interested

Quantum Entanglement ?

Recommended Posts

  Well these are topics to address in another thread. Personally however much of what you described above I don't agree with though at one time I might have. That was back when I detested the usage of stochastics treatments. There is practicality behind QM but quite frankly for my physics interests  QFT itself is a better tool.

 Try not to get too confused on which formulas involve probability and which ones that do not. Its not unusual to simply average a range of possible results such as the harmonic oscillator. Its a common technique even in classical physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 8:25 AM, Strange said:

Quantum field theory works perfectly well in 4D spacetime. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

A 4th spacial dimension is not my idea. There are multiple references on this thread already, and across the forum on many other threads.

On 1/7/2018 at 11:58 AM, Strange said:

It is not random. It is deterministic but probabilistic. 

 

Quantum theory is a just mathematical model as is relativity. With any theory if you know all the inputs you can get an accurate answer. If you know all the main inputs you can get a reasonable approximation. If you take a black box with a some known inputs you can get a reasonable answer probably, most of the time. Quantum theory is working on probalistic outcomes. It does not describe why the black box works in the way it does. Relativity is also a mathematical model, with a set of known inputs giving outputs that match the observed world, it also gives other outputs that dont match the observed world as far as can be detected, perhaps the model does not have all the known inputs and requires an extra dimension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory ,

I have noted that when discussing photons on this forum a 4th spacial dimension has never been mentioned, why not? Along with entanglement a 4th dimension could explain a lot. 4 spacial dimensions are easy to visualize adding more gets a trifle confusing, would more dimensions in time be possible? 

What properties would an additional dimension need to have, to make it explain entanglement, or how a photon moves, or how a particle can appear in two places at once? 

The photon can be viewed as a solitron wave, how would it move through 4 dimensions, does any one have an opinion? does time come into it or not?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, interested said:

A 4th spacial dimension is not my idea. There are multiple references on this thread already, and across the forum on many other threads.

There is no evidence that this is required to explain entanglement, though.

For example, you linked tooth's experiment earlier: https://gizmodo.com/two-experiments-show-fourth-spatial-dimension-effect-1821739488

This has nothing to do with entanglement. And, strictly speaking, nothing to do with four dimensions: “Physically, we don’t have a 4D spatial system, but we can access 4D quantum Hall physics using this lower-dimensional system because the higher-dimensional system is coded in the complexity of the structure,” 

42 minutes ago, interested said:

I have noted that when discussing photons on this forum a 4th spacial dimension has never been mentioned, why not?

Because there is no theory that requires a 4th spatial dimension to explain electromagnetic radiation.

42 minutes ago, interested said:

What properties would an additional dimension need to have, to make it explain entanglement, or how a photon moves, or how a particle can appear in two places at once? 

Who knows. We have theories based on 3 spatial dimensions that explain all these things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, interested said:

 I have noted that when discussing photons on this forum a 4th spacial dimension has never been mentioned, why not? Along with entanglement a 4th dimension could explain a lot.

Let's have the model, then. If you know it could explain a lot, you must have a model in mind. Otherwise, how can you know this?

43 minutes ago, interested said:

4 spacial dimensions are easy to visualize 

I think most people would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 12:42 PM, interested said:

A 4th spacial dimension is not my idea. There are multiple references on this thread already, and across the forum on many other threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

Entanglement and quantum-probability imo demands an extra dimension.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01287

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 11:17 AM, Rob McEachern said:

The mathematical description is thus analogous to the process of a police officer attempting to catch a thief that is driving though a community, with many roads, but with only one way out.

This is also the explanation underlying Feynman's Interpretation of the Path Integral Formulation of Quantum Mechanics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

These problems in quantum theory all arise from attempting to extend the principle of superposition, from describing all the components of a single particle (as it was correctly applied in the derivation of Schrödinger's equation for a single free particle), to simultaneously describing all the components of every particle. The latter incorrectly enables the Fourier transforms being used to mathematically describe the superposition, as having no constraints whatsoever, on particles adhering to any localized trajectories - thereby producing the illusion of a theory that describes "quantum fluctuations" as if they were a real phenomenon (particles spontaneously disappearing from one trajectory and reappearing on another) rather than just the unconstrained theory's ability to perfectly describe/incorporate every source of non-local noise and every other modeling error.

Unfortunately, since this error in applying superposition via Fourier transforms ended-up producing the correct probability distribution, physicists, beginning in the 1920s and continuing to the present day, have completely failed to appreciate their error, and we have been stuck with all the "weird" interpretations of quantum theory, ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Entanglement and quantum-probability imo demands an extra dimension.

There is no science behind that.

41 minutes ago, Itoero said:

"Holographic Entanglement Entropy"

Wouldn't that imply that fewer dimensions are required, not more. (Not that it is particularly relevant, anyway.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob McEachern said:

This is also the explanation underlying Feynman's Interpretation of the Path Integral Formulation of Quantum Mechanics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

These problems in quantum theory all arise from attempting to extend the principle of superposition, from describing all the components of a single particle (as it was correctly applied in the derivation of Schrödinger's equation for a single free particle), to simultaneously describing all the components of every particle. The latter incorrectly enables the Fourier transforms being used to mathematically describe the superposition, as having no constraints whatsoever, on particles adhering to any localized trajectories - thereby producing the illusion of a theory that describes "quantum fluctuations" as if they were a real phenomenon (particles spontaneously disappearing from one trajectory and reappearing on another) rather than just the unconstrained theory's ability to perfectly describe/incorporate every source of non-local noise and every other modeling error.

Unfortunately, since this error in applying superposition via Fourier transforms ended-up producing the correct probability distribution, physicists, beginning in the 1920s and continuing to the present day, have completely failed to appreciate their error, and we have been stuck with all the "weird" interpretations of quantum theory, ever since.

!

Moderator Note

Any beef you have with mainstream physics should be contained to its own thread in speculations. Bringing it up elsewhere is considered thread hijacking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, swansont said:

Let's have the model, then. If you know it could explain a lot, you must have a model in mind. Otherwise, how can you know this?

How can I know anything, maybe I read, listen, observe, think and balance the pros and cons etc. :D 

Any type of particle that moves in extra dimensions, as well as in the dimensions we know about, will appear, to naive observers such as ourselves who are unaware of the extra dimensions, as multiple types of particles that move only in the known dimensions and which differ little from each other except in their masses.

Matt Strassler is a theoretical physicist who has ideas about an extra spacial dimension some of which is based around the Kaluza Klein ideas I posted earlier https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/extra-dimensions/how-to-look-for-signs-of-extra-dimensions/

Kaluza Klein ideas are prior to string theory, but they are interesting never the less. 

On 1/9/2018 at 11:25 AM, Strange said:

Who knows. We have theories based on 3 spatial dimensions that explain all these things

All things uh, like dark matter, dark energy, how gravity works, entanglement, how a photon moves. Oh and string theory, must be nonsense as well, or at least the extra unfolded spacial dimensions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, interested said:

Any type of particle that moves in extra dimensions, as well as in the dimensions we know about, will appear, to naive observers such as ourselves who are unaware of the extra dimensions, as multiple types of particles that move only in the known dimensions and which differ little from each other except in their masses.

Matt Strassler is a theoretical physicist who has ideas about an extra spacial dimension some of which is based around the Kaluza Klein ideas I posted earlier https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/extra-dimensions/how-to-look-for-signs-of-extra-dimensions/

Kaluza Klein ideas are prior to string theory, but they are interesting never the less. 

But nothing to do with correlation.

Quote

All things uh, like dark matter, dark energy, how gravity works, entanglement, how a photon moves.

We weren't talking about dark matter and dark energy, or how gravity works. But entanglement does not need more spatial dimensions to explain it. It is explained already using 3 spatial dimensions.

But now you mention it, dark matter, dark energy and how gravity works don't appear to need four spatial dimensions, either. But if you have a model to explain these things butter than our boring old 3D models, then feel free to share it with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

How can I know anything, maybe I read, listen, observe, think and balance the pros and cons etc. :D 

Then stop saying that something can yield a useful solution (e.g. "a 4th dimension could explain a lot").

If you claim it, you own it. Don't claim it unless you can back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

Entanglement and quantum-probability imo demands an extra dimension.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01287

Thank you very much for the links, the pdf is very interesting, it will take me a little while to absorb. Extra dimensions explain a lot. 

14 hours ago, Strange said:

But entanglement does not need more spatial dimensions to explain it. It is explained already using 3 spatial dimensions.

There are multiple links on this thread pointing out what can be achieved through entanglement, but no actual explanations of HOW it works. How can two particles operate as one particle when separated by a large distance?  

Please go ahead and explain using 3 spacial dimensions how entanglement works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

How can two particles operate as one particle when separated by a large distance?  

My very crude explanation would be:

Particles are described by a wave function which (among other things) describes the probability of being in a particular location. In the simplest case, there is a single peak in the wave function corresponding to the most likely position for that particle. The fact that the wave function is distributed over space (all of space) explains the non-locality of quantum behaviour. For example, the wave function of the particle going through the double slit experiment, is affected by both slits and any other measuring apparatus associated with the experiment. Hence, making a measurement can change the behaviour of the wave function and hence the outcome of the experiment. (After going through the two slits, the wave function has multiple peaks for the location, corresponding to the interference pattern.) 

There is no time delay associated with such non-local effects (because no information is transferred).

But the wave function doesn't have to be that simple. Under the right circumstances you can create two particles described by a single wave function that has two, corresponding to the position (and other properties) of each particle. Because it is a single wave function, anything that affects it (e.g. making a measurement) will affect both particles equally. With no time delay.

This is not how everyday objects behave so it is not how we expect things to behave. But being counter to our intuitions doesn't make it wrong, or mean that there must be some other explanation that fits better with our ape-expectations. 

Now its your turn: explain exactly how "extra dimensions explain a lot."

I can give you a vague explanation because there is the mathematical formalism and supporting evidence to back it up, if you want it.

You cannot just say "extra dimensions explain a lot" without some rationale or evidence for that claim. You might as well say "invisible pink unicorns explain a lot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, interested said:

 There are multiple links on this thread pointing out what can be achieved through entanglement, but no actual explanations of HOW it works. How can two particles operate as one particle when separated by a large distance?  

That's not what science does. It also won't tell you how mass/energy/momentum warps spacetime. Or a whole host of other things.

4 hours ago, interested said:

Please go ahead and explain using 3 spacial dimensions how entanglement works.

All of the correlation of the wave functions and states are done with 3 spatial dimensions, as Strange has already noted. The explanation is part of the mainstream literature you should have already seen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Strange said:

There is no science behind that

It's mathematically possible to explain quantum-phenomena so the quantum-probability becomes part of a deterministic system. This is all about the holographic principle. The 2D-plane you can call an extra dimension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle There is more and more 'evidence' that points to the holographic principle.

Then the ER=EPR is imo correct. It states that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole. A wormhole implies the absence of time and space...so does the 2D info in the holographic principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This is all about the holographic principle. The 2D-plane you can call an extra dimension.

So you're saying that the surface of a black hole (one common application of the holographic principle) does not exist in 2 of the 3 dimensions of space but in a fourth dimension?

And why isn't the 2D surface (almost certainly not a plane) two extra dimensions?

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Then the ER=EPR is imo correct.

Science is not about opinions. It is about models and evidence.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a question on another thread, but its kind of related here also I think, in a twisted kind of way. 

From the photons point of view if I am correct and distance does not exist. Time is stationery for a photon and distance is therefore also 0. Does the photon exist in another dimension from its point of view, where space and time do not exist.

All observers perceive the photons effect moving through 3 d space at the same speed. From the photons point of view it is not going any where, and all things are zero distance away from it. In 3 D space and time, space and time can be infinite, for the photon it is all zero. Which implies both an infinite universe and a zero universe can exist at the same time, the zero universe connecting all points in space time. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, interested said:

I posted a question on another thread, but its kind of related here also I think, in a twisted kind of way. 

From the photons point of view if I am correct and distance does not exist. Time is stationery for a photon and distance is therefore also 0. Does the photon exist in another dimension from its point of view, where space and time do not exist.

All observers perceive the photons effect moving through 3 d space at the same speed. From the photons point of view it is not going any where, and all things are zero distance away from it. In 3 D space and time, space and time can be infinite, for the photon it is all zero. Which implies both an infinite universe and a zero universe can exist at the same time, the zero universe connecting all points in space time. 

You can't analyze anything from the photon's point of view. The physics we know doesn't work — it's for inertial frames. The photon is not in an inertial frame of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, interested said:

I posted a question on another thread, but its kind of related here also I think, in a twisted kind of way. 

From the photons point of view if I am correct and distance does not exist. Time is stationery for a photon and distance is therefore also 0.

By chance, Janus has just answered this in another thread. I can't do better than quote him:

1 hour ago, Janus said:

No.  A photon has no valid frame of reference.   It is also meaningless to talk about time dilation for a photon.  If you  make v=c in the time dilation equation you get T=t/0, and division by zero is undefined and has no solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

By chance, Janus has just answered this in another thread. I can't do better than quote him:

Is this link wrong http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.Wlez3qgo3IU

However, a photon emitted from a star in Andromeda and heading out towards the Earth travels in a vacuum and, because it's a photon, travels at the speed of light. Because the photon is moving at the speed of light it has a 100% time dilation factor. To the photon time does not exist until it strikes the upper atmosphere of our planet and even then is only slowed down by a tiny fraction. According to a photon in free space, time, or for that matter distance, has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, interested said:

Is this link wrong

Yes. It is a common popularisation but not strictly accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is also totally incorrect here:

So, when we move, at whatever speed, time slows down relative to a stationary observer. But note that, for example, the occupants of a rocket travelling at very high speeds would still experience time passing normally. However, if they could see out to an Earth-bound clock it would appear, to them, to be running too quickly. If an Earth-bound observer could see a clock inside the rocket it would appear to be running too slowly. This is why the theory is called "relativity", it is because time is relative to whoever is observing it at a particular speed.

The observers in the rocket would not see the Earth-bound clock as running too quickly, but as running too slower and by the same factor as the Earth-bound observer sees the rocket closk as running slow.

This confirmed a growing suspicion I had as I read the article;  that the author was considering motion as absolute and it was this absolute motion that "caused" clocks to run slow, which is contrary to what Relativity actually says.

What we have here is someone trying to "explain" something that he doesn't fully grasp himself.  He gets parts right,  but misinterprets how they fit together to form the big picture.

Edited by Janus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the clarification. I was trying to get a handle on how information could be transferred between photons or particles without going through 3 D space and time. It kind of fitted the requirement if all photons had been functioning in an extra unfolded spacial dimension overlapping each other, but appearing as a wave function in 3 D space and time. 

EDIT (posted question twice as it is related to entanglement also)

Gravitational waves travel at light speed, are they affected by lorentz transform, I am thinking of entanglement and some gravitational theories, 

18 hours ago, Itoero said:

It's mathematically possible to explain quantum-phenomena so the quantum-probability becomes part of a deterministic system. This is all about the holographic principle. The 2D-plane you can call an extra dimension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle There is more and more 'evidence' that points to the holographic principle.

Then the ER=EPR is imo correct. It states that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole. A wormhole implies the absence of time and space...so does the 2D info in the holographic principle.

In support of the Holographic principle and loop quantum gravity I found this link. A look beyond the event horizon https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160526095638.htm it also points to links on other more detailed papers, but you have to be registered with science daily.

 

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, interested said:

I was trying to get a handle on how information could be transferred between photons or particles

No information is transferred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Strange said:

No information is transferred. 

Yes it is. It allows us to see. Nuclear reactions in the sun form light and our photoreceptorcells absorb the photons.

The most simple example is that an electron can absorb and release a photon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now