[austintorn@aol.com]

Graybeard,

Congratulations on your star.

Your post finally just appeared—don't know where it was hiding—maybe you put a spin on it and we just detected the same spin here. Good job.

Favorite Stars

Ever wonder just how rich you could be, laying claim to gold, silver, jewels, and gems owned by no one? You can, anytime. At night I open up the heavens’ vault, my safety deposit box of valuable stars—one of whose planets contains all my wealth.

There are billions of stars, quite enough for everyone, but, can one can really only own a star—yes, if it is one’s favorite star. Mine is Betelgeuse in Orion, a large dying red giant. Although it has already expanded into the orbits of its first 2 planets, I own the 4th planet, one that no one else has ever claimed. And I’m planning to homestead there someday. The planet contains unlimited amounts of gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, and many other rare crystals—all mine.

For 6 months of the year my favorite star is hidden, but, in early autumn, if I stay up late, I can see Orion rising, his shining sword of nebulas gleaming in the black sky, and blue Rigel, a near favorite, sparkling on his boot, but it’s Betelgeuse, on his shoulder, that I really love.

Although I am looking from Earth, I am no less out in space than is any other star. Yes, we are all far out, in fact, relatively speaking, from the galactic center, being in the middle of one the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Anyway, I’ve chosen to leave my infinite wealth right there on the planet, since at least I know where it is. If I brought it here, someone night try to steal it.

To get through the other 6 months of the year, I’ve chosen orange Arcturus, in the Scorpion, which, due to ancient disputes and treaties, can never again be in the same sky with Orion the Hunter, having, in fact, once bitten him. Orion still hunts him, but, of course, can never catch him.

I own many favorite stars, actually, but I sometimes wonder, while enjoying the serenity of these deep dark nights, if in fact they haven’t come to own me.

[baudrunner]

Fascinating set of interpretations on the subject of entanglement.

I have a blog where I discuss the current paradigm shift in our appreciation of the fundamental nature of the photon in brief as an adjunct to another brief addendum to my continuing occasional discourse on the nature of sight. Find the blog here if you are interested, it's a pretty new sit and it could stand the traffic. I have a link back to the ToeQuest in the sidebar.

Anyway, a photon is not actually a particle but a bundle, call it a quantum, of energy with the potential to become a particle, and it does, usually a lepton. Physicists now refer to photon wavelengths, not frequency, because two waves of different wavelengths can have the same frequency. The photon particle theory is pretty much obsolete.

Entanglement is one of the most fascinating of phenomena which portends the future of teleportation, and the possibility of teleportation drive at phenomenal velocities independent of the limitations imposed by relativity. In effect, it supports the quantum idea that everything really is happening at the same time in the same place. It's possible that time can be considered to begin at any point in reality and that it propagates outward in all dimensions from that point, but because of quantum reality and the limitations that our independent existence imposes upon it, the same time paradox means that it can happen at the same time in different places. It is up to us to find a way to tap into the potential that that represents. I can't predict just how close we are to achieving the goal of teleportation.


My blog homepage is at http://baudrunner.blogspot.com. Post a comment or drop me a note in my guestbook.

[Graybeard]

DEAR ALL: I don't know why .... but my posts appear to be 'appearing' in any old order.

However ... if this post appears ... Thank you to you all .... I apologise if it seems that I ignored anyone here. This not the case ... perhaps it is because I am downunder and everything is coming up reverse

AUSTIN: yes ... I like your idea of star ownership ... I don't see why it would be any less legal than the 'legal' claims of many former empires who claimed all they found as their own ...

For me .. I see Orion nearly every night ... I may be wrong, I haven't checked any star tables ... but from memory it is always in my sky. I have a preference for Venus ... where, it is said, that Titanium falls as snow .. also I watch it travel to my horizon each night so fast that at times you could mistake it for a plane.

BAUDRUNNER: Thanks for your post ... I like your interpretation of the implications of Bell's Theorem ..... especially ....

Baud "In effect, it supports the quantum idea that everything really is happening at the same time in the same place."

Just for the moment I am trying to stick strictly to the Maths ... I have found that as soon as I start to draw conclusions things start to fall apart again.

I promise to read your blog thoroughly ... just as soon as I get my QM explanation posted in the next post. If I read it now I know I will start to question my ideas immediately. Then I will never be done ....

WILLIE: where the hell are you .... ??

[Graybeard]

This Post is a direct follow on from Post Number 19:

To summarise, we have found that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosenberg (I hope I got that right) alias EPR have claimed the following:

EPR's CLAIM: Quantum Mechanics, while an excellent theory, can not be the final explanation because it cannot prove that 2 singlet particles are not 'imprinted' with their properties at their time of creation. And yet it claims that this 'imprinting' cannot happen due to the 'uncertainity' of a particles's properties until those properties are measured (detected). Therefore QM is flawed and cannot be the final explanation !! EPR makes no claim as to how this imprinting occurs, but we note that it is crucial to our claim.

EPR's PROOF: We back our claim with the following proof. If the properties of a particle are imprinted in the particle at time of creation then random observations about the spin axis of singlet particles will ALWAYS correlate greater than 55%. On this statement we (EPR) stand or fall. [see post 19]

(this is my own personal interpretation of the EPR claim ... Greg)


Well... this was a very serious challenge and the Quantum Supporters response was very low key. Most of their replies could be summarised as ......"Well.. you know .... you can't really ask that sort of question... it's not fair"

However ... we move on .... Willie, I hope you are there .... have you paid your internet bill.. ?? we can have a quick whip-around here if you're a bit short, mate ?

QM CLAIM: The properties of a particle are not determined until the particle is detected. The final state of a particle's properties until detection are uncertain. Each one has a probability ... none a certainty.

QM PROOF: We back our claim with the following proof. If the properties of a particle are uncertain until detection then random observations about the spin axis of singlet particles will ALWAYS correlate to 50% give or take a flyshit. On this statement we (QM) stand or fall.

(this is my own personal interpretation of the QM claim ... Greg)


Why does EPR claim greater than 55% ?
Why does QM claim 50% or near enough ?

Its really quite simple. Both sides agreed that Singlet particles with spin along the same axis will always be detected, one with Spin-Up, the other with Spin-Down 100% of the time. Both sides agreed that the method that achieved this outcome could not be proved by either. Both claimed to be right. Both realised that they could not be proved wrong !! The rest of the world did not even know what language they were arguing in !

This argument appears insoluable. But it wasn't, a special kind of genius, named Bell, removed himself from the shouting, the hubbub, and the name-calling by either side and quietly thought it through. He realised that the outcome would always be the same provided the measurements were taken along the same axis .... but what if they were not ... what if they were taken along different axis ??? That is ... one detector is at 12 o'clock, the other at 4 o'clock.

He realised that they would NOT always agree. As we have seen, [post 19] Classical maths predicts a correlation of the singlet pair greater than 55% of the time. Never, Never less !! Whereas, QM predicts an outcome of 50%, give or take a fly shit.

Eureka ... They cannot be tested on their predictability ... they can be tested on their un-predictability. Lets test the real particles and see what correlations we achieve. Why had none of the magnificent involved realised this. Perhaps it is the way of all great discoveries.

But before we do this test we need to know WHY QM predicts 50%. Willie ... follow me closely here. I am stealing Maths from Dr Greene's book.

An elementary equation from QM says that if the angle between the axis of the two detectors = 0 degrees (they are aligned) = 120 degrees (they are non-aligned) or any other angle you care to align too then if we call that angle 'Theta' then calculating the probability of correlation between 2 singlet particles is



33% of the time our axis are aligned. We achieve 100% correllation or 1/3 of our random selections

33% of the time we are non-aligned at +120 deg. We achieve 25% correllation of this or 1/4 of 1/3 = 1/12 = 1/6 of our random selections

33% of the time we are non-aligned at -120 deg. We achieve 25% correllation of this or 1/4 of 1/3 = 1/12 = 1/6 of our random selections

CONCLUSION: ( 1/3 + 1/12 + 1/12) = ( 4/12 + 1/12 + 1/12) = 6/12 = 1/2

EQUALS 50%

Now guess what we have ... One theory predicts 55% correllation or greater ... the other 50% give or take a flyshit .... when the tests are done .... guess who romps home a winner.... you got it mate QM was declared the all time winner. The tests have been conducted many many times and EVERY time they support QM with spectuclar accuracy.

Now Willie , I have reached the end of my story, and I believe I have proved to your satisfaction the answer to your first post in this thread. What does all this imply ?

For some, it means nothing exists prior to its observation. To others, Space is just not the place we think it is ... I tend to side with the latter... in the end these are only interpretations which we are free to muse on.

Hope this helped you WillieB

best of luck ... greg

[Graybeard]

This drwg should have been in the above post before the 3 sentences starting with 33%

[WillieB]

Greg:

Sorry about the delay. Family matters and other distractions have kept me away from my computer for some time. Meanwhile, while I was frittering away valuable time, you have done a magnificent job of setting out your interpretation of the classicists’ interpretation vs. that of the enlightened quantum crowd. I do envy you your computer skills for I could never have produced that magnificent illustration of post #19. By the way post 19 was a marvelous reproduction of the results that Mulder and Scully obtained in Brian Greene’s book and you duplicated that logical presentation in your last post.

I don’t want to create the impression that I am continuously tooting the horn of my own thought pattern but I simply cannot apply any reasoning in this arena without resorting to that contained in my own thread at “Keep it Simple.” I certainly don’t know the mechanics of the design of the devices that are used to detect the spin orientation of any of the subatomic particles but I would bet my life that they rely on electrical or magnetic field forces in some way. If I look upon the photons or the electrons that are being studied as being composed of my increments, as they enter into the influence of these fields they will immediately become polarized so that their spin axes are parallel to the flux lines of the field. Thus their spin orientation will always be read as a multiple of ½. Further this would explain why, in the quantum world, this spin is read as being either clockwise or counterclockwise 50% of the time.

Your participation here has been a joy. I certainly will not stop contemplating any revisions that should be made in my thought patterns but, for the moment I am going to remain in EPR’s corner.

Thanks again. And I certainly hope that we will be engaged in many future conversations.

Regards, Bill

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by WillieB

I simply cannot apply any reasoning in this arena without resorting to that contained in my own thread at “Keep it Simple.”

I will search for this thread Willie .... is it on this forum ??

Originally Posted by WillieB

I certainly don’t know the mechanics of the design of the devices that are used to detect the spin orientation of any of the subatomic particles but I would bet my life that they rely on electrical or magnetic field forces in some way. If I look upon the photons or the electrons that are being studied as being composed of my increments, as they enter into the influence of these fields they will immediately become polarized so that their spin axes are parallel to the flux lines of the field. Thus their spin orientation will always be read as a multiple of ½. Further this would explain why, in the quantum world, this spin is read as being either clockwise or counterclockwise 50% of the time.

I am not quite sure I am with you on the above. I have only one further thing to add.

Lets say my detector no longer exists .... As the two particles speed off on their opposite paths ...

Both of them have probabilities of Spin around all possible Axis. As one particle enters your detector it is forced to 'Ante up', declare its spin, de-cohere ....

At this exact moment .... without any detection at all ... my particle also 'antes up' and takes on the spin opposite to its partner. !!!

This is instantaneous ... and why some think it breaks Einstein's laws of relativity ... I myself do not think that.


It was a most enjoyable post Willie ... I intend to condense it into something more structured and easily read and put it in my blog ... so far in my blog I only quote others ... this will be my first explanation of my own

cheers mate .... see you around. ... greg

[Graybeard]

Willie ....

I found your thread..... Keep it simple ... I did not realise that you had certain ideas on this already.

It appeared to me that your thread starter in this thread and on the hypography forum was a question on entanglement. How it works.

All my replies have been simply to explain the 'conventional' understanding of entanglement to someone with no pre-conceived ideas ... such did your question appear to me.... in this matter I was simply trying to help.

I will read you thread and paper ... give it my best shot ... tho it looks daunting .....


greg

[WillieB]

---Quote--- (Originally by Graybeard) --- (From post 26)

“At this exact moment--- without any detection at all my particle also ‘antes up’ and takes on the spin opposite to its partner.”

---End Quote---

Graybeard, I really don’t understand this. How, absent detection, do we know that the “partner” took on an opposite spin? I’m not trying to be a SA I really can’t figure out how we reached that conclusion.

(Re post 27) I wasn't trying to hide my "preconceived ideas." I was and still am pondering entanglement. I still am not 100% confidant that I have the exact right take on this phenomena. I still feel that my "universal polarization" may well play a role. Although I am no longer as convinced as I was when I introduced that term. In any case I am immensely enjoying utilizing my imagination and, yes, speculation in trying to advance the TOEQUEST by just one small notch.

Regards, Bill

[Graybeard]

Will ..... I have been trying to grasp your 'increment' page .... I need more time on this .... will have more to say (ask) on this later.

This is not your fault ... but I find as I get older my brain seems to get 'locked' in to one approach so that when I am shown a new approach ... its a physical wrench to force myself to try to understand it..... give me a bit of time.

As to the 'Ante up' or 'lay down your hand' .... This is easy and I will also get back to this. I am at work now and those around me think I am programming controllers ....

But Willie ..... If the Maths, as I explained predicts a random outcome of 55% or greater for EPR, and 50% give or take a poofteenth for QM ........ And all the physical experiments (which can carry no bias) spectacularly confirm with ever greater precision the 50% outcome....

Then you really do need to consider this, if it is crucial to your 'Increment' Theory. Otherwise the pain will be great. I think it was Fermi, or Pauli who said "Many beautiful and logical theories have been destroyed by an ugly mathematical fact".

I haven't progressed enough on your theory yet to understand if you rely on EPR. Dave would be the better one to advise you in this area. Especially on the two percentages I have quoted.

Stay in touch .... its nice to be able to debate where your most recent post is given some consideration before the reply button is immediately hit in order to open fire as quickly as possible.


cheers mate ... will get back to you on the 'Ante-up' ... greg