It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Entanglement - MY hypothetical mechanism to explain Einsteins "spooky action at a distance

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
A while ago, I created a thread titled A possible method for faster than light communication using Pi.

The purpose of that thread was to explore the hypothetical possibility of sufficiently advanced technology allowing the manipulation of the universe's fundamental constants such as pi, e, phi, etc as a means of instantaneous communication across unlimited distances. Essentially, a fun and light hearted "what if ...".


Just the other day, I happened to be re-reading my OP in that particular thread when I had a personal "Eureka" moment and it suddenly occurred to me that the topic of that thread might also have unintentionally given a glimpse into the weird and mysterious world of quantum entanglement and a possible explanation for how the "spooky action at a distance" may work.

Now before I continue, let me be the 1st to admit that I'm probably talking through my hat here and just rambling on ... but to me personally, it makes some kind of sense ... so bear with me as I go through it



Ok, 1st things 1st ... exactly what is quantum entanglement about ?

With the development of Quantum Mechanics starting around the beginning of the 20th century, it soon became apparent that the reality that we take so much for granted around us changes dramatically as we venture deeper and deeper into the atomic and sub-atomic realm.

One of the most unexpected outcomes of QM theory is the notion that 2 particles when created simultaneously, could then be separated by immense distances and yet a change in one of the particle pairs quantum state would be reflected immediately in the other particles quantum state, even if they were located on opposite sides of the universe ... and with no apparent means of communication between them.
This unexpected effect has been confirmed experimentally many times and though we don't, at present, have a clue as to how the 2 particles are able to affect each other instantaneously over immense distances, we have no alternative but to accept the fact that the effect is completely real.
In fact, Einstein was so surprised that he called it "spooky action at a distance" !

A simple example is as follows:

Pairs of particles can be generated that are required to be in certain quantum states. For ease of understanding, consider the situation where a pair of these particles are created, have a two-state spin and one must be spin up and the other must be spin down. These two particles can now be called entangled since you can not fully describe one particle without mentioning the other.

Now at the moment of creation, and if we DO NOT make a measurement of either particle, we have no way of knowing which particle is in which spin state, up or down. Each particle has equal probability of being in one or the other.
So now we very carefully separate (without influencing or affecting in any way) the 2 particles by a considerable distance. At this stage, we still have no idea of their individual spin states.

Now we select one of the particles and perform an experiment that determines that particle's spin state. Because the outcome of the measurement is unpredictable, this will result in a 50% probability of the spin being up or down. Now this is the "spooky" part ... once the spin state of the measured particle becomes known (up or down), the spin state of the other particle, no matter how far away it is and who's spin state was previously unknown, immediately takes on the spin state that is opposite to that carried by the measured particle !

So as I've already mentioned, this entanglement effect is well documented but as to how it happens, well, that completely eludes us at the moment.


Now for my Eureka moment


We know that the universe created many fundamental constants such as pi, e, phi as well as many others. As far as we know, these constants exist throughout the universe and in fact, if these constants had any other value then their current values, the chances are that we wouldn't even exist and perhaps not even the universe as we know it.

Lets now make an assumption.

Lets assume that whenever a pair of particles are created, e.g. 2 photons, that at the same time, another item is also created ... one that we can't see, touch, measure or in anyway be informed of it's existence.

This additional item is a constant.

This particular constant when created is specific to it's associated particle pair and to no other particle pair. A further assumption would be that each particle pair is produced with a unique constant ... in other words, the universe does not allow identical constants to exist at the same time, otherwise there would be no way to tell such identical constants apart. So when a particle pair is created, a unique constant linked to this specific particle pair comes into existence.

If the universe can create constants such as pi, e, phi, etc, why should it not be able to create any number, or even an infinite number, of additional constants ? If not, then this would be a new law in physics, namely:

The number of fundamental constants is finite within a given universe

If such is proven to be true, then I claim naming rights and henceforth this law shall be known as
Tauristercus's Law of Finite Constant Creation

otherwise if not true, then I lay claim to
Tauristercus's Law of Infinite Constant Creation



But for the sake of this thread, lets assume that there actually is an infinite supply of fundamental constants and that the universe can create a new one as needed ... in this case what I'll essentially now call an entanglement constant.

So what's the purpose of this entanglement constant ?
Oh, I also lay claim to naming this entanglement constant and henceforth it's designation will be ec ... not as catchy as pi or phi ... but what the heck, it's all mine !!!!


I propose that the primary purpose of this ec is to provide the necessary linkage between the 2 particles.
I also propose that a secondary purpose of this ec is to act as a kind of "repository" and store all the relevant quantum state details and properties of each of the 2 particles e.g. spin state of particle 1, spin state of particle 2, etc

Now here's the beauty and simplicity of such an arrangement involving 2 particles and their associated ec linkage.

Because a fundamental constant is available anywhere in the universe and it's value likewise available anywhere in the universe, this means that no matter where the 2 entangled particles end up in the universe or how far apart, they will ALWAYS be linked by their unique ec.

Therefore, when a measurement is made on the spin state of one of the particles and it collapses to say, spin up ... the corresponding ec "repository" value for the spin state of that particle is immediately updated to spin up ...


... and the corresponding ec "repository" value for the spin state of the distant particle is immediately updated to show the opposite spin state of the measured particle ... and immediately results in that distant particle being forced into, and acquiring, that opposite spin state.


And because the ec permeates the entire universe, any change to the ec is IMMEDIATELY reflected throughout the entire universe and explains why the distant particle is IMMEDIATELY forced into a specific spin state that is opposite to the spin state of the measured particle.

So no need whatsoever to try different "tricks" such as breaking the light speed barrier, wormholes, hyperspace or any other means of getting information from one place to another instantaneously ... just entangle the 2 particles, at the moment of their creation, with their very own unique and fundamental constant !



Summary:

  • When 2 particles are created simultaneously, a new entanglement constant, ec, is created that links the 2 particles permanently.
  • The ec acts as a "repository" that maintains all the pertinent quantum state properties of both particles.
  • The ec "mediates" the interactions of the 2 particles, no matter the distance separating the particles. When the quantum state of one particle changes, the ec is immediately updated, this update immediately appears throughout the universe, immediately interacts with the other particle and forcing an associated quantum state change to take place immediately.
  • The ec extends throughout the entire universe from the instant of it's creation, thereby overcoming any light speed limitations and/or distance limitations.
  • If one (or both) of the particles is converted to energy, their unique ec is immediately removed from the universe.


    Ok, so there you have ... for whatever it's worth

    I know that there's a heap of questions that need answering, such as how are the particle's respective quantum states converted into "information" stored within their ec, how are "unique" entanglement constants created, how are the unique entanglement constants linked to a particular pair of particles, etc, etc ... but current Quantum Mechanics is just full of such unanswered questions - but that doesn't stop us from using it !

    Could Einsteins "spooky action at a distance" be explained simply as quantum state information exchange between the 2 entangled particles by way of a unique and specific entanglement constant, created at the instant of particle creation and permanently linked to them ?

    Beats me ... but sure sounded good in my head !

    edit on 25/1/11 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)




  • posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:54 AM
    link   
    Add the way billiard balls react/or the funny toy on peopls desk....the energy travels almost instantaneously, and like the spin of the ball will alternate spins as it ripples throguh the other balls, varying densities of other pool balls/particles effect the situation...

    IMO helps to see it this way...



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:00 AM
    link   
    De Broglie–Bohm theory provides (an albeit tenuous) wave based solution but I often thought it would make more sense to imagine all things (measurable by us) as intrinsically entangled from their point of origin.

    Our plane of perception (primarily based around EM energy) is probably only one layer of the onion so it wouldnt actually be "spooky" at all if we found that distance and time are in fact just a limitation of our perception.





    edit on 25-1-2011 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:34 AM
    link   
    It does sound like an interesting theory to make some head way into the subatomic world. So what are the factors that make the ec? Is it based just on the time of creation or does distance between creation also have an effect? How close in time and space do the creation events have to be to be considered entangled? Is this entanglement a hard defined edge or is there more of a probability of entanglement the closer two partials are created?

    One interesting fact that a wise man once told me is that in our analogue world 1 + 1 does not equal 2. It is very, very close but there is a problem in the fact that no two entities are exactly equal.

    Overall I see your theory as a good idea.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:53 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by kwakakev
    It does sound like an interesting theory to make some head way into the subatomic world. So what are the factors that make the ec? Is it based just on the time of creation or does distance between creation also have an effect? How close in time and space do the creation events have to be to be considered entangled? Is this entanglement a hard defined edge or is there more of a probability of entanglement the closer two partials are created?

    One interesting fact that a wise man once told me is that in our analogue world 1 + 1 does not equal 2. It is very, very close but there is a problem in the fact that no two entities are exactly equal.

    Overall I see your theory as a good idea.


    Wise words indeed...our entire perception is just a proximation of reality so within our own systems (such as maths) we apply absolutes to best fit our own scenario.

    The interesting thing about maths is that it is seemingly unlimited in terms of it's ability to allow us to communicate complex ideas.....most advances in quantum physics owe there acceptability to an initial catalyst of "discovery" in maths that provides a great best fit solution to existing postualted theories.


    ..

    I wouldnt be surprised if a mathematically sound unified field theory is generated by some quantum computer in the next 20 years unlocking our next plane of perception....
    edit on 25-1-2011 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by kwakakev
    It does sound like an interesting theory to make some head way into the subatomic world. So what are the factors that make the ec?


    I'll try to answer to the best of my limited abilities ... keep in mind that I'll be trying to formulate answers to your (and other) questions that at least try to make some sense and that fit in with my hypothesis.

    Hope I don't spew too much crap as a result !




    Is it based just on the time of creation or does distance between creation also have an effect?

    In my mind, the ec must be created at exactly the same instant of time that the paired particles are created and it's at this point in time that 3 things have to happen:

    1. The particle pair is created

    2. The ec is created ... how ? I don't know ... but then again I have no idea how pi, e, phi, etc are created by the universe either. Obviously there MUST be a mechanism to create the constants as I don't believe that pi, e, phi, etc have always existed. Probably created as part of the big bang.

    So whatever mechanism was used then, could be re-used to create an ec when needed.

    3. Once in existence, the newly created ec is then somehow linked to both particles and their quantum states "imprinted or stored" within the ec.
    Then no matter how far apart the particle pair eventually become, the ec continues to link them and provide the means by which a measurement on one particle immediately transfers to the other particle and forces it into the appropriate quantum state.



    How close in time and space do the creation events have to be to be considered entangled? Is this entanglement a hard defined edge or is there more of a probability of entanglement the closer two partials are created?

    From what I understand, the entanglement event happens automatically and immediately as part of the particle pair creation.
    This would have me think that there is one additional step or process involved in particle pair creation that current physics may be completely unaware off, simply because we have no way of detecting or measuring it when it happens .. and that's the critical step of ec creation which provides the actual entanglement process.
    Not realizing that an ec is created and crucial to the entanglement process, we're left to struggle with the mystery of how 2 particles are able to interact with each other over unimaginable distances ... leaving us with Einstein's mysterious and misunderstood "spooky action at a distance" conundrum. Adding an ec may just provide the missing clue.


    Another questions to ponder which is an unknown:

    Would the quantum states of both particles be "stored" within the ec before it links to both particles ... or does the linkage occur 1st and then the quantum states stored ?


    edit on 25/1/11 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:00 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by tauristercus

    Lets assume that whenever a pair of particles are created, e.g. 2 photons, that at the same time, another item is also created ... one that we can't see, touch, measure or in anyway be informed of it's existence.

    This additional item is a constant.

    What a great post. star and flag. The more discussion about quantum related matters the better.

    I have a possible albeit controversial answer to this. Before anyone jumps on me and says 'oh that's crazy, you're nuts.' Please think how quantum entanglement completely confuses even the best physicists on earth.

    It has been suggested that your newly discovered 'constant' could in fact be a CPU, and we are in fact living in a computer simulation.

    This would explain perfectly how the 'constant' could interact with both entangled particles regardless of distance (and possibly time) at the exact same moment in time. It's like individual pixels on a monitor. They both activate at the exact same time when instructed to by the CPU, regardless of the monitor size or where they are positioned on the monitor.

    Simplistic, yes, possible? Maybe.

    You could go further and say that the speed of light is the limit to the processing speed of the CPU.

    Anyway, great thinking ! Love it.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:03 AM
    link   
    tauristercus

    I have no idea whether your hypothesis is right, wrong or somewhere in between. But I'll tell you honestly that after having reread it a few times, it's even starting to make some kind of sense even to me

    What I like about it is that, barring the finer and unexplained points, the hypothesis is remarkably simple yet goes a considerable way to explaining a process that so far has remained mysterious and without a satisfactory explanation as to how two entangled particles can somehow stay in touch even when on opposite sides of the universe.

    Good luck with the hypothesis and here's an extremely well deserved F & S !



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:07 AM
    link   
    reply to post by tauristercus
     


    From your reply is sounds like a time variable is the main factor used to create the ec. If this is the case then distance does not matter as with their 'spooky' at a distance reaction. So it should be possible to test this by creating two partials in different places at the same time and testing if this entanglement is still present. I do not have the equipment or know how to do this, but it may be an interesting experiment.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:22 AM
    link   
    Nice!! I like the way you explained it. I love reading about QM. So based on my reading I do feel as if these particles/atoms/cells have some sort of knowledge built in. I don't want to get all metaphysical but could the "ec" be stored in some sort of universal field like the Akashic Records?

    Can't quite wrap my mind around how things just know what to do. Like how the cells in our body have memory or know what to do and what their jobs are etc...



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:33 AM
    link   
    do you think life and death are entangled like the future and past are....

    kx



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:37 PM
    link   
    You wrote..One of the most unexpected outcomes of QM theory is the notion that 2 particles when created simultaneously, could then be separated by immense distances and yet a change in one of the particle pairs quantum state would be reflected immediately in the other particles quantum state, even if they were located on opposite sides of the universe ... and with no apparent means of communication between them.

    My theory is that the 'particles' are actually just one particle, not two seperate ones. Why we 'see' it as two particles is a mystery at this time.
    If it is the same particle, but in two different places then you would expect to see one move as the other is touched.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:51 PM
    link   
    Sorry, but I don't buy it.

    For me, the most probable explanation is that of quantum strings: the two particles seem to be separated, but they are actually not separated; they are the two edges of a string, and when one edge of the string is changed, the whole string has to change, including the other edge.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:08 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by masterp
    Sorry, but I don't buy it.

    For me, the most probable explanation is that of quantum strings: the two particles seem to be separated, but they are actually not separated; they are the two edges of a string, and when one edge of the string is changed, the whole string has to change, including the other edge.


    So if we go with your alternative, are you suggesting that the string has the ability to vary it's length depending on how far apart the 2 particles are ? Would there be a limit to how much the string could be stretched ? ... I would have thought that there would have to be a natural limit to a strings, shall we say, "elasticity" ? Please correct me if a string is infinitely stretchable.

    On the other hand, replacing your "connecting string" with a fundamental "entanglement constant" that is unique to the particle pair immediately removes any such "stretching limitation" ... as a fundamental constant exists throughout the entire universe and does not need to be stretched. The value of such an "entanglement constant" would be identical no matter where you are in the universe and both particles would have equal access to their "entanglement constant" even if separated by the entire width of the universe.

    Can you say that a string would be capable of being stretched from one side of the universe to the other ? I may be wrong but I would tend to doubt that a string would have such a property.

    Given the choice of a "stretching string" or "entanglement constant", I'd go with the constant if for no other reason than simplicity ... choosing the simplest of 2 alternatives capable of producing the same end result is usually the way to go.



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:18 PM
    link   
    Ok, fellow ATS members - I'm now at the point that I'm seriously believing that the ATS forum is degenerating into little more than an electronic version of a sensationalist tabloid magazine !

    Here we have, for a change, an extremely thought provoking thread based on a very interesting hypothesis and that should be filling up with responses and debate and remaining consistently on the front page. But instead we see a bare minimum of responses and an overall lack of interest.
    Now that is sad indeed



    tauristercus

    This is a great thread topic and very well done indeed.

    But having said that, perhaps in any future thread along similar lines, you may be well advised to throw in the odd reference to aliens, ufo's, reptilian shape shifters, Obama's birth certificate, 2012, Nabiru, global catastrophe, Mayan calendars and any other pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that currently has the undivided attention of the majority of ATS members.

    At least that way your threads will be guaranteed a sizeable response



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:39 PM
    link   
    so, you have come over here to play now? i promise i will not steal your ball this time.

    speaking of balls. errr. particles......

    .....what is really great about what you have done here is that it is exactly what all modern physicists do. they invent smaller particles. the initial particles, themselves, are theoretical abstractions. but they are misbehaving! so what to do?

    answer: invent a secondary layer of abstracted particles which contain the information which instructs the primary layer of abstracted particles. this is a very common practice, not only in physics, i have also seen it in biology. and, oddly, it is an approach that often works.

    i told you in your other thread that having a "bottom-level" particle is a notion that einstein would very much have enjoyed. this is because einstein was obsessed about causality. the problem with looking at reality as being fundamentally particle-driven is that you are forever pushing causality downward into smaller and smaller particles.

    the fundamental belief behind this is that the flow of information in the universe is in a bottom -> upward direction.

    IMO, it is much more true-to-human-experience that information flows from the top -> downward.

    but if you look at it from the top, down, you are then forced into crazy things like reverse-causality and ghosts in the machine. these ideas make physicists very uneasy. no. better to just invent another particle.


    bah!



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:14 PM
    link   
    reply to post by tauristercus
     


    Neat thread. Your idea is interesting and I'll give it some thought in light of some other research and study I've done in this area.

    There are a number of things that may explain quantum entanglement including string theory and the holographic model.




    Can you say that a string would be capable of being stretched from one side of the universe to the other ? I may be wrong but I would tend to doubt that a string would have such a property.


    String theory is far richer and more complex than just 2 balls on a string for the purpose of quantum entanglement. At it's core, it is the very structure of the universe - potentially that elusive "bottom" as one of the other members has talked about. All matter, energy and even the "vacuum" of space are all built upon this structure - to say nothing of all the other dimensions beyond those that we can perceive directly. Quantum entanglement is simply one small property of that structure. It's actually a very elegant solution and the maths that support it are pretty impressive. But it's still just theory....

    If you really want to have your mind blown, check out the holographic model. It's mentioned in a vid in one of the current threads here on ATS talking about the nature of reality and which also touches on quantum entanglement. Coolest thing of all is that we're actually testing the potential validity of that theory now....real world, vs just theory, maths, etc. Imagine if it's proven through this experiment that we are nothing more than a 2-D holographic projection of information that sits on the outer edge of our universe? Makes us all just players in a universal-sized soap opera on the biggest screen you can imagine....pixels and ghosts in a colossal machine.

    The mind reels...



    posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:54 PM
    link   
    Quantum Entanglement is a mysterious artefact of observation, and it's actually something I'm working on at the moment (along with some other related areas). The idea that there is some sort of fundamental 'constant' connecting the two created particles is interesting. That being said, though, there's a problem with viewing constants as physical things. Consider pi. It's not a law; it's a ratio. It is constant, but so is the square-root of 2. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Why is that value constant? Because the definition of a circle is constant (any ratio other than pi will not give you a circle). Pi is an artefact of geometry.
    Real physical constants, like the Gravitational constant, G, for example, are also not as real as some people think they are. They only "exist" to scale up from the quantum world to the world in which we observe its effects. If we use natural (normalized) units, then G goes away and gravity becomes a direct result of 2 interacting masses with no scaling constant. And the same goes for the other constants. They don't really exist - they're just a result of our large-scale observations and not wanting to have to add x10^40 to everyday measurements.

    Now, the kind of connection you're talking about, I think, is something different from the typical concept of a constant, so it escapes all of what I just said. The theory of interconnecting strings is actually very similar to your idea, because strings could very well be the physical description of your abstract "constant" theory. Or, there might be some other mechanism responsible altogether.

    Also, there might be some flaw in our understanding of what effect observation has on quantum states and just what Schrödinger's Cat really means. Sure, when we look in the box, the cat is either dead or alive, but the cat has certainly arrived at that state before we look. The quantum state of one particle depends on another, so, when we look at one, the other is automatically known, but does that mean they weren't in those states to begin with, before we observed them? Of course, there are some problems with this idea (for starters, probability and uncertainty are fundamental to QM), but QM is obviously a bit incomplete.

    I would venture a guess at what I think is the cause of quantum entanglement, but I think I'll keep my ideas to myself for the time being. Unless, of course, you ask what I think is the cause, and then I'll be "spookily forced at a distance" to tell you.



    posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:48 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by tgidkp
    so, you have come over here to play now? i promise i will not steal your ball this time.

    "... come over here to play now ?"
    "I promise I will not steal your ball this time."

    In a denigrating mood, much ? Enjoy talking down to people, much ? Have feelings of self-importance, superiority and inflated ego, much ? Have a propensity to use childlike expressions in your conversations, much ?

    Sure seems that way to me



    FYI: Much as you may believe you may have stolen my balls ... believe me the entire complement is still well and truly attached.





    .....what is really great about what you have done here is that it is exactly what all modern physicists do. they invent smaller particles ...

    bah!


    Good to see that you read my OP and understood it ... NOT !

    For all your talk of my resorting to the simple expedience of "inventing smaller particles", there is not a single reference or intimation in my entire thread that that is what I am proposing.

    A "smaller particle" has the implication of "something" having a specific location in space & time and does not exceed certain parameters. Obvious examples are photons, electrons, protons, ... heck, the entire sub-atomic menagerie !
    Not one of those examples finds itself capable of being spread throughout the universe.

    Instead, if you had paid closer attention ... or perhaps completed reading the OP, you would by the end of it have had it firmly explained that I was referring to a specific type of fundamental constant that is currently unknown.

    I called this particle-pair specific constant an "entanglement constant" as its creation and existence is linked to only that particle pair, and no other ... in other words it is particle-pair unique. I also gave this entanglement constant particular properties that allowed it to propagate throughout space instantly (as ALL the fundamental constants already do); to act as a mediator between the particle-pair irrespective of the distance separating them; and to store quantum state information relevant to its particle-pair.
    This entanglement constant would be the conduit that permitted, and gave an explanation to, the "spooky at a distance action" conundrum.

    So how do you manage to go from my clear concept of a new fundamental entanglement constant ... to just another particle ?



    posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
    link   
    reply to post by CLPrime
     





    I would venture a guess at what I think is the cause of quantum entanglement, but I think I'll keep my ideas to myself for the time being. Unless, of course, you ask what I think is the cause, and then I'll be "spookily forced at a distance" to tell you.


    I definitely be interested in what you think re: cause for QE.

    Look forward to seeing your thoughts.




    top topics



     
    13
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join