Quantum Weirdness, Or Not?

This is a foretaste of (more of) my own considerations on the subject of nonlocality.

A particular interferometer (below) is one reason why I believe in nonlocality, bomb or no bomb (see below for explosive considerations…).

Nonlocality is pretty obvious with a pinhole: the photon/electron spreads after it, it has “sensed” the size of the hole: sensing at a distance, that’s nonlocal.
The Quantum formalism, namely waves all over, parametrized with time, is intrinsically nonlocal.

And what’s wrong with nonlocality, anyway? I ask Einstein.
Nonlocality is how to get out of the homunculus theory… Namely that smaller is just like big, except smaller, ad infinitum…
Instead nonlocality says that smaller is everywhere… No homunculus anymore… The paradox, nonlocality, becomes the solution to this non sequitur, this infinite logical loop, that “smaller is just the same… We know, from General Relativity, that smaller at some point becomes different: Planck length…

In the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer, Ian says below, that ”it seems the wave goes both ways but the photon, which acts as a particle, can only go one way.” How do we know that? That the photon acts like a “particle”, while in flight? As  Niels Bohr would point out, we have not grabbed a photon in flight. That the photon is received and emitted as a particle: we know that. It does not mean it’s a particle in flight, though… I call that Einstein’s Error:

EINSTEIN’S ERROR: The Multiverse

In 1905, his so-called Wonder Year, Albert Einstein presented a theory of the photoelectric effect. The new idea came in just two lines. However I boldly claim that Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect, although crucially correct, was also crucially wrong. Einstein said something he did not need to say, introducing as a fact the theory that there is such a thing as a particle-in-flight. Etc.:


How can you test something without touching it with anything, even a single photon? Here is one of the weirder aspects of quantum mechanics. First, we need a tool, and we use the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which is illustrated as follows:

There is a source that sends individual photons to a beam splitter (BS1), which divides the beam into two sub-beams, each of which proceed to a mirror that redirects them to meet at another beam splitter (BS2). The path lengths of the two sub-beams are exactly the same (in practice a little adjustment may be needed to get this to work). Each sub-beam (say R and T for reflectance and transmitted at BS1) is reflected once by a mirror. When reflected, they sustain a phase shift of π, and R sustains such a phase shift at BS1. At BS2, the waves going to D1 both have had two reflections, so…

View original post 745 more words

10 Responses to “Quantum Weirdness, Or Not?”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    How do we know the photon on;ly goes one way? Because if it went both ways it wouldn’t fit the definition of a photon. How do we know there is a photon? Neils Bohr said we have not grabbed a photon in flight. True, then, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. The Moons of Jupiter did not come into existence just because Galileo pointed a telescope at them. Generally speaking, we don’t grab anythιng – we interpret the meaning of a recording of millivolts (or maybe nannovolts).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Einstein DECIDED his “LICHTQUANTEN” were localized. As Bohr told him, stop telling god what to do.In any case, Einstein didn’t tell us how big a photon was, in his opinion….
      I know photons are NOT localized. Differently from Einstein, who knows god, I know diffraction. Fact is, light does not go straight, and knows surroundings.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      One cannot say something goes in a peculiar fashion… by definition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I say witches go this way… by definition… I am back in Middle Ages superstition!!!!!!!!!!!!


  2. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    The superconductivity of graphene seems to “prove” or at least suggest that entanglement is local/classical. The 1.1 degree magic angle used in bilayer graphene superconductors is exactly the same “magic” angle needed for using bilayer graphene to generate entangled photons. Beta barium borate has this angle by nature.

    So, the superconductor is by default an entanglement generator, with the entangled field at 90 degrees to the superconducting one. The “entanglement force” seems intrinsic to the local electomagnetic field and the entanglement force seems coincident with the magnetic field. Smells very, very local and simple to me.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmmm… Thanks Ron! I confess complete ignorance of the subject.

      My reason to believe in at-a-distance entaglement are multiple:
      1) No belief in homonculus style physics, that the small is like the big, just smaller. Actually RENORMALIZATION points out that way, and is proven experimentally.
      2) Bell style inequalities. I think I forgot to write it down, I gave a sketch in an answer to Ian Miller. Basically Quantum violates SET THEORY.
      3) Basic set-up WAVE MECHANICS is NON LOCAL….

      But I appreciate the contradiction…

      In solid state physics, local fields, like PHONONS, mimick Quantum effects… But are of course the real thing ONLY LOCALLy. This is probaly what you are alluding to. Same happens with HIGGS-LIKE effects, and why Philip Anderson claimed he discovered the so-called Higgs (he already had a Nobel…)


      • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

        Well, I’m not alluding to a phonon. The entanglement produced by the graphene is full-on free space entanglement – not phonon. But, IMO – free space entanglement is not much different than phonon. IMO both are simple echo reflexes …


        • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

          It’s Occam’s razor …


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Yes, Occam razor on Aspect’s experiment, with its obvious FTL… He got the Wolf Prize in physics for it, BTW… And only reason not the Nobel is because he and Zeilinger are not US…
            One of the students of Zeilinger is leading the Chinese Quantum Entanglement effort, he has a huge lab, budget, and out of this world results…


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            That Chinese lab is leading on the Quantum Computer… QC is all about QE and FTL…


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Phonons don’t go over the speed of light, full, real, Quantum Entanglement does.

          It’s pretty much an experimental fact at this point, and all physics prizes, except the Nobel, have been given for this experimental verification.

          And once again, the formalism is very clear: the Quantum Wave is everywhere, and then suddenly just at one point. That collapse is *instantaneous*… meaning FTL…
          And point is that this Quantum Formalism, including FTL collapse, has always been found to work, in all experimental situation it has been applied to…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: