Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 28/12/2018 04:40:50
-
If two objects are in quantum entanglement, and their spatial position changes relative to each other, does that change their quantum entangled state?
-
Not as I understand it, no.
-
Q-E could be gravity then, right?
The Q-E status of each is not being changed, gravity is not electrodynamics, their distance has changed though. Why isn't gravity akin to Q-E?
Gravity still operates normally despite space expanding, right?
-
Q-E could be gravity then, right?
The Q-E status of each is not being changed, gravity is not electrodynamics, their distance has changed though. Why isn't gravity akin to Q-E?
(1) Quantum entanglement does not impose an attractive force between the two objects that are entangled.
(2) Quantum entanglement is fragile and easily broken by slight disturbances. Gravity persists regardless of how extreme disturbances may become.
-
1 and 2, yes of course.
Yet you said that there is no evidence to suggest Q-E is altered by a change in distance between entities in Q-E.
-
Gravity isn't marbles. It's not a gross thing as we think it is walking on a planet. Its far more refined, well, should be.
Surely gravity has its nuances on a quantum scale?
-
Yet you said that there is no evidence to suggest Q-E is altered by a change in distance between entities in Q-E.
And?
Gravity isn't marbles. It's not a gross thing as we think it is walking on a planet. Its far more refined, well, should be.
I don't know what you're trying to say with this.
Surely gravity has its nuances on a quantum scale?
Probably, but it isn't the same thing as quantum entanglement.
-
"Probably"?
What algorithm of probability?
What am I getting at?
Well, there's a lot we don't know about Q-E, how space can expand in between particles in Q-E, presumably, right? That's why I asked the question......who's got good data?
-
Put it this way, if space expands between two masses, in a star galaxy thing, and these galaxies show no change in shape, no change in gravity, yet space is expanding in between them, and you know what I am referring to re. a previous post, what's the difference between that and two objects in Q-E?
-
What algorithm of probability?
I don't understand that sentence either.
What am I getting at?
I wish I knew.
Well, there's a lot we don't know about Q-E, how space can expand in between particles in Q-E, presumably, right?
It's no different than space expanding between particles that aren't entangled.
Put it this way, if space expands between two masses, in a star galaxy thing, and these galaxies show no change in shape, no change in gravity, yet space is expanding in between them, and you know what I am referring to re. a previous post, what's the difference between that and two objects in Q-E?
Quantum entanglement does nothing to prevent two entangled objects from moving relative to each other, so there's no similarity at all.
-
Quantum entanglement is all about E-M status, the quantum status of a particle. Distance apparently means nothing re. Q-E and "space". Its an immediate thing through space, despite a change of distance. I think I agree,
So, EM changes crash the status, we agree on that....but does gravity crash the status of Q-E between particles?
-
but does gravity crash the status of Q-E between particles?
In itself? I don't see why it should. A collision caused by gravitational attraction should be able to, though.
-
If not, why can't gravity according to its formula of distance and force as Newton proposed be a part of the Q-E status between particles, and thus be a type of "infinite speed" of propagation? Has there been any theories in history along this possibility?
-
If space is expanding therefore, by this reasoning, between galaxies in Q-E, they would get "bigger".
-
This sort of thing:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
-
Please. please learn how to use the edit function...
If not, why can't gravity according to its formula of distance and force as Newton proposed be a part of the Q-E status between particles
You'd first need to explain what it would mean for the gravitational state between two bodies to be entangled.
and thus be a type of "infinite speed" of propagation?
Gravity doesn't propagate at infinite speed. That would violate causality.
Has there been any theories in history along this possibility?
I don't know.
If space is expanding therefore, by this reasoning, between galaxies in Q-E, they would get "bigger".
Except they don't.
This sort of thing:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
It's an interesting link, but the fact that it was posted four years ago and has caused no obvious breakthroughs in astronomy since then suggests that the study was either flawed or has not been confirmed by an independent group. So I wouldn't hold my breath on it being true.
-
That's what I think about you.....you treat my comments like an autopsy, you knit-pick like a freaking monkey (sorry, but you do do that), you fail to see the forest for the trees, like a few others. That's ok. That's your style.
Can I answer your question?
-
If Q-E isn't disrupted by spatial changes, and gravity isn't concerned with spatial changes (other than proper gravity "d" equations), how are you developing this Dyson sphere of G influences with an expanding universe for "galaxies"?
-
you fail to see the forest for the trees, like a few others.
What does that mean in this case?
Can I answer your question?
I'm not sure what question you are referring to, but sure.
and gravity isn't concerned with spatial changes (other than proper gravity "d" equations)
The "d" in those equations is very, very important. That's exactly why the expansion of space between galaxies can push them further apart without actually making the galaxies themselves expand.
how are you developing this Dyson sphere of G influences with an expanding universe for "galaxies"?
Can you rephrase this question, please?
-
Does the gravity of galaxies block the in-between-galaxy BBT spatial expansion? If so, is there Q-E between galaxies? Why not say that gravity localised in a way that anything that reduces to 0-gravity, like in between galaxies, is expanded owing to the BBT spatial expansion?
If Q-E surpasses gravity, can you explain the shape of the universe that way?
-
Does the gravity of galaxies block the in-between-galaxy BBT spatial expansion?
No and there's no reason that it should.
If so, is there Q-E between galaxies?
Almost certainly not, given that those galaxies are billions of years old and therefore billions of years of events have occurred which could easily break any such entanglement.
Why not say that gravity localised in a way that anything that reduces to 0-gravity, like in between galaxies, is expanded owing to the BBT spatial expansion?
Because it technically isn't true. Gravity's strength never falls all the way to zero.
If Q-E surpasses gravity, can you explain the shape of the universe that way?
What does it mean to say that quantum entanglement "surpasses" gravity?
-
That'd be very defensive.
Now, we need to have the evidence.
I've provided links....what's your game....Einstein's "c" theory for Gravity? Newton would still be upset.
Einstein had no theory for gravity, has no theory for gravity (connected to light). Einstein has relativity, mainly an EM theory of reference.
Not many people realise that Einstein has yet to explain gravity.
-
Newton would still be upset.
Who cares? We already know that Newton was wrong about some things.
About the speed of gravity: https://futurism.com/speed-gravity
-
Newton wrong about some things.
Maybe.
Maybe also I'm thinking what Newton was wrong about depends on the BBT?
-
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/danish-physicists-claim-to-cast-doubt-on-detection-of-gravitational-waves/
What does that add to the conversation?
-
Does the gravity of galaxies block the in-between-galaxy BBT spatial expansion?
No and there's no reason that it should.
If so, is there Q-E between galaxies?
Almost certainly not, given that those galaxies are billions of years old and therefore billions of years of events have occurred which could easily break any such entanglement.
Why not say that gravity localised in a way that anything that reduces to 0-gravity, like in between galaxies, is expanded owing to the BBT spatial expansion?
Because it technically isn't true. Gravity's strength never falls all the way to zero.
If Q-E surpasses gravity, can you explain the shape of the universe that way?
What does it mean to say that quantum entanglement "surpasses" gravity?
Hang on, Q-E is beyond light speed, its immediate. Correct me if I am wrong.....and it doesn't depend on the expansion of space, as you say.
-
Something tells me that gravity has to be always up with Q-E right.....needs that reference, right?
What are we looking at, exactly, if that's not the case?
-
Gravity as light speed yet non-G particles beyond light speed, in Q-E, spatial expansion.....wow.....that's pot right?
-
Being imaginative is a great thing. Are we beyond ourselves with theory in science today?
-
Quantum entanglement is a very fragile thing - the farthest experiment of which I am aware managed to transfer an entangled state from Near Earth Orbit to Earth's surface (ie 600km x 2). To achieve 2 entangled particles I am sure they would have tried millions of times (if not billions of times) - and the entangled connection would have broken down in milliseconds.
However, gravity is really robust - gravity between Sun and Earth has worked reliably for billions of years at a distance of hundreds of millions of km - and it didn't have a success rate of < 10-6.
Einstein's geometrical interpretation of gravity requires no entangled states.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Experiments_at_Space_Scale
-
So am I with you or against you or still asking the question?
-
Hang on, Q-E is beyond light speed, its immediate. Correct me if I am wrong.....and it doesn't depend on the expansion of space, as you say.
Quantum entanglement can't transmit information.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/danish-physicists-claim-to-cast-doubt-on-detection-of-gravitational-waves/
What does that add to the conversation?
Nothing, because gravitational waves have been detected by multiple detectors at the same time hundreds to thousands of miles apart. That would require an incredible coincidence for a malfunction to not only hit multiple detectors like that all within the span of a single second, but also to produce the same kinds of patterns to make them think they were all observing the same event. The claim in the article is nonsense.
Maybe also I'm thinking what Newton was wrong about depends on the BBT?
Not at all. The theory of special relativity was published all the way back in 1905, whereas the Big Bang theory was developed in 1931.
-
I've read a number of descriptions re. Q-E. I'm unsure as to why Q-E in certain contexts can't represent a mechanism of "either - or", like in computer syntax, and thus a transfer of information. Broadly, in a cluster of particles that are in Q-E with another cluster of particles elsewhere, is there a chance they can be the mirror image of each other, not the same, of course, yet asymmetrically linked re. spin (and the like)?
-
I've read a number of descriptions re. Q-E. I'm unsure as to why Q-E in certain contexts can't represent a mechanism of "either - or", like in computer syntax, and thus a transfer of information. Broadly, in a cluster of particles that are in Q-E with another cluster of particles elsewhere, is there a chance they can be the mirror image of each other, not the same, of course, yet asymmetrically linked re. spin (and the like)?
The reason that you cannot use quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is that you can't force the particles to be in one state or another. You can't make them spin-up or spin-down at will. When you measure one of the particles in an entangled system, there is a certain probability that you will measure it as being either spin-up or spin-down. The other particle in the system may always be in the opposite state to the one you measured, but that doesn't do you any good when it comes to sending information.
-
Yes, I have thought about that. Yet, despite "human" attempts at localised intervention, there would be a type of universal "communication" at play, would there not?
-
Could the entire Q-E set of universal particles, all as one, be akin to a process of resulting in the shape of the universe? Is Q-E that fundamental a thing?
-
Here's a recent paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4568v1.pdf