Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times faster than light

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thor06

Guest
<p><strong>While I don't pretend to understand even the basics of quantum theory, the imagination does run wild when confronted with the quantum quagmire.</strong></p><p>From SA:</p><p>"No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics.<br /> <br /> In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement&mdash;the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another&mdash;is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast."</p><p>&nbsp;"There's one other subtlety to the experiment. If entanglement is traveling through space like some kind of faster-than-light wave, that would violate Einstein's theory of special relativity, which says the laws of nature are the same no matter which way you're moving with respect to anything else.<br /> <br /> So the group had to run their experiment repeatedly for more than 24 hours, counting on Earth's rotation to sample all the different orientations relative to the stars. (Imagine a laser pointer shining into space along the direction of the optical fiber.)"</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The article and comments from current:</p><p>&nbsp;http://current.com/items/89203083_quantum_weirdness_wins_again_entanglement_clocks_in_at_10_000_times_faster_than_light</p><p>The article at SA:</p><p>&nbsp;http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Your thoughts/feelings?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">                           www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p>                          ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I don't pretend to understand even the basics of quantum theory, the imagination does run wild when confronted with the quantum quagmire.From SA:"No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics. In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement&mdash;the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another&mdash;is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast."&nbsp;"There's one other subtlety to the experiment. If entanglement is traveling through space like some kind of faster-than-light wave, that would violate Einstein's theory of special relativity, which says the laws of nature are the same no matter which way you're moving with respect to anything else. So the group had to run their experiment repeatedly for more than 24 hours, counting on Earth's rotation to sample all the different orientations relative to the stars. (Imagine a laser pointer shining into space along the direction of the optical fiber.)"&nbsp;The article and comments from current:&nbsp;http://current.com/items/89203083_quantum_weirdness_wins_again_entanglement_clocks_in_at_10_000_times_faster_than_lightThe article at SA:&nbsp;http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13Your thoughts/feelings?&nbsp; <br />Posted by thor06</DIV></p><p>It's an inter-dimensional movement through 2 (or more) dimensions with no motion, time, or space involved.&nbsp; The 10,000xfaster than light, only shows the limits of our measuring tools in our dimension.&nbsp; The other dimension(s) involve no space, time, or motion, as we define it.&nbsp; I think we're just looking at the same photon, in&nbsp;both dimensions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I don't pretend to understand even the basics of quantum theory, the imagination does run wild when confronted with the quantum quagmire.From SA:"No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics. In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement&mdash;the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another&mdash;is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast."&nbsp;"There's one other subtlety to the experiment. If entanglement is traveling through space like some kind of faster-than-light wave, that would violate Einstein's theory of special relativity, which says the laws of nature are the same no matter which way you're moving with respect to anything else. So the group had to run their experiment repeatedly for more than 24 hours, counting on Earth's rotation to sample all the different orientations relative to the stars. (Imagine a laser pointer shining into space along the direction of the optical fiber.)"&nbsp;The article and comments from current:&nbsp;http://current.com/items/89203083_quantum_weirdness_wins_again_entanglement_clocks_in_at_10_000_times_faster_than_lightThe article at SA:&nbsp;http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13Your thoughts/feelings?&nbsp; <br />Posted by thor06</DIV></p><p>This is not really new.&nbsp; It is one of the many so-called EPR experiments that have been conducted.&nbsp; They demonstrate one of the more weird aspects of quantum mechanics, entanglement.&nbsp; It is a bit difficult to describe what is going on, and there is not a truly satisfactory interpretation, although one can work through the mathematics of quantum theory and predict this effect.</p><p>It does not violate relativity.&nbsp; This is because therei is no information "transmitted" by the phenomena.&nbsp; What is does show is the non-locality of quantum theory.&nbsp; And that is not what we are used to, and it certainly would have surprised Einstein who believed very strongly in locality of physical law in all things.</p><p>There is a pretty good, but not easy-to-read, discussion of non-local quantum effects in <em>The Road to Reality</em> by Roger Penrose.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's an inter-dimensional movement through 2 (or more) dimensions with no motion, time, or space involved.&nbsp; The 10,000xfaster than light, only shows the limits of our measuring tools in our dimension.&nbsp; The other dimension(s) involve no space, time, or motion, as we define it.&nbsp; I think we're just looking at the same photon, in&nbsp;both dimensions. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>You do understand, don't you, that your statement makes no sense whatever ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You do understand, don't you, that your statement makes no sense whatever ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Ok, let me explain it again, so that YOU can understand.&nbsp; Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.&nbsp; Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.&nbsp; Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from it's point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.</DIV></p><p>How do you know this and where did you get this idea from?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.</DIV></p><p>Planck scales do not define any such thing.&nbsp; I think because space and/or time can not be quantized, Planck scales are nothing more than the most useful measurement at such quantum scales.&nbsp; AFAIK, there is nothing in physics that states we are bound by Planck scales.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from it's point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4) <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>I'm only aware of 3 spatial dimensions plus one of time.&nbsp; What is a zero dimensional plane?&nbsp; Zero dminesional + plane is a contradiction.&nbsp; </p><p>While you are correct that a photon does not experience time within it's own reference frame and from it's own perspective can be 'everywhere' at the same time, that does not mean we (those outside the photon's reference frame) can observe this same phenomena.&nbsp; Besides, how does this explain Entanglement with particles that DO have mass and DO experience time?&nbsp;</p><p>As for you previous post, how would you explain the same photon experiencing different polarization and/or spin?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, let me explain it again, so that YOU can understand.&nbsp; Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.&nbsp; Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.&nbsp; Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from is point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4) <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>OK, now I do understand.&nbsp; This is more of your gibberish,&nbsp;</p><p>Do you have any idea what a dimension is ?&nbsp; If not read my post on the&nbsp;subject in the Physics forum.&nbsp;&nbsp;A 0-dimensional object is a&nbsp; point.&nbsp; Numbering the dimensions 0 through 4 or 1 through 4 is meaningless.&nbsp; Space-time in general relativity&nbsp;is a 4-dimensional manifold or 4-manifold.&nbsp; However, it is&nbsp;a 4-manifold with curvature so you cannot really identify the individual dimensions except locally.&nbsp; There is an old theory due to Kaluza that used a fifth dimension to unify electromagnetism and gravity, but it is no longer in use.&nbsp; But that was a&nbsp;try 5-dimensional theory, not your 0,1,2,3,4.<br />&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
<p>Wasn't there a recent article about an experiment detecting a partial spooky action, which was then reversed? &nbsp;If it can be indefinitely alternated this way (between unaffected by observer effect (if I understood correctly) and partialy affected), wouldn't it allow FTL morse code communication?</p><p>&nbsp;Found the article.. There's no pair effect, but a partial collapse, then reversed:<br />http://www.physorg.com/news137245970.html<br />Could this be applied to paired particles, to communicate information via the instantaneous pair effect?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I don't pretend to understand even the basics of quantum theory, the imagination does run wild when confronted with the quantum quagmire.From SA:"No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics. In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement&mdash;the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another&mdash;is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast."&nbsp;"There's one other subtlety to the experiment. If entanglement is traveling through space like some kind of faster-than-light wave, that would violate Einstein's theory of special relativity, which says the laws of nature are the same no matter which way you're moving with respect to anything else. So the group had to run their experiment repeatedly for more than 24 hours, counting on Earth's rotation to sample all the different orientations relative to the stars. (Imagine a laser pointer shining into space along the direction of the optical fiber.)"&nbsp;The article and comments from current:&nbsp;http://current.com/items/89203083_quantum_weirdness_wins_again_entanglement_clocks_in_at_10_000_times_faster_than_lightThe article at SA:&nbsp;http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13Your thoughts/feelings?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by thor06</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">Thanks Thor, for the link. All I can say at this moment, before reading and knowing more, is</font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Holy Jesus!!</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
S

sagent137

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, let me explain it again, so that YOU can understand.&nbsp; Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.&nbsp; Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.&nbsp; Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from it's point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4) <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br />&nbsp;I shall attempt to clarify the theory vs. "observed reality" so one may comment from a delineated perspective. Not now as I am too busy rewriting one of my books "Laser Propulsion" for<unitel-QHT.com. /> my corporate site <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp; <p><br />Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>How do you know this and where did you get this idea from?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Briane Greene has implied it, in his books "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos".&nbsp; And I agree with him.</strong></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Planck scales do not define any such thing.&nbsp; I think because space and/or time can not be quantized, Planck scales are nothing more than the most useful measurement at such quantum scales.&nbsp; AFAIK, there is nothing in physics that states we are bound by Planck scales.</p><p><strong>I don't mean to be sarcastic but, Is the speed of light a constant in our dimension?&nbsp; If so, then what I said is true for Planck Length and Planck Time, because c is in both equations along with the gravitational constant.&nbsp; Constants aren't variable, and can't be changed!&nbsp; </strong></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from it's point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4) <br />Posted by kyle_baron</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm only aware of 3 spatial dimensions plus one of time.&nbsp; What is a zero dimensional plane?&nbsp; Zero dminesional + plane is a contradiction.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Ok, then think of 0 Dimensions as no dimensions, and the plane as a type of anti-universe.&nbsp; Yes, I made that up, but it's the only way I could explain it, other than being a point.</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>While you are correct that a photon does not experience time within it's own reference frame and from it's own perspective can be 'everywhere' at the same time, that does not mean we (those outside the photon's reference frame) can observe this same phenomena.</p><p><strong>Agreed.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Besides, how does this explain Entanglement with particles that DO have mass and DO experience time?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Should be no difference.&nbsp; It's the signal for the spin, which is instantaneous.</strong></p><p>As for you previous post, how would you explain the same photon experiencing different polarization and/or spin?</p><p><strong>Not sure, or don't know.</strong></p><p>Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<br /><p><strong>Briane Greene has implied it, in his books "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos".&nbsp; And I agree with him.</strong></p><p><strong>I don't mean to be sarcastic but, Is the speed of light a constant in our dimension?&nbsp; If so, then what I said is true for Planck Length and Planck Time, because c is in both equations along with the gravitational constant.&nbsp; Constants aren't variable, and can't be changed!&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong>Ok, then think of 0 Dimensions as no dimensions, and the plane as a type of anti-universe.&nbsp; Yes, I made that up, but it's the only way I could explain it, other than being a point.</strong> </p><p><strong>Should be no difference.&nbsp; It's the signal for the spin, which is instantaneous.</strong></p><p><strong>Not sure, or don't know.</strong></p><p>---------------------------------------------&nbsp;</p><p>Not sure how to approach that, Kyle.&nbsp; You start by touting, in a factual manner, a implication about an incomplete, highly speculative (albiet extremely quantitative) theory that has no way to be tested and/or falsified now or in the near future.</p><p>Then a fundemental misunderstanding of the Planck Length.&nbsp; The laws may not stop.&nbsp; However, they may become impossible to measure and therefore be irrelevant and/or useless.&nbsp; At the Planck scale gravity and atomic forces are equal.&nbsp; Whether string theory or quantum loop gravity, et. al. define it as a real world, physical limit remains to be seen.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think it is still an open ended question.</p><p>With that said, there is still nothing currently limiting length scales.&nbsp; What happens with Special Relativity and length contraction at the Planck length?</p><p>Finally, in a previous post you base your argument on the concept of the photon being massless, hence experiencing no time.&nbsp; I follow with a question about particles with mass that are entangled. </p><p>Your response is, "Should be no difference".&nbsp; </p><p>Huh?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, let me explain it again, so that YOU can understand.&nbsp; Beneath the Planck Length, there is no movement, space, or time.&nbsp; Because Planck Length and Planck time&nbsp;defines the shortest amount of&nbsp;space and time,&nbsp;in OUR dimension.&nbsp; Therefore, beneath the Planck Length is not in our dimensional plane.&nbsp; Therefore, a photon which travels in no time (from it's point of view, not ours), in our dimension and beneath the Planck Length, can be anywhere or shall I say everywhere, in a 0 Dimensional plane, beneath the Planck Length.&nbsp; In the universe, as far as we know, there are 5 dimensions (0,1,2,3,4) <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I won't throw away your ideas as non-sense as others do, because at least you are trying to explain this incredible phenomena in a new or different way.&nbsp;Here is my opinion about your concept of photons in &nbsp;below planck length and planck time. If photons exist and travel &nbsp;in a 'media', 'dimension'&nbsp;(or whatever you call) below planck length and time, shouldn't photons travel through everything? &nbsp;Because 'the interdimensional space' you are referring to must exist everywhere,&nbsp;in empty space as well as in every 'matter'.&nbsp; Only thing we know so far that travels through everything, correct me if I'm wrong, is neutrinos, but&nbsp; neutrinos have mass.</font></p><p><font size="2">Another idea I've heard of&nbsp; is 'time entanglement'. Two photons may be&nbsp; entangled in time&nbsp;at birth, not in space. The next sentance is my thought. <font color="#ff0000">When&nbsp; photon 1&nbsp;is physically changed, its time starts, and so does the time of photon 2. This change in time appears as physical change of photon 2. </font></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">You may ask, why do they have exactly the same physical change? &nbsp;I don't have an answer for that. </font><font size="2">This entanglement thing&nbsp;may give us a better insight&nbsp;about how &nbsp;time and change are related.</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
K

killium

Guest
just a quick "throw a rock in the pond" question ;) Is it that we are not sure if the phenomena is real that we're not revisiting Einstein's postulate ? I mean, if we concretely measure something and find that IT IS going FTL, then that law that said it's impossible must be wrong no ? (if the results don't fit the law, change the results <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" />) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>just a quick "throw a rock in the pond" question ;) Is it that we are not sure if the phenomena is real that we're not revisiting Einstein's postulate ? I mean, if we concretely measure something and find that IT IS going FTL, then that law that said it's impossible must be wrong no ? (if the results don't fit the law, change the results ) <br />Posted by killium</DIV></p><p>It turns out that his phenomena does not violate relativity.&nbsp; In the press it is sometimes presented as though it does in order to titillate and sell copies and advertising.&nbsp; However, it is not possible to send information with this phenomena so there is no violation.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is actually nothing traveling faster than light here, no matter and no information-bearing signal.</p><p>What this does do is call into question the long-held belief by many people, Einstein included, that all physics is local.&nbsp; This provides a clear example of non-locality in physics.&nbsp; That is weird, but it does not invalidate relativity.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

killium

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It turns out that his phenomena does not violate relativity.&nbsp; In the press it is sometimes presented as though it does in order to titillate and sell copies and advertising.&nbsp; However, it is not possible to send information with this phenomena so there is no violation.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is actually nothing traveling faster than light here, no matter and no information-bearing signal.What this does do is call into question the long-held belief by many people, Einstein included, that all physics is local.&nbsp; This provides a clear example of non-locality in physics.&nbsp; That is weird, but it does not invalidate relativity.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>Whoa.... i fell of my chair lol. You're saying all this fluff around entanglement beeing FTL is wind ? I'll have to read a couple things again i think.... but i have to leave for today.....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I won't throw away your ideas as non-sense as others do, because at least you are trying to explain this incredible phenomena in a new or different way.&nbsp;Here is my opinion about your concept of photons in &nbsp;below planck length and planck time. If photons exist and travel &nbsp;in a 'media', 'dimension'&nbsp;(or whatever you call) below planck length and time, shouldn't photons travel through everything? &nbsp;Because 'the interdimensional space' you are referring to must exist everywhere,&nbsp;in empty space as well as in every 'matter'.&nbsp; Only thing we know so far that travels through everything, correct me if I'm wrong, is neutrinos, but&nbsp; neutrinos have mass.</DIV></p><p><strong>Not exactly.&nbsp; The signal for the spin of the photon, travels through everything FTL.&nbsp; The signal may be a property of this 0 dimensional plane, turning the photon in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction.&nbsp; Other than this, you've grasped the concept quite well!</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another idea I've heard of&nbsp; is 'time entanglement'. Two photons may be&nbsp; entangled in time&nbsp;at birth, not in space. The next sentance is my thought. When&nbsp; photon 1&nbsp;is physically changed, its time starts, and so does the time of photon 2. This change in time appears as physical change of photon 2.&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p><strong>I'm going to play with your idea and reword it (if you don't mind).&nbsp; At photon 1's birth, it's time starts it's spin (in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction).&nbsp; Because photon 2 is physically entangled to photon 1, a change in it's time appears as&nbsp;a change in spin, similar to photon 1.&nbsp; Does this make sence?</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whoa.... i fell of my chair lol. You're saying all this fluff around entanglement beeing FTL is wind ? I'll have to read a couple things again i think.... but i have to leave for today..... <br />Posted by killium</DIV></p><p>I am saying that entanglement does not violate relativity.&nbsp; There appears to be a collapsing of the quantum mechanical wavefunction that represents two entangles particles and that collapse seems to happen instantaneously across macroscopic distances -- probably with no limit whatever on the distance involved.&nbsp; But that collapse of the wave function carries no mass and cannot be used to transmit information, hence there is no violation of relativity.</p><p>Experiments of this type are not new.&nbsp; This phenomena is known.&nbsp; It has not caused a collapse of relativity.&nbsp; You can find discussions of it in many books on physics.&nbsp; You might try <em>The Road to Reality</em> by Roger Penrose.&nbsp; He discusses it at some length.&nbsp; It is a puzzle, but not a calamity.&nbsp; What it does is apparently slam the door on a completely local view of how physics works.&nbsp; That in itself is pretty revolutionary.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not sure how to approach that, Kyle.&nbsp; You start by touting, in a factual manner, a implication about an incomplete, highly speculative (albiet extremely quantitative) theory that has no way to be tested and/or falsified now or in the near future.</DIV></p><p><strong>The only thing I'm saying, is that I totally agree with Briane Greene's implications&nbsp;for a timeless, spaceless, and motionless dimension.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then a fundemental misunderstanding of the Planck Length.&nbsp; The laws may not stop.&nbsp; However, they may become impossible to measure and therefore be irrelevant and/or useless.&nbsp; At the Planck scale gravity and atomic forces are equal.&nbsp; Whether string theory or quantum loop gravity, et. al. define it as a real world, physical limit remains to be seen.</DIV></p><p><strong>How can you say the laws may not stop?&nbsp; Time stops at c.&nbsp; The speed of&nbsp;light is in both equations for Planck Length and Planck Time!&nbsp; The speed of&nbsp;light is a constant (in a vacuum), it doesn't change!</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With that said, there is still nothing currently limiting length scales.&nbsp; What happens with Special Relativity and length contraction at the Planck length?</DIV></p><p><strong>Nothing happens.&nbsp; Length contraction is an illusion of space time (at the speed of light) depending on the observer.&nbsp; It isn't a real physical phenomenon.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finally, in a previous post you base your argument on the concept of the photon being massless, hence experiencing no time.&nbsp; I follow with a question about particles with mass that are entangled. Your response is, "Should be no difference".&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p><strong>No difference in the signal speed (FTL) of the particles with mass, when compared to particles without mass.</strong></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing I'm saying, is that I totally agree with Briane Greene's implications&nbsp;for a timeless, spaceless, and motionless dimension.[/Quote]</p><p>I am happy that you agree.&nbsp; Unfortunately Brian Greene does not agree.&nbsp; He rather specifically points out that the extra dimensions in Kaluza Klein theory and more importantly in the string theories on which he has worked are SPATIAL dimensions and he speculates to a great deal of tumult at the Planck length.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is a quote from <em>the elegant universe. "</em>Since tiny strings vig=brate through all of the spatial dimensions, the precise way in shich the extra dimensionis are twisted up and curled back on each other strongly influences and tightly constrains the possible resonant vibrational patterns."&nbsp; And again, " The extra spatial dimensions of string theory cannot be "crumpled" up anywhich way; the equations that emerge from the theory sev erly restrict the geometrical form that they can take."</p><p>From <em>The Fabric of the Cosmos -- "</em> By the highest level in the figure, which shows the fabric of space on scales smaller than the <em>Planck</em> length -- a millionth of billionth of a billionth of a billionth (10^-33) of a centimeter -- space becomes a seething, boiling, cauldron of frenzied fluctuations."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you say the laws may not stop?&nbsp; Time stops at c.&nbsp; The speed of&nbsp;light is in both equations for Planck Length and Planck Time!&nbsp; The speed of&nbsp;light is a constant (in a vacuum), it doesn't change!&nbsp;Nothing happens.Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Certainly something happens.&nbsp; Light propagates.&nbsp; Planck length and Planck time are nothing but definitions for small units of each.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp;The fact that c occurs in the definition is does not mean that anything stops at that level.&nbsp; That is just ridiculous.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Length contraction is an illusion of space time (at the speed of light) depending on the observer.&nbsp; It isn't a real physical phenomenon.&nbsp;No difference in the signal speed (FTL) of the particles with mass, when compared to particles without mass.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Length contraction is most definitely not an illusion, as is illustrated by the penetration of the muon into the earth's atmosphere after being formed at high altitude, as well as other experiments.&nbsp; It is definitely a real physical phenomenon.</p><p>You last sentence is gibberish.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What it does is apparently slam the door on a completely local view of how physics works.&nbsp; That in itself is pretty revolutionary.&nbsp; <br />Posted by <strong>DrRocket</strong></DIV><br /><br />Is it any more odd than the 2 slit experiment performed on an electron by electron basis ?&nbsp; To me that each electron appears to go through both slits implies a weird non-locality that is not apparent in a particle model of an electron.&nbsp; I take it from the aforementioned or "spooky action" that we don't have, and may never have, an everyday macroscopic&nbsp;analog to compare to the quantum world so that the latter makes "commonsense".&nbsp; </p><p>And by "we" I really mean me but if anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it any more odd than the 2 slit experiment performed on an electron by electron basis ?&nbsp; To me that each electron appears to go through both slits implies a weird non-locality that is not apparent in a particle model of an electron.&nbsp; I take it from the aforementioned or "spooky action" that we don't have, and may never have, an everyday macroscopic&nbsp;analog to compare to the quantum world so that the latter makes "commonsense".&nbsp; And by "we" I really mean me but if anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.&nbsp; <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder.&nbsp; I agree that the double slit experiment with the interference patterns forming one electron at a time is pretty weird.&nbsp; But I think this "spooky action at a distance" is even more weird.&nbsp; It is however a matter of degree and of&nbsp;personal perception.&nbsp; I would just love to enlighten you, but to do so I would need an explanation for what happens in the quantum world.&nbsp; I wish I had one.&nbsp; I wish anyone had one.</p><p>I think tht Richard Feynman had as good a grasp of quantum mechanics as anyoine who has ever lived.&nbsp; Here is what he had to say:</p><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity.<span>&nbsp; </span>I do not believe that there ever was such a time.<span>&nbsp; </span>There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper.<span>&nbsp; </span>But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve.<span>&nbsp; </span>On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. &ndash; Richard P. Feynman in <em>The Character of Physical Law</em></font></span></span> <p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
So partialy collapsing and un-collapsing a quantum particle as in this experiment isn't a case where it'd be possible for said particle to have a paired particle also partialy collapsing and un-collapsing, instantly? &nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY