Quantun Entanglement

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PJay_A

Guest
<p>I find the subject of quantum entanglement as one of the most interesting areas of modern science. I find this fact of nature as "proof" that of the mechanics of the Universe, despite the fact that humanity has learned a great deal and has made considerable inroads to its understanding (of Universal mechnanics) - especially recent centuries - that what we know is really nothing compared to what is knowable. Quantum entanglement, dark matter, and so on are glarring examples of Universal mechanics waiting to be understood. And as we begin to find its clues, new huge cans of worms will begin to open up and each worm will be more puzzling than the canister that opened them.</p><p>Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let me offer my opinion of what exactly may be going on with quantum entanglement and I would welcome any comments on why I may right or wrong in my thinking.</p><p>Assuming string or m theory is correct with the notion of the physical existance of dimensional space beyond our four space-time dimensions, when we create a pair of particles and then separated them, the pair can only be separated within our 3D spacial plane; therefore, the pair is still joined on spacial planes beyond the three we have manipulation over. A local communication path between the partcles therefore really does exist but is existing on an invisble dimensional plane. And, while we may see that the two paticles are away from each other, this is only true for our visible three spacial planes. For an unknown number of planes invisible and unmanipulatable by us, these particles still touch and exchange information free of any real spacial distance to travel. </p>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming string or m theory is correct with the notion of the physical existance of dimensional space beyond our four space-time dimensions, when we create a pair of particles and then separated them, the pair can only be separated within our 3D spacial plane; therefore, the pair is still joined on spacial planes beyond the three we have manipulation over. A local communication path between the partcles therefore really does exist but is existing on an invisble dimensional plane. And, while we may see that the two paticles are away from each other, this is only true for our visible three spacial planes. For an unknown number of planes invisible and unmanipulatable by us, these particles still touch and exchange information free of any real spacial distance to travel. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>I think it must be something like that. Sometimes I believe that the invisible dimension may just be time itself. A lot of string theories just assume that time exists. When you talk of a vibrating string in any dimension you are making an assumption about the nature of time because without time there is no such thing as vibration. Scientists have proven that clocks tick at different rates depending on gravity and speed and other factors so we cannot just take time for granted or assume that it is constant or even linear. Normally when we separate objects by distance we are also separating them in time because (supposedly) it would take a finite amount of time to bring them back together again. Perhaps quantum entanglement maintains the time connection</p>
 
O

observer7

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it must be something like that. Sometimes I believe that the invisible dimension may just be time itself. A lot of string theories just assume that time exists. When you talk of a vibrating string in any dimension you are making an assumption about the nature of time because without time there is no such thing as vibration. Scientists have proven that clocks tick at different rates depending on gravity and speed and other factors so we cannot just take time for granted or assume that it is constant or even linear. Normally when we separate objects by distance we are also separating them in time because (supposedly) it would take a finite amount of time to bring them back together again. Perhaps quantum entanglement maintains the time connection <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What if our 4D space-time just represents "slices" of a greater n dimensinal universe.&nbsp; Each of these slices is a configuration of matter and energy from our point of view.&nbsp; Then we can define time as the orderly perception of these slices, each slice lasting some very small amount of time (Planck time?).&nbsp; This fits with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and makes time (not clocks) an effect of consciousness, not a physical phenomena.&nbsp; The entire "multiverse" exists, all states, all outcomes, all possibilities.&nbsp; Time is the method by which we explore this multiverse.&nbsp; I think, therefore I experience time, therefore I experience an orderly progression through the 4D slices of the multiverse that my senses can perceive.&nbsp; These paths follow rules (causality, arrow of time, entropy, etc.) that allow me to experience a slf consistent and meaningful path through the slices.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This idea is my expanded interpretation of ideas presented by J. Barbor in his book "The End of Time."&nbsp; You might want to look up a copy and read through it.&nbsp; Its really quite fascinating.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>-- </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>
 
B

bzannone

Guest
&nbsp;&nbsp; Could quantum entanglement explain the release of information jetting out of a black hole, making it (black hole) a possible&nbsp;link to another dimensional plane?
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find the subject of quantum entanglement as one of the most interesting areas of modern science. I find this fact of nature as "proof" that of the mechanics of the Universe, despite the fact that humanity has learned a great deal and has made considerable inroads to its understanding (of Universal mechnanics) - especially recent centuries - that what we know is really nothing compared to what is knowable. Quantum entanglement, dark matter, and so on are glarring examples of Universal mechanics waiting to be understood. And as we begin to find its clues, new huge cans of worms will begin to open up and each worm will be more puzzling than the canister that opened them.Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let me offer my opinion of what exactly may be going on with quantum entanglement and I would welcome any comments on why I may right or wrong in my thinking.Assuming string or m theory is correct with the notion of the physical existance of dimensional space beyond our four space-time dimensions, when we create a pair of particles and then separated them, the pair can only be separated within our 3D spacial plane; therefore, the pair is still joined on spacial planes beyond the three we have manipulation over. A local communication path between the partcles therefore really does exist but is existing on an invisble dimensional plane. And, while we may see that the two paticles are away from each other, this is only true for our visible three spacial planes. For an unknown number of planes invisible and unmanipulatable by us, these particles still touch and exchange information free of any real spacial distance to travel. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>The problem with that hypothesis is that the extra dimensions in brane theory, if one assumes that theory to be valid which is quite a leap in itself, are compacted or "rolled up" so as to be undetectable at ordinary scales and in fact even at very small laboratory scales.&nbsp;&nbsp;These extra dimensions are hypothesized to exist in the sense of a manifold but are not by any means "planes" in a global sense.&nbsp;Entanglement has been demonstrated to "act" over relatively large distances -- at least a few meters -- and the general thought is that there is no particular limit to the distance over which it can manifest itself.&nbsp; It appears to be truly non-local.&nbsp; It is basically weird.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming string or m theory is correct with the notion of the physical existance of dimensional space beyond our four space-time dimensions, when we create a pair of particles and then separated them, the pair can only be separated within our 3D spacial plane; therefore, the pair is still joined on spacial planes beyond the three we have manipulation over. <font color="#ff6600">A local communication path between the partcles therefore really does exist but is existing on an invisble dimensional plane.</font> And, while we may see that the two paticles are away from each other, this is only true for our visible three spacial planes. For an unknown number of planes invisible and unmanipulatable by us, these particles still touch and exchange information free of any real spacial distance to travel. Posted by PJay_A</DIV><br /><p><br />the one problem I see with your idea is that such hypothesis could never be positively determined even if it should really happen to be so, as it is I see your proposed 'solution' as sweeping the problem under the carpet and doing away with it that way, i.e., it is too facile solution </p><p>it is still not certain that the communication we speak about here is instantaneous but it has been determined to be faster than several times the speed of light (I think, not sure at the moment what the real figure is) and it is not ruled out that we might be looking at some very high speeds to be sure but yet not instantaneous communication</p><p>after physics advances in future decades or centuries, we will either arrive at some acceptable solution (acceptable in the sense that even today's scientists would be satisfied with it given the current view of physics) or else we will find a way to accept it as it is - that is recognize it as some fundamental feature of reality somewhat as we have accepted in the past that the speed of light is constant, nobody seems to be puzzled by that now and in the same way nobody will be puzzled by infinite speed of communication of entangled particles in the future when some theory might be built upon that feature taking it as postulate </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find the subject of quantum entanglement as one of the most interesting areas of modern science. I find this fact of nature as "proof" that of the mechanics of the Universe, despite the fact that humanity has learned a great deal and has made considerable inroads to its understanding (of Universal mechnanics) - especially recent centuries - that what we know is really nothing compared to what is knowable. Quantum entanglement, dark matter, and so on are glarring examples of Universal mechanics waiting to be understood. And as we begin to find its clues, new huge cans of worms will begin to open up and each worm will be more puzzling than the canister that opened them.Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let me offer my opinion of what exactly may be going on with quantum entanglement and I would welcome any comments on why I may right or wrong in my thinking.Assuming string or m theory is correct with the notion of the physical existance of dimensional space beyond our four space-time dimensions, when we create a pair of particles and then separated them, the pair can only be separated within our 3D spacial plane; therefore, the pair is still joined on spacial planes beyond the three we have manipulation over. A local communication path between the partcles therefore really does exist but is existing on an invisble dimensional plane. And, while we may see that the two paticles are away from each other, this is only true for our visible three spacial planes. For an unknown number of planes invisible and unmanipulatable by us, these particles still touch and exchange information free of any real spacial distance to travel. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p><font size="2">It is really amazing magic, here is a videolink trying to describe it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja0UUKbVlhA&feature=related</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find the subject of quantum entanglement as one of the most interesting areas of modern science.<br /> Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p><font size="2">The above sentence is absolutely true, this is a very puzzling discovery in modern science. I don't think we will find a single definitive answer to this puzzle very soon. </font></p><p><font size="2">I know scientists have observed quantum entanglement (QE) in photons but have they observed QE&nbsp; with other particles? What is the largest particle in mass&nbsp; which produced QE&nbsp; in lab experiments? My common sense tells me the higher the mass the less entangled they will be.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The above sentence is absolutely true, this is a very puzzling discovery in modern science. I don't think we will find a single definitive answer to this puzzle very soon. I know scientists have observed quantum entanglement (QE) in photons but have they observed QE&nbsp; with other particles? What is the largest particle in mass&nbsp; which produced QE&nbsp; in lab experiments? My common sense tells me the higher the mass the less entangled they will be.&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>If common sense were operative quantum mechanics in general and entanglement in particular would be rather differenct from what has been found experimentally.</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>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts