Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Peter Steadman on 09/10/2014 00:11:27
-
Hi, I have been thinking about quantum entanglement and it's hurting my head. I'm sure my thinking is wrong here, but it has led me to ask this question:-
Does Einstein's theory of relative time imply that cause can occur after effect, given the instant communication between entangled quantum particles?
My head f**k is.... If two entangled quantum particles where brought together to share a singular local time, and then each assigned one of two synchronised clocks. The movement of the “lead” quantum particle at time x would be instantly transmitted to the “following” quantum particle at the synchronised time of x. Yet if you factor in Einstein's theory of relative time, and push the paired quantum partials and their clocks out to different parts of the universe, odd things seem to happen. If the “lead” quantum particle was by a black hole where time was slower than at the local time of the “following” quantum particle. The time x of the "leading" particle would happen after time x of the "following" quantum particle. This would mean that due to relative time, cause can occur after effect. This means the present can be effected by acts that have not occurred in universal time.
Is this valid, or do entangled quantum particles have a shared "entangled time" that supersedes relative time?
-
Does Einstein's theory of relative time imply that cause can occur after effect, given the instant communication between entangled quantum particles?
I think that's a common misunderstanding of entanglement. It assumes that there is a cause and effect relationship or a communication is going on, as if one particle is communicating to the other particle what its doing. All that happens is that when a measurement is made the system collapses into one of its eigenstates. No measurement can show that any sort of communication is going on. E.g. suppose you place two marbles into a box, one black and the other white. Two men each takes a marble but doesn't look at it. They walk away from each other until the are a given distance apart. They agree to look at their marble at a given time. Until then each man doesn't know which marble is in his hand and therefore doesn't know what's in the other guy's hand. When they look at their marble they instantaneously know what the other guys marble is. However no real thing has moved and there's no real sense in which communication between the marbles took place.time, cause can occur after effect. This means the present can be effected by acts that have not occurred in universal time.
In quantum mechanics all you're allowed to know and to ask is what you measure. Everything else nature does not allow us to know.
-
Does Einstein's theory of relative time imply that cause can occur after effect, given the instant communication between entangled quantum particles?
No, not at all. Whilst Einstein was in on the ground floor of quantum mechanics, he was not a fan of "spooky action at a distance".
If two entangled quantum particles where brought together to share a singular local time, and then each assigned one of two synchronised clocks. The movement of the “lead” quantum particle at time x would be instantly transmitted to the “following” quantum particle at the synchronised time of x.
See what PmbPhy said. There's no evidence of anything being transmitted at all. I side with Einstein on this kind of thing. Have a look at the article about Joy Christian entitled Quantum untanglement: Is spookiness under threat? (http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2007-November/001833.html) Sadly he got panned for having the temerity to challenge "quantum mysticism".
Yet if you factor in Einstein's theory of relative time, and push the paired quantum partials and their clocks out to different parts of the universe, odd things seem to happen. If the “lead” quantum particle was by a black hole where time was slower than at the local time of the “following” quantum particle. The time x of the "leading" particle would happen after time x of the "following" quantum particle. This would mean that due to relative time, cause can occur after effect. This means the present can be effected by acts that have not occurred in universal time. Is this valid, or do entangled quantum particles have a shared "entangled time" that supersedes relative time?
IMHO it isn't valid, there's no instant transmission going on, and no retrocausal activity. Gravitational time dilation is not time travel in any sense, it's just a situation wherein clocks and processes go slower.
Where are you getting this stuff from anyway?
-
Hi, cheers for that guy's. I have recently been led to quantum mechanics while trying to understand what consciousness is, and what has consciousness. But, once you move in to the realm of probability, common sense is a hindrance. This should give me an advantage lol.
It was reading this article (http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/jost_060309.cfm) about quantum oscillators that got me thinking.... “but what if the manipulation was done in places where time run at different rates?”
It was this paragraph in particular than got the imagination going:
-“Mechanical oscillators like two pendulum-based clocks have previously been synchronized, but their vibrations can still be independent, so that changes in one have no effect on the other. Quantum entanglement—"spooky action at a distance," in Einstein’s words—is a far more counter intuitive process: If two objects are entangled, than manipulating one instantaneously affects the other, no matter how far away it is. Entangled objects do not necessarily have identical properties, just properties that are linked in predictable ways.”
- It does not include the rate of change, but the mention of clocks set up a new scenario in my mind.
Do you know of any good articles/papers on the instant of consciousness that may have existed at the time of the big bang??
-
Well :)
Define it locally, accept repeatable experiments and constants, making all 'points' in a 'commonly seamless' universe equivalent. No problem with 'instant effects' even when wanting to define them as bringing with them 'information'. Still, causality is by light speed, which makes any idea of information able to transcend it ridiculous, as you then invalidate the universe you can live in.
==
In the end it comes down to what you define your and every other clock as, causality that is. We have a ordered universe, not a magic.
-
Even when defining all points as equivalent, and so in some motto being 'the same point', you have causality. That is what makes this universe understandable to us, and your biological processes ordered. Entanglements have no problem existing in it, as long as we agree on what information means. That is the question actually :)
What is information?
I'll give one example I'm thinking of, Feynman's 'many paths', taken 'simultaneously', would that be a form of entanglement? If it is, would you expect it to take place -ftl-?
entanglements, do they obey 'c', how?
==
To me it always comes back to a limit, which to me must be 'c'. I trust in that one, and expect it to be what order causality. Doesn't matter how you want to define a entanglement, as long as it doesn't bring with it information, ftl, that is :)
-
It follows from the Pauli exclusion principle. Pairs of electrons have to have different states. So entanglement is a consequence. I know others may disagree but this seems logical in my humble opinion.
-
You may want to look into consciousness having a holographic nature.
-
We have a ordered universe, not a magic.
Hi dude, If you think that is magic check out quantum superposition. :-) I personally believe that humans will never understand the full workings of the universe. In the words of my hero Daniel Dennett (or as close as i can remember) "It's like an crab trying to understand a locomotive engine". (to be honest, i think he was quoting someone else. LOL)
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Quantum_superposition.html
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Jeff!!! Just found "The Quantum Hologram And the Nature of Consciousness" <---- http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness149.html a really good read!!!