Observers

karenmansker said:
So . . . . . are you (Origin) saying that (perhaps) quantum entanglement also does NOT happen instantaneously
Click to expand...
Exactly!! It can happen at rest. You can do a lot of things (a lot of energy transfer events can happen) between the time a photon starts on a 13.6 billion year journey, and when it is detected at the end of that journey. Does that mean the intervening events have occurred "faster" than light? You'd need to stipulate: "over what light travel distance?, and also, "relative to what inertial frame of reference?"

If it is assumed a priori that the instant of "now" is the same instant of time everywhere, well, that beats the speed of light in the sense that if a quantum field is entangled to behave that way, the whole field behaves in that way. But in another sense, nothing we know of is really propagating at any measurable velocity to make that happen. It's like an infinitely rigid Eucliean solid, but without any inertia (other than spin) associated with it.

The speed of light must be relative to some other velocity (v=0, for instance), or else it cannot be measured. It is measured "relative" to the state that is "at rest". "Faster" is relative to "slower". Is an entanglement spin flip "faster", or actually "slower" than the speed of light? It's a riddle.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
I never had any tapes; just a useless idea about a change of direction being the basis of quantum entanglement.
Click to expand...
The basis of quantum entanglement is kind of two-fold. You have particles interacting, then subsequently you have measurements in a measurement basis (which is physical, because it just has to be).

There is direction of propagation and there is direction of measurement, not necessarily equivalent things. Moreover, the five qubits at IBM's facility are all stationary, no propagation through space. Can you explain their claim it's a working 5-qubit system, and can you explain how they entangle them using changes in direction?
Or maybe accept IBM's system is a concrete counterexample that refutes your idea?
 
danshawen said:
The speed of light must be relative to some other velocity
Click to expand...
In fact it need not. Recall that the speed of light is invariant for any choice of coordinates (i.e. reference frames). This is Special Relativity.

There exists no coordinates relative to which the speed of light is NOT $$c$$
 
danshawen said:
Use of entanglement "witnesses".
Click to expand...
Ok. Well that link is at least about some real quantum entanglement measure.

But think about this whole quantum encryption thing. It's because we want secure communication--the transporting of information from place to place--and today that's what photons are doing, communicating information along fibre-optic waveguides. So secure communication via entangled states, almost implies photons and waveguides.

The implication is so almost, it's practically unity.
 
Write4U said:
I am not sure if I understand the analogy. A seesaw has a fulcrum, does your example of a vertical plane include a fulcrum?

I need to ask one more; does a perfectly centered fulcrum in a plane create a superposed state of the two sides always maintaining a net zero balance (correlation)?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's like physical pendulum.
Pl note that classically angular momentum is always conserved in absence of any external torque.

I think, Hansda's point was that there was a time difference between lowering of one side of seesaw and lifting of other side, thus causing violation.

This problem in absence of any physical connection between objects under Gravitational orbital motion forced Newtonian gravity to consider speed of gravity as infinite. But in case of rigid system like seesaw, maths and physics can be worked out.
 
Write4U said:
I did not see it that way. I believe Km's post merely recognized my inadequate attempt to illustrate the concept of correlation between two somehow connected (entangled) objects,
Click to expand...
Connection and entanglement are different states.
karenmansker said:
As a related 'aside' . . . . if information transfer is instantaneous in a 'true' quantum entangled system, how does that instantaneous action propagate over such immense (perhaps infinite?) distances (proposed by some) and how does it do so in essentially "zero" time.
Click to expand...
Information is not transferred within an entangled system, as far as anyone can tell. The entire system has all the information.
karenmansker said:
"Because the system is entangled" . . . . is NOT a scientifically-viable answer unless the issue of 'entanglement transfer mechanisms' can be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
"Because the system is entangled" means all the transfer has already happened.
Write4U said:
I need to ask one more; does a perfectly centered fulcrum in a plane create a superposed state of the two sides always maintaining a net zero balance (correlation)?
Click to expand...
No "superposed" state exists, and it seems no reliably informative analogy to one, in this setup. The two sides are separate entities with measured properties, connected through space by matter subject to physical law. That seems to lead to problems and misunderstandings when such a setup is used to describe quantum entanglement by analogy.
 
arfa brane said:
How far does it get in 0.35ns?
Click to expand...
None can claim "no propagation through space". Please revisit the text where you got this apparently incorrect notion. I am sure either there is some omission or you misread.

As far as travel by earth in 0.35 ns is concerned, I am sure you kNow that it is much much bigger than the quantum scale.
 
The God said:
None can claim "no propagation through space". Please revisit the text where you got this apparently incorrect notion. I am sure either there is some omission or you misread.

As far as travel by earth in 0.35 ns is concerned, I am sure you kNow that it is much much bigger than the quantum scale.
Click to expand...
Atoms also "propagate through 'space' (light travel time')". They cannot persist in time without doing so. The mode of propagation (and entanglement) is just different than it is for a propagating photon.

Entanglement is responsible for much more than it is generally given credit for doing, and this will eventually need to be reconciled with both relativity and quantum physics. Hansda has shown us one way this can be done. Instantaneous force, inertia, acceleration (limited to changes of direction) happen all the time in the rest frame. Don't think of it as faster than light. It is much slower, but faster, slower is a relative condition. The time instant of 'now' is slower than light as well, but not from the point of view of a photon, for which time itself most definitely does not 'stop', unless you believe in Mink 'spacetime' instead of something with bindings to the real, physical universe. Entanglement is related to an absolute instant of time without which inertia and the bound propagation of energy cannot exist.

The total internal reflection of a length of fiber optic cable evidently works without destroying the entanglement state of a photon because it entangles more atoms as it propagates in there. This is an idea I had decades ago, but forgot because I could not reconcile it with relativity.
 
The next time your physics instructors roll out those deviations of The Lorentz transformations by means of considering a photon bouncing between a pair of mirrors, be sure and ask them what happens to their geometry if someone KICKS the spacecraft off course at right angles relative to its current trajectory?

The original derivation of The Lorentz transformations do the same thing without mirrors, which was SUPERIOR to the derivation using mirrors. All you have to assume there is a roadbed possessing INERTIA.

Your university professors have to make choices about what to teach you. What if they are all disciples of Ptolemy? They teach things that wrong, of course. You still pay for it and are assessed on your mastery of pseudoscience.

My point is, when you omit inertia from your math, even for a photon, you have left bindings to the physical universe behind. It only worked for Einstein because he kept as much of Newton as he could. Ask Hansda how important that is? Newton invented calculus as well. Where would mathematicians be without that tool?

Mink taught calculus too. Badly.

You have to do more than pay lip service to inertia at the end of your calculations. Where does it come from, exactly? Leave your classical Euclidean / Pythagorean geometry without time or inertia in classical Ancient Greece.

Observers have to be a part of relativity because it is the nature of relative motion. Observers in quantum mechanics must observe things that require time to observe, but because time was removed and replaced by unitarity, the only remnant of time left, literally, is the Uncertainty Principle. All of this happened because Mink spacetime made time and inertia incompatible with quantum mechanics. Spooky how well that didn't work, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
The God said:
None can claim "no propagation through space". Please revisit the text where you got this apparently incorrect notion. I am sure either there is some omission or you misread.
Click to expand...
Sure, but one can claim that a computer system is at rest, right?
What's the significance of the earth's motion through space to the computer you're typing on? Or say, the GPS system?
danshawen said:
You have to do more than pay lip service to inertia at the end of your calculations.
Click to expand...
What about my computer? What should I do about inertia when it's running? What if it's powered down?

Those 5 qubits in IBM's system are all at rest relative to each other; what do you think the engineers did about the inertia "problem"?
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Those 5 qubits in IBM's system are all at rest relative to each other; what do you think the engineers did about the inertia "problem"?
Click to expand...
Evidently, from the discussion, "inertia" isn't really a problem for entanglement.

Entanglement actually creates inertia by binding energy, which is a prerequisite for there to be entanglement for a propagating photon as well (no entangled electrons, no entangled photons).

"qubits" even sounds like they might actually be "heavy".

If we can detect gravity waves, manipulating qubits should be a piece of cake. IBM even has a few short animated films created by moving individual atoms. No idea what the backgrounds for the atoms in the film were made of. Don't remember any commentary about how they might have masked the background out.

 
arfa brane said:
Sure, but one can claim that a computer system is at rest, right?
What's the significance of the earth's motion through space to the computer you're typing on? Or say, the GPS system?
What about my computer? What should I do about inertia when it's running? What if it's powered down?

Those 5 qubits in IBM's system are all at rest relative to each other; what do you think the engineers did about the inertia "problem"?
Click to expand...

Computer system in an aircraft is at rest but moving through the space. Computer systems in satellites are at rest, but moving through the space. So relax and acknowledge mix up rather than getting wild.

I suggested earlier that you should unlearn that will stabilize you and you will learn to use simple means like ....those qbits are stationary instead of writing that they are not moving through space.
 
The God said:
Computer system in an aircraft is at rest but moving through the space. Computer systems in satellites are at rest, but moving through the space.
Click to expand...
Yeah. So are you saying that is or isn't a problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top