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?
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.
Obviously you can just test entanglement with a stop watch, but what fun is there in it, let it race light and embarrass it.
10 comments:
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:
https://wordpress.com/post/ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/542
https://wordpress.com/post/ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/547
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
I can't open your blogs, it sends me to sign up to word press, that means blogs on wordpress.com 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.
I can't open your blogs, it sends me to sign up to word press, that means blogs on wordpress.com 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.
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.
instituteofknowledge@gmail.com
email sent
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
and
http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0059
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.
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. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=63721
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, http://instituteofknowledge.blogspot.ca/2016/10/what-is-theory-of-everything.html
As for the concept of spatial dimensions, we can agree.
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.
Post a Comment