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

reply to post by tauristercus

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

what you have done is exactly the same thing that others have done. there are a menagerie of exotic particles with special properties that have been invented in the same way you did, and for the same reasons.

so, i will point out to you the obvious problem by posing a question about your new particle. please give this plenty of thought.

how does YOUR particle know what to do?

there are certain properties of your new particle which allow it to perform its essential functions. where did these properties come from? if you invent another new particle, i am going to scream.


P.S. what you have interpreted as me being denigrating was actually me extending my hand. please ignore my superiority complex and try to focus on the issues. i am not trying to put you down.

Originally posted by tauristercus

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.

Your constant idea does not have substance; it's an abstract concept.

Yes, the strings can be infinitely stretched.

reply to post by Riffrafter


Alrighty. You forced me into it

Personally, I think the requirement of two particles necessarily having differing quantum states is suggestive of the Pauli Exclusion Principle being at play. Because of that, I would consider the following possibility:

At an instant, in the time the two particles are emitted/created, their relationship is indistinguishable from that of an electron pair in an orbital. This invokes the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which, in that instant, forces the particles to assume differing quantum states. After that, the distance between the two overcomes the "orbital-esque" relationship, and the particles retain their forced-opposite states.

No "spooky action at a distance" required.
But, then, I haven't given much thought to it. I've been focusing more on the fundamental nature of probabilities, particles, and forces, rather than that of QE, but it's what comes to mind at the moment.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by tauristercus

 

so, i will point out to you the obvious problem by posing a question about your new particle. please give this plenty of thought.

how does YOUR particle know what to do?

there are certain properties of your new particle which allow it to perform its essential functions. where did these properties come from? if you invent another new particle, i am going to scream.

I have to state yet again that I am NOT simply throwing in a new particle as a "band-aid" solution to entanglement ... and I'm not sure why you continue to refer to it as a "new particle".
A particle, such as a photon or electron are in no way comparable to one of the universe's many fundamental constants. They are 2 completely different beasts in every way.

Again, I am hypothesizing a new, fundamental constant that is specific and unique to ONLY the particle-pair being created ... and no other particle pair.

I realize that you're trying to pin me down on specifics and truthfully, I wish I could give you detailed answers.
But being just a hypothesis of mine, it must obviously be considered in terms of "generalities", possibilities and "what ifs", rather than absolutes.
I saw an unanswered question (quantum entanglement) and tried to hypothesize a "loose and general" solution that tried to come up with reasonable possibilities.

In fact, here's a repeat of what I said in my OP where I basically said I was "tossing ideas around":

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 !

And just because I can't provide absolute specifics for you, should in no way invalidate my attempted hypothesis.
After all, isn't QM absolutely riddled with unknowns and yet that doesn't stop us from accepting it's reality or from using it !

Others with more expertise and time, and assuming they are interested, could look further into my hypothesis and I would assume be able to very quickly knock it on the head if its nothing more than a load of rubbish

P.S. what you have interpreted as me being denigrating was actually me extending my hand. please ignore my superiority complex and try to focus on the issues. i am not trying to put you down.

In that case, my misunderstanding and I apologize.

reply to post by CLPrime


Having had a chance to think about this some more, I think that suggesting an initial "choice" which both particles then stick to is inching a bit too close to a classical model of something that has no basis in classical physics. I still think the similarity between electron pairs in orbitals and particle pairs in entanglement, and the use of the Pauli Exclusion Principle this suggests, is a tempting route to follow, but I had another idea. It's a short and simple observation, but it might be a strong point of the "string" idea (it might even have already been thought of, I don't know...I'm not all that familiar with this string theory-esque explanation of entanglement):

If you have a length of tube and connect one end to a flat surface (using a 3D tube and a 2D surface to simulate a 4D string and our 3D space), you get what might be called a particle where the tube connects to the surface. The tube can then be rotated, which would appear to someone observing within the 2D surface as if the particle is spinning.
Now, if you connect the other end of the tube to the surface, you get 2 particles. Then, if you rotate the tube, both particles appear to spin, but, interestingly enough, the particles spin in different directions.

So, if we just look at the spin states of entanglement pairs, then the "string" explanation might be onto something. And, tauristercus, I still think your idea could simply be the superficial mathematical explanation of the underlying physical cause (i.e., if the "string" idea is right, then your entanglement constants are the mathematical descriptions of those strings). All in all, I'm rather impressed by your idea. Like you've said, it would definitely need more work to flesh it out, but it's as good an idea as any physicist has ever started out with. Keep thinking outside the box.

reply to post by CLPrime

Now, if you connect the other end of the tube to the surface, you get 2 particles. Then, if you rotate the tube, both particles appear to spin, but, interestingly enough, the particles spin in different directions.

That is a very good observation might be onto something. Is it possible to entangle 3 particles and how do they interact?

reply to post by kwakakev


Entanglement has been done with entire nuclei (in fact, ion pairs are the simplest system to entangle that gives the most observationally explicit results), and I know that quantum teleportation can make use of three-particle entanglement. And while entanglement, itself, is based on Bell pairs, which are pairs of particles (well, specifically, pairs of quantum states), this is only the simplest case - 3 states have been entangled based on spin, 5 states have been entangled between photons, and 8 states have been entangled between ions. I'm not overly aware of how these multi-state entanglements interact, because they're mostly buried in scientific papers that I don't feel like paying or signing up for to access them, but I imagine it's just an extension of the 2-particle entanglement. If that's the case, then the tube/string idea fails for more than 2 particles, because the tube would either have to split off into different connected tubes (which would fatally limit its movement), or it would have to do more than spin to represent the other quantum states, and, as far as I know, spinning is about the only thing a tube connected to a surface can do.

reply to post by CLPrime


Well there is obviously some connection between these entangled partials, seeing it as a straight rod makes sense when two partials are involved. Above that it does get technical, maybe some kind of diff (as in car) is involved to join and pass along the entanglement. It is a pretty technical field and tough to work on, it is good to hear your understanding of it. I know the hassles in getting good research material.

reply to post by kwakakev


Hm. A differential is an interesting idea. Of course, some might say that's a bit too "mechanical" and classical to seriously be considered, but I think all avenues have to be considered, and we have to start somewhere.

Thinking about this problem, I took a walk back to a (now snow-covered) gravel pit behind my house where I've always seemed to be able to think a bit more clearly. And today was no different. I had an interesting idea that, by itself, might (maybe, possibly, potentially) fundamentally explain both quantum entanglement and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. I'm going to work on it a bit more to see where it goes before I say much more about it, but I will say this: as soon as I thought of it, everything I looked at suddenly seemed a bit different to me - the snow, the trees, it all suddenly had a bit of a "shiny, illusory" feel (not to say things actually physically changed appearance, my idea just made me look at things quite a bit differently...the last time something like that happened was a few years ago when I first started learning about Quantum Mechanics).

Also... tauristercus, if you're still watching this thread, I kinda feel like I'm hijacking it...if I'm sidetracking your idea, I apologize. You just hit a nerve, and, I must say, if an idea sparks productive interest, I think it's worth it.

Can we assume that if the big bang is an acceptable theory for the origin of this universe, and all this energy once occupied the same space, that as a result everything is already entangled with another?
Also, consider that constants derived from logic are true under any logical circumstance (and therefore every logical universe). Truth exists no matter how you re-arrange the universe, and any logical constant is a piece of the truth. So my point is, entanglement may be simply, a truthful reflection of the 'relationship' between any two things, such that any comparison being made arises in an truthful expression of that which is being compared, regardless of space or time, simply because it is true. Where there are only 2 possibilities of spin, up or down, and in a realm where time and therefore space has no meaning, if one is up, the other must be down, because in the realm of eternity, there is no taking turns, for the truth is frozen, not in time, but without it.

reply to post by IiZaLerAiI


Well, first of all, the matter and energy in the universe did not all occupy the same space at one point in time - at least, no more than it occupies the same space now.
Also, even if it had, that would mean that all particles should be entangled. They're not. Particles only entangle under certain conditions.

reply to post by CLPrime


So the big bang couldn't have been a singularity? Curious to know if theres proof of this, because I must've missed it.
Suppose I need better sources. Anyway, that's too bad if you're right, because it'd make this universe much more fun. I propose then, that we entangle it all! Apologies for wasting your time with my nonsense. Carry on.

reply to post by IiZaLerAiI


It's certainly not nonsense. All input is more than welcome, because this is a very mysterious topic, and the only way to come at something like this is to do it from all sides. That's the only way to solve anything, really...and that's why I love ATS, it's not afraid of being outside the box.

As for the Big Bang originating from a singularity, that is a slightly out-dated image. I'll admit, it's still a possibility, in the event that the current "Big Bang" model is wrong, but, according to the current model, the formation and initial inflation of the universe was, itself, the source of the energy that now fills it.
The energy did not exist to begin with. When space-time formed, it was as empty as the vacuum of space is now -- by it's modern physics definition, a vacuum is space which is at its lowest possible (zero-point) energy state. And this zero-point energy is not real energy, it's "virtual" energy, because it's a natural result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...

Heisenberg Uncertainty says that the more precisely you know a particle's momentum, the less precisely you can know its position; and the more precisely you know its position, the less precisely you can know its momentum. Because of this, particles can "pop" into existence for brief periods of time without violating the Conservation of Energy - if their existence is limited, then their position is essentially unknown, and, if their position is unknown, then they can have any momentum (and, as a result, any energy). These temporary vacuum particles are called "virtual" particles, and the energy they represent is zero-point (or vacuum) energy.

Now, back to when the universe formed: the zero-point energy it contained was immensely (maybe even infinitely) larger than it is now. Zero-point energy is repulsive by nature (it's essentially anti-gravity, and, in the current model, is identical to Einstein's Cosmological constant), so, within a veeeeerrrrrrry short period of time, this repulsive energy caused the universe to expand at a ridiculous rate. This period of expansion is called the Inflation Epoch, and it led to the uniformity we now see in the large-scale structure of the universe.
As the universe expanded, however, the zero-point energy field collapsed, quickly falling to its current level, and the energy released during the collapse of the field was converted into real particles as the universe cooled.

This is the current model of how the universe formed. Technically, it's not the Big Bang Theory anymore - it's the LCDM Model, because it involves L (lambda - Einstein's Cosmological constant) and cold dark matter, rather than just a simple explosion from a singularity.
But, of course, it's still just a theory.