are happening in a slower rate. Very very close to c, time dilation gets bigger and, from the static observer, nothing appear to happen in the rocket. It's like everything freezes.

 

Well, photons are travelling with the speed c but they appear to exhibit/produce rapid oscillations/variations: a change in the electric field creates a changing magnetic field that in turn creates another electric field and so on. How is this possible? At that speed it should be no change at all, according to special relativity.

"according to special relativity" - you say this but it is not true.

SR says all inertial frames of reference are equivalent but that light speed is invariant for all inertial frames - together these mean that there is no inertial frame of reference for the photon; as such we understand that the theory is outside its bounds of application for the frame of reference of massless objects moving at the speed of light. You cannot do the normal sums, boosts, contractions etc based on a frame moving at the speed of light because it cannot be an inertial frame of reference.

As massive objects approach the speed of light (no matter how close) then you can make very exact predictions based on SR which are borne out by observation - but you cannot cross over to using the same maths for massless objects traveling at the speed of light

There is really no hurry. Take your time and marshal your arguments

No - I think you have misunderstood most explanations; normally the figures shown are very much the combination of particle and entangled particle.

If we call the measurement Q with superscript denotes which of particle/entangled is measured and subscript denoting which axis then we know

[latex]Q_\alpha ^1\neq Q_\alpha ^2[/latex]

ie whatever axis of measurement (alpha) - if we use the same axis for particle and entangled pair we get perfect anticorrelation (ie if we measure up for particle we always measure down for pair)

we also know that for locally set variables - because we only measure spin up or down that the expected values for particle and its pair when tested on three measurement axes could not all give different results (which is similar to what you had but vitally different)

so we can say that

[latex]P (Q^1_a\neq Q^2_b)+P (Q^1_c\neq Q^2_a)+P (Q^1_b\neq Q^2_c)\geq 1[/latex]

but with angles between axes a, b, c of 2pi/3 we know from predictions and measurement that each of the terms in the above equals 1/4 . So the basic maths tells us that with pre-determined variables and no non-locality the three terms must be greater or equal to one. But quantum mechanical predictions and experimental measurements show that the three terms max out at 3 x 1/4

Not sure what the problem is in Problem is in Problem 1 nor why you have used three qubits (I nowsee SwansonT has already mentioned this) - both EPR and Bell call for multiple measurements of spin 1/2 particles entangled in spin singlet state 1/sqrt2 (|up>x|down> - |down>x|up>). The measurement of these in the same axes will indeed always be perfectly anticorrelated.

Problem 2 - you seem to be implying that the measurement of particle 1 of qubit A has influence on the measurement of particle 1 of qubit B. I fail to see why this would or should be the case. the way you have presented it seems to be a set of three qubits (QA QB QV - each made of two entangled particles 1 and 2) - but the assertion that measurement of QA1 on D axis cannot be opposite to measurement of QB1 on X or y is not true. The anticorrelation etc exists (or doesn't depending on outcome) between QA1 and QA2 - why would there be a link between QA1 and QB1?

For measurement of QA1 and QA2 the probability of anticorrelation would be (1+cos(theta))/2 where theta is the angle between detector x and detector d, or similarly between detector y and detector d

Thanks for the new insight.

So can follow this information right?

 

The force of gravity is proportional to the size of the object (mass) and your position relative to it (distance from the center of gravity).

 

Here is the formula:

 

g=-GM/(r*r),

 

where, g is the acceleration of gravity,

G is the gravitational constant,

M is the mass of the object and

r is the radius or the distance of the observer from the center of gravity.

That is the acceleration due to gravity (as you say) - the force is proportional to your mass, the objects mass, and the distance between

[latex]F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex]

What about the CERN Alpha project that aims to test the gravitational effect of anti-matter using a small number of (anti) hydrogen atoms. You don't get much smaller than that.

Perfect example - I was trying to think of a high profile one but couldn't get my mind off the Watt Balance at NIST and wasn't sure that was as relevant as I thought it was

I have read somewhre regarding this topic and I come across this information.

 

Gravity is a weak force. The two objects will have an attraction to each other. But it will be so weak in comparison to other factors and to the attraction to the ground that the attraction to each other will not be noticeable. There is a concerted effort to obscure our understanding of gravity. So we do not see much research on the attraction between small objects.

Gravity is weak at human scales - the usual example is that a fridge has enough attraction to the fridge door to overcome all the mass of the earth; however gravity does not come in two polarities that are opposite and cancel out and as such is always attractive and does not get shielded this means it works on cosmological scales where the other forces tend to be unimportant.

The force between two objects of a human scale is not noticeable in everyday life - but it is measureable Henry Cavendish was measuring the gravitational attraction of two objects in his lab over 200 years ago

There is no concerted effort to obscure our knowledge of gravity. There is ignorance and there is culpable ignorance - if you had the will you would be able to download for free (and legally) texts/lessons from the very basics on places like Khan, through tougher stuff on edx.org etc, and finally to graduate level with Feymann's courses and Sean Carrol's lecture notes on GR.

There are huge numbers of programs dealing with measuring gravity at the human level - G Newtons Gravitational Constant is not known to high precision so there is lots of work to try to lower the error margins on this very important constant

Stop hijacking and stop overcomplicating due to lack of understanding.

The arc-length is well defined for a smooth continuous fnction and is simply the integral of the norm of the differential or more usefully as

[latex]

L_{ab}=\int_{a}^{b} \sqrt{1+\left( \frac {dy}{dx} \right) ^2} \cdot dx

[/latex]