Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Quantum Mechanics - Spooky action at a distance - Is Einstein really wrong

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,905
    Rep Power
    22

    Default Quantum Mechanics - Spooky action at a distance - Is Einstein really wrong

    Happy New Year Everyone
    Let's act on what we agree on now, and argue later on what we don't.
    Black men leave Barbeque alone if Barbeque don't trouble you

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,905
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quantum Mechanics - Spooky action at a distance - Is Einstein really wrong?

    Quantum Mechanics (QM) is based on some assumptions that are being ignored

    Assumption 1: Measuring the spin of an electron does not affect the spin of an electron.
    Experimentally : What ever axis is used to measure an electron spin, the electron spin is found to lie in that axis of measurement either up or down. How did we end up assuming the axis does not influence. Maybe a better assumption is that for entangled pairs, if spin is measured in axis A of particle a is found to be up, then so long as nothing interferes with particle b, if it is measured in axis A then it has spin down

    Assumption 2: Passing light through a polarizer does not affect the polarization of the light.
    Similar for photons. See Week 5 and 9

    Assumption 3: In photon experiments, the load has no influence on the source photon(s)/entangled photons
    Experimentally with radiation patterns of EM waves, load affects the emission. Why should photons which produce EM waves be any different with its load. What if this assumption above is completely wrong

    PS. My assumption: I look at an electron or a photon as not having zero size but has an effect that is at a point size. e.g. a tornado is not point size but it has an effect at a point, as in when a photon is detected as a point on a screen. For all we now, it could be a complicated bending and twisting of space time without any effective gravitational compression (not compressed or expanded, but twisted). It would still be affected by gravity, space time compression, but not other entities that only "twist" space time. "Twist" is an analogy for a geometry that is unimaginable but has a non gravitation effect. So the photon can pass on "both" paths at the same time by a means similar to straight E M radiation pattern. Nothing spooky.

    Anyways, continue on assumption 3 with
    a) Quantum Bomb Experiment
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhIf3Q_m0FQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiW7jhdKDVA
    it is assumed that putting a bomb in the lower path does not change the "load" on that path, and does not change the probability of the photon traveling on that path

    PS Einstein was the person who invented the first entanglement thought experiment in an attempt to disprove spooky action at a distance

    PS Einstein hinted to Plank that Plank's mathematical hack of cooking an equation to match black body radiation with h was explained with quantization of photon energy. Einstein started quantum

    PS Wavefunction collapse to me is an incomplete explanation that we do not know the complete wavefunction equation. When you measure a particle, all that happens is one particle interacts with one or more other particles. If there were two particles in a system and each had their own intrinsic twisting and bending of space time in a region and these particles overlap (*more at end) , it is easy to see simple Tesla superposition of the waves, and when measure to cause a noticeable effect, like an electron jumping a level in an atom. There is no collapse just simple the superposition of the original waveforms with the with the wave from of the electron in the atom. The individual wave equations of two separate electrons combine when the electrons get close enough to significantly affect each other. Again nothing spooky and indeterministic. Not necessary to conclude that all states existed before the measurement. That is another unnecessary assumption.

    b) Double Split Experiment
    Excellent explanation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uva6gBEpfDY

    PS Load balancing is fundamental of waves, not just E M waves. The Boss Tesla said to considered everything as vibrations. What are the fundamentals of a vibration: a certain Time to go back and forth and at a certain Space of the "back and forth"-ism. Different times gives different frequencies, and is related to the driving force and load
    Whatever be the wave nature of the other particles eg neutron etc. (maybe intrinsic space time twisting itself) there is a Space Time component of the wavelength of particles


    c) Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

    (append experiment and explanation of load affecting source later)

    PS Schrodinger, who invented the Schrodinger equation in QM, initially thought it was silly to assume that on the micro scale a particle could have no defined state, and did a taught experiment using another assumption that what is true for the micro state is also true of the macro state, a fair assumption, which he then said that the cat would be alive and dead at the same time. However modern QM assumes the macro state is different than the micro state. (Another one) in a) a defined state b) determinism. It was about here Einstein could not deal with the physics of QM and loss clout. I too, see it as spooky, but even so, it is based on many assumptions


    PS. In merging General Relativity with QM, I am not saying that a graviton does not exist, or that more particles may be discovered to add to the standard model. I am saying there was reason to theorize the quantization of particles because of how the photon behaved, but no direct need to search for quantization of gravity.


    *As an example, I am not saying that particles are this, I am saying that we do not know what particles are and if it is something like this, then:

    Imagine a ribbon, just as an example. Twist the ribbon n amount of times and join both ends forming a circle with n twists. Then instead of making a circle, you made a tetrahedral 3d Celtic Knot like this . And the ribbon has n twist that make it symmetric from the tetrahedral axes. This is just an example of an geometry. Imagine that instead of the ribbon there was space time that was twisted
    We know gravitational waves exist and a standing wave should also be possible so long as the wave itself contains itself. Modes can be the amount of stable twists in the ribbon.

    A standing wave is still moving so as to just oscillate (one simple form is simple rotation) in one fixed position. A standing wave is so set sinusoid motion that as one part (infinitesimal) of the wave "dies" that parts total energy is used to "create" another part in the wave, making it self sustaining

    Different standing waves can also have different frequencies.

    Standing waves are still waves that can feel load with the medium it interacts with.

    I am not implying that there are new forces or new quantum fields, just that there are varying loads that a standing wave can encounter as it travels



    ** Modified Pilot wave theory. I mentioned that sometime ago. (here).

    Imagine an electron in a hydrogen atom in free space. A high positive voltage is present some distance away. The electric field is setup but it is too weak to pull the electron from the hydrogen. Now place a wire between the potential and very close to the hydrogen atom. Now, the electron may be ripped from the atom and travel the path of the wire. In Layman's it can be viewed that a strong electric field gradient traveled the length of the wire by inducing charge on each atom of the wire at a certain speed, from the potential. The wire itself is charge less but its presence affected the path of the electron. Similarly the presence of a slit or no slit may affect the path of a particle. Changing the destination objects in these experiment, can have a wave that moves from destination to source at a certain speed c for the new load that is present in the experiment path
    Let's act on what we agree on now, and argue later on what we don't.
    Black men leave Barbeque alone if Barbeque don't trouble you

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Just some comments on the stated assumptions.

    Assumption 1: Measuring the spin of an electron does not affect the spin of an electron.
    Actually, the assumption (postulate) made in QM is what's called the Projection Postulate. In respect of the spin of a single electron, it states that the quantum state of the electron immediately after a measurement of its spin is precisely the (eigen)state that corresponds to the measured spin. Thus, a second measurement (of its spin) done immediately after the first always measures the same spin.

    Regarding the influence of the axis of spin, it's key to grasp that the state space of the spin of an electron is two-dimensional (and is a complex vector space to boot). That space does not correspond with the three-dimensional space of orientations. There is, however, a correspondence between the space of spin observables (operators) and the space of orientations.

    However, no matter which spin operator you pick (i.e., which axis), the operator admits two distinct eigenstates of spin, corresponding the the two orientations along the axis. The key point is this: every spin state is a quantum superposition of just those two states.

    RE: Entangled pairs of electrons
    What makes for an entangled pair of electrons is the fact that the entangled state cannot be reduced to independent subsystems (i.e., independent individual electrons). Thus, the spins of the individual electrons are correlated. In a maximally entangled (singlet) state, the product of the spins is -1 with probability 1.

    Assumption 2
    I'm not sure what you mean here. A polarizer lets through light corresponding to its type. Light, in general, is a quantum superposition of polarization states. The polarizer lets through the pertinent component.

    Assumption 3
    This statement is grossly imprecise. (What does "load has no influence on source" mean, precisely?)

    Do you have the photoelectric effect in mind? If so, it is straightforward to demonstrate that the classical model of light fails to explain it. The QM model does to a tee. That explanation is what Einstein won his Nobel prize for.)

    Now for some of the other bits...

    RE: My assumption: I look at an electron or a photon as not having zero size but has an effect that is at a point size.
    From the point of view of QM, the position of an electron should be viewed probabilistically. For example, in the case of an electron in a hydrogen atom, the electron does not admit any eigenstates of position. And certainly not simultaneous eigenstates of position and momentum (i.e., a point particle). The electron in the hydrogen atom is to be viewed as a quantum superposition of positions around the nucleus (proton).

    RE: Wavefunction collapse to me is an incomplete explanation that we do not know the complete wavefunction equation. (and the rest of the paragraph)
    It's important to recognize that the Schrödinger equation (and related equations of evolution of states or operators), pertains to undisturbed states. Therefore it does not explain the effects of measurement. In that sense, it's not "incomplete".

    The "twisting and bending" et al. that you refer to... where are the actual maths, or physics, concepts? Much of what you have above is quite confused TBH.

    One way to approach the problem of wavefunction collapse is to obtain and use an accurate quantum-mechanical description of the measuring apparatus, and /or of the combined system, and determine whether combined system evolves, say, unitarity. The problem, of course, is the accurate quantum-mechanical description of the combined system.

    RE: Load balancing is fundamental of waves, not just E M waves. The Boss Tesla said to considered everything as vibrations.
    That, in a (very simplified) nutshell, is what Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is all about. Per QFT, the fundamental building blocks of the universe are quantum fields. Every kind of particle has its own field. (It's just one field, BTW.) A particle, per QFT, is an excitation of the pertinent field.

    Spooky action at a distance (This is what your article is about.)
    This "spooky action at a distance" is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of entanglement. The most salient case is that of widely separated particles that are entangled. (BTW, entanglement of photons separated by several metres has been observed in the lab quite recently.) Once the particles are entangled, observations of the individual states are correlated, no matter the separation.

    Einstein (together with Podolsky and Rosen) published the EPR Paradox, which suggested that quantum entanglement breaks a fundamental law of the universe; Einstein proposed as an explanation that there must be "hidden variables" that can account for entanglement. (The "hidden variables" were supposed to determine the spins before measurements.)

    John Bell's inequality was found not to be satisfied in experiments (Alain Aspect et al.). Thus, (local) hidden variable theories are out of the question.


    Might I suggest that you read a proper text on QM and its principles? It's important to get the basics right in order to understand the theory better. A decent introductory text is Quantum Physics: the Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and Friedman.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •