"Spooky action at a distance."

[Graybeard]

The QM version is much simpler .... because it says nothing can be known with certainty ... So it applies a relatively simple probability equation to possible outcomes and makes a prediction that results will never agree more nor less than 50%.

Here is the equation.




So 0.33 + (0.25 * 0.33) + (0.25 * 0.33) = 0.5 or 50%


All experiments to date return 50%


So:

QM: The properties of a particle cannot be known with certainty until an observation is made. Until then all possible axis of spin are allowed. (plus all other attributes of the particle cannot be known with certainty either)

cool bananas ... greg

[William Christie]

Greg, thanks.
I appreciate your clear stepped model descriptive. Perhaps you are a teacher and your students surely get inspired by that.

It is more clearer in detail to me:

per EPR
- common properties determined at source
- need minimum 55% outcome to pass
- if at least 55% the uncertainty principle fails

per QM
- common properties not determined at source; properties determined at observation
- needs only 50% to pass
- if no more than 50% then uncertainty principle prevails

Per Bell (wiki), either QM or local realism is wrong. Bell showed inequalities may be violated.
Tests with repeated 50% correlation outcomes have shown Bell's inequalities are violated in favor of QM.
The uncertainty principle prevails.
Bell's theorem put an end to local realist's hopes for QM.

In summary:
If EPR is right, then just by statistical sampling we should get 55% minimum.
But we only get 50% which is predicted by the uncertainty principle.
So, maybe it's all just due to the uncertainty principle.

However, again from Alain Aspect:
"We must conclude that an entangled EPR photon pair is a non-separable object; that is, it is impossible to assign individual local properties (local physical reality) to each photon. In some sense, both photons keep in contact through space and time."

Alain Aspect's statement above raises the question of interpretation of what all the test's repetitive outcomes really mean (photons or electrons). Correct me where you think I might be wrong.
1. Local realism - distant events are assumed to have NO instantaneous or superluminal effects on local ones.
2. Local realism means that when I observe one spin, I should be able to tell you with 55% chance what spin you will get.
3. Local realism was proved wrong because we didn't even get 55%. In fact we got only 50% of the spins correct.
- either there were no common properties at the source and this is simply predicted by the uncertainty principle
- or maybe something is interfering and distant events somehow do have effects on others

So, is the door is till left open for non-local realism?

[Graybeard]

Greg, thanks.
I appreciate your clear stepped model descriptive. Perhaps you are a teacher and your students surely get inspired by that.

It is more clearer in detail to me:

Thanks for the kind words Will ..... But I am just a nobody that knows almost nothing ... the proof of this is that, apart from explaining how the experiment worked, I am unable to answer any of your other questions regarding it.

I can give my view or concept but you need to be wary, your own concepts may be better than mine for you. Concepts build on the facts, and extend them to where there is no proof, but nevertheless we need them.

In summary:
If EPR is right, then just by statistical sampling we should get 55% minimum.
But we only get 50% which is predicted by the uncertainty principle.

Whether you understood my coloured examples or not, there is no doubt you understand the result. Your quote above is the only thing I can give with full confidence. I don't read anything in it other than 'the uncertainty principle' is once again vindicated with increased confidence, whereas everybody had secretly hoped that it would have failed.

No one likes this outcome because, secretly, no one understands it.

However, again from Alain Aspect:
We must conclude that an entangled EPR photon pair is a non-separable object; that is, it is impossible to assign individual local properties (local physical reality) to each photon. In some sense, both photons keep in contact through space and time.

In this quote I would guess he speaking to a wider audience, he is giving a summary. A document of the experiment many inches thick lies beneath these few sentences, I read his first sentence as his concept, his second sentence as a fact, his third sentence as his concept. I could easily be wrong.

Alain Aspect's statement above raises the question of interpretation of what all the test's repetitive outcomes really mean (photons or electrons). Correct me where you think I might be wrong.

1. Local realism - distant events are assumed to have NO instantaneous or superluminal effects on local ones.

I agree ... effect must follow cause given any event. And as nothing can exceed the speed of light then the effect is 'delayed' in time and space relative to the cause. A bullet cannot reach its target before the gun has been fired ??

2. Local realism means that when I observe one spin, I should be able to tell you with 55% chance what spin you will get.

Mate, I'm nervous of this one. If you observe the first particle's spin, while someone else makes the distant observation of the other particle, and you have not agreed in advance what plane you are both going to observe from, then you can be 55% confident of predicting the spin of the other particle.

But if you should make some arbitrary position that is suitable to both as 'North' or 'South' or 'something' and both observe from that plane only, then you can have 100% confidence of predicting the other particles spin.

At this point ya gotta remember how difficult this experiment is to carry out.

First, there are (half ?) as many ways to slice thru a sphere as there are 'planck lengths' on the surface of the sphere. You both gotta be on the same slice ? Then 'everything' between you has to be totally evacuated so 'nothing' can collide with the little buggers. This means an evacuated tube many kilometres in length without a single deviation that even Euclid could detect.

To complicate it further, no matter how careful you are, it is fundamentally impossible to not interfere in the outcome by carrying out your observation. Worse, before the two observers can become aware of each others result communication must be established, and this takes a 'local' amount of time ?

Only when you have mastered the above can you be confident of predicting the outcome. And we cannot master all of the above ? We cannot transfer the 'results' instantaneously, which intangibly 'negates' the 'magic', nor can we keep our fingers out of the experiment itself, and thereby we affect the outcome?

3. Local realism was proved wrong because we didn't even get 55%. In fact we got only 50% of the spins correct.
- either there were no common properties at the source and this is simply predicted by the uncertainty principle

I don't know if I would say local realism is proved wrong ... this is all in the concept of 'realism'. I would just say that the attributes of a particle cannot be determined until observed. If you say that you know the spin of a distant particle with 100% confidence before anyone has observed it, and you meet and overcome the above obstacles, what does that mean ?

You hold a piece of information, or believe you do, that cannot be imparted to anyone at any greater speed than the local telephone wires ? Please note the word 'local' ... lol

I don't think this infers that 'local' realism is dead ... nor does it mean we can manipulate the outcome of the experiment to any profit such as in Meem's opening post where he invited comments on the 'underlined parts'

- or maybe something is interfering and distant events somehow do have effects on others

This has been tried and tested many times, I think the closest was Bohm's 'hidden variables' theory ... but unfortunately there are no such things.

So, is the door is till left open for non-local realism?

per EPR
- common properties determined at source
- need minimum 55% outcome to pass
- if at least 55% the uncertainty principle fails

per QM
- common properties not determined at source; properties determined at observation
- needs only 50% to pass
- if no more than 50% then uncertainty principle prevails

Per Bell (wiki), either QM or local realism is wrong. Bell showed inequalities may be violated.
Tests with repeated 50% correlation outcomes have shown Bell's inequalities are violated in favor of QM.
The uncertainty principle prevails.
Bell's theorem put an end to local realist's hopes for QM.

I think that yes, the uncertainty principle prevails. But once again I give my concept and you need to make your own mind up.

The Uncertainty principle prevails. Meaning, that we can have increased confidence that we have 'solved' the attribute of the Uncertainty Principle. That is, it is here to stay. The results do not imply that the Uncertainty Principle will somehow be solved further down the track, and we just lack the needed knowledge at the moment.

The results imply the opposite, with increased confidence, that 'Uncertainty' is an attribute of nature itself .... just as charge and spin are attributes. It cannot be discounted or 'solved away' in the future when we get smarter.

I believe the 'solution', the merging of 'uncertainty' with 'reality' will be explained when we understand the difference, the cause, between symmetry an asymmetry.

CLICK

My take on it only ... greg

[William Christie]

Hi Greg,
Thanks again and I really appreciate your insight and discussion in this area. It is important because it does deal with QM and Relativity. It is important to be clear about it. Two brains are better than one, even if they are separated by an ocean.

The Uncertainty principle prevails. Meaning, that we can have increased confidence that we have 'solved' the attribute of the Uncertainty Principle. That is, it is here to stay. The results do not imply that the Uncertainty Principle will somehow be solved further down the track, and we just lack the needed knowledge at the moment.

I went through your illustrations in detail and clearly understand the 55% and 50%. No question, the uncertainty principle prevails and I accepted that long ago when I first heard of EPR and Bell's Theorem.

I read a lot about David Bohm then and remember a remark from another physicist: "Oh yeah David and his intuitive questions." Whenever I find two things contradicting, I see potential for creative reciprocity. In analogy: generally there are trade-offs on ideas, but sometimes two fists banging at each other can be twisted to form a handshake. Anyway, Bohm's questions further inspired me.

I read your other thread and WIKI reference - excellent. I have been surfing around to get different perspectives and descriptions.

WIKI: "Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally together with the absence of local hidden variables. Entanglement is compatible with relativity; however, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. More general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement, but still compatible with relativity, is an active field of theoretical investigation but has yet to be observed."

I hope I got this right:

EPR folks:
expect a local reality or
there is some spooky action-at-a-distance

QM folks:
uncertainty rules at some local distance (no way to define correlated spins at source)
thus uncertainty not concerned about the non-local aspect when observing

So, I gather that non-local reality allows some action-at-a-distance interpretation of of the 50%.

This is what I gathered many years ago and it just seemed to support the idea of the rotating wave. I did not force it. It just seemed to also explain action-at-a-distance which is not a linear photon transfer between one electron and another, but more like a rotating beam. The rotating beam is here just used as a descriptive analogy of the rotating planar wave. The downer here is that at greater radii the tangential velocity is greater and thus faster than C. However, the tangential velocity at C is at a radius R0 which I am now pretty sure is the same as Kaluza's and that perimeter is his curled up 5th dimension.

Perhaps this is what is happening in the tests by Aspect et al: the rotating waves of the apparatus interfere with one electron stopping its spin and at the exact same time interfere with the other stopping its spin. What we are left with is measuring spins of random electrons which are 50/50 clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Maybe that is not exactly the way the test works, but I understand there is a random approach in the tests.

So I offer: the "locality" of the particle might thus be better interpreted as the centrality of spin of the EM wave. The "non-local reality" comes from the extension of that rotating wave.

I believe the 'solution', the merging of 'uncertainty' with 'reality' will be explained when we understand the difference, the cause, between symmetry an asymmetry.

Interesting. I understand the concept of symmetry (rotation or re-juggling) though just at a very introductory level. You might perceive a clue? Maybe a twist?

If it is not a rotating wave that explains action-at-a-distance, then perhaps the rotating wave model just gives us another insight to what is going on there.

many buckets, Will

[austintorn@aol.com]

Spooky action at a distance…

Maybe even more so on Halloween.

[Graybeard]

WIKI: "Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally together with the absence of local hidden variables. Entanglement is compatible with relativity; however, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. More general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement, but still compatible with relativity, is an active field of theoretical investigation but has yet to be observed."

I hope I got this right:

Well .. we're now dealing with the concepts, and everbody's concept is as good as anyone elses. So your right ... lol

Once again, this is only my take on the above, no formal science.

1 .. Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity.

It was, and it still is incompatible, but entanglement is not included in action at a distance. EPR assumed (and so did QM) that they were the same thing. ??

2 .. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement.

I take this to be the same as saying ... In quantum physics Action at a distance re-appeared in the form of entanglement. I would hi-lite the words 're-appeared' (??) in the 'form' (??) of entanglement (??)

When, and in what form had it appeared in previously ? I don't know.

3 .. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally together with the absence of local hidden variables.

I take this to be the same as saying ...The hopes of those who had vainly hoped (all of us) to disprove the Uncertainty Principle has failed. We have to live with the knowledge that what we took to be the 'eternal-verities' are invalid. No two identical experiments will give identical results, not even the same experiment carried out twice in the same lab. We live in a statistical universe.

4 .. Entanglement is compatible with relativity;

I would read this as, 'Entanglement is compatible with relativity, but Action at a Distance is not. And, as Action-at-a-distance is the part that is not compatible with Relativity then EPR is proven wrong by QM, and QM does not violate the 'the-speed-of-lite' ... whatever that is .... lol


The reason I don't see Action-at-a-Distance occurring is because, nothing is really exchanged. They're 'odds' are 'entangled'

But please remember to check, I am only guaranteeing my explanation of the experiment, nothing else.

QM is malicious, with one hand it shows you an unbelievably beautiful pearl, and with the other, it snatches it out of site. Unfortunately most books and media written about it present the Pearl, and nothing but the Pearl. Whether they do this because they genuinely don't understand, or because its sells more books ... I'm unsure. But it becomes a breeding ground for 'magic'. I have heard somewhere that Bell was appalled at the interpretations being put onto his theory. But I was once hung up in my thoughts concerning entanglement. I just couldn't get past it and go further .. and I needed to for other reasons. For me, it had to be solved one way or the other, and so I taught myself exactly how the results were derived from the experiment. I don't know how to do the experiment, just the statistical reasoning.

So, I gather that non-local reality allows some action-at-a-distance interpretation of of the 50%.

I am unsure what your saying, but I don't think so for the reasons above. Is there such a thing as non-local reality, action-at-a-distance ??

This is what I gathered many years ago and it just seemed to support the idea of the rotating wave. I did not force it. It just seemed to also explain action-at-a-distance which is not a linear photon transfer between one electron and another, but more like a rotating beam. The rotating beam is here just used as a descriptive analogy of the rotating planar wave. The downer here is that at greater radii the tangential velocity is greater and thus faster than C. However, the tangential velocity at C is at a radius R0 which I am now pretty sure is the same as Kaluza's and that perimeter is his curled up 5th dimension.

I'm still unsure ... but remember, action-at-a-distance is the 'part' that is proved false ... or at least 'unproven'. I take this to mean that it is impossible to transfer anything 'super-luminal', there are no tachyons ?? Entanglement is proven.

Perhaps this is what is happening in the tests by Aspect et al: the rotating waves of the apparatus interfere with one electron stopping its spin and at the exact same time interfere with the other stopping its spin. What we are left with is measuring spins of random electrons which are 50/50 clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Maybe that is not exactly the way the test works, but I understand there is a random approach in the tests.

So I offer: the "locality" of the particle might thus be better interpreted as the centrality of spin of the EM wave. The "non-local reality" comes from the extension of that rotating wave.

There is no doubt that we 'interfere' in the experiment in some way, but as we do that for 'everything' and we always will because the experimenter will always be part of the experiment ... then we have to factor that in and accept it, or give up experimenting.

On a lighter note, 'spin', using the concept of a spinning top, has counter and counter-clockwise direction, that is, two directions, alternatively we may be just unknowingly rotating our observation, or the particle, 180 deg, and it really only has 'one' direction. In this case, what we are measuring ( or entangling) is the difference in the two observations, actually the information that the two observers 'observe' ... and nothing is changing or entangling regarding the particle at all.

It may be that we are just entangled in our own confusion and have found a way of proving it .... rotflmao

I think entanglement is a shimmering glimpse into that strange no-universe-land between symmetry and asymmetry, just begging us to make sense of the pattern

cool bananas ... greg

[William Christie]

I think entanglement is a shimmering glimpse into that strange no-universe-land between symmetry and asymmetry, just begging us to make sense of the pattern.

Something to think about. Uncertainty (local) or action-at-a-distance (non-local).

With respect to rotating wave, the planar wave has to extend to infinity with the divergent EM fields and so with gravity. The extended wave in rotation explains relativity with its inclined wave fronts in accordance with EM. So with the rotating wave, you just can't have one without the other, ie relativity and action-at-a-distance (or 'entanglement').

Would like to discuss more and must go to a wedding out of town and we dress up tonight spooky. Someday I should go as a lighthouse.

many buckets, Will

[austintorn@aol.com]

RECENTLY, AT BOLTZMANNGASSE 3 IN VIENNA

Institut für Quantenoptik und Quanteninformation
(IQOQI)

Does the moon still exist
When we aren’t looking at it?

Yes.


LOCALITY AND/OR REALISM
(AND ‘IT FROM BIT’?)

One (or both) of these assumptions is
Inadequate to describe the physical world;
However, Bell’s theorem
Does not say which to abandon.

However, lately it has been confirmed
Even more conclusively
By Ziellinger and associates
That entangled particles do not have
Preexisting properties,
Such as polarization,
That are independent
Of any observation.

So, there goes naive realism.

Now, what about at the classical level?
Well, although there, too,
We transform reality, or I could even say,

Create reality, although it’s consistent
Among all individuals,
For we see the same trees
And buildings, for example.

Two particles are called entangled
If they share the same fuzzy quantum state,
Meaning neither of them begins
With definite properties
Such as location or polarization
(Which can be thought of
As a particle’s spatial orientation).

Measure the polarization of one photon,
And it randomly adopts a certain value,
Say, horizontal or vertical;
Oddly, the polarization of the other photon
Will always correlate to that of its partner.

Zeilinger, whose group invented
A common tool for entangling polarization,
Likes to illustrate the idea
By imagining a pair of dice
That always land on matching numbers.

Equally mysterious,
The act of measuring one photon’s polarization
Immediately forces the second photon
To adopt a complementary value.

This change happens instantaneously,
Even if the photons are across the galaxy;
The light-speed limit obeyed
By the rest of the world
Can take a leap,
For all that quantum physics cares.

I’d like to come to the second freedom:
The freedom of nature.
You said that for example
The velocity or the location of a particle
Are only determined at the moment
Of the measurement, and entirely at random.

I maintain: it is so random
That not even God knows the answer.

For me the concept of “information”
Is at the basis of everything we call “nature”.
The moon, the chair, the equation of states,
Anything and everything,
Because we can’t talk about anything
Without de facto speaking about the information
We have of these things;
In this sense the information
Is the basic building block of our world.

In your last book you wrote:
“Laws of nature should make no distinction
Between reality and information.” Why?

We’ve learnt in the natural sciences
That the key to understanding can often be found
If we lift certain dividing lines in our minds.

Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground
According to the same laws
That govern the Moon’s orbit of the Earth.
And with this he made the old differentiation
Between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete.

Darwin showed that there is no dividing line
Between man and animal.

And Einstein lifted the line
Dividing space and time.

But in our heads,
We still draw a dividing line
Between “reality” and “knowledge about reality”,
In other words between reality and information.
And you cannot draw this line;
There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing
Between reality and information.

All this thinking and talking about reality
Is about information,
Which is why one should not make a distinction
In the formulation of laws of nature;
Quantum theory, correctly interpreted,
Is information theory.

And can you explain
All these strange quantum phenomena
Conclusively with your information concept?

Not all of them yet, but we’re working on it;
With limitation it works excellently.

How?

I imagine that a quantum system
Can carry only a limited amount of information,
Which is sufficient only for a single measurement.

Let’s come back to the situation of two particles
Colliding like billiard balls,
And in so doing entering a state of limitation.

In terms of information theory that means
That after the collision the entire information
Is smeared over both particles,
Rather than the individual particles
Carrying the information.
And that means the entire information we have
Pertains to the relationship
Between both particles;
For that reason, by measuring the first particle
I can anticipate the speed of the second,
But the speed of the first particle is entirely random.

Because the information isn’t sufficient.

Exactly. Its randomness is ultimately
A consequence of the
Finiteness of the information.

Quantum Breakdown

To investigate where quantum mechanics
Breaks down and classical mechanics begins,
The team is investigating
Two weird quantum properties:
Entanglement and superposition.
When two particles become entangled,
They become inextricably intertwined,
So that changing the properties of one
Has an immediate effect
On the properties of its partner

Superposition is another feature
That is peculiar to quantum systems;
Before a quantum object is measured,
It does not have definite characteristics;
Instead, it exists in a superposition
Of multiple mutually contradictory states—
Allowing it to be in two places at once, for example.

Thus, if information is the
Most fundamental notion
In quantum physics,
A very natural understanding of phenomena
Like quantum decoherence
Or quantum teleportation emerges.

And, so, quantum entanglement
Is then nothing else
Than the property of subsystems
Of a composed quantum systems
To carry information jointly,
Independent of space and time;
And the randomness of
Individual quantum events
Is a consequence of
The finiteness of information.

The reduction of the wave packet
Is just a reflection of the fact
That the representation of our information
Has to change whenever the information itself
Changes as a consequence of an observation.
…

A few months ago Zeilinger reported
Implementing a new kind
Of statistical Bell test,
Devised by Leggett,
That pits quantum mechanics
Against a category of theories
In which entangled photons
Have real polarizations
But exchange hidden particles
That travel faster than light.

In principle,
Such faster-than-light theories
Might have perfectly
Mimicked quantum strangeness
And let realism go unmolested.
Not so, according to the experiment:
The results could be explained
Only by quantum unreality.

So what idea replaces realism?
The situation calls to mind
One of Zeilinger’s favorite books,
The humorous novel
‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’,
By Douglas Adams,
In which a mighty computer
Crunches the meaning of life,
The universe and everything
And spits out the number 42.

So its creators build a bigger computer
To discover the question.

If quantum indeterminacy
Is like the number 42,
Then what idea makes it intelligible?

Zeilinger’s guess is information,
Just like a bit, can be 0 or 1;
A measured particle ends up
Either here or there;
But if a particle carries only
That one bit of information,
It will have none left over
To specify its location
Before the measurement.

Unlike Einstein, Zeilinger accepts
That randomness is reality’s bedrock.

Still, “I can’t believe that quantum mechanics
Is the final word,” he says.
“I have a feeling that if we get really deep insight
Into why the world has quantum mechanics”—
Where the 42 comes from—“we might go beyond.
That’s what I hope.”

“Then, finally, would come understanding.”

42

[spacedout]

Hi--- isn't there something missing n those probabilities? The analyzers show more correlation than should be not 50/50. Analyzer A is fixed while analyzer B is rotated---divide the 90-degree arc into equal segments by degree and drop a pojection down to the x-axis---note that each projection decreases from 90-degrees vertical to o-degrees horizontal. Each angle represents a photon but the projection to the x-angle shows a higher probability for correlation at 90-degrees than at zero degrees. Have you thought of this or am I Spacedout? The 1/2 probability for correlation may be right, but the results from the analyzers are in the showing a cosine function.