Quantum Gravity, Entanglement...

[greenbug]

Spooky action at a distance seems to relate information instantly across space, regardless the distance. Where as most objects must follow the speed of light.

Even if quantum particles could relate information at the speed of light with ease, any particle within that distance would exist almost seamlessly. The information those particles share in the big world coagulate, rather then disperse. However how many particles can be entangled at once? Can certain particles share more information and if so then relational attraction or coagulation is due to how fast the information is shared. Perhaps information is shared faster by index of last relations. Quantum particles with limitations to entanglement?.. humm...

[Graybeard]

Spooky action at a distance seems to relate information instantly across space, regardless the distance. Where as most objects must fallow the speed of light.

Even if quantum particles could relate information at the speed of light with ease, any particle with in that distance would exist almost seamlessly. The information those particles share in the big world coagulate, rather then disperse. However how many particles can be entangled at once? Can certain particles share more information and if so then relational attraction or coagulation is due to how fast the information is shared. Perhaps information is shared faster by index of last relations. Quontum particles with limitations to entanglement?.. humm...

Entanglement indicates a non-local Universe. This does not mean Information is being passed faster than the speed of light ??

CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

[greenbug]

Sorry, I wasn’t interpreting it as faster then light just offering the argument. I often play devils advocate.

I consider it a semi non-local universe. To me the location is a matter of relation. It really depends on the action taking place. As something small can be related with ease a larger object is limited by how much how fast.

Because of all the relations taking place, this particle is entangled with that, the movement of an object becomes restricted or local because of (seemingly) causality.

It’s the restrictions to information that cause a local universe, even though the universe is non-local.

[Graybeard]

Sorry, I wasn’t interpreting it as faster then light just offering the argument. I often play devils advocate.

I consider it a semi non-local universe. To me the location is a matter of relation. It really depends on the action taking place. As something small can be related with ease a larger object is limited by how much how fast.

Because of all the relations taking place, this particle is entangled with that, the movement of an object becomes restricted or local because of (seemingly) causality.

I don't know that I agree with all of your post ..... eg: I don't know what 'semi-local' means .... but I think you have made a very valid point that I had not considered before

It’s the restrictions to information that cause a local universe, even though the universe is non-local.

This is an enigmatic statement .... I'm thinking about it, and I sorta like it.

cool bananas ... greg

[leskey]

Hi, greenbug.

It’s the restrictions to information that cause a local universe, even though the universe is non-local.

I like your statement, too. To restrict is a condition of being restrained or regulated...the origin and parameters of the Laws of Nature?

[Graybeard]

Hi, greenbug.

It’s the restrictions to information that cause a local universe, even though the universe is non-local.

I like your statement, too. To restrict is a condition of being restrained or regulated...the origin and parameters of the Laws of Nature?

In fact, no matter how you read, its one of those statements that look good from any angle. It seems right ... lol.

Its a smooth one liner that relates Relativity and QM.

cool bananas ... greg

[greenbug]

lol now that I reread it, it is rather simple, but I was thinking rather complicated while I was makeing the statment.. thats funnny..

[Graybeard]

lol now that I reread it, it is rather simple, but I was thinking rather complicated while I was makeing the statment.. thats funnny..

I think you should take pride in the fact that in its simplicity lies its brilliance

cool bananas ... greg

[greenbug]

I don't know that I agree with all of your post ..... eg: I don't know what 'semi-local' means ....

Locality is based largely on what is more relevant. At the quantum level relevance is exchanged rapidly, making particles seem non-local. Yet the particles have a loosely defined location, it is only lose because of what is more relevant. The location of relevance becomes the standard of what is local, rather then the actual particle.

I described this before as Newton’s cradle and really that’s what it is.

For the quantum level, I would certainly say the universe is non-local. The restriction of what is relevant (several particles) grabs the attention (so to speak) of a particle, it limits the overall relational ability of that particle, causing the larger world (relativity) to be local. However that’s not to say that, the particles causing the restrictions couldn’t sever their relational attachment leaving a larger (relative) object non-local. That might be a possibility, however unlikely given the amount of relational information. There in lays my reluctance to call the universe local or non-local. It’s like a perspective of the object in question, hence semi-local, or partially local..

[greenbug]

This might be slightly off topic but, it’s a while thinking of this kind of subject..

I was thinking according to my thoughts that space is constructed of a “time” dimension..(Basically a non-static dimension of intervals, space being a perceptional byproduct of the dimension)

If intervals of time fit together in prime numbers with a min 1 to 3 and max 27 to 81 to configure the perceptional dimensions as we know them. Then the sets of primes from min to max would be the total amount of perceivable dimensions. Like the wave function any set of intervals outside of those primes can exist but quickly brake down into the next perceivable prime dimension.( conservation of time, the discarded intervals may fit into another set or simply time)

What grabs my thoughts the most is the speed of lights inability to exchange information threw time in space. Lets say mass or matter were a perceivable dimension of 27 intervals. Transferring 27 intervals threw 3 intervals of space creates a bottleneck of information. What do you think? Would this make different overall speeds, more then just speed of light barrier?

Well just a thought, just trying to expand this idea… None of this maybe right but its interesting… Just wondering what others have to say..