A Model For Eliminating / Confirming Time Dialation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Fallen Angel, Jun 13, 2004.

  1. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    I agree, I just want to hear Crisp's answer.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    This is the kind of things that are hard to explain when you cannot use the mathematics that is behind quantum mechanics.

    The teleportation of properties only happens when a measurement takes place (the collapse reduces the outcome of a possible measurement to only one possibility). This does not mean that something is there "waiting to be measured", because QM says that the particle B only takes a definite state when measured by the observer at B. It is important that you see that it is not a matter of not being able to see what is there, QM really tells you that nothing is definitly there before you measure it. (This is wavefunctions and probability theory)

    Edit: added the words "by the observer at B" to indicate a measurement at a different location is required.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    You take the word "entangled" too seriously. They do influence eachother, but only for one observer. That is why they are called entangled.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    The lead "bold" paragraph of the following link seems to contridict your statement that nothing happens to the other particle upon breaking the entanglement.

    The fact is the other particle changes state the instant you measure one particle. The problem is then that the observer of the other particle doesn't know it has changed state until he attempts to measure his particle. Doing so he either breaks the entanglement, changing its state or is reading a changed state due to prior breakage of entanglement by the other observer.

    He would know it changed state but not know if he caused it or if it was a message.

    http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/3/9/1

    An inability to read a message is not the same arguement that messages were not or can not be sent. Frankly it seems Relativity is hiding behind the skirts of some little old ladies.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2004
  8. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    I think it actually supports that statement.

    Isn't this exactly what I have been trying to tell you for 10 posts already ?

    All three at once actually.

    Exactly! Do you agree now that it is impossible to transfer information using entanglement alone ?

    I am surprised that you argued towards the opposite statement for 10 posts, read some physicsweb article and now are ready to take the words of chroot, James, ... and me seriously. You should take into account that some of the people participating in this thread could have written the very same article

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and the other way around. They are not incompatible however.

    Quantum mechanics does not say that the message cannot be read. It says that there is no information at all for the other observer.

    Let me try to explain using an example. I am afraid that it will be totally over your head, but I'll try anyway. You know (or you will now learn) that quantum mechanics allows a system to be in more states at once (superposition). If you take two spin 1/2 particles, you have 4 distinguishable states

    |++> , |+-> , |-+> , |-->

    where + represents spin up and - spin down, and where the first + or - refers to the first particle and the second to the second particle. The entangled state par excellence in this example is that you put the two particles next to eachother, and prepare them in the state

    sqrt(2)<sup>-1</sup> |+-> + sqrt(2)<sup>-1</sup>|-+>

    which means that if you were to measure the system, you would have probability 1/2 to measure both spins in the state |+-> (i.e. the first spin up, the second down) and probability 1/2 to measure them in state |-+> (i.e. the first spin down and the second up). There is no other possible outcome for a measurement.

    Now we seperate both particles. This does not influence the spin-state that I described above, so after the particles have been seperated 5 lightyears (one particle here on earth, one on alpha centauri), we can now perform the measurement back on earth. What can happen ?

    - Either we measure OUR particle to be UP. Since the initial state consisted of |+-> and |-+>, the only state compatible with our UP measurement is the first. Hence, we know that the system, after the measurement, is in the state |+->.

    - Or we measure OUR particle to be DOWN, which means that the system after the measurement is in the state |-+>.

    At that moment, when WE here on EARTH perform the measurement, we instantly know something about alpha centauri at the same time. If we got + here, then we know that the particle on alpha centauri must be in the state - (or if we measured -, we know that the other particle is in the state -).

    That's it. There is nothing more to entanglement. We learn instant information about alpha centauri, but the observer on alpha centauri knows nothing. At best, he can also perform the measurement himself to indeed verify that the system was in the state - (if we measured +) or + (if we measured -).

    Some people claim that it is a problem that we "instantly know something" about alpha centauri. That is not a problem (no real information is transfered, information is inferred), it is consistent with the subluminal information speed as imposed by relativity.

    Furthermore, you cannot use it to transport information: entanglement only works because you are in a superposition of two very nicely distinguishable states. Because you are in a superposition, you cannot "steer" the measurement towards one result -- the final outcome is beyond your control. At most you can reconfigure the initial state such that one outcome (e.g. the state |+-> ) is more probable when measuring, but that is completely useless since the seperation of the particles still needs to occur at subluminal speeds.

    In the previous story you can replace "spin" by "photon" and up/down by the two polarisations to get the experimental reports you read on the web everywhere.

    I hope this clarifies that:
    - Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information.
    - Since no information is transfered, no problem occurs with relativity.
    - It is not a problem of "concealed" information.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thanks for the reply. But I don't think it actually resolves the issue. That depends on the veracity of the claims that others have now developed the process so as to be able to select the state of entanglement created.

    Which they have indeed claimed.
     
  10. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    The state of entanglement is the superposition I listed (which is a perfectly valid state of the system).
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You listed available states of entanglement; which until late were not controllable but the same article states that the technique has been used by several to "Select" ALL up (0's) or ALL down (1's) entanglements. So the states are known, hence a known configuration of particle states can be established.

    i.e. - seperate a series of all up (0's) entangled pairs. Once seperated you can now selectively break the entanglement creating a binary chain of 0's and 1's. Information HAS been sent FTL. The fact that you can't read it doesn't alter the fact that it was sent.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2004
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Crisp,

    Are you familiar with the "Protective Measurement" research funded by the NIAC?
     
  13. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    The same article is very vulgarising, don't rely too much on it. In the example I gave, you could just as well have used the |++> + |--> state. The answer is exactly the same.

    You can even use the |++> or |--> state alone, but that is a trivial situation.

    Okay, you have said it 200 times already, and you have still have nothing to support that claim. Show me WHERE it says that entanglement was used to transfer information. Do not show me some crackpot site.

    With Quantum Physics 101 math, layed out above, you can show that it is not possible to send information using entanglement. You can show that anything that happens is NOT faster than light. I would be very surprised that you can find a serious article which claims the opposite. I think you just didn't understand the example (and to be honest, I think you can only really understand it if you took quantum mechanics) and already have in your head that we are wrong again, just like all the relativity crap. This is not the right attitude to discuss with people who know what they are talking about Mac, it just pisses people off.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Crisp,

    If you feel I have stated that FTL communication has been done then you are mis-interpreting my posts. I am asking that you and others clarify in logical ways why it cannot.

    I understand it is easier to simply say that it can't but since entanglement is now selective (known conditions can be established) and those conditions can be changed and the change forwarded FTL to remote entangled particles; how can one claim the message (information) was not sent?

    Granted it hasn't been read and today we don't know how to read it but as I have said that is a different arguement than saying it hasn't and can't be sent.

    Further you didn't respond to my last message regarding "Protective Measurements" research. (I hope you don't consider NIAC to be crackpot).

    Nor the fact that there are many qualified researchers in the field that disagree with the abolute position you represent that such technology is impossible. It is not just "Crackpot MacM" saying something and there is not supporting qualified scientific basis for it.

    These experiments are about methods to protect entangled particles eigenstates from having their wave function collapsed when being monitored.

    The plan is to use such techniques to simply modulate entangled particles and not alter the spin, etc, and monitor such modulation at the entangled particle without breaking the entanglement.

    I am merely trying to get some comparitive basis between your (and others here) pessimistic attitude in comparison to other more optimistic scientist views.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2004
  15. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    I quote you from a few posts earlier:

    "Once seperated you can now selectively break the entanglement creating a binary chain of 0's and 1's. Information HAS been sent FTL. The fact that you can't read it doesn't alter the fact that it was sent."

    What part about "information HAS been sent FTL" does not say that it hasn't been done according to you ?

    Are you playing your "let's annoy those darn scientists" game again Mac ? This time I won't let you take it far.

    It was explained to you logically earlier. The fact that you do not understand does not undo the fact that it cannot be done. If you want to learn the precise why's and how's, then you'll need to learn quantum mechanics, there is no "version in words" other than the one I gave you already. We can keep going over and over this again, but you haven't got the faintest idea of how measurements are even implemented in quantum mechanics.

    Look Mac, I hate to sway around with diplomas and credentials, but I can assure you that I know how quantum mechanics works. You don't have to try to mother me by saying "yeah yeah, but I read somewhere that this or that" if you have hardly any clue of what it is about. You are defending something you barely understand against someone who knows that what you are using as an argument is simply not reflecting your own opinion.

    You do not understand what is going on. No information is sent. You think there is, but there is not. The problem is that you do not have any experience in quantum mechanics, where things can be in superpositions, spread out non-locally etc etc... You assume that the classical vision on the world that you have also works quantum mechanically. That is not true for relativity (where you also struggle with) and it surely isn't true for quantum mechanics.

    You assume that because for one observer there is something like a collapse for the wavefunction, that this is also true for another observer. This is not the case in any post-Newtonian physical theory -- there is no absolute underlying reality, also not in quantum mechanics. You have to let that idea go to understand quantum mechanics but since you are already having such a bad time with relativity, I think this is beyond your reach at the moment.

    Mac, for the last time... THERE IS NOTHING TO READ FOR ANOTHER OBSERVER WHEN YOU PERFORM A MEASUREMENT.

    No, this time it is Crackpot MacM repeating the wrongly interpreted words of someone else... I also note that you are still to provide a reference where it says "information can be transported faster than light using entanglement".

    I am sure that you cannot provide any. You just read some article on some site that wants to make science accessible to people, got the idea that entanglement transfers information FTL in your head, and nobody will succeed in talking it out of your head. I am asking you now to provide a reference or a calculation which supports your claims. If you cannot provide any, shut up, and accept that it is above your head.

    What you are doing is testing other people's patience. And you're nearing the end of mine... AGAIN.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2004
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I am speaking hypothetically based on claims of others in the field.

    Perhaps you might try reading the NIAC sponsored research by Aharanov, Anandan & Vaidman, regarding their work on non-detructive measurements entitled "Protective Measurement". It is their claim that it should be possible to signal and read changes (Modulations) via entangled particles which do not require a collapse of the entanglement.

    Look, I am not challenging your education. I do question your open mindedness a to some of what is being done in the field. It is as though you have taken intitial findings and cast them in stone and are not interested or aware of some of the recent breakthroughs and what they might mean.

    Your assumptions about my understandings of Relativity are tainted by the fact that I have given this forum some heartburn on the subject.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So why do you suppose many $$$$ and manhours are being dedicated to cracking the issue. If it is impossible shouldn't they admit it and stop wasting time but do something more productive? It all suggest to me that you are clinging to hope that it can't be done so that Relativity doesn't come into conflict.

    Again I haven't actually claimed that. You are taking hypothetical projections
    based on recent changes as meaning others have claimed it. I haven't either.

    Suppose instead you comment on the NIAC information I mentioned. It is not up to me to prove you wrong but up to you to prove you are right.

    Sorry about that but suppose you make direct comparisons of information you claim I have mis-interpreted rather than simply making such statements.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM:

    Stop waffling, and provide a direct reference for your claims, please.

    If you think that somebody has transmitted information FTL using quantum entanglement, quote your source. And don't just link to a 20 page article and expect me to sift through it to find where you've misunderstood. Make sure you provide a precise page reference to the part which supports your claim.

    Thankyou.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Nobody has waffled here James R., I have already explained to Crisp the meaning of my posts. I do not claim FTL communication has been achieved. I do claim He (and others here) are far to absolute in your opinion against it, at least according to those working in that field.

    They seem to believe that is is going to be achieved and are working toward that end.

    There was one case where researchers have claimed to have transmitted a "Mozart" sympanthy at 4.7 'c' via quantum tunneling (11.3 cm). I'll see if I can find it again but to my knowledge that has not been verified and could well be "Cold Fusion" all over again.

    Found it:
    ************************************************
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#11
    11. Quantum Tunnelling
    Quantum Tunnelling is the quantum mechanical effect which permits a particle to escape through a barrier when it does not have enough energy to do so classically. You can do a calculation of the time it takes a particle to tunnel through. The answer you get can come out less than the time it takes light to cover the distance at speed c. Does this provide a means of FTL communication?
    ref:T. E. Hartman, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 3427 (1962).

    The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect. Yet a group of physicists have performed experiments which seem to suggest that FTL communication by quantum tunneling is possible. They claim to have transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony through a barrier 11.4cm wide at a speed of 4.7c. Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the effect is real it is difficult to see why it should not be possible to transmit signals into the past by placing the apparatus in a fast moving frame of reference.
    ref:
    W. Heitmann and G. Nimtz, Phys Lett A196, 154 (1994);
    A. Enders and G. Nimtz, Phys Rev E48, 632 (1993).
    ****************************************************

    Now before you say something about tunneling is not entanglement. I know that but the issue is "The impossability" of FTL communication.

    Perhaps you would like to comment on the NAIC sponsored research "Protective Measurement" process. Or do you also consider the NAIC to be crackpot?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  19. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Bullshit, you jumped on the FTL claim like you do on many other claims, and you are now crawling back. You know damn well that what you meant to say is exactly there "FTL has been done using entanglement". It is now because you cannot provide any reference to your claim that you are backing out.

    This hypothetical crap and "oh, I didn't mean that when I used a declarative syntax" is just hilarious. Just admit that you are crawling back because you can feel the heat.

    You haven't got the FAINTEST idea of what you are talking about. Aharanov follows an interpretation of quantum mechanics called "Bohmian" mechanics (Aharanov and Bohm dit quite some work together). In this interpretation, there is no such thing as the collapse of the wavefunction.

    That explains why there is no destruction of the entanglement. But this is stuff that is surely above your head.

    I am very much aware of recent break throughs in quantum mechanics. I do research in it for, do you think that we just read some stuff from 1920 and work further onto that ?!?

    This has nothing to do with open-mindness, but with the fact that you are using results in a wrong way. Within quantum mechanics, it simply is impossible to transfer information using entanglement. Period. Until a radically new theory is discovered, it will remain that way. Even you should be able to see that from what has been said already (and that you cannot exclude superpositions in a "wave"-description of nature).

    You think much of yourself.

    ... yeah, the conspiracy theory again. I should have known

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I mentioned already that there is not a word of relativity in quantum mechanics. Yet you try to drag it in again. Perhaps it is you ?

    I did prove that I am right. Remember the example of the spins ? Not sufficient ? Not happy ? Considered studying quantum mechanics so I can go into the technical details ?

    What good is me proving anything if you won't understand ? Have you picked up a book on "Entanglement for Dummies" (they exist) already ? No ? Is that my fault ? Do I have to solve that problem for you ? No fucking way.


    I think I learned a good lesson ... again. We have a saying over here, "you cannot teach an old fox new tricks". Very applicable.
     
  20. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Don't try to weasle out of it by introducing quantum tunneling, which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT effect.

    As James said, provide an exact reference for your claim or shut up. Since it seems you are no longer supporting, this entire thread has become quite useless actually. What a shame of all the time that was put into it.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I love the way these issues are reduced to attacking the messenger rather than addressisng the issues raised. Once again it seems more than fool hardy to think so many researchers (highly qualified and as much if not more knowlegable than yourself) are expending so much time trying to achieve the impossible and talk in terms of the ultimate goal of FTL communications.

    I don't crawl for you or anyone. My position stands. You are far to absolute in your statements aboute QM and FTL possibilities as is indicated by the on going research. They are not fools which they surely would be if your claims were even 1% accurate.

    And apparently yours since you didn't seem to care to comment on their work. If their work and the sponsorship of the NAIC is legitimate then your claims are as I have said Bullshit and FTL is considered a possibility by serious scientist.

    So you deny the claims of those that say they can select the entagled condition?

    No but surely more than you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Your comment suggests (as should be expected) the opposite meaning of the inclusion of Relativity into the discussion. We understand that Relativity and QM don't merge harmoniously and that any such findings in QM would destroy Relativity. It isn't a conspiracy but close mindedness regarding the falicy of Relativity by those so blinded by its complexiety.

    Have you addressed these issues in any technical way other than to attack my presentation of what others are saying.? No. Wonder why that might be.

    Perhaps it is not tricks that we should be trying to teach, eh?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    As I expected (and made every effort to avoid) you are attacking the difference between entanglement and tunneling. Lets try responding to the point of the post which is the conflict between your stated position on FTL communications and the claims of researchers in the field of study, shall we.

    I think that would be far more productive don't you. You see if you are wrong about FTL communication being impossible then if this research result is verified the only conclusion is that you are mis-interpreting QM and hence the capacity for FTL communication by entanglement as well.

    Please give us your appraisal of the "Mozart" transmission at 4.7 c.

    You see this issue really is not between some ignorant old fox and some young know it all whippersnapper. It seems more to be between two camps of science those that hold Relativity on a pedestal and those that see through and around it and what its actual benefits and limitations are.

    Fortunately there are those (including me) that really care less about if Relativity is correct or not and continue to do basic research and advance science rather than claim this or that is a waste of time because Relativity says so. That attitude is the waster of time believe me.

    My statements are about the claims of other scientist and not about my own personal detailed knowledge on this issue. Perhaps you can provide us with something more than lip service in responding to the claims of such scientists.

    Either show they are clearly wrong or admit you may not be absolutely right and also hence mistaken about my posts. Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  23. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    You are an idiot. Thank you, I am outta here. Good bye y'all.
     

Share This Page