Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: AndroidNeox on 30/09/2016 23:46:23
-
There is a common misunderstanding that the only alternative to local hidden variables, as an explanation for the appearance of entanglement, is action-at-a-distance. Fortunately, it is not. I know of at least one category of local, causal interpretations that explains it, but it requires that we exist within a multiverse.
And, I have never seen the obvious problem with action-at-a-distance discussed: simultaneity. All of Relativity REQUIRES "non-simultaneity". Non-simultaneity is the verified fact that, for any two different reference frames, there will be some events that are simultaneous with respect to one frame but not the other.
Action-at-a-distance REQUIRES simultaneity. In the action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement, the observation of one particle of an entangled pair will alter, in that instant (simultaneous for all observers), the state of the other.
I, personally, do not find it plausible that "non-simultaneity" is wrong. I also do not believe observation alters the observed (which requires every observation to be a time-reversed process). The only reasonable position I can see available is to presume that observation doesn't alter the universe, observation alters the observer.
Until we run out of local & causal explanations we shouldn't presume explanations that are provably wrong. The most puzzling thing about action-at-a-distance is that people who supposedly understand special relativity think it's a viable model.
I've attached a diagram to highlight the problem. In a standard Bell's experiment, issues of simultaneity are eliminated. I set up a thought experiment to highlight the problem.
-
Really! How can this not be a subject for scientific debate?
Action-at-a-distance *requires* simultaneity.
110 years of studying and testing special relativity have *proven* non-simultaneity.
Action-at-a-distance is an incorrect model for entanglement.
-
"The only reasonable position I can see available is to presume that observation doesn't alter the universe, observation alters the observer."
The observer is a part of the universe.
The Theory of Relativity doesn't imply an absolute simultaneity, but it doesn't disprove an absolute simultaneity in any way. What it says is that energy is exchanged no faster than the speed of light.
Relativity doesn't explain the quantization of energy. In fact, the simplest explanation for the quantization of energy is that there are carriers of information moving much faster than the speed of light, without carrying any energy (at least as we perceive and understand it).
Digital processors, like CPUs in personal computers, have a main frequency of operation. No instruction may be processed faster than the main clock. But the main clock is quantized (discrete), it is a digital clock which is a square wave. This square wave is a sum of frequencies (harmonics). The lowest harmonic has the frequency of the main clock and all other harmonics have higher frequencies. Mathematically, a perfect square wave is an infinite series of harmonics and necessitates an infinite frequency to be perfectly square. In practice, the series is finite and the wave is not perfect. The limits are the minimum distances and the speed of light. That is why a smaller integration of components is necessary to raise the frequency, though there are other problems pertaining mostly to the material used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
Matter in the universe may be separated by vast distances and it is still quantized...
-
“The observer is a part of the universe.”
Yes, but, I meant that a local explanation is the obvious place to start. The idea that an event in one place is altering the state of the universe, independent of distance, is contrary to Relativity. The obvious interpretation is that observation permanently alters the state of the observer.
“The Theory of Relativity doesn't imply an absolute simultaneity, but it doesn't disprove an absolute simultaneity in any way. What it says is that energy is exchanged no faster than the speed of light.”
Special Relativity requires non-simultaneity. For any two events separated by space, for some reference frames, the two events will be simultaneous. For some (most) the two events will not be simultaneous. This is basic and well established so I won’t go further into it, right now.
The “action-at-a-distance” interpretation of quantum entanglement requires absolute simultaneity. QM requires that, prior to observation, the state(s) of the entangled particles are a multiplicity of all allowed states. Bell’s experiment indicates that this is a correct interpretation. Action-at-a-distance asserts that, observing the state of one particle fixes (in that instant, for all observers) the state of its entangled partner into the state QM requires. This is simultaneity.
Quantization of energy is irrelevant to Relativity. However, we have no reason to think information can be transported without the transport of energy. In fact, this would be contrary to everything we’ve found about the physics of information.
I’m an electrical and computer engineer and familiar with system clocks and Fourier transforms of square waves. Those, also, are irrelevant to this issue.
However, if you’re familiar with the timing issue you’ll know that, while a computer's components are all in the same reference frame and so a single clock is sufficient, GPS systems, for which not all components are in the same reference frame, require constant adjustment and compensation of local clocks. Synchronizing the global network of computers is also non-trivial and requires similar adjustments. This is because, in a universe where Relativity holds, there is no single clock adequate to all observers in all frames. Comparing this to the action-at-a-distance interpretation, the “first” observation of one of the entangled particles acts as a universal clock setting a specific time for all observers, everywhere.
I set up the thought experiment to highlight how these assumptions are invalid.
Recapping, action-at-a-distance *requires* simultaneity and Relativity *requires* non-simultaneity.
We need a different physical model to describe entanglement. Fortunately, multiverse cosmologies provide local and causal interpretations which eliminate this and other examples of "quantum weirdness."
-
I don't have a good answer for this (and there are other ways that QM and relativity do not match up very well...), but I have some thoughts to offer (based on my own educated, but not expert, knowledge of these theories):
Both theories suggest limits on observation. QM says there are limits on how much can be known about a system (uncertainty), and relativity says there is a limit on how quickly one can know it (information propagates at c).
As far as this question goes, my suspicion is that there are problems in the (implicit) definitions of "event" and/or "observation."
Let us imagine for a moment a system of two entangled particles. For the purposes of this discussion let us say that it is a pair of particles that are entangled in such a way that they have opposite spins (up and down). If the distance between these particles is somehow increased without influencing their entanglement, there is still only one system, containing both particles, and it doesn't matter how great the distance is. If one of the particles is observed to be "up," then it is instantly known to whoever made this observation, that the other particle must be "down" where ever it is. This is only one event: an observation is made on particle, and the spin-state of the system (including the other particle) is known. It should also be noted that by virtue of making this observation, the coherence (entanglement) of the system is destroyed--there is no longer a superposition of up-down and down-up.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that it would not be possible for another party, near the other particle, to determine that coherence had been lost without making their own measurement, which itself would also have destroyed the coherence. No one can watch either particle, and see it flip, or see that the superposition has been lost, without making measurements that themselves would effect the entire system. So I don't see how there is any way to determine "simultaneity." There is only one event--the measurement (observation).
I cannot think of a situation in which there are multiple (2 or more) events that would be caused by the collapse of a superposition, but if anyone else can, I would be happy to discuss that example too.
-
There is no simultaneity in Relativity. Simultaneity is apparent and relative. The quantization of energy is a reality that need to be explained. And no, 'spooky' actions at a distance does not require an absolute simultaneity but a much faster than light connectivity. Though there are still some possibilities that there is no 'spooky' action, it is a viable solution to explain the quantization, particularly if there is no supersymmetry. And yes, the analogy to a computer is very relevant to understand the implication of discretization. If your theory necessitates a multiverse, it is probably wrong, unless you find a way to test it. All experiments use energy alone for measurements, thus we are limited by the speed of light. Entanglement experiments tend to show that there is something else than energy. We just need to do a very small step to conclude that it is the source of the quantization of energy. As I said, SR does not preclude faster than light signaling as long as there is no energy exchanged. What it precludes is the use of it to communicate faster than the speed of light.
-
Why the speed of light is a local constant? And why it is the maximum speed of energy? This has to be explained too...
-
"'spooky' actions at a distance does not require an absolute simultaneity but a much faster than light connectivity"
This is incorrect. Action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement requires that, in the moment of observation, the state of both particles is fixed. There is zero time delay and it cannot be possible to observe any time delay. I suppose action at a distance could work fine in a Newtonian universe, where c = ∞, but our universe doesn't work that way.
Action at a distance *requires* that, for all observers, the change of state for the pair is simultaneous.
-
"This is only one event"
No, in Relativity an event is a place and time... a point in spacetime.
In entanglement, for all observers, the observation of one particle will simultaneously determine the state of the other particle. The problem with this is that observers in different reference frames won't agree on when that happens or even which of the particles is first observed.
Bell's inequality shows us that, prior to observation, the true state of the entangled pair is a multiplicity of all allowed states and not merely some unobserved but defined single state... no local hidden variables.
-
When two fermions interact to become entangled the Pauli exclusion principle applies. This applies forever or until an interaction disturbs the entanglement. Whichever come first. No magic or mysticism required.
NOTE the fields of both particles extend to infinity. That is they go on forever.
-
When two fermions interact to become entangled the Pauli exclusion principle applies. This applies forever or until an interaction disturbs the entanglement. Whichever come first. No magic or mysticism required.
NOTE the fields of both particles extend to infinity. That is they go on forever.
Right. A requirement of Pauli and causality. I never suggested entanglement is not real. But, entanglement is an observable fact and "action at a distance" is an interpretation... a guess at a physical model.
I only point out that action at a distance cannot be a correct interpretation of entanglement because it *requires* simultaneity and simultaneity is provably not real.
Fact: For any observer, the transitions from indeterminate to fixed states for the entangled particles will be simultaneous with the first observation.
Fact: Simultaneity only works for individual observers. It has no frame-independent meaning. There is no category of events which are simultaneous for all observers. This isn't only *required* by Relativity, it is a verified fact. Time runs differently in different reference frames. By the way, non-simultaneity has been independently verified... it doesn't depend upon Relativity. Relativity could be wrong but non-simultaneity would still be right. We do not live in Newton's universe.
The old "universe" model of reality no longer works. In fact, combining the observations of entanglement with the proven fact of non-simultaneity shows very simply that no "universe" model can be sufficient. Only multiverse models are plausible. Fortunately, there are local and causal multiverse models that have no redundancies, no infinities, and no quantum "weirdness" since QM effects are treated as constraints on what can be observed, not what exists.
Observation defines reality, for the observer... not "the universe". Observation alters the observer, not the observed. For observation to alter the observed, every observation would be, in part, a time-reversed process. I see no reason to think an observation made now alters the state of anything in the past.
Instead of making the absurd assertion that QM cannot be understood, maybe physicists should recognize that they need to use more imagination and not discard what we have accomplished. I cannot but think that discarding locality, causality, & time directionality, as contemporary physical interpretations of QM do, is too high a price for avoiding the aesthetic pain of accepting that only a multiverse interpretation can resolve the conflicts.
Somehow, physicists started thinking that they were observing and describing "reality" when the only thing ever available to them has been what is observable. Physics is about what can be observed.
Schrödinger gave us the mechanism when he said that systems that violate conservation symmetries are "unobservable". If a system had a Hermitian state matrix and then were to undergo a change that left it with a non-Hermitian state matrix, its new state would be "unobservable." Instead of thinking of his equation as describing "the" world, accept that it is describing the observer. The observer isn't altering that which is observed. The observation alters the observer. The observer can only ever make a causally consistent observation because anything else would leave the observer in an unobservable state.
By discarding the classical assumption of "the universe" and switching to a local interpretation, all of the weirdness ceases to exist. All infinities disappear. All observable physics is unchanged.
In fact, other problems, like why time only flows toward higher entropy, cease to exist as problems and become obvious consequences of causality.
-
"'spooky' actions at a distance does not require an absolute simultaneity but a much faster than light connectivity"
This is incorrect. Action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement requires that, in the moment of observation, the state of both particles is fixed. There is zero time delay and it cannot be possible to observe any time delay. I suppose action at a distance could work fine in a Newtonian universe, where c = ∞, but our universe doesn't work that way.
Action at a distance *requires* that, for all observers, the change of state for the pair is simultaneous.
Physicists who have made long distance quantum teleportation concluded that to retain a causal interpretation, non local hidden variables acting at a much faster than the speed of light are necessary. Though, most of them prefer the shut up and calculate point of view by invoking non causality. The change of state for the pair is apparently simultaneous, meaning it is much faster than light or simultaneous. The thing you must understand is that no energy is exchanged, only information. Therefore, SR is not violated. Relativity cannot explain everything and it is either flawed at some point or at least incomplete.
-
"'spooky' actions at a distance does not require an absolute simultaneity but a much faster than light connectivity"
This is incorrect. Action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement requires that, in the moment of observation, the state of both particles is fixed. There is zero time delay and it cannot be possible to observe any time delay. I suppose action at a distance could work fine in a Newtonian universe, where c = ∞, but our universe doesn't work that way.
Action at a distance *requires* that, for all observers, the change of state for the pair is simultaneous.
Physicists who have made long distance quantum teleportation concluded that to retain a causal interpretation, non local hidden variables acting at a much faster than the speed of light are necessary. Though, most of them prefer the shut up and calculate point of view by invoking non causality. The change of state for the pair is apparently simultaneous, meaning it is much faster than light or simultaneous.
I'll accept that many physicists think they've accomplished some sort of teleportation in entanglement experiments.
Entanglement is real... required by theory and verified by observation.
Action at a distance is not real because simultaneity is not real.
-
"This is only one event"
No, in Relativity an event is a place and time... a point in spacetime.
Talking about a specific point in spacetime is all well and good, but it creates problems when considering systems that are best modeled by QM. If we pretend that an electron is in an exact position at an exact moment, it will be very surprising to see that it is somewhere else instantaneously, apparently having moved faster than c. This is not wizardry, but a manifestation of the non-locality of electrons (and all particles, but it is most easily seen with electrons).
In entanglement, for all observers, the observation of one particle will simultaneously determine the state of the other particle. The problem with this is that observers in different reference frames won't agree on when that happens or even which of the particles is first observed.
Bell's inequality shows us that, prior to observation, the true state of the entangled pair is a multiplicity of all allowed states and not merely some unobserved but defined single state... no local hidden variables.
The observation of one particle determines the state of the whole system (both particles) in one event.There may well be disagreements as to who observed their particle first, but it doesn't matter. The particles don't need to be in a pre-determined single state, but it is indistinguishable from a pre-determined single state. There is no experiment that could be done to establish that it is determined, or not determined. This is tricky because there is no macroscopic analogy. I could say it is similar to having a red marble and a blue marble, each obscured in their own box. When I open my box and find the blue marble, I know that the other must contain the red marble, where ever it is. You could argue that this is an example of a predetermined state. If I switch to blinking lights that switch between red and blue, such that they are always opposite colors, but stop changing as soon as an observation is made, you will ask how they communicate with one another. And that is a valid point for macroscopic objects. But in the quantum realm, it is a non-issue. Superposition is odd--and has no parallel in the world that we are accustomed to. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Let's focus on this: how could one person know that the other had made their measurement without compromising the superposition himself?
-
Talking about a specific point in spacetime is all well and good, but it creates problems when considering systems that are best modeled by QM. If we pretend that an electron is in an exact position at an exact moment,
I would never make such an assumption. You'll note that that sort of thing is precisely what I recommend physicists stop doing. I would never presume anything I didn't have to. It's a perfect example of the current type of physical model for QM that no longer works.
it will be very surprising to see that it is somewhere else instantaneously, apparently having moved faster than c. This is not wizardry, but a manifestation of the non-locality of electrons (and all particles, but it is most easily seen with electrons).
You have references to experiments showing electrons moving faster than light?
The observation of one particle determines the state of the whole system (both particles) in one event.There may well be disagreements as to who observed their particle first, but it doesn't matter. The particles don't need to be in a pre-determined single state, but it is indistinguishable from a pre-determined single state. There is no experiment that could be done to establish that it is determined, or not determined.
No, this is incorrect. Bell's inequality shows that local hidden variables don't work.
This is tricky because there is no macroscopic analogy. I could say it is similar to having a red marble and a blue marble, each obscured in their own box. When I open my box and find the blue marble, I know that the other must contain the red marble, where ever it is. You could argue that this is an example of a predetermined state. If I switch to blinking lights that switch between red and blue, such that they are always opposite colors, but stop changing as soon as an observation is made, you will ask how they communicate with one another. And that is a valid point for macroscopic objects. But in the quantum realm, it is a non-issue. Superposition is odd--and has no parallel in the world that we are accustomed to. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
You have this precisely backward. Bell's Inequality shows that the experiment doesn't work as it would with marbles of fixed color. The color of a hidden marble is a local hidden variable. When a particles has two properties, each entangled with the corresponding property of a partner particle, the statistics work out differently if one property is measured first or another property is measured first.
Let's focus on this: how could one person know that the other had made their measurement without compromising the superposition himself?
This is what I set up the thought experiment to expose. Just as one needs to look to see Bell's inequality, one would have to perform a relativistic version of his experiment to spot this effect.
In the experiment I propose, BOTH observers make their observations first. Alice makes her observation and transmits her results to Bob before he makes his observation. Bob makes his observation and transmits his results to Alice before she makes her observation. Simple special relativity.
I marked the diagram as "DRAFT" because it still needs something. Maybe 3 or 4 mutually entangled particles. I'm still working through consequences for testable differences.
-
Talking about a specific point in spacetime is all well and good, but it creates problems when considering systems that are best modeled by QM. If we pretend that an electron is in an exact position at an exact moment,
I would never make such an assumption. You'll note that that sort of thing is precisely what I recommend physicists stop doing. I would never presume anything I didn't have to. It's a perfect example of the current type of physical model for QM that no longer works.
Ok, so why do you bring up the definition of an event being a specific point in spacetime. The example provided appears to me to be an excellent example of how one gets into trouble by ignoring the delocalized nature of events (delocalized both in space and in time).
it will be very surprising to see that it is somewhere else instantaneously, apparently having moved faster than c. This is not wizardry, but a manifestation of the non-locality of electrons (and all particles, but it is most easily seen with electrons).
You have references to experiments showing electrons moving faster than light?
Well, this article: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n6/full/nphys3340.html discusses instantaneous electron tunneling. But my point was not that electrons are superluminal, but that they are diffuse, and behave in ways that would be interpreted as requiring superluminal speeds if they are considered as point-particles.
The observation of one particle determines the state of the whole system (both particles) in one event.There may well be disagreements as to who observed their particle first, but it doesn't matter. The particles don't need to be in a pre-determined single state, but it is indistinguishable from a pre-determined single state. There is no experiment that could be done to establish that it is determined, or not determined.
No, this is incorrect. Bell's inequality shows that local hidden variables don't work.
Bell predicted, and others have shown that the results of multiple iterations of an experiment (repeatedly setting up the system in the same way and making the same measurement) are consistent with there being no hidden variables. But there is no way to determine this with a single measurement. After one measurement, you only know whether the spin is up or down, and have no idea of the distribution of possibilities.
This is tricky because there is no macroscopic analogy. I could say it is similar to having a red marble and a blue marble, each obscured in their own box. When I open my box and find the blue marble, I know that the other must contain the red marble, where ever it is. You could argue that this is an example of a predetermined state. If I switch to blinking lights that switch between red and blue, such that they are always opposite colors, but stop changing as soon as an observation is made, you will ask how they communicate with one another. And that is a valid point for macroscopic objects. But in the quantum realm, it is a non-issue. Superposition is odd--and has no parallel in the world that we are accustomed to. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
You have this precisely backward. Bell's Inequality shows that the experiment doesn't work as it would with marbles of fixed color. The color of a hidden marble is a local hidden variable. When a particles has two properties, each entangled with the corresponding property of a partner particle, the statistics work out differently if one property is measured first or another property is measured first.
Please re-read my statement, wherein I directly acknowledge that this is an imperfect example for precisely this reason. My point was essentially that there is no perfect analogy of this phenomenon to anything that we have experienced in our lives, so it is easy to get confused when thinking about these things.
Let's focus on this: how could one person know that the other had made their measurement without compromising the superposition himself?
This is what I set up the thought experiment to expose. Just as one needs to look to see Bell's inequality, one would have to perform a relativistic version of his experiment to spot this effect.
In the experiment I propose, BOTH observers make their observations first. Alice makes her observation and transmits her results to Bob before he makes his observation. Bob makes his observation and transmits his results to Alice before she makes her observation. Simple special relativity.
I marked the diagram as "DRAFT" because it still needs something. Maybe 3 or 4 mutually entangled particles. I'm still working through consequences for testable differences.
Yes, it would be interesting to perform this experiment. If the measurements Bob and Alice make of the spin states are contradictory then we have a problem. But if Bob and Alice never disagree with each other about what they have measured, can we learn anything from it? But my question is: how can one determine that someone else has disrupted the superposition of the system?
-
Why the speed of light is a local constant? And why it is the maximum speed of energy? This has to be explained too...
In Relativity, c is the equal angle (for all observers) between the space dimensions and the time dimension. I'm not sure what has yet to be explained about that.
-
There is no simultaneity in Relativity. Simultaneity is apparent and relative.
Precisely. And, because simultaneity has no meaning for more than one reference frame, a local (single frame) explanation is required. The old "universe" models don't work, anymore. Instead of assuming physics is describing the universe and what can happen within it we should accept that the best we can do is describe what's observable. That is, when we describe observations, we describe a state transition of the observer. When we describe "the universe", we are describing the set of entanglements shared between the observer and the observer's universe.
The quantization of energy is a reality that need to be explained.
If information requires energy then all observable systems must be quantized. That is, all conserved observable quantities must be quantized. This is for the same reason that infinities would be unobservable. If conserved quantities were not quantized, then for physical events to be observably causal, observations could require infinite information & energy. When you compare two arbitrary real numbers, how much information can be required to define the result? ∞ The quantity of information necessary for an observation would not be directly related to the general size of the values being compared as it can be with integer values.
The presumption of causality is a very powerful and undervalued tool. Almost all quantum "weirdness" can be explained as a direct consequence of causal constraints on observability. Strict causality explains lots of things, like why our physical laws are all conservation symmetries (every physical quantity can be defined in terms of conserved quantities), why symmetries break (Gödel's fault), accumulation of entropy (information about prior states) in any system possessing an observable sequence (time). Even the big bang and multiverse can be described as direct requirements of causality.
I apologize for the side track but it's related to this topic thread.
There are reasons to think that the universe has a finite age. However it began, it would be a non-causal beginning. An event without a cause. So, presume that the "prior condition" was non-causal. I can't really imagine a non-causal condition but there are properties it would not posses, e.g. conservation symmetries or anything like space or time. Maybe "something from nothing", or "something instead of nothing" are difficult questions to me because every aspect of my existence is constrained by causality and humans didn't evolve the wetware to deal with such impractical topics.
But, a non-causal condition might well possess boundless information. Within a system of infinite information, every possible observation by every possible observer might instantiate. There's no need to think in terms of Many Worlds, so long as every possible observation by every possible observer is inevitable, a complete multiverse set instantiates. The only necessary constraint is that observations be consistent with some set of conservation symmetries. The quantum state of every observer, for each observation, must be self-consistent. Instead of thinking that QM is giving descriptions of "the universe," imagine it is defining the state of the observer. Strict causality provides an explanation that's perfectly consistent with observation and is entirely local.
-
In the following experiment, there are four entangled particles generated by the Source. Alice and Dorothy receive particles that are guaranteed to be in the same state. Bob & Ed receive the entangled pair particles.
This is a Bell Experiment so there are two different properties (α and β), each entangled between the two particles of each entangled pair (A & B in the original experiment). Or, in this case, between the observers flying to the left versus those flying to the right.
From the perspectives of their equally valid frames of reference, each of our 4 observers makes his/her own observation first. If each chooses which property to measure at random, then each combination of observations would all be equally likely.
For example, 1/16th of the times, Alice would observe property α of particle A, Bob would observe particle B property β, Dorothy would observe β, and Ed observe α.
By altering trajectories, one can change the sequence (Ha! I wrote "apparent sequence" though I frequently argue that Relativity is real, it's not "just appearance") at which different observations are performed, from the perspective of each observer. I drew them symmetrically, but they needn’t be. One could arrange to have the sequence of observations, from the perspective of Dorothy: Dorothy, then Bob, then Alice, & finally Ed, by bringing Bob’s direction vector closer to Dorothy’s. From Alice’s frame, the sequence would be: Alice, Ed, Dorothy, Bob.
Using Delayed Choice, every combination of observation timing is possible.
-
"Precisely. And, because simultaneity has no meaning for more than one reference frame, a local (single frame) explanation is required. The old "universe" models don't work, anymore. "
There is no newtonian static space or Euclidean space for sure. It doesn't mean that there is no common now for the entire universe. The thing is you have to account for all observations and experiments. Analysis is important but synthesis is even more important to understand the universe and quantum gravity. You cannot simply reject QM without a deeper theoretical overview. In my opinion, Einstein's biggest blunder was to dismiss entirely any possibility that the universe is a whole and that each of its parts cannot be disconnected. This led him to reject important lessons from QM. You must keep an open mind. There is absolutely nothing in Relativity prohibiting a common now. The fence is only in your mind... Einstein's theory has build fences in physicists minds.
I agree entirely with you about causality. The main difference from my point of view is that the existence of the universe is the only non causal event, simply because it has always existed. There is no event in the first place... The universe may have changed but it has always been. You say there is a multiverse, I say there is no space. Space is a projection and energy is entangled with it...
-
Just a small comment on Lorentz invariance because I think I was not enough explicit.
Special Relativity is viewed as a proof of Lorentz Invariance. But SR does not give valid results, it only gives approximations in any cases. To get a better description, we need to add GR. Einstein himself said that GR is not valid at a scale smaller than the Planck length. Moreover, to keep Lorentz invariance, we have to accept that there are no maximum limit and no minimal limit to a relative wavelength. This would mean infinitely small and infinitely large relative wavelengths. A photon would be strictly a 2 dimensional object with no dimension in the direction of motion. I don't think this is the case. This implies an infinite universe in size and singularities...
-
There is no newtonian static space or Euclidean space for sure. It doesn't mean that there is no common now for the entire universe.
Correct. What does mean there is no common now for the entire universe is the fact that time runs at different rates for observers in different frames. Unless you are denying this, you have no argument. Non-simultaneity is a direct and unavoidable consequence of time running at different rates for different frames.
If it were possible to have a single clock on Earth provide timing for computers on other continents, computer networking and data management could be greatly simplified.
The thing is you have to account for all observations and experiments. Analysis is important but synthesis is even more important to understand the universe and quantum gravity. You cannot simply reject QM without a deeper theoretical overview.
The only thing I reject in QM is its current interpretation of space. I presume Schrödinger's equation is correct. I make heavy use of entanglement experiments, e.g. Bell's Inequality & Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. Because they cannot be made compatible with known facts about spacetime within a classical Universe model of a single reality, I argue that only multiverse interpretations are plausible. Fortunately, there are local and causal multiverse models that are entirely consistent with Schrödinger & Einstein.
By the way, QM's interpretation of space is obviously wrong: vacuum energy catastrophe. Personally, I think the problem is they're modeling a microscopic universe instead of a microscopic portion of a universe ~14 Gly in radius. A microscopic universe should be hot.
In my opinion, Einstein's biggest blunder was to dismiss entirely any possibility that the universe is a whole and that each of its parts cannot be disconnected. This led him to reject important lessons from QM.
The lesson of QM is that, in a truly literal sense, observation defines reality. The unobservable has no existence, except in the amazing Bell inequality, where the fact that an unobserved system occupies a multiplicity of states is demonstrated. Einstein understood both Relativity and QM. He hadn't been indoctrinated into the contemporary practice of believing multiple mutually exclusive things at the same time. Einstein understood that non-simultaneity was a fact and that all correct physical laws must be mutually compatible. Others did, too, and so "Shut up and calculate" was the advice to young quantum mechanics.
You must keep an open mind. There is absolutely nothing in Relativity prohibiting a common now. The fence is only in your mind... Einstein's theory has build fences in physicists minds.
I must keep an open mind. That's sort of ironic.
Not a fence. A straightjacket. As Feynman said, "Science is imagination in a straitjacket."
If you want to find the errors in physics, look for false assumptions. You don't understand Einstein's problem with action at a distance. He understood non-simultaneity but failed to attempt a multiverse explanation. Many Worlds solved the problems but in positing potentially infinitely many redundant universes, lacked a certain elegance. Fortunately, multiverse models have advanced and no redundancy is required.
However, any correct model will accommodate non-simultaneity and entanglement.
Prior to observation, the state of a system is a multiplicity of states, from the perspective of the observer.
I agree entirely with you about causality. The main difference from my point of view is that the existence of the universe is the only non causal event, simply because it has always existed. There is no event in the first place... The universe may have changed but it has always been. You say there is a multiverse, I say there is no space. Space is a projection and energy is entangled with it...
You misunderstand me. I don't propose the existence of a universe, much less multiple universes. My entire model is based on the fact that we cannot know anything about anything except via observation from our perspective. I noticed that the "weirdness" of QM all stemmed from assumptions that could not, even in theory, be verified.
The confusion in physics might be improved if students were required to insert, "for the observer" or "for all observers", whichever is appropriate. Thinking "the universe" exists in some single state is purely Newtonian and should have been discarded when the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems predicted by QM was demonstrated.
Because the state of an unobserved system is a multiplicity of states and the first observer of the system will have multiple, mutually-exclusive observations possible, and because non-simultaneity is a fact and different observers will disagree on who made the first observation (and each will be correct), there MUST be cases where incompatible entanglements are observed. Because no such mismatches are observed, each "correct" outcome must instantiate.
Trying to introduce non-locality to retain the Universe model is just beating a dead horse.
-
It is possible to have a common clock on which all other relativistic clocks are based. The problem is that it violates Lorentz invariance. What I propose is an absolute clock which ticks at planck times. At a meter scale, Lorentz invariance is perfectly valid up to the planck scale. The only place where it could be measured is near black holes.
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html
-
you wrote: "What does mean there is no common now for the entire universe is the fact that time runs at different rates for observers in different frames. Unless you are denying this, you have no argument. Non-simultaneity is a direct and unavoidable consequence of time running at different rates for different frames."
This is simply not true. This is only a possibility. There are theories agreeing with relativity up to scales of the order of the planck length. Einstein himself said that his theory is probably wrong at that scale.
You say: "observation defines reality"
Observations does not define reality but validates or invalidates theories. You claim that we have enough "observations" to validate your point of view but you are certainly wrong. It doesn't mean your point of view is wrong though.
You need a description of a causal mechanism which explains the observations and by extension, can be discriminated from other theories.
I claim that the test of time will prove that non local hidden variables will be necessary to keep a causal explanation, and that a non causal interpretation is pure faith and non scientific... Our observability potential is limited because we are a tiny part of the universe.
-
you wrote: "What does mean there is no common now for the entire universe is the fact that time runs at different rates for observers in different frames. Unless you are denying this, you have no argument. Non-simultaneity is a direct and unavoidable consequence of time running at different rates for different frames."
This is simply not true. This is only a possibility. There are theories agreeing with relativity up to scales of the order of the planck length. Einstein himself said that his theory is probably wrong at that scale.
I'll not argue this point further. I've no obligation to convince you.
You say: "observation defines reality"
Observations does not define reality but validates or invalidates theories. You claim that we have enough "observations" to validate your point of view but you are certainly wrong. It doesn't mean your point of view is wrong though.
No, that's not what I said. I said that, observation defines reality for the observer. This quite literally, in a quantum sense, the truth.
Leonard Susskind has an excellent series of lectures about entanglement on YouTube.
The state of the observer is altered at the time of observation. Once a system is entangled with one half of an entangled pair (suppose an electron's spin was aligned to the spin of another... in this case, I use the electron as an observer), if it were to then interact with the entangled partner photon that was in the wrong (disallowed) state, the resultant would be an observer (the electron) in an unobservable state (Schrödinger's term). Mathematically the quantum state matrix would assume a disallowed state, e.g. the electron's state matrix would change, due to the disallowed observation, from an observable Hermitian to an unobservable non-Hermitian state. I sometimes refer to this as Schrödinger's Filter.
Unobserved "reality" exists solely as a multiplicity of allowable states. Consider the Delayed Choice experiment. That shows that not the event, but the observation, determines the state of things, for the observer. The indeterminacy is real. The transition at observation between a multiplicity of states and a single state is real. Non-Simultaneity is real, too. There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed. The rules of QM that you and I both accept require that no system can be observed to be in a disallowed state.
That is sufficient to extract a complete set of all possible observations by all possible observers from a background of infinite (boundless is sufficient) information. The fact that spigot algorithms work could be considered evidence for this as well as an explanation for the problems information theorists had with the possibility of spigot algorithms (when Bailey Borwein & Plouffe was proven, they shut up but they shouldn't have).
You need a description of a causal mechanism which explains the observations and by extension, can be discriminated from other theories.
I claim that the test of time will prove that non local hidden variables will be necessary to keep a causal explanation, and that a non causal interpretation is pure faith and non scientific... Our observability potential is limited because we are a tiny part of the universe.
I've provided the mechanism 3 times (I think) so far in this thread: We could exist within a background possessing boundless information. I theorize a noncausal condition (chaos). If we accept Schrödinger's Filter then we can presume that every possible observation will "find itself" within the set. And, every self-consistent sequence of observations possible from any consistent frame of reference will be included.
Schrödinger's Filter provides, using accepted physics, a complete multiverse (all possible observations by all possible observers) to instantiate, appear, within a non-causal condition.
I claim that non-locality is inherently unworkable (because c is universal, which matches more than a century of observation) and that people will accept that the classical Universe model only works for special circumstances, and will be used, as the rest of Newton's physics is used, for the case where relativistic and/or quantum effects are unneeded.
If I am correct, entanglement will be destroyed for both pairs in the following experiment, in which Alice and Dorothy both receive particles in identical states and Bob & Ed receive entangled particles in the appropriate complimentary (conjugate?) state. Due to relativistic effects, each observer perceives him/her-self as making the first observation:
-
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."
In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.
And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.
-
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."
In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.
Yes, every quantum of information acquired by the observer has a corresponding bit of complementary information outside of the observer. What I meant to refer to was that there is an assumption in contemporary physics that the act of observing an event alters the event. This interpretation requires that the effect of the observation pass backward in time and cross space to alter that event. Every event would entail reversed time and non-locality.
A simpler explanation is that the act of observation alters the state of the observer and that the state of the observer constrains what it's possible for the observer to subsequently observe.
And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.
It explains Bell's Inequality by eliminating any need for local hidden variables. As Bell shows, the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems is real.
It eliminates non-locality because the consequences of the entanglement are explained, using Schrödinger's filter, in purely local terms. The observation alters the observer so that any incompatible observations would put the observer into an "unobservable" state.
Instead of presuming QM describes allowed states for "the universe" this model allows for the simpler interpretation of precisely the same observations by presuming QM describes allowed states for the observer.
The contemporary "universe" model is a dead end and has obviously been unworkable ever since QM was shown to be correct regarding entanglement. QM has no workable (self-consistent accounting for spacetime) physical interpretation (e.g. vacuum catastrophe) and it's many decades since we should have advanced it beyond the archaic universe model.
You repeatedly claim that Many Worlds is a dead end but you present no arguments or evidence. It's not really important to me because I don't see any need for the redundancy inherent in MW. But, you're wrong if you think it doesn't satisfactorily account for observations.
-
In my very short chapter of "Quantum mechanical considerations" I calculate the time required to travel 100 miles at a speed of 10,000C. I get 53.67E-9 seconds. Thus the alternative to saying an action occurred at a light speed greater than C is that the ruler has shrunk and the clock has slowed as per Einstein. the product being
Meters x Seconds = 0.00864 meters seconds.
What does this mean? It is merely an illustration that the experiment has illustrated relativity not that the speed is higher than light speed but that the entanglement experiment has proven that the universe operates on the quotient of meters and seconds and the product of meters and seconds. Thus things billions of light years away are entangled with things right here according to relativity.
-
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."
In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.
Yes, every quantum of information acquired by the observer has a corresponding bit of complementary information outside of the observer. What I meant to refer to was that there is an assumption in contemporary physics that the act of observing an event alters the event. This interpretation requires that the effect of the observation pass backward in time and cross space to alter that event. Every event would entail reversed time and non-locality.
A simpler explanation is that the act of observation alters the state of the observer and that the state of the observer constrains what it's possible for the observer to subsequently observe.
And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.
It explains Bell's Inequality by eliminating any need for local hidden variables. As Bell shows, the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems is real.
It eliminates non-locality because the consequences of the entanglement are explained, using Schrödinger's filter, in purely local terms. The observation alters the observer so that any incompatible observations would put the observer into an "unobservable" state.
Instead of presuming QM describes allowed states for "the universe" this model allows for the simpler interpretation of precisely the same observations by presuming QM describes allowed states for the observer.
The contemporary "universe" model is a dead end and has obviously been unworkable ever since QM was shown to be correct regarding entanglement. QM has no workable (self-consistent accounting for spacetime) physical interpretation (e.g. vacuum catastrophe) and it's many decades since we should have advanced it beyond the archaic universe model.
You repeatedly claim that Many Worlds is a dead end but you present no arguments or evidence. It's not really important to me because I don't see any need for the redundancy inherent in MW. But, you're wrong if you think it doesn't satisfactorily account for observations.
You still need a multiverse which is impossible to verify, that's why I say it is a dead end. As for my arguments, read my theory but pay more attention to the second half because my theory has changed on some specific issues over time.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
All elementary particles are only separated by the Planck Length and the maximum speed is C. The space we observe is a projection between each particle. Thus, the speed of light as the max speed is only apparently violated... The superposed states are not in parrallel universes but they are in all other particles in our universe...
-
Action-at-a-distance REQUIRES simultaneity. In the action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement, the observation of one particle of an entangled pair will alter, in that instant (simultaneous for all observers), the state of the other.
You mean 'spooky action' right?
Yeah, maybe it does. But 'simultaneity' is one thing to prove in a laboratory, another outside it. Think you will find it impossible. And if we assume the entanglement to be 'one entity' then there is no 'spooky action' at all. Just a question of lack of geometry, well, sort of? "They" just wasn't smart enough to realize that "they" was embedded in (the geometry of) SpaceTime, eh, sort of, again :)
-
Action-at-a-distance REQUIRES simultaneity. In the action-at-a-distance interpretation of entanglement, the observation of one particle of an entangled pair will alter, in that instant (simultaneous for all observers), the state of the other.
You mean 'spooky action' right?
Yeah, maybe it does. But 'simultaneity' is one thing to prove in a laboratory, another outside it. Think you will find it impossible. And if we assume the entanglement to be 'one entity' then there is no 'spooky action' at all. Just a question of lack of geometry, well, sort of? "They" just wasn't smart enough to realize that "they" was embedded in (the geometry of) SpaceTime, eh, sort of, again :)
I meant it as I phrased it. The action at a distance interpretation of quantum entanglement, in which observation of one thing alters, in that instant, the state of something elsewhere, *REQUIRES* simultaneity.
The action at a distance interpretation of entanglement is obviously wrong because non-simultaneity is a proven fact.
Are you suggesting physical reality operates differently "in a laboratory, another outside it"?
Anyone who thinks action at a distance is possible either doesn't understand what it means or doesn't understand special relativity.