Quantum Entanglement

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Perhaps the Planck event is the collapse of the wavefunction. <br />There is no observed delay for this event. It would not be measureable if it was one, or even several, Planck times long. </font><br /><br />Yes, I agree! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> As I stated in my previous post, Planck time is the collapse of the wave function. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I think the entangled states and the wave collapse is the same effect.</font><br /><br />No, just the opposite! Entangled states, and the wave (function) have the same effects. Once collapsed, the wave (function) is no longer in a quantum state. It's a particle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><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 </font><br /><br />Yes, it's a constant. As long as "c" remains constant. There is no shorter period of time, in our 4-D space-time.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mindmute]

<font color="yellow"><br />that's just where our electromagnetic energy is. It's confined to<br />the 3 D + time. </font><br /><br /><br />I follow you now., and agree with that perspective.<br />My post to the question however was intended to spark<br />debate on the relativistic perspectives of the dimensional properties of Quantum Entanglement in the electromagnetic realm of the high energy atomic state.<br /><br />I believe the paradoxical nature of evolving energy in regards to tight conjunction of quarks, the electromagnetism of the electron shell, and the presence of photons within close proximity of the nuclear forces is actually the convergence of many entangled forces interacting on these inter-dimensional scales all without the effect of 4 D time as each component is moving at C.<br />(at C time is zero. anyone disagree?)<br />therefore this evolution of energy must be happening in a dimension outside, (or inside) of our space time.<br />That dimension could be the Quantum Entanglement, or QE may be a shadow of that dimension.<br /><br />If i've lost you, (or anyone) feel free to ask me to elaborate on any point of my "belief".<br />(i'm going to frame this thread, i have waited long for this discussion. i am in good company.)

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I believe the paradoxical nature of evolving energy in regards to tight conjunction of quarks, the electromagnetism of the electron shell, and the presence of photons within close proximity of the nuclear forces is actually the convergence of many entangled forces interacting on these inter-dimensional scales all without the effect of 4 D time as each component is moving at C. <br />therefore this evolution of energy must be happening in a dimension outside, (or inside) of our space time.</font><br /><br />Correct, but only when we're not looking (with photons), which would collapse the wave function. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Collapsing and switching / decideing entangled states takes place in the same timeless manner, and probably theese two effects obey the same fundamental rules within the timeless layers. </font><br /><br />Ok, I can agree here. But let me clarify: Collapsing the wave (function) and switching the spin of the 2 entangled photons, takes place in the same timeless manner (layer). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mindmute]

kyle_baron,<br />RE: your last post in it's entirety.<br />My instinct is to agree with you.<br />paradoxical as it may seem. (or was that your point? clever.)<br />however, are you implying that observing a photon "un-times" it? (kvalkatively speaking). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />edit- didn't know you were posting at the same moment i was, I am refering to your 11/7 post.

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />But there is a problem. <br />If a photon consists of a number of planck scaled layers, theese layers must be stretched along with Z (the univers scaling factor). <br />We observe a photon reduced in frequency (and energy) <br />If Planck time (layer thickness) is defined at emission then the layers must be thicker at arrival. </font><br /><br /><br />I tend to disagree. Redshift doesn't affect the layer thickness. And I would say, that the planck layer thickness is constant, not variable.<br /><br />Also, the photon itself is not a number of planck scaled layers, but is best thought of the way Primordial said it:<br /><br />"Kyle any fundamental photon is comprised of an infinite sum of photons with lesser energy which are dependant on the relativistic mass of the fundamental photon relative to an observer who can measure its frequency or fundamental wave length." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />kyle_baron, <br />RE: your last post in it's entirety. <br />My instinct is to agree with you. <br />paradoxical as it may seem. (or was that your point? clever.) </font><br /><br />It's ok to agree. We can't fight every time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />however, are you implying that observing a photon "un-times" it? (kvalkatively speaking). </font><br /><br />Not sure exactly what you mean. But the photon remains "un-timed" , (no time, 0-time), all the time, whether it's in wave or particle form.<br /><br />Observing a photon (wave), with photons, will add energy to the initial photon wave, and knock it out of it's quantum state.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />"I tend to disagree. Redshift doesn't affect the layer thickness. And I would say, that the planck layer thickness is constant, not variable." <br /><br />If that is correct, then the photon cannot be built by a fixed number of layers. </font><br /><br />Yes, that is what I believe. And it is in direct conflict with your hypothesis.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />"any fundamental photon is comprised of an infinite sum of photons with lesser energy which are dependant on the relativistic mass of the fundamental photon relative to an observer who can measure its frequency or fundamental wave length." <br /><br />Where does this infinite number come from?</font><br /><br />The electromagnetic field of the wave.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />If so what sums up the photon? What holds it together? Why is it one undevideable entity? </font><br /><br />String (Theory)<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Observing a photon (wave), with photons, will add energy to the initial photon wave, and knock it out of it's quantum state." <br /><br />How can you add energy to the original photon? This is not compliant with what is observed. Photons do not add or subtract with other photons in flight. </font><br /><br />To clarify: The additional photons needed to observe the photon (wave), adds energy to the electromagnetic field of the photon wave.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mindmute]

kyle_baron, ranur,<br />hmmmm....

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The electromagnetic field is just a name of something we do not know. <br />Nobody knows what charge, magnetics or mass really is. <br />So..you are kind of stopping where Im beginning...no offence.</font><br /><br />None taken. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> This simple illustration shows what I've been talking about:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Light-wave.svg<br /><font color="yellow"><br />So.. if you observe the photon with blue light the photon becomes more energic compared to observing it with red light?..... </font><br /><br />I believe (not sure) that would be correct , but I would state it differently: If you observe the photon (wave) with blue light, the EM field becomes more energetic compared to observing it with red light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The picture of an electric and magnetic field as two sinusodials tells us nothing about the real photon structure. This is only how we can measure the amplitude of the fields. <br />The real construct of field particles (bosons) or static fields is unknown. </font><br /><br />And that's why we're both speculating, isn't it?<br /><font color="yellow"><br />This picture tells us just as much about the photon as the inverse square law tells us about gravity. </font><br /><br />Well stated.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mindmute]

ranur, kyle_baron,<br />Was the hiroshima event a planck moment?<br />Is the last thought each person had at that moment still locked in an Entangled state that continues to exists no matter how far through (or far from) our perceived space time?<br />Is the act of having your matter instantly energized enough to lock you in an FTL, (zero time) moment?<br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />ranur, kyle_baron, <br />Was the hiroshima event a planck moment? <br />Is the last thought each person had at that moment still locked in an Entangled state that continues to exists no matter how far through (or far from) our perceived space time? <br />Is the act of having your matter instantly energized enough to lock you in an FTL, (zero time) moment?</font><br /><br />I'm afraid if anyone answers these questions, the topic will get moved to phenomenon. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But I'll bite.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Was the hiroshima event a planck moment? </font><br /><br />I don't think so. It took more time than 10(-43) sec. for matter to be destroyed (consumed) by the energy released.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Is the last thought each person had at that moment still locked in an Entangled state that continues to exist </font><br /><br />Could be. The brain is electrical (energy), and takes up space. Once the space is gone, the energy isn't necessarily destroyed, it's transformed? Is that the 1st Law of thermodynamics?<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Is the act of having your matter instantly energized enough to lock you in an FTL, (zero time) moment? </font><br /><br />For those unfortunate souls that were vaporized, IMHO the answer is Yes.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mindmute]

Kyle, ranur,<br />thanks for the informative responses.<br />i could press the postulate, and dig dimensional relation theories out of my black hole to continue the argument, but you guys must be graduates of the Vulcan science academy or something. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />-Arnold in Terminator 5, "oh, my back!". -<br />