It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Quantum entanglement is more problematic. We have shown that it exists in laboratory experiments, but in these experiments the apparatus (and the observed results) are all stationary in a single frame of reference. They are also physically proximate to one another. Does entanglement still occur when the members of the particle pair are light-years apart? Or when one is moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light relative to the other?
Even a slight difference in velocity will cause time dilation to occur, and I can't imagine that two particles will become unentangled if we change their velocities slightly. So something is not adding up here...
Consider, for example, how you would preserve a photon (or any other particle) in a particular energy or spin state while transporting it several light-years at a substantial fraction of c. Would that be technically possible? How? I don't think anyone has the faintest idea how it could be done; it seems impossible for any number of reasons.
However, the problem is not that entanglement might not occur under such conditions but whether it is simultaneous, and what simultaneity means in this context.
It is, I believe, no more possible to transmit information faster than light than it would be to travel at superluminal speeds oneself. FTL communication presents as many irresolvable contradictions as FTL travel.
We can transport entangled particles across the country, proving that entangled particles can be moving at different velocities and still maintain their partnership. Thus there's no reason what so ever that such a particle couldn't be slowly accelerated to the speed of light.
QM actually answers most of those questions.
I just have a gut feeling this is wrong
Originally posted by ChaoticOrderThis directly opens up the door for time travelling into the future, however there would be no way to return back to the past.
A consequence of removing wavefunction collapse from the quantum formalism is that the Born rule requires derivation, since many-worlds claims to derive its interpretation from the formalism. Attempts have been made, by many-world advocates and others, over the years to derive the Born rule, rather than just conventionally assume it, so as to reproduce all the required statistical behaviour associated with quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on whether this has been successful.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows one to predict probabilities for the occurrence of various events. In the many-worlds interpretation, all these events occur simultaneously. What meaning should be given to these probability calculations? And why do we observe, in our history, that the events with a higher computed probability seem to have occurred more often? One answer to these questions is to say that there is a probability measure on the space of all possible universes, where a possible universe is a complete path in the tree of branching universes. This is indeed what the calculations seem to give. Then we should expect to find ourselves in a universe with a relatively high probability rather than a relatively low probability: even though all outcomes of an experiment occur, they do not occur in an equal way. As an interpretation which is consistent with the equations, it is hard to find tests of MWI that distinguish it from other mainstream interpretations.
In de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well-defined trajectory. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum). It is the lack of knowledge of the particle's trajectory that accounts for the uncertainty relation. What one can know about a particle at any given time is described by the wavefunction. Since the uncertainty relation can be derived from the wavefunction in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it can be likewise derived (in the epistemic sense mentioned above), on the de Broglie–Bohm theory.
To put the statement differently, the particles' positions are only known statistically. As in classical mechanics, successive observations of the particles' positions refine the experimenter's knowledge of the particles' initial conditions. Thus, with succeeding observations, the initial conditions become more and more restricted. This formalism is consistent with the normal use of the Schrödinger equation.
De Broglie–Bohm theory
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
I've thought about quantum mechanics and reality for some time now , even more so after reading Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance , then looking into Immanuel Kant - The critique of pure reason and David Humes work on the subject of reality and information and data we receive from our senses .
if we are a simulation but not by our decendants but of another species where did they get the concept of humans and consciousness to which we as simulations are given the mental power to have imagination.