Quantum Entanglement - Possible on the Macro Level - Agreed terms assist sensible discussion

[Catastrophe]

Perhaps I should add:

"Elephants leave a clear trail where electrons leave no discernible path"

I expect some criticism on this suggestion, . . . . . . . . . please!

Cat

 

[Jzz]

This is in answer to Sam85geo, Helio and Cat’s replies to my post. Most of the esoteric, arcane and occult elements in modern day main-stream physics, and there are many, stem from the assumption made by quantum mechanics that; ”At the level of the very, very small things are very, very different from things at the macro level.” There are several extremely troubling things about this statement at the epistemological level. Firstly, this statement is widely accepted as a postulate of modern day physics, while in reality it should be inadmissible as a postulate because it is an assumption that has no factual basis and was, at the time it was formulated, thought to be impossible to disprove. Secondly, this admittedly asinine assumption that has less than a 50% chance of being true, which is an unacceptable (or should be an unacceptable) degree of uncertainty to be included in a discipline such as physics. Even more unsettling is the fact that this ‘postulate’ is used as a foundation on which to build even more arcane and unacceptable theories: super-position, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality, and so on.

Look at the size of the Universe, it is incomprehensibly large. Yet, amazingly, in as far as we can ascertain, the same 100 or so elements that we find in our immediate neighbour-hood also exist through the rest of the Universe. Again, given the sheer size of the Universe, shouldn’t it be possible, going by common-sense, that bizarro like areas exist, where everything is square or diamond shaped or hexagonal or some other shape? Yet, that is not the case, gravity seems to ensure that in most cases objects, if they are large enough, are round. Similarly, the strange shapes predicted by QM for the orbits of electrons do not seem to exist. Every atom or molecular shape determined by electron microscopes so far show a spherical shape, similarly the use of femto-second lasers to determine an electrons location around the nucleus, does just that: a feat that should logically be impossible if an electron were an abstract mathematically based wave function cloud.

This line of thought indicates that the connectedness or chain of logic needed for a science is missing and that no line of thought based on this reasoning can be depended on. It is the old question of determinism. For instance, even with the massive computing power available, it is not possible to determine the winner in a horse race. On the other hand, if the weight of a roulette wheel, its rate of speed at a given time, the weight of the ball the angle and speed at which it is released are known, it is possible (has been done) to determine on which square the ball will land. This goes to demonstrate determinism.

In my paper “The Electromagnetic Universe” I have given logically admissible explanations for most phenomena in modern day physics, that do not require the arcane, esoteric or occult.

The Electromagnetic Universe.docx

The Gestalt Aether Theory introduces a new electromagnetic theory of the Universe. This theory encompasses all branches of physics and offers new explanations for previously unexplained or arcanely resolved phenomena. The first paper deals with the

www.academia.edu

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz, from your post #23:
" In short, my own view is that quantum entanglement does not exist."

Is it OK for me to accept this as a short answer? I have to admit that this is, otherwise, getting a little heavy for me. It would be easier for me to persevere with the remaining bulk (on which I congratulate you) if I can keep this light at the end of the tunnel.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

Jzz, from your post #23:
" In short, my own view is that quantum entanglement does not exist."

No problem with stating that my personal opinion is that “I don’t believe in quantum entanglement”, even if baldly stated! However, since the mainstream opinion seems to be that quantum entanglement does exist, the onus is on me to provide a reason for my belief that it does not exist. Let me share with you my idea of quantum entanglement so that we can determine if we are talking about the same thing.

In the original experiment quantum entangled pairs of photons are created using a stern-gehrlach device. The stern-gehrlach device splits a beam of particles into two smaller beams using a magnetic field. The particles in each of the smaller beams will all have the same spin. The same device can used to create paired particles with zero spin, if one particle has an up- spin the other particle will have a down spin; these zero- spin paired particles are considered to be quantum entangled. When this beam of paired particles is split into two beams and one of the beams has up spin particles then the other beam will have all down spin particles. If now the spin of one of the beam of particles is changed to a known spin, then it is assumed that the spin of the other beam of particles will automatically be known even if they are spatially separated.

 

[Jzz]

Love the quote:
"There never was a good war or a bad peace." Benjamin Franklin, Letters 1783

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz, thank you so very much for your kind replies. I shall be studying your article and other material in greater detail. As far as the quote is concerned, a more friendly approach would be far better for us all, all around our planet, and now reaching out into space. It is not intended as a political statement. I am English.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

Cat and Jzz, I never thought that the subject of quantum entanglement would actually "entangle" me, a gross novice, and others into such curiosity. I look forward to any further discussions. (By the way, there was an internet article today, 3/5/'22, about a 2019 Yale University paper that documented quantum leaps as not discontinuous).

 

[Catastrophe]

sam85geo,
Here is a little reading material. Can you link the article you mentioned please?


Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time
https://www.quantamagazine.org › Physics

5 Jun 2019 — Things in the real world don't switch suddenly, in zero time, Schrödinger thought — discontinuous “quantum jumps” were just a figment of the ...

Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time
https://quantuminstitute.yale.edu › publications › quant...

5 Jun 2019 — The experiment shows that quantum jumps “are indeed not instantaneous if we look closely enough,” said Oliver, “but are coherent processes”: ...


Science misnomer #1: use of the term «quantum leap».
https://www.tenerife-training.net › science-misnomer-1-...

These are said to be quantum leaps as they involve discreet, discontinuous energy levels. Ironically, I first heard the phrase «quantum leap» being used by an ...


Quantum leap – Physics says what?
https://www.physicssayswhat.com › tag › quantum-leap

In quantum physics, mathematically discontinuous changes – or jumps – between ... As to whether quantum leaps are instantaneous (zero time) or not – as well ...

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  Are quantum jumps instantaneous? - Physics says what?
  https://www.physicssayswhat.com › 2020/12/29 › are-q...
  
  
  
  29 Dec 2020 — In quantum physics, mathematically discontinuous changes – or ... As to whether quantum leaps are instantaneous (zero time) or not – as well ...
  
  Q & A: How do quantum leaps happen? - Physics Van
  https://van.physics.illinois.edu › listing › t=how-do-qua...
  
  
  4 Oct 2013 — There are actually no discontinuous effects here, no quantum ... He further states that the downward leaps are not understood as to cause.
  
  Cat
  
  

 

[sam85geo]

Thank you Cat. I'm going to be busy reading. those references. The article that I noted, mentioned one of the links you show above, i.e.: 5 Jun 2019 from quantuminstitute.yale.edu, ...... I remember the name Oliver in the text. (Yeh, I lost access to the specific article in my usual morning hectic activity in which the mundane takes priority over the interesting and sublime).

 

[Catastrophe]

Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time
https://quantuminstitute.yale.edu › publications › quant...

Wednesday, June 5, 2019 ... experiment,” said physicist William Oliver of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wasn't involved in the work.


sam85geo, Is this the one you meant? I Googled from the data you gave (5 Jun 2019 from quantuminstitute.yale.edu, Oliver), or was this a later addition?


Cat

 

[sam85geo]

Cat: this was a summary article with several references. I remember Oliver as not being involved, but commenting on the implications; this is one of references in the article. I could "kick myself" for not booking marking the interesting article. Thanks.

 

[Jzz]

sam85geo,
Here is a little reading material. Can you link the article you mentioned please?

Thank you for the interesting references and information about the latest scientific experiments being carried out on this subject.

The main objection to Bohr’s original model of the atom was that any moving electron was known to radiate energy, therefore electrons circling the nucleus should radiate away their energy and spiral into the nucleus. Bohr’s model of the atom circumvented this objection by stating that electrons moved in fixed orbits corresponding to their energy. In this model the first orbit or n_1 corresponded closely with the electrons intrinsic charge. Of course, with the discovery of the Lamb shift and the fact that electrons orbiting the nucleus were constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons, this objection to electron orbits was automatically negated. Unfortunately this information never made it into main-stream science, probably because of the extreme security measures put in place during World War 2 when the discovery was made and not de-classified (if ever) till decades afterwards.

The existence of a rational reason for electrons being able to maintain stable orbits around the nucleus also negates many of the objections put forward by physicists that Bohr’s model did not allow for many of the spectral lines seen in the emission spectra of elements.

With an electron capable of emitting literally hundreds of trillions (i.e., 100,000,000,000,000) frequencies, it would be incredibly naïve to imagine that such vast figures could be represented by a few fixed orbits.

The present experiments claiming that quantum leaps are continuous are less than useless, to begin with they use artificial atoms consisting of super conducting wires for their experiment and secondly even though technology has made gigantic strides, it would still not be possible to differentiate such fine distinctions.

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz, many thanks again, for your most informative replies.

Amongst much other information, they get me looking up things like:

Lamb shift - Wikipedia

which I mention here for others who had not come across it either.

Please keep up your most helpful flow of information, including references.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

Amongst much other information, they get me looking up things like:

Lamb shift - Wikipedia

Thank you Cat, a great advantage in communicating with you, is your ability to look into new ideas and information while still keeping an open mind.

As far as the reference you quoted goes, the operative word(s) here is "vacuum energy fluctuations" . Previously the tendency was to regard 'vacuum energy fluctuations' as one of those zany, quirky modern day physics things, but look here are these 'vacuum energy fluctuations' right in our very midst, in the center of atoms! What do you make of that. Isn't it wierd and what exactly do we mean by 'vacuum energy fluctuations?'

 

[Catastrophe]

I remember reading about them, but here is some more reading for me and anyone else interested:

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Vacuum_energy
Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear.

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Quantum_fluctuation

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 27/01/22

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - New ...
https://www.newscientist.com › article › dn16095-its-co...

20 Nov 2008 — The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron. But it has taken decades to work out ...

The Energy of the Vacuum - Towards Data Science
https://towardsdatascience.com › the-energy-of-the-vac...

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations and the Casimir Effect ... This is the zero-point energy of harmonic oscillator integrated over all momenta and all space.


Cat

 

[Jzz]

Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear.

Here, for the first time, vacuum energy is equated with ‘virtual particles”. Leaving that aside for the moment, what does the present theory say? According to present existing theory, vacuum energy follows the sequence of existence, creation, and annihilation. Ergo, a photon spontaneously splits into an electron and a positron, this two particle and anti-particle then undergoes mutual annihilation the product of which is a photon of exactly the same energy as the original photon. Amazingly, quantum field theory tries to fit this strange theory around the creation and propagation of radio-waves.

It should immediately be possible to see that this is a flawed theory, whereas the theory outlined in my paper “The Electromagnetic Universe” (#27 in this post) offers a beautifully consolidated theory that is accurate to one cycle in a hundred million when discussing radio-waves and equally accurate when discussing an electric current.

The amorphous theory of ‘vacuum energy’ that is currently accepted in main-stream physics, does not fit in with a scientific discipline.

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations and the Casimir Effect ... This is the zero-point energy of harmonic oscillator integrated over all momenta and all space.

The above statement is like saying that the ocean is filled with water, with no reference to what the water is made off or how everything fits together. As I had stated earlier the link at (#27) in this post explains ‘virtual particles’ and their interaction with matter in a far more logical, comprehensive and integrated manner. Anyone listening????

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz, you posted:

QUOTE
Catastrophe said:
Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations and the Casimir Effect ... This is the zero-point energy of harmonic oscillator integrated over all momenta and all space.
QUOTE

NO, I did not say that. That is part of a quote which you have attributed to me.' (Post #40).

I was going to ask you yesterday, but I was out nearly all day. Would you please review that post (#40), which contains quite a lot, and suggest what might be better removed. Many thanks.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

OK now; I never anticipated that my query about the possibility of quantum entanglement at the macro level would resolve into theoretical contention. Being somewhat parsimonious, I was attempting to obtain/glean an "insight" to winning at the sundry "rigged" lottery and other games operated by the state to fleece would be greedy types like I am. I have gotten two lessons from my query and these posts: 1: randomness is operative in fair games of chance, and 2: there is an entire "wealth" of ideas and ongoing experiments in quantum mechanics that will eventually re-shape our knowledge of physics/life. I actually learned something fascinating from these posts for which I'm appreciative.

 

[Catastrophe]

sam85geo,
I am also learning a lot. Of course you must know that Jzz knows more than a million times more than I do on this subject, Have you seen his paper:


The Electromagnetic Universe.docx
The Gestalt Aether Theory introduces a new electromagnetic theory of the Universe. This theory encompasses all branches of physics and offers new explanations for previously unexplained or arcanely resolved phenomena. The first paper deals with the
www.academia.edu

I am finding this very interesting, but I am taking a time to try to understand it.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

Cat: I'll be/am plodding through the references including Jzz's paper as my time constraints allow, (my horse duties have to take priority). As for understanding, I'm "a bit" behind the curve having a business oriented background. Not to worry though; I have learned my expensive lesson and won't try my quantum entanglement "experiment" again expecting a different result. Again my thanks to all who have contributed; to use an equestrian analogy it's turned into a "wild ride".

 

[Catastrophe]

I think I'll settle for this:

Quote
Jzz, from your post #23:
" In short, my own view is that quantum entanglement does not exist."
Quote

but I'll persevere with the paper to find why.

Cat

 

[Jzz]

"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."

Cat, Perhaps I should clarify that I had merely selected the paragraph to quote and the forum software had done the rest. I think it is quite clear from the context that these quotes do not reflect your personal opinions or beliefs but are merely back-ground to the subject.

 

[Jzz]

OK now; I never anticipated that my query about the possibility of quantum entanglement at the macro level would resolve into theoretical contention. Being somewhat parsimonious, I was attempting to obtain/glean an "insight" to winning at the sundry "rigged" lottery and other games operated by the state to fleece would be greedy types like I am. I have gotten two lessons from my query and these posts: 1: randomness is operative in fair games of chance, and 2: there is an entire "wealth" of ideas and ongoing experiments in quantum mechanics that will eventually re-shape our knowledge of physics/life. I actually learned something fascinating from these posts for which I'm appreciative.

Sam85geo

Far be it from being an evangelist for any particular point of view, I am interested in your comment for the following reasons: Being business oriented in your outlook, I would like to ask you, if you would continue to favour some of the esoteric ideas in quantum mechanics such as superposition (this is when a particle with tangible mass such as an electron, can be in two places at once) disembodiment (Quantum mechanics holds that when light is emitted at point A it is thought to cease being real and to exist as an abstract mathematical wave-function, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, that travels through multiple dimensions, not present on earth or in the Universe and only materialises when it is detected at point B at which time the abstract mathematical wave function collapses giving rise to multiple Universes. Doesn’t this sound to you more like the weirdest catechism you have ever heard inside or outside a church, a mosque or a synagogue. If not, I would like to know where you have heard anything to equal it. Then you have quantum entanglement (in which actions takes place instantaneously, even when the particles in question are separated by billions of light years of space.) then there is the view that sub-atomic particles are sentient (i.e., they know where they are and what the situation is and respond accordingly!). These ideas are absolutely illogical and unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence. In fact, the whole edifice of quantum mechanics is built upon a false assumption: Read

Some New Ideas in Physics : https://www.academia.edu/51073399/Some_new_ideas_in_physics

(ps. Things get interesting from page 13 last para)

The alternative might be old fashioned but at least it follows the paradigm of physical laws and is further supported by modern science, in the form of the acknowledgement of dark matter. I am talking about an aether theory.

 

[sam85geo]

Jzz my approach to quantum theories, string theory, politics, religion and people with good intentions is basically prove it. Without independently testable results and openness to falsification, "whatever" is just theory. I used to think that Einstein's idea of a pair of gloves, split into two suitcases was a good description of quantum entanglement until Bell's experiment showed the idea incorrect. As for quantum entanglement, a fair coin could be considered entangled. i.e: if a flip comes up heads, then the other side is tails. Bet on it. And that was my avarice interest in quantum entanglement. As for the theories you mention, if anyone is experimentally proven, great, there may be applications that are commercial, other than academic courses and textbooks. The same approach for any new ideas in physics. However, such theories are both informative and interesting to learn about. As for my paltry approach to science, life, etc: All situations/results are caused, and "There is no such thing as a free lunch". Lastly, for believability, a quote from the late 1800s by a street wise Chinese-American "No Tickie, No Washie".

 

[Jzz]

Jzz my approach to quantum theories, string theory, politics, religion and people with good intentions is basically prove it. Without independently testable results and openness to falsification, "whatever" is just theory.

I guess most people would be of the same opinion, the problem in modern day physics is the question of “what constitutes proof?” Most of the weird, esoteric theories put forward by quantum mechanics are based on the quantum mechanics logo of : “At the level of the very, very small (read sub-atomic) things behave differently than they do in the every day macro world.” The problem with this hypotheses is that no-one can prove or disprove the statement. Sure, experiments have been done like the double-slit experiment which quantum mechanics claim are infallible proofs but there are rational arguments against this claim. (See my article : The Double Slit Experiment explained from a non-quantum mechanics view point: https://medium.com/the-electromagne...non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d )

As technology continues to improve the claims of both quantum mechanics and relativity exist on increasingly shaky ground. For instance, femto-second lasers are able to record times of 1/100000000000 th of a second, something that neither Einstein nor the founders of quantum mechanics thought would ever be possible. Scanning tunnel and atomic force microscopes are able to attain resolutions at one time thought to be impossible. Round shapes can be seen through the microscopes and not the many weirdly shaped orbitals described by quantum mechanics, similarly femto-second lasers can locate an electron in its orbit.

"There is no such thing as a free lunch". Lastly, for believability, a quote from the late 1800s by a street wise Chinese-American "No Tickie, No Washie".

With regard to your hard-nosed business man attitude of “No tickie, no washie.” Its at the same level as monks selling absolution on payment in the middle-ages, when superstition abounded. “No money no heaven!” But, even in those dark days I doubt if such superstitions prevailed as at present exist in quantum mechanics or if those ideas were so rabidly defended.