Quantum Entanglement

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

primordial

Guest
kyle_baron ! True, if it's a timed event, then it was observed, and it's position is known. Therefore, the quantum state of the photon wave, has collapsed into a particle. <br />But, when the photon is not observed, it's quantum state is intact. And in this state, the photon exists as a probability wave, over the entire universe! <br /> Yes, the above is true, and is the way I see the relationship of wave and particle.
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Im not saying the "quantum shell" is surrounding the photon wave. Im saying its surrounding the emitter (the original electron energy transition) it was created from. <br />Compare it to a balloon. In the middle of an inflated balloon is the emitter. In the rubber (the layer) exists the quantum state of the photon. </font><br /><br />Ok, now that you've defined your term (emitter) I can see your viewpoint. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It's interesting. Is this your hypothesis, or did you read about it somewhere?<br /><font color="yellow"><br />The time takes to travel the distance defines the diameter of that shell (lets say 100ly). Within this shell the quantum states can flip and change their position what state we choose to detect. </font><br /><br />So, if I understand you correctly, you're defining your quantum shell in 4 dimensional space-time.<br /><br />For the sake of arguement, I'm going to take the "over the entire universe" dimensional approach. This "over the entire universe" dimension could simply be the "nothingness" that the BB expanded into. Nothingness = no distance, no energy, etc. etc.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />kyle_baron ! True, if it's a timed event, then it was observed, and it's position is known. Therefore, the quantum state of the photon wave, has collapsed into a particle. <br />But, when the photon is not observed, it's quantum state is intact. And in this state, the photon exists as a probability wave, over the entire universe! <br />Yes, the above is true, and is the way I see the relationship of wave and particle. </font><br /><br />I'm happy that you agree with me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Now, let's gang up on ranur (2 against 1) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> He has his own hypothesis which is very competitive. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

mindmute

Guest
two against 1 isn't fair. IMO I agree with ranur. if you alter the polarity of the photon on this side of the ballon, the "signal" travels along the surface instantly to the opposite side of the ballon. the shell expanding from the emiter is like a "zero time" threshold. perhaps not a dimension in and of it'self, but a "string" holding that moment, and it's associated energy together.
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />two against 1 isn't fair.</font><br /><br />LOL, I knew someone would say that! Who says life is fair? I just tried to make this a competition, nothing more.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />IMO I agree with ranur.</font><br /><br />Good. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />the shell expanding from the emiter is like a "zero time" threshold. </font><br /><br />How can the shell be expanding, and not have a time component?<br /><font color="yellow"><br />a "string" holding that moment, and it's associated energy together. </font><br /><br />Are you saying that this string wraps around the so called balloon? That would have to be a pretty large string. A cosmic string, in fact. Cosmic strings (in theory) can be up to a light year in length, or so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

mindmute

Guest
ranur, you have yet to answer kyle_baron's question, is this your hypothesis, or did you read it somewhere?<br />I have read this thread over thrice now, and I am in agreement with you mostly because you spell it out in a more visual way, but I am starting to grasp the conceptual ideas kyle, and primordial have been elaborating on. I look forward to how this thread progresses.
 
M

mindmute

Guest
<font color="yellow">a "string" holding that moment, and it's associated energy together. </font><br /><br /><br />perhaps string isn't the right term, perhaps i should say "shell web". or to say that "timestamp" from that zero point in space time (emiter) is a surface or membrane that has it's own rules that connect each part of the shell to all other points on the shell without regaurd to any conventional concept of time.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />the shell expanding from the emiter is like a "zero time" threshold.<br /><br /><br />How can the shell be expanding, and not have a time component?</font><br /><br /><br />yes from our vantage point we can observe expansion, and calculate it from various perspectives; velocity, vector, etc.etc. however, from the perspective of the "shell-web" it's self, it's traveling at the speed of light, time is not observable from the pointofview of the photon wave. at c time is zero. <br /><br /><br /><br />.<br />(oh, good, i remember my html 101.)<br /><br />
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />I see before me a series of Planck thick layers with small deformations or variations in them. </font><br /><br />Then the 2 entangled photons are on this 1 planck thick layer, and any number of layers (distance) away from the emitter? Possibly.<br /><br />Or, are the 2 entangled photons on different planck layers? And these different planck layers each have the same time stamp?<br /><font color="yellow"><br />This means that the time within this complete layer surrounding the emitting atom have the same "time stamp". </font><br /><br />The complete layer, being all the planck layers, having the same time stamp? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

mindmute

Guest
ranur,<br />your question:<br /><font><br />Why should the photon exist in our 3D (or rather 4D)?<br />Photons do not interact or interfere directly. It is not possible to let two photons double, cancel or split in flight. How can this be possible if they coexist in our dimensions?</font><br /><br /><br />I did not observe an answer to this question as i recall in my current altered state, but i shall try nonetheless.<br />when a photon enters an atomic event, the electron rises to higher energy state, the energized atom then <i>randomly</i> emits (the same photon, the same photon!!!) in a completely random direction. <br />therefore, it does, it is!, and it most surely does!<br />that is how it can!<br /><br /><br /><i> i'm sorry, i am rotflmao!!! i can't help it!!!</i> <br /><br />edit - oops, you were asking johnr, my bad! (LOL!)
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Within one Planck thick layer time is the same everywhere (planck time is the smallest known time bit) <br /></font><br /><br />You can have your 1 planck thick layer, but you can't have planck time, because the 2 entangled photons react instantly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

mindmute

Guest
john1r,<br />it took me quite a few reads to absorb your dimensional view of this debate, and i must say i like what i am reading.<br />I will skip past all that i agree with and offer a postulate on an important aspect of your view.<br />why DO photons obey a speed limit, and not travel via quantum entanglement.?<br />I've always believed that is <i>because</i> of the "linked" association of photons traveling in opposite directions. (quantum drag theory?) <br /><br /><br />also, i wish to test your dimensional view a tinsy bit.<br /> [[ If i am on my side of the planet observing the polarization of galaxy X as it is gravitationally lensed by galaxy Z, to say the beat of INXS's "the devil inside". Would you on your side of the planet be able to tune into galaxy X and hear the song i am listening to at the same exact moment?]]
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Developed to give a kvalitative base for quantum entanglement....and a lot more</font><br /><br />Please define kvalitative base for us. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
And of course, you didn't really answer the question... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />One Planck thick layer do not represent enough time to hold one photon. A photon can have a very long duration. A photon must must be represented by the number of planck times (layers) needed to complete the photon as a wave. In practise this is a very large number of layers. </font><br /><br />I have to disagree. A 1 planck layer is plenty of room for a photon. You're talking about the thickness of the layer (dimension), which can be infinite in 2 dimensions (membrane).<br /><br />Every photon in the universe can be on it's own 1 planck thick layer (dimension).<br /><font color="yellow"><br />The complete layer is the complete volume of the "balloon" rubber ie : layer = surface x thickness. </font><br /><br />If the volume of the baloon is an infinite number of 1 planck thick layers (from the emitter-atom), then we're in agreement.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Taking into consideration that a photon energy is defined from a number of planck units multiplied with is frequency I find that rather "unlikely" to find the complete photon inside one planck time.</font><br /><br />I'm no genius in math, but I did find an equivalency between photon energy and planck energy in joules:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon<br /><br /><i> For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10–19 joules</i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy<br /><br />1.956 x 10+9 joules<br /><br />If I understand correctly, just by looking at the exponents, the photon is 28 magnitudes smaller than the planck energy! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />I was unclear. <br />It is not the energy content that must fit. It is the time. </font><br /><br />No, you were right the 1st time. It is about the energy content, that must fit. I'll explain shortly.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />"E=hf" tells us that photons is made by chuncks of energy (quanta) theese bits of energy is a property of light itself. </font><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />I find it unlikely that one Planck time (^-43s) can hold photons that can be extreemly long measured in space. <br />How do you think the energy can be quantized within one "time bit" </font><br /><br />Planck time is just a "stopwatch" to measure events, that happen quickly, Ex: BB; Planck time is not a part of the (physical) 4 dimensional space time, in the sence, that a photon must fit with in it.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time<br /><br /><i> It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

mindmute

Guest
A photon (pure energy) is totally absorbed by the event it causes. If, for some reason, the new energy state is not stable, the electron will fall to a lower state and emit a photon. But this is not the same photon. <br /><br />not the same photon? you've got to be kidding.<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br />
 
P

primordial

Guest
ranur ! I do not know if the energy of a photon is constituated from several layers or if several layers is somehow connected to form the photon. <br />"I find it unlikely that one Planck time (^-43s) can hold photons that can be extreemly long measured in space. <br />"E=hf" tells us that photons is made by chuncks of energy (quanta) theese bits of energy is a property of light itself" Yes, ranur that is correct in fact, not even the highest energy photons can occupy that frequency range upon being emmited, it is above gamma. The way to look at this is E= h (Wave length/ time), as time approachs Planck time. At this point particles come into existence with a wave length relative to their momentum, it's where energy forms mass + relative mass. <br />
 
P

primordial

Guest
kyle_baron ! "It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length" That's true, but can a quantum event occur in this space-time? And what would a Planck event be, but mass?<br />
 
P

primordial

Guest
ranur ! Sounds right to me, I was just wondering what you Guys think, because it's beyond measure.<br />
 
P

primordial

Guest
ranur ! "I think the entangled states and the wave collapse is the same effect. States can possibly move freely without beeing restricted by spacetime boundaries sideways in the the Planck layer." I can't argue with that, I will just listen to you guys.<br /><br />
 
M

mindmute

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />I think the entangled states and the wave collapse is the same effect. States can possibly move freely without beeing restricted by spacetime boundaries sideways in the the Planck layer.</font><br /><br />I agree completely. I think I said the same, but not with such unambiguous clarity.<br /><br />As for my serious/ironic photon post...<br />I forgot you're on the other side of the planet,<br />and my twisted wit is not easy to understand.<br />I'll keep it to the point:<br />Dear ranur,<br />I am shocked (after all we agree on) that you would not<br />share my belief that the same photon would be released<br />from the same atom it entered.<br />I was also hoping to start some debate on what would happen if you fired 2 "timestamped" photons into the same atom at the same time. If it has not been tried yet, My formula's indicate a possible higher than predicted energy level in the atom.<br /><br />(if this experiment has been tried, someone please link me to it, thanks).<br />
 
M

mindmute

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />I can't argue with that, I will just listen to you guys. <br /></font><br />OMG, I think we all just agreed.<br />SDC is not what it used to be, i came here ready to fight!!! lol!<br />
 
R

R1

Guest
Mindmute, sorry I was away for a while, <br />on the quantum drag question a while back, I don't know.<br />It sounds interesting, and there's more to the quantum realm now with string/M theory<br /> As for photons being in space (or 4 D spacetime), that's just where our electromagnetic energy is. It's confined to<br />the 3 D + time.<br /><br /><br />Right now I'm confused about time (again), after reading the recent posts in this thread.<br /><br />maybe you can all help me on this,<br />Is planck time supposed to be a constant? or just a relative constant<br /><br />I mean if a spaceship is traveling at .5 c and turns its headlights on, the crew observes the<br />lightbeams traveling at c relative to the ship, not .5 c , because spaceship time slows<br /> down to 1/2 second per second, so is the spaceship planck time 200%? Is the planck time also relative?<br />We could say that length contracts 50% and planck time stays the same, but wouldn't that mean the<br />spaceship and everything including spaceship planck length shrinks 50%?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br /> the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length" That's true, but can a quantum event occur in this space-time?</font><br /><br />Only the photon particle that's observed, can occur in planck time. By being observed, it's location is in our 4-D space-time.<br /><font color="yellow"><br /> And what would a Planck event be, but mass? </font><br /><br />Mass, only in the sence of the momentum, of the photon particle.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts