Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Pop media learning is highly misleading. I found that out the hard way. Nothing replaces the actual mathematics and textbooks Well anyone who gets personal over this isn't worth talking to, which is why I'm going to try hard to ignore them. Ok I might on occasion post that they're off topic. Anyhow just ignore uncivilized people. Edit: word correction. It wouldn't be personal they would correctly point out it is two seperate particles just Entangled Ie shared properties Edited January 5, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Pop media learning is highly misleading. I found that out the hard way. Nothing replaces the actual mathematics and textbooksTrue! Media exaggerates. But still the math shows spooky action at a distance according to most scientists I've heard from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 True! Media exaggerates. But still the math shows spooky action at a distance according to most scientists I've heard from. There is no doubt about entanglement. (And stop pretending that "spooky action at a distance" is not entanglement.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 True! Media exaggerates. But still the math shows spooky action at a distance according to most scientists I've heard from. Using math and redshift I can show cows are blue. Does that mean cows are blue? This is why the textbooks become important Just because a math can demonstrate a model isn't proof the model is 100% correct. Or that a postulate is correct. You still need experiments and evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Using math and redshift I can show cows are blue. Does that mean cows are blue? This is why the textbooks become important Just because a math can demonstrate a model isn't proof the model is 100% correct. Or that a postulate is correct. You still need experiments and evidence I agree with you. It's not final until an experiment shows it. Although the cos(angle)^2 equation is so well proven and I've seen it in NEC engine that I'm very confident my sim is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Theoretical Yes but I've seen many academic scientists on science tv documentary shows state that there is instantaneous action between the particles when they decide their polarity or spin. Einstein knew very well what QM was claiming: Spooky action at a distance. Can you quote any reference by Einstein to instantaneous action, in relation to his physics? If you know anything about relativity you would know that the combination is a contradiction of terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Can you quote any reference by Einstein to instantaneous action, in relation to his physics? If you know anything about relativity you would know that the combination is a contradiction of terms. Wikipedia page says "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein There are lot of quotes of Einstein talking about how spooky action at a distance is wrong. By the way I'm the one who says Einstein did not agree with instantaneous communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 By the way I'm the one who says Einstein did not agree with instantaneous communication. No one agrees with instantaneous communication. Why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example. Just code that up and then come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 No one agrees with instantaneous communication. Why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example. Just code that up and then come back. Nobody said that meant *people* have access to instantaneous communication. QM says the entangled partlcles exhibit such instantaneous communication. It's called spooky action at a distance. I'm not interested in arguing you. I'm not interested in disproving a bunch of hidden variable theories. I'm interested in proving that the bells experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 QM says the entangled partlcles exhibit such instantaneous communication. No it doesn't. I'm not interested in disproving a bunch of hidden variable theories. I'm interested in proving that the bells experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. Then why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example. (BTW there is no such thing as "the bells experiment".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Quote, "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light." The above Einstein is referring to entanglement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Quote, "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light." The above Einstein is referring to entanglement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein that's about gravity, and if you continued reading "This problem has been resolved by Einstein's theory of general relativity in which gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry. Matter warps the geometry of space-time and these effects are, as with electric and magnetic fields, propagated at the speed of light. Thus, in the presence of matter, space-time becomes non-Euclidean, resolving the apparent conflict between Newton's proof of the conservation of angular momentum and Einstein's theory of special relativity. Mach's question regarding the bulging of rotating bodies is resolved because local space-time geometry is informing a rotating body about the rest of the universe. In Newton's theory of motion, space acts on objects, but is not acted upon. In Einstein's theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter, accelerating it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm not interested in disproving a bunch of hidden variable theories. I'm interested in proving that the bells experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. Actual experiment, not a simulation. L/c > 10,000 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0614v1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 If the event of both entangled photons becoming the same polarity of each other is not instantaneous, then how long is it lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 that's about gravity, and if you continued reading The part about gravity is irrelevant to this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The part about gravity is irrelevant to this topic. he quoted a section about gravity and claimed it was einstein talking about entanglement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If the event of both entangled photons becoming the same polarity of each other is not instantaneous, then how long is it lol? As far as we can tell, the effect is instantaneous. That's why Einstein had a problem with it — he thought it implied superluminal communication, and thus violated relativity. But since no information travels faster than c, it doesn't. he quoted a section about gravity and claimed it was einstein talking about entanglement. That's a follow-on to action-at-a-distance. It is irrelevant here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) That's a follow-on to action-at-a-distance. It is irrelevant here. ah okay i didn't even look at the title of the aritcle ha Edited January 5, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 As far as we can tell, the effect is instantaneous. That's why Einstein had a problem with it he thought it implied superluminal communication, and thus violated relativity. But since no information travels faster than c, it doesn't. That's a follow-on to action-at-a-distance. It is irrelevant here. Indeed. But there is information transferred. According to QM the polarity is unknown. At some point both of the photons must pick the *same* polarity. That's information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Indeed. But there is information transferred. According to QM the polarity is unknown. At some point both of the photons must pick the *same* polarity. That's information. But you measure it (locally), after which it is known. By measuring one, you instantly know the other. There's no information transferred from the remote particle, since you already know the states had to be correlated. That correlation is determined when they were created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 But you measure it (locally), after which it is known. By measuring one, you instantly know the other. There's no information transferred from the remote particle, since you already know the states had to be correlated. That correlation is determined when they were created. This is an argument occurring amongst scientists to date. I'm not interested in it because I've already taken sides that no matter how you sugar coast it, the particles go from not knowing to knowing. There are letters written written by Einstein about this. And he debated this a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This is an argument occurring amongst scientists to date. I'm not interested in it because I've already taken sides that no matter how you sugar coast it, the particles go from not knowing to knowing. There are letters written written by Einstein about this. And he debated this a lot. That's a different argument. Swansont didn't say that the state of each particle is determined at their creation, he said the correlation between particle states is determined at their creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 That's a different argument. Swansont didn't say that the state of each particle is determined at their creation, he said the correlation between particle states is determined at their creation. I agree, but we're discussing if info is exchanged. If not then there's a hidden variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I agree, but we're discussing if info is exchanged. If not then there's a hidden variable. That's a false dichotomy. We already know of models with no hidden variables where no information is exchanged: namely quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 That's a false dichotomy. We already know of models with no hidden variables where no information is exchanged: namely quantum mechanics. A number is information. If you're saying QM doesn't get any info from its entangled particle when they're separated then I would agree because I'm convinced there's no such spooky action. Maybe that's why QM works. Maybe that's why non-entangled particles get the same results. That is, of course the source must set the polarity of the non entangled particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts