A drastically back-to-basic reasoning shows that the universe is held together and ordered by a *Faster Than Light Interaction*, QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. Nature is beautifully simple and clever.

(For those who spurn Physics, let me point out that Quantum Entanglement, being * the* Fundamental Process, occurs massively in the brain. Thus explaining the non-local nature of consciousness.)

***

**The Universe is held together by an entangled, faster than light interaction**. It is time to talk about it, instead of the (related) idiocy of the “multiverse”. OK, it is easier to talk idiotically than to talk smart.

I will present Entanglement in such a simple way, that nobody spoke of it that way before.

Suppose that out of an interaction, or system S, come two particles, and only two particles, X and Y. Suppose the energy of S is known, that position is the origin of the coordinates one is using, and that its momentum is zero.

By conservation of momentum, momentum of X is equal to minus momentum of Y.

In Classical Mechanics, knowing where X is tells us immediately where Y is.

One can say that the system made of X and Y is entangled. Call that CLASSICAL ENTANGLEMENT.

This is fully understood, and not surprising: even Newton would have understood it perfectly.

The same situation holds in Quantum Physics.

This is not surprising: Quantum Physics ought not to contradict Classical Mechanics, because the latter is fully demonstrated, at least for macroscopic objects X and Y. So why not for smaller ones?

So far, so good.

In Quantum Physics, Classical Entanglement gets a new name. It is called QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. It shows up as a “paradox”, the EPR.

That paradox makes the greatest physicists freak out, starting with Einstein, who called QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT “* spooky action at a distance*”.

Why are physicists so shocked that what happens in Classical Mechanics would also be true in Quantum Physics?

Some say John Bell, chief theorist at CERN, “solved” the EPR Paradox, in 1964. Not so. Bell, who unfortunately died of a heart attack at 64, showed that the problem was real.

So what’s the problem? We have to go back to what is the fundamental axiom of Quantum Physics (Note 1). Here it is:

De Broglie decreed in 1924 that **all and any particle X of energy-momentum (E,p) is** associated to a wave W. That wave W s uniquely defined by E and p. So one can symbolize this by: W(E,p).

W(E,p) determines in turn the behavior of X. In particular all its interactions.

De Broglie’s obscure reasoning seems to have been understood by (nearly) no one to this day. However it was checked right away for electrons, and De Broglie got the Nobel all for himself within three years of his thesis.

Most of basics Quantum Mechanics is in De Broglie’s insight. Not just the “Schrodinger” equation, but the Uncertainty Principle.

Why?

Take a “particle X”. Let’s try to find out where it is. Well, that means we will have to interact with it. Wait, if we interact, it is a wave W. How does one find the position of a wave? Well the answer is that one cannot: when one tries to corner a wave, it becomes vicious, as everybody familiar with the sea will testify. Thus to try to find the position of a particle X makes its wave develop great momentum.

A few years after De Broglie’s seminal work, Heisenberg explained that in detail in the particular case of trying to find where an electron is, by throwing a photon on it.

This consequence of De Broglie’s Wave Principle was well understood in several ways, and got to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

(Uncertainty of Position)(Uncertainty of Momentum) > (Planck Constant)

[Roughly.]

**The Quantum Wave, and thus the Uncertainty, applies to any “particle” (it could be a truck).**

It is crucial to understand what the Uncertainty Principle says. In light of all particles being waves (so to speak), the Uncertainty Principle says that, **AT NO MOMENT DOES A PARTICLE HAVE, EVER, A PERFECTLY DEFINED MOMENTUM and POSITION**.

It would contradict the “particle’s” wavy nature. It’s always this question of putting a wave into a box: you cannot reduce the box to a point. There are NO POINTS in physics.

Now we are set to understand why Quantum Entanglement created great anxiety. Let’s go back to our two entangled particles, X and Y, sole, albeit not lonely, daughters of system S. Suppose X and Y are a light year apart.

Measure the momentum of X, at universal time t (Relativity allows to do this, thanks to a process of slow synchronization of clocks described by Poincare’ and certified later by Einstein). The momentum of Y is equal and opposite.

But, wait, at same time t, the position of Y could be determined.

Thus the Uncertainty Principle would be violated at time t at Y: one could retrospectively fully determine Y’s momentum and position, and Y would have revealed itself to be, at that particular time t, a vulgar point-particle… As in Classical Mechanics. But there are no point-particles in Quantum Physics: that is, no point in Nature, that’s the whole point!).

Contradiction.

(This contradiction is conventionally called the “EPR Paradox”; it probably ought to be called the *De Broglie-Einstein-Popper Paradox*, or, simply, the *Non-Locality Paradox*.)

This is the essence of why Quantum Entanglement makes physicists with brains freak out. I myself have thought of this problem, very hard, for decades. However, very early on, I found none of the solutions by the great names presented to be satisfactory. And so I developed my own. The more time passes, the more I believe in it.

A difficulty I had is my theory created lots of cosmic garbage, if true (;-)).

At this point, Albert Einstein and his sidekicks (one of them was just used to translate from Einstein’s German) wrote:

*“We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete.” *[Einstein, A; B Podolsky; N Rosen (1935-05-15). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”. Physical Review 47 (10): 777–780.]

The EPR paper ends by saying:

*“While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible*.”

This is high lawyerese: even as vicious a critic as your humble servant cannot find anything wrong with this craftily composed conceptology.

Einstein had corresponded on the subject with the excellent philosopher Karl Popper earlier (and Popper found his own version of the EPR). This is no doubt while he was more circumspect that he had been before.

Let’s recapitulate the problem, my way.

After interacting, **according to the WAVE PRINCIPLE, both widely separating particles X and Y share the SAME WAVE**.

I talk, I talk, but this is what the equations that all physicists write say: SAME WAVE. They can write all the equations they want, I think about them.

That wave is non-local, and yes, it could be a light year across. Einstein had a problem with that? I don’t.

Those who cling to the past, tried everything to explain away the Non-Locality Paradox.

Einstein was a particular man, and the beginning of the EPR paper clearly shows he wants to cling back to particles, what I view as his error of 1905. Namely that particles are particles *during* fundamental processes (he got the Physics Nobel for it in 1922; however, as I will not get the Nobel, I am not afraid to declare the Nobel Committee in error; Einstein deserved several Nobels, yet he made a grievous error in 1905, which has led most physicists astray, to this day… hence the striking madness of the so-called “multiverse”).

The Bell Inequality (which Richard Feynman stole for himself!) conclusively demonstrated that experiments could be made to check whether the Quantum Non-Local effects would show up.

The experiments were conducted, and the Non-Local effects were found.

That they would not have been found would have shattered Quantum Physics completely. Indeed, all the modern formalism of Quantum Physics is about Non-Locality, right from the start.

So what is my vision of what is going on? Simple: **when one determines, through an interaction I, the momentum of particle X, the wave made of X and Y, W(X,Y), so to speak, “collapses”, and transmits the fact of I to particle Y at faster than light speed TAU**. (I have computed that TAU is more than 10^10 the speed of light, c; Chinese scientists have given a minimum value for TAU, 10^4 c)

Then Y reacts as if it had been touched. Because, well, it has been touched: amoebae-like, it may have extended a light year, or more.

Quantum Entanglement will turn into Einstein’s worst nightmare. Informed, and all around, quasi-instantaneously. Tell me, Albert, how does it feel to have thought for a while one had figured out the universe, and then, now, clearly, not at all?

(Why not? I did not stay stuck, as Einstein did, making metaphors from moving trains, clocks, etc; a first problem with clocks is that Quantum Physics does not treat time and space equivalently. Actually the whole Quantum conceptology is an offense to hard core Relativity.)

Faster than light entanglement is a new way to look at Nature. It will have consequences all over. Indeed particles bump into each other all the time, so they get entangled. This immediately implies that topology is important to classify, and uncover hundreds of states of matter that we did not suspect existed. None of this is idle: Entanglement is central to Quantum Computing.

Entanglement’s consequences, from philosophy to technology, are going to dwarf all prior science.

Can we make predictions, from this spectacular, faster than light, new way to look at Nature?

Yes.

**Dark Matter**. [2]

Patrice Ayme’

***

[1]: That the De Broglie Principle, the Wave Principle implies Planck’s work is my idea, it’s not conventional Quantum as found in textbooks.

[2]: Interaction density depends upon matter density. I propose that Dark Matter is the remnants of waves that were too spread-out to be fully brought back by Quantum Wave Collapse. In low matter density, thus, will Dark Matter be generated. As observed.

Tags: Dark matter, De Broglie, Einstein, Entanglement, EPR, Faster Than Light, Non Locality, Quantum Foundations, Wave

November 23, 2014 at 1:19 am |

Patrice, I rather suspect you knew this would force me to respond 🙂

First, entanglement arises through the application of a conservation law. Thus when testing entanglement with polarised photons, (e.g. Aspect, A., Graingier, P., Roger. G. 1982. Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91-94.) the entangled couple arise through the application of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Second, had the polarisation of the photons in Aspect’s experiment been determined when they were generated, Aspect would have got the same results. The faster than light signal requirement and hence non-locality arises BECAUSE the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that the polarization is ONLY determined at the point of observation, in which case the conservation law requires the second photon to immediately take on its required value. If the polarisation were determined when created, there is no need for superluminal signalling, and the whole situation is classical.

The usual complaint that that reasoning is wrong lies in the assertion that experiments such as the Aspect experiment lead to observations that violate Bell’s Inequality. I assert that that is wrong, not because the experiments were not done properly (they were exemplary) but they did not show the required violation because there were insufficient true variables to put into the Inequality. With such photon experiments, violations of Bell’s Inequality would require either the associative law of sets to be wrong (and that means, all mathematics goes out the window) OR the law of conservation of energy is wrong. However, the photons obey the Malus law, which is simply another statement of the law of conservation of energy.

What goes wrong in the analysis? You have two detectors that are set at certain angles, and they are able to be rotated and set at new angles. The experiment has three settings, a, b and c, while Bell’s inequality requires six independent variables, three for each detector. Superficially, you have enough, BUT what gets left out is that over a given length of time, each detector detects exactly the same number of photons assuming the source is rotationally invariant. Accordingly, what we need are entangled photons, and so photon pairs are only counted if one photon arrives within 20 ns of a photon at the other detector. That means the other detector does not determine a variable, but rather it determines which half of the photon source is part of this experiment. Failure to appreciate that leads to the probability of an event occurring being greater than 1 for one set of photons.

Try some basic trigonometry. Assume the source is truly polarised. Apply the Malus law and NOW you find there are sufficient true variables to put into Bell’s Inequality, BUT the results comply with the inequality.

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 3:56 am |

Hmm… Yes, indeed! ;-)! Well the Entanglement results from conservation laws. Classical Entanglement, and thus similarly Quantum Entanglement. But the problem of Non-Locality arises from the fact that any Quantum PROCESS is a wave.

My own description of the situation is as general as possible, and does not depend upon Angular Momentum/Spin.

“non-locality arises BECAUSE the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that the polarization is ONLY determined at the point of observation, in which case the conservation law requires the second photon to immediately take on its required value. If the polarisation were determined when created, there is no need for superluminal signaling, and the whole situation is classical.”Wait… I do NOT believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Once again, I use just the WAVE PRINCIPLE (my term).

“

If the polarisation were determined when created, there is no need for superluminal signaling, and the whole situation is classical”That’s how EPR started their paper, but not how they finished it! I firmly believe it is 100% wrong.

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 4:30 am |

I guess there are two issues here, one of which I ignored above because it is usually not relevant. Yes, non-locality is forced on us by the wave nature, but only to within one wave length. My dispute is with the concept that non-locality covers indefinite distance. If the polarisation is not determined by observation, then within the meaning of the words as I understand them, there is no overall need for non-locality. Once a wave has managed one wavelength, it should have defined its polarisation.

Without knowing more of what your WAVE PRINCIPLE involves, I cannot go much further, except to restate my opinion that the polarised photons do not show violations of Bell’s Inequality.

As for the EPR paper, I have often wondered why it seems to to have a slightly different basis at the start to the finish. I think the EPR paper should have got to the heart of the matter, but it seemed to pull up short for some reason.

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 6:16 am |

Why the EPR paper switched from one thing to another is because it switched from Einstein’s vision (“

elements of reality“, implicitly meaning Lichtquanten, Einstein’s big, un-discovered mistake) to De Broglie’s vision: WAVE PRINCIPLE.WAVE PRINCIPLE says fundamental processes are waves. This is the wave PSI as found in the beginning of the second paragraph of the EPR paper. PSI, the “

wave function” covers both the (separated) systems I and II (to follow the EPR notation. I just called them X and Y.EPR pulls up short, because it clearly stabs Relativity, Einstein way, in the heart.

The reasoning, as I abstracted it to the maximum, does not depend upon “polarizations” (that’s the Bohm variant, later used by Bell, Aspect, etc.). The EPR looks mostly at P and Q, position and momentum (although it also mentions non commuting operators in general, A and B).

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 9:19 am

Yes, I realised that Einstein looks mainly at p & q; the polarisations used by Aspect et al was mainly because it is the easiest variable to look at in terms of photons, which are the easiest to entangle. Of course the theory is far more general than polarisations, but polarisations tend to be that which is measured.

I am not so sure about the pulling up short. My feeling is Einstein was not quite prepared to put what he thought on the line, hence the equivocation.

Where we may disagree here is that in my view, and my interpretation of de Broglie (but my reading of his work may be inadequate here) he considered the pilot wave directed the particle, which, if I recall correctly, he considered to “jiggle around the antinode”. Now with entanglement the question is, are both particles associated with one wave, or is there a wave for each? As you may gather, I have strong opinions on this. In my interpretation, given that ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), there is a separate wave for every separable unit of action. This contradicts the state vector formalism, so most people do not agree with me, but for me, given that each photon has a defined energy, it therefore has separable defined action, and therefore separable waves.

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm

One wave for each unit of action? That contradicts the Wave Principle. Answered in separate thread (although it justifies a full essay, to put it mildly).

LikeLike

November 23, 2014 at 10:40 pm

What I should have said is, one wave for each valid separable component of motion, in which each component gives rise to quantised action. If your wave principle states there is one and one only wave for an entangled state, then yes, it contradicts it.

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 12:10 am

That’s in the basic formalism. Please read the EPR paper, first equation.

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 4:54 am

You rough, but it’s indeed there, as I said previously: It’s called PSI (I,II) (EPR calls the separated systems I and II).

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 12:07 am |

If I understand you well, you are saying that the NON LOCAL nature of quantum mechanics is obvious, without going through John Bell’s paper?

You say it comes just from the conjonction of WAVE and conservation law?

I don’t understand why Ian said wave mechanics worked ONLY within a wavelength. What about the double slit experiment, Ian?

The whole point of NON LOCALITY Patrice is making is that the wave picture is valid on a COSMIC scale!!!!!

The wave packet collapses COSMICALLY!

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 1:28 am |

gmax, I did not say wave mechanics only works within a wavelength, or at least I hope I didn’t. What I meant was that non-locality operates within one wavelength, but definitely not cosmically.

That argument depends on two things. The first is, as I started this discussion, I believe there have been no violations of Bell’s Inequality demonstrated, the reason being that in the Aspect-type experiments, there are insufficient variables determined to put into the inequalities.

I confess to having my own interpretation of QM, in which I start like everyone else with ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), h Planck’s quantum of action, S the action. The general approach is that ψ is complex, but that is not entirely true. From Euler, once a cycle ψ = A. My assumption is that it is only when the wave becomes real does it affect anything physically. I now assume that to affect the particle, the wave must travel at the same velocity, in which case the wave MUST contain energy. At this point, the reason why the electron in a stationary state of an atom does not cascade into the nucleus as Maxwell would require is obvious – when the wave becomes real at the same place with the same energy, the particle has not accelerated! (Or at least the acceleration is not meaningful physically as the wave is deterministic and its reality remains unchanged.) The Uncertainty Principle and the Exclusion Principle now follow as derived. The results of the two-slit experiment now follow from the requirement that energy is conserved, and moreover, I even propose a couple of further experiments where the path (which slit) is known and diffraction should still follow. One may be a bit difficult to do, but the other, the delayed quantum eraser experiment, should work because it has been carried out but for one particular variation.

I have put the details in an ebook called Guidance Waves (Amazon)

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 4:34 am |

Dear Ian: I tend to agree with what GMax said… Basically you seem to say: I don’t like Non-Locality, so I am going to force its interdiction as a new axiom. Beyond a wavelength (that’s where GMax got it, I guess).

What I say is: OK,

let’s go to the very basics of the QM axiomatics. It’s all about THE WAVE.So I am actually looking at what everybody who has taken classes on Quantum Field Theory in a school (as I have) agrees with. I just removed the fluff.

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 4:45 am |

I just read the reply to you from Ian. I do not understand why his set-up varies so much from usual QM.

My own set-up is STRICTLY CLASSICAL QUANTUM Mechanics (could not resist: classical quantum, hahaha). I just re-interpret, the very basics. So I am all classical quantum, and just points out that, as soon as one writes the first equation, one has gone Non-Local.

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 9:12 am |

Why am I so different? I suppose, in part, I dislike certain aspects of standard QM, BUT I also found that by assuming that the physics of the particle are determined when ψ is real (and that reality is basic mathematics, and not an assumption) makes QM so much less mysterious. It is also not unreasonable to assume that if the wave determines the properties of the particle when it is in motion, the two have to travel at the same velocity so that they can influence each other. I am also encouraged that this interpretation leads to the energy of the chemical bond being essentially determined by a “back of the envelope” calculation.

Notwithstanding that, whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether non-locality has been proven by deviations from Bell’s Inequality by rotating polariser type experiments. My argument is that it has not, and nobody has as yet found a flaw in my argument, which basically involves nothing more than basic trigonometry. If anyone can find such a flaw, please let me know.

LikeLike

November 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm |

Dear Ian, forgive my stupidity, but I still don’t get your objection to the proof of non locality.

Why complex numbers are used is to neatly incorporate photon spin (“polarization”). Penrose goes a bit further with its twistors, which incorporate spinnors in general (?)

In my theory, there are NO particles when in motion. That’s the huge difference with Bohm (and De Broglie’s first theory). Actually the problem comes, from my point of view with Einstein 1905.

LikeLike

November 25, 2014 at 12:15 am

Dear Patrice, first the complex number issue is not part of my objection to non-locality, so maybe put that aside for the moment. Let’s do this slowly. Let us carry out an experiment in which there are three different values of some variable, which can be labelled a, b and c. For the Aspect-type experiment they reflect rotations from a starting position, and were 0, 22.5 and 45 degrees. The experiments must give discrete results, which we can say are pass by some criterion (+) or fail by that criterion (-) Let capitals indicate probability, thus A+ is the probability of a plus result at value a of our variable. The probabilities of one measurement at A giving a + or – value is unity (the probability that one measurement was taken on an entangled pair), i.e.

A = A+ + A- = 1

One of Bell’s Inequalities is

A+B- + B+C- is greater than or equal to A+C-

Thus we set a,b as {0, 22.5}, b,c as {22.5, 45} and a,c as {0, 45}. The first polariser is to record a + result, the second the – result, hence the second polariser starts at 90 degrees to the first. Thus for a,c the first analyser is left, say, in the vertical, and the second analyser is rotated by 45 degrees from the horizontal. Accordingly, the quantum mechanical prediction is that the respective terms should be sin squared θ, i.e. 0.146, 0.146 and 0.5 respectively. Since 0.292 is not greater or equal to 0.5, Bell’s inequality appears to be violated. Experiments were in full accord with this quantum mechanical prediction.

Before I go any further, have you any objection to that, other than my difficulty in representing “degrees”, “squared”, and other symbols?

LikeLike

November 29, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Sorry Ian, but I have had not enough time to get into details. For me, Non-Locality with Spin is the simplest thing. Two particles are separated, X and Y. Say they are entangled, total spin zero. So Spin(X) = -Spin (Y), always.

Now it turns out that measuring Spin is done in directions. So one can measure Spin(X) in direction A, or in direction B. If one measures Spin(X) along A, and then along B, it is not the same as doing B, and then A.

The point,

experimentally proven, is that measuring spin here affect it there.You say the proof is not good enough. I remember the time when considering these problems was viewed as sheer mental derangement.

As I explained both the WAVE PRINCIPLE, and its axiomatic implementation in functional analysis as Hilbert Space machinery, IMPOSE NON-LOCALITY.

To NOT have Non-Locality, one would need to break the foundations of Quantum Physics in a violent way.

I propose to break them in a subtle way. A complementation, rather.

Besides, there are very good reasons for non-locality of sorts.

I need to write a further essay on this…

LikeLike

November 29, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Right, I shall leave aside the intricacies of Bell’s Inequalities for the time being. Instead, let me add that I disagree with:

“The point, experimentally proven, is that measuring spin here affect it there.”

In my view it is not experimentally proven, but I am open to being shown such an experiment.

In general, in an experiment you record a value, in this case for the spin. Either the spin was pre-determined, in which case you have recorded the value obtained by the measurement, OR the measurement determined the value of the spin. I am unaware of any experiment that can separate these, other than the claims of violations of Bell’s Inequalities, and I believe these have not been applied logically.

If you cannot separate these two options, you cannot distinguish between the spins being pre-determined when entangled by the conservation law that led to the entanglement. It may be an axiom that says they are non-local in a Hilbert space representation, but that does not make it so physically. (As an aside, if you do not get the answer you want in the second determination, do you assume the particles were no longer entangled?)

Finally, it is not the end of the world if physics has to do a bit of readjustment.

LikeLike

November 30, 2014 at 2:24 am |

Dear Ian:

You say:

“Either the spin was pre-determined, in which case you have recorded the value obtained by the measurement, OR the measurement determined the value of the spin.”

To my knowledge the direction Y of the spin measurement on particle (photon) B was established haphazardly during the flight time of particle A (at light speed!).

By some sort of acoustic-optical device Aspect invented.

Then spin of A was measured in direction X.

According to QM, the choice of Y affects spin of A in direction X. That’s what Bell Inequality says.

Aspect got the Wolf Prize for this. And also Anton Zeilinger, who, among other things, confirmed Aspect-like results.

Am I getting this right?

For me, as I explained, the Wave Principle makes all this Non-Locality obvious! 😉

PA

LikeLike

November 30, 2014 at 3:24 am |

First, let me check we are talking about the same experiment. What I have been talking about is: Aspect, A., Graingier, P., Roger. G. 1982. Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91-94. If you are talking about some other experiment, give me a reference and I shall look it up (assuming I can get access).

I disagree with: “According to QM, the choice of Y affects spin of A in direction X. That’s what Bell Inequality says.” It is actually the conservation of angular momentum that requires an entangled particle to define its spin (or wave polarisation) once the spin of its partner is known. BUT that does not stop both having been defined at the point of origin. Actually, Bell’s inequalities (according to my derivation) are required if the associative law of sets is valid, and if it is not, then all mathematics goes down the drain anyway.

Another reason why I do not believe Bell’s Inequalities were violated in the Aspect experiment I reference above is this. If we put the inequality in the form A+B- + B+C- is greater than or equal to A+C- , then in the Aspect result, The B+C- determination is merely a rotation of the apparatus from A+B-. If the background is isotropic, rotating the apparatus should not change the outcome 🙂 And indeed, the same result is obtained.

My whole case rests on the argument that there were insufficient variables to put into Bell’s inequalities. Rotating the whole apparatus does not introduce new variables. As in Galilean relativity, these joint experiments determine the value at B IN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE OF A.

Actually, this argument says nothing about non-locality – merely that it was not demonstrated in this experiment, and in fact, since this experiment showed remarkable agreement with the Malus law, it is, in my opinion, the most dramatic demonstration of wave-particle duality that i have seen. It is indeed a very clever experiment, but it doesn’t mean what everyone seems to think it means.

LikeLike

November 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm |

Ian: Stuck in a snow storm with intermittent Internet service here. There is one point you made that has long bothered/intrigued me: how can directions, far away, still have a meaning? Does that mean there is a universal reference frame? As we already get a universal time, ontological problems with Relativity keep on rising…

LikeLike

November 30, 2014 at 8:31 pm |

For me, simply rotating the experiment clockwise by 22.5 degrees cannot create two new variables (required for Bell’s Inequality) unless there is some absolute fixed background, and if that is the case, Einstein’s relativity no longer makes sense to me. Given the conflict here, I tend to back relativity.

Of course, even if there is a fixed background, it does not remove the problem with using Aspect’s results to find violations of Bell’s Inequalities, because the Aspect experiments only take a small sample of the photons, and if there is a fixed background (which I don’t believe) partially rotating the experiment merely changes the selection, which means, while you have your two new variables, they are not related properly to the other samples.

LikeLike

December 2, 2014 at 6:33 am

Yes, another essay to write! The EPR clearly gives a universal frame, solve Mach Principle, etc… Einstein is going to be set into rotation… Spookily, at a distance…

LikeLike

January 29, 2015 at 4:42 pm |

There is no “faster then light”.

Backward causality.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120423131902.htm

LikeLike

January 29, 2015 at 6:55 pm |

Thanks a lot for the reference, docwho. And welcome! Although I have know about prof. Zellinger for more than a decade, this one passed me by. I don’t understand what they did and how they interpret it. (I have my own theory, and so far I can understand delayed choice in light of it.)

If you remember well in Special Relativity, time is local (idea from Lorentz-Poincare’). The Quantum violates this. Time can become locally global, so to speak. “Backwards Causality” and “Faster Than Light Change of State” seems to be the same thing, as far as I can tell. But maybe I am wrong. I am looking forward getting contradicted on this. The Foundations of Physics are full of philosophical subtleties…

PA

LikeLike

January 29, 2015 at 7:28 pm |

One of the things that bothers me about this sort of experiment in docwho’s reference is that what you claim is heavily dependent on certain assumptions. When they say the determination now also determines the entangled partner in the past, this presupposes both were not determined when made. The issue follows Einstein’s, “Before measurement we did not know, now we do.” I cannot see how anyone can be so sure the state was not fixed prior to measurement because by definition, we know not what it was then.

LikeLike

January 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm |

Dear Ian: I agree with your objection 100%. They usually seem to be making the exact same mistake that led to the Multiverse. That is assuming states exist that do not. This comes from what I view as Einstein’s Mistake:

Namely:

“State of Process” = Eigenfunction.

The eifenfunction allows to calculate, with final states. It’s a sum of functions coefficienting (so to speak) the eigenstates. Changing the final states, the eigenstates (“delayed choice”) thus change the “eigenfunction”. That’s zero surprising. It causes a problem only to those who have total faith in the Special Relativity religion, like it was the Qur’an and they were Jihadists ready to die for Allah… 😉

Now in this particular case, I did not look into it enough to be sure yours/my usual objection applies…

LikeLike

November 10, 2016 at 3:47 am |

Hi Patrice

I am a lawyer, not a scientist, but I have been working these entanglement problems holistically, and you will benefit from my mechanisms for gravitation (graviton loop of string) and electromagnetism (photon loop of string). In my model, photons are the limit to graviton density when used with an anticlockwise backwards rotation with forward motion at light speed, while gravitons have clockwise forward rotation with forward motion at light speed. They both operate in a void of infinite space and time. Entanglement would be a product of graviton and photon interaction, or a “theatre” by gravitons occupied by photons, and determining their routes.

For example, “if” one graviton could travel on a parallel path with another graviton, and then double its speed to move past it, the other graviton would look like a photon, and relative to the “doubled speed graviton” it would represent density at light speed in the opposite direction to graviton momentum. Gravitons are energetic, and they counter shear by common clockwise rotations to widen their loops in a void and create compressions between particle masses exchanging them. The counter shear from being looped creates density to the string that is looped, so motion is created towards the compression by widening of loops, while density is created to the string that is looped. This adds momentum from density without adding motion, as in the classic graphs for acceleration of masses near to but, not exceeding, light speed in labs . Photons are their limit to density, to draw momentum into particle densities as compounding atoms. In short, mass (gravitons) makes concentrated surface and neutral centres (like Earth itself in a void), while charge (photons) makes concentrated centres and neutral surfaces (like a neutron in a void), and that sets up all their relations, to compromise.

Have a read of my work for clues to your own work, but realize that mine is holistic, and covers all fields of science. You might enjoy my rebellious perspective. My one page download site is thehumandeisgn.net and my onedrive link for direct download is 1drv.ms/1tnKM6f I am currently updating my book to cover entanglement, so I only deal with it briefly, but there are simple useful mechanisms in my diagrams that should interest you. (its an ongoing project – there is no such thing as “finished work”).

Regards

Marcus Morgan

Melbourne, Australia

LikeLike

November 10, 2016 at 4:20 am |

Hey Marcus, thanks. I will look it up. It’s near-certainy that a breakthrough in physics will involve crazy ideas. Famous physicist Niels Bohr said about a theory:”It’s crazy, but not crazy enough to be true!” Super busy right now, and tired after all too many anti-Goldman Sachs/Clinton essays…

LikeLike