Saturday, December 3, 2016

Superposition, Beyond Speed of Light? Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr

Entanglement is a process that is illustrated firstly by Thomas Young’s experiment commonly referred to as the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment raises the question of superposition, a key sticking point between Einstein and quantum mechanics, in his era the sticking point was with the likes of Niels Bohr, their argument must be settled by an experiment.

With Young’s experiment light tends to have a wave pattern at point of observation in the manner illustrated by figure 1. This wave pattern of course is very different when observation takes place at the slits, we get a particle pattern, but this is not important to know for purposes of the final question, was Einstein correct on insisting on locality or was he just been a spoil sport. 

Superposition is also shown in the Stern Gerlach experiments, by illustrating superposition by deduction entanglement is implied. The stern Gerlach experiments show at point of observation the polarity of a particle, this is illustrated in figure 2.

We say be deduction superposition leads to entanglement, and it is here that what can be called well experimented physics, probably the most experimented field in science, quantum mechanics. However great these experiments are they do have a logical flow, because they test for superposition not for entanglement. They are assuming they are testing for entanglement because superposition leads to the principles of entanglement, but tests concerning entanglement being thorough because of assumptions made in the tests for superposition, this leaves the debate open because they can never prove 100% what it is they are trying to because the tests are around superposition and superposition can’t prove entanglement merely support it.

We must first however look at the greater implications of one last enhancement to the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment is illustrated if figure 3.

At the point of observation we shall of course see a wave pattern as in figure 1. What happens when we combine the minds of Young and Stern and Gerlach, we get figure 4. 

What now is observed at the location of observation. The first possibility of course is we observe as in figure 1, a similar wave pattern. If this is the reality then the magnetic field would have no effect, this is highly unlikely. The second type of observation we can get is illustrated if figure 5.

Figure 5 shows the results of possible polarization associated with the proposed Young Stern Gerlach experiment.

Figure 6 shows another possible scenario from this proposed experiment, a bit more complicated but none the less a possibility.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate polarization in wave form, these are real possible scenarios of the proposed experiments, have such relationships been considered, are they predicted, that is why experimentation is so important. In the long run nobody really knows what knowledge will lead to, Stern Gerlach experiment is only a possibility because somebody understood magnetism and created a compass, long ago.

Just looking at figure 6 we can already imagine a wave going ahead, and waves perpendicular, how many more cosines?

Is the Young Stern Gerlach experiment worth it? That is a question just put forward, but the obvious answer is yes because a greater understanding of reality will be understood, greater efficiency in technology, ever more precise our measuring instruments.

The Young Stern Gerlach experiment is also important in that it illustrates to an observer of society how fashion affects everything including science. The fashion of the time was the debate of is it possible to travel faster than time and the question of entanglement has given proponents of faster than light a solid foundation, theoretically and experimentally. The Young Stern Gerlach experiment probably should have been done 50 – 70 years ago, just in order to understand wave theory better, just to understand polarization at greater understanding. If it had been done 50 – 70 years ago how would present equations look, possibly some little differences here and there.

Thomas Young’s experiment is so successful, political scientists believe it is so great it can not be named after him it belongs to the committee, so we have the Stern Gerlach experiment, but not the Young experiment, rather the double slit experiment. Being so successful nobody felt it could deliver anymore than superposition and entanglement. It can help us understand polarization better. Instead they immediately went to debate the results of the Young experiment, superposition and its implications.

Entanglement is clearly accepted but the question is, where does this superposition takes place, believe it or not it falls down to, if the entanglement is at the source Einstein is correct, nothing can travel faster than light, if it is at any time a measurement is taken, what is a measurement, it means a relationship has been built. We know that the first law of everything is that every relationship results in a loss of freedom. Measuring results in loss of freedom, so to answer he question merely by looking at the universe does the mouse change the nature of the universe, and the answer is yes, the photons will land in the eyes of the mouse rather than the back of the mouse. If the mouse was not in that spot the photons would hit the rocks, changing their location. It is about locality this debate. An insignificant mouse has changed the nature of the universe, it is just that humans do not understand every piece of information is important, it all has the same value, a knowl basically. Understanding information theory a knowl is the most basic particle, no, it is the most basic piece of information.

If the entanglement is not at the source that means something has gone faster than light, some type of signal, this seems pretty simple to grasp when talking at the quantum level. Successful experiments have been carried out, these tests are to test Bells inequalities. The way John Bells inequalities are set shows he is a clear supporter of Einstein, if the results of he experiment agree with Bells inequalities, then Einstein is correct. If the results contradict Bells inequalities entanglement is faster than light, it has to be looking at the experiment carried out by Alain Aspect. Figure 7 illustrates Aspects experiment.

Figure 7 shows one of the most important experiments in quantum mechanics, without the double slit experiment however we would not have this so important experiment. We have a photon emitter, it shoots two entangled particles and they must pass through a filter, these filters only allow photons of certain polarization to go through. If both particles pass through the filter and if both particles do not pass through the filter that proves entanglement. And just in case theory is not good enough we have a measuring instrument to measure the polarization. 

For the sake of defending general relativity and locality, Einstein said entanglement, superimposition occurred locally, at the source, inside the photon emitter, it is absurd to think of it as happening at the filters, that would imply something is moving faster than the speed of light, to send a message and tell the other particle what it should do.

To counter this argument Aspect set up the filters in such a way that they changed their polarity so rapidly it is impossible to think of anything being able to fool it, we are witnessing a truly random event. There was 100% correlation if one particle went through the other particle went through, if one particle did not go through the other particle did not go through 100% of the time, the experiment has been carried out over and over, Bells inequalities are broken, something is happening at a speed greater than light.

Bells inequalities are for testing for locality, not entanglement, the argument is entanglement faster than light rests upon the Alain Aspect experiment being correct. What this experiments says and rests on this, if the polarization filters are random enough, then we have a random even, and this random event is 100% correct in supporting the idea that what polarization the particles will take place will be at the moment of measurement not at the source of the particles. This is what is being tested and from here it is inferred that because the moment when the particles decide their charge is at measurement, something is traveling faster than light. And to prove it we have figure 8.

Now in figure 8 we have Aspects experiment used to prove that entanglement is faster than light. The underlying idea is that the photon emitter emits 2 entangled photons going in opposite directions. The entanglement will be confirmed by the measuring instruments as they measure the polarity. However, when the photon that travels the shorter distance is registered, immediately a beam of light is shot. The assumption is that if the particle that has to travel the longer distance hits its measuring instrument before the beam of light, there is a timer to measure who gets first the particle or the beam of light, then this is valid proof that entanglement is faster than light. Well calculated results have come up that show that entanglement is from2 times the speed of light to several thousand times the speed of light, it is not consistent.

The big flaw in figure 8 of course is that the particle that travels the longer distance already has a head start over the beam of light, in quantum mechanics that is a big head start, even electrons are travelling at near the speed of light, this is why the results vary so much, sometimes light is 35 times the speed of light, sometimes 10 000 times the speed of light according to the taste of one’s calculations

Science is not about taste, what one favors, it is about reality. First of all, Aspects experiment where designed around the idea of locality, when do particles decide their polarity. If they decide the polarity at the source, there is nothing faster than light, if they occur at point of measure there something faster than light. That is all the experiment can decide, it can’t be adapted for something else, because one can still argue that the change in the filters is not random enough, but if they are random enough there is something faster than light, the argument is around locality not entanglement.

It has been explained why Aspects experiment can not be adapted to test if entanglement is faster than light such as figure 8, how can a photon catch up to a photon, and the resistance in the measuring instruments gives varying results of false faster than light from 2 to almost 10 000 times faster than light, this is disrespect to science. Aspects experiment only say choices are made at moment of measure therefore there is something faster than light, it is instantaneous. It is not 2 times faster than light or 10 000 times, that is mathematics, just enjoying maths for maths sakes. It is instantaneous, an experiment must be designed to measure this instantaneous entanglement, the old-fashioned way, a good old 100-meter dash, a good old sprint, what is faster.

We know from Aspects experiments that have been repeated over and over that entanglement is true, those that fully support the results must accept it is instantaneous, entanglement and light must race, we are no longer testing locality, we are testing speed. Aspects experiments are very important, they are important around teleportation, around commercial commodities like the quantum phone, we must scrutinize ourselves, can we prove ourselves with out doubt. Only a race, something designed to test speed not locality can solve that, this is shown in figure 9. Figure 8 is cheating, it’s like asking one 100-meter runner to do a somersault before and then catch up, photon versus photon. Such faith that one is willing to cheat.

Figure 9 shows a simple race we have two entangled particles, one red one blue, they are entangled so obviously when the red one turns blue the blue one must instantaneously turn red. We have a laser emitter, and we have a timer that will tell us when the blue particle becomes red and light reaches the same distance between the 2 particles. This experiment is around entanglement not locality. It does not matter where the particle got its polarity, at the source or at moment of measure, what matters is the 2 particles are entangled.

The experiment works such that we reverse the polarization of the red particle, at that very moment that the polarization of the red particle occurs a beam of light is released as a laser. When the blue particle reverse polarity the timer will register it, when light reaches the same distance as between the red particle and blue particle the timer will register it, whoever gets there first is the winner and the debate is settled once and for all.

If entanglement is true, the expected results are not that entanglement is not twice as fast as light, or 10 000 times as fast as light. The expected results that taking out the imprecision's in the measuring instruments it can be concluded that by the time the blue particle reverse polarization, light has not even left its source, mathematics as we know it must also change to keep up with our understanding of information. 

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Obviously you can just test entanglement with a stop watch, but what fun is there in it, let it race light and embarrass it. 


Ian Miller said...

In my opinion, the Aspect experiments cannot demonstrate violations of Bell's inequalities because the inequalities are mathematical consequences of the agree properties, and if there are genuine violations, either those properties are false or the associative law of sets does not apply, and that would mean all mathematics fails. What I believe is there are errors of logic in the analysis of the data. I have outlined this in a chapter in my ebook "Guidance Waves - an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics" and summarised in two blog posts:

If anyone can see an error in these, please let me know, BUT as it stands, unless I have made a gross error, which nobody else has seen so far, the standard "violation" data implies a violation of the laws of probability, i.e. the probability of finding one photon > 1

Institute of Knowledge said...

I can't open your blogs, it sends me to sign up to word press, that means blogs on can't be shared unless one is a member, everybody has their own interpretations of liberty.

What if I said I agree with you 100%, that's why we must have a race, the horses must run.

Institute of Knowledge said...

I can't open your blogs, it sends me to sign up to word press, that means blogs on can't be shared unless one is a member, everybody has their own interpretations of liberty.

What if I said I have seen the light and I agree with you 100%, that's why we must have a race, the horses must run.

Ian Miller said...

I trued pasting a copy of the blogs, but there is character limitation to comments, so that did not work. Send me an email address and I shall post the arguments.

Institute of Knowledge said...

Ian Miller said...

email sent

lukas saul said...

Interesting discussion. In fact there is a local and clear explanation for all these things, perhaps these papers will help you work through the difficulty:

"The emperor has no nonlocality", Lukas Saul, Physics Essays 2015

Ian Miller said...

Lukas, thank you for the link. Regarding non-locality, if I interpret correctly, the essay essentially supports the Einstein view, which, as it happens, I agree with. The important point for me is that polarised photons must obey statistically the Malus law, because otherwise when you send enough photons through, the Malus law would not apply. If you assume the Malus law, which is a statement on the law of conservation of energy, which in turn I rather fancy as being relevant, then the way the Aspect experiment is run, you get "violations" of Bell's inequality, but energy is not conserved. My argument is there is a logic error in the way the results are analysed.

As it happens, I have my own interpretation of quantum mechanics. For me, there are two important points. First, the assumption that the wave function is always complex is wrong, or alternatively, Euler's complex number theory is wrong, and I back Euler on mathematics. The wave function becomes real at the antinode provided the antinode is properly identified. (In the central field, probability is determined by the square of ψ.r, to compensate for the expansion of space as you get further from the centre.) If you accept that, and accept that it is when the wave is real that we can assign certain physical properties, then for a plane travelling wave, the distance between crests represents the action h, which is why action is quantised. From that premise, the Uncertainty Principle and the Exclusion principle follow. In my opinion, Euler's mathematics should be recognised in any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

My second difference would be more controversial. I argue the phase velocity of the wave should equal the expectation particle velocity, so that in a diffraction experiment the wave and the particle get to the grating at more or less the same time. If so, the wave has to transmit energy, which is what waves usually do, BUT the question then is, where is this energy? In my view, if there is a wave, the energy is in the complex space, whatever that represents, but presumably another dimension, which I know many will see as ugly. I am not happy with it either, but at least the maths are coherent at last.

Institute of Knowledge said...

This is what I have to say about Thermodynamics, "The first law of entropy is known as the law of conservation of energy. Really, what about anti matter. That is all to be said on the first law, does anti matter break it, if it does, it is not a law of everything, it is steam engine physics, an isolated system, not everything.

The second law of entropy says things cannot be reversed, but in smelters, ancient man 30 000 years ago had smelters, creating pure elements copper, iron, That is why it is important to read other works, the isolation of information is reversing the process, that is how we know things because information could be isolated, pure iron last existed after super novas, man has reversed the process, taking oxidized iron ore and purifying it in furnaces. Processes can be reversed, here is a good journal piece to read just to understand isolation of information, the piece is called why economics is a science, information the grand unifier.

Think about it, when you switch of a television you can do the reverse, switch it on, thermodynamics is therefore not about information, but a segment of information, things are reversed everyday, information reverses everyday, thermodynamics has limited principles applicable to the theory of everything.You change your mind back after thinking a decision, thermodynamics is too limited.

The third and final law of thermodynamics suggests at absolute zero there is no activity, have these people tested dark matter, is there no activity at absolute zero?

The theory of Everything is here,

As for the concept of spatial dimensions, we can agree.

Ian Miller said...

The first law of thermodynamics strictly applies to closed systems, so antimatter being present would provide a problem, but not necessarily if we correctly apply internal energy. The second law does permit reversal, PROVIDED work is added.



Blog Archive

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

I write about knowledge economics, information, liberty, and freedom