entanglement?

Holographic Universe or Computer Simulation? Big Bang or God?

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

entanglement?

Postby torbjon » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:56 am

There's no real Basic Science forum here, is there? ... I don't know where to put this.

Something that has been bothering me for ages now is the linear mindset of math in general and quantum entanglement specifically. I look at the math and it's linear, even when placed in a static state (null time) and this is whack. This is not the way things seem to work.

I first became really aware of the problem about 25 years ago when trying to program a computer to display the motion of globular super clusters. The program is pretty simple: Create an array for the stars, give each star a physical position (x,y,z) give it a mass, give it a vector (initial direction of movement through space) and a velocity. Drop the z coordinate and plot the x and y values to the screen. We now have a static 2D map of a globular super cluster.

If we fire it up at this point the 'stars' simply continue to plot based upon their initial vector, ie. there is no interaction between them. We need to add at least gravity into the mix to simulate the real thing (also entropy, drag, stellar decay, etc, but at least gravity)

So we drop a simple Newtonian mass attraction formula into the mix: Force = Gravitational Constant times (Mass1 times Mass2 over Distance between the masses Squared)

And yes I Know this formula is flawed but it's close enough for a simulation.

Gig is the model would fly apart after about 100 simulated years or less. The problem was with close encounters. When two simulated stars got close to each other star A got a big simulated gravity kick from star B, plotted accordingly, then when it came time for star B to run the formula star A was long gone and couldn't pay back the gravity kick.

Fine, program for close encounters, and reduce the time increment. Much better simulation but still the same problem. Clusters would fly apart much faster than they do in real life.

Okay, fine, fold the array into a higher dimension (talk about a memory hog) and run each pass of the gravity equation on a static (null time) model, plot each result into a higher level of the array, once every pass has been made average each plot down to the base level and plot the x/y values to the screen.

The result was something that took Hours for each single pass and Months for visible results. It was a much better simulation but in the end the things Still flew apart.

The above is somewhat simplistic; yes I used better gravitational models, yes I used floating point processing with the highest degree of accuracy allowed by the machines, no, no one could do better with the same hardware. Even the 'big kids' with the super duper 'you can only touch this if you are a God' computers had problems with their models (which were much much much better than mine but Still 'wrong')

The problem seems to stem from linear processing, linear math, linear Thought.

The world just doesn't work that way.

Two or more masses interact with each other Simultaneously. The math on star A "Creates" the math on star B which is "Creating" the math on star A ad infinitum. One creates the other which creates the one, as it were...

Chatting about it, it's an obvious and simple concept. "Simultaneous Processing", right? Any numbnut can grasp that, yes? Just do all the math at the same time...

So I've been following quantum entanglement for some years now and for some reason That set of brainiacs just don't seem to get that simple "Simultaneous Processing" gig... why is that?

Currently the theory goes something like this: If Bimbo A measures an entangled particle A then Bozo B particle will indeed collapse into a given state instantaneously, but Bozo B won't know if the B particle has collapsed into that state due to the actions of Bimbo A or the measurement of Bozo B. Ergo you can't use quantum entanglement / quantum teleportation for FTL or instantaneous communication.

This is so freeking linear it drives me crazy.

So what happens if Bimbo A and Bozo B both measure their respective entangled particles at the same instant?

Whose measurement collapses what particle where and why?

The real world does simultaneous reciprocal equations alla the time... in fact it seems kinda like the Natural Order Of Things...

So why can't we do it on paper, whip up a will be was warp drive, open up a subspace channel, damn the photon torpedoes, take the time tunnel to tomorrow via yesterday and live happily ever after?

mmph. It's gotta be easier than this. Folks are making it too hard... there's a simple answer out there, a "42" answer... somewhere...

"Just keep swimming, swimming swimming. Just keep swimming" - Dorry
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey


Re: entanglement?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:18 pm

Hi Torb,

torbjon wrote:Something that has been bothering me for ages now is the linear mindset of math in general and quantum entanglement specifically.


Well, I would guess that you probably didn't mean "math in general" has a linear mindset. Now, the math that most people use on a regular basis.... THAT is linear for the most part. However, there are plenty of models that are so non-linear that they cannot be solved in closed-form (and that is the problem with non-linear models!). For example, the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics are a full 4-D, vectorized set of Partial Differential Equations (PDE). They are highly non-linear and have no known closed-form solution unless you set at least one parameter to a constant which is free to not be constant.

However, I get the gist of what you are saying and I agree. The tendency of humans to linearize everything is a limitation of the bandwidth of our hardware! :D It is as if our minds are hammers and every problem looks like a nail. But the reality of reality is that linear phenomenon are a very very small part of all phenomena. In my business of controls we have learned over the last 40 years that our tendency to force linearization of closed-loop control laws (for ease of analysis and testing) actually results in wasted energy. We have learned to exploit natural non-linear responses in the systems we seek to control. For example, the most efficient way for an airplane to transition from one stable state to another is to exploit a non-linearity. This allows you to put the least amount of energy into the airplane (via thrust) while achieving the state you wish.

And yes I Know this formula is flawed but it's close enough for a simulation.


Actually, it really isn't close enough. What you are troubled by is what is known as the "N-body problem". Investigation into this problem of how "physics gets excessively complex" when trying to model more than 3 bodies has shown us the linear models are, in fact, usless when it comes to solving real-world problems where a certain amount of precision is needed to predict future states. The results of these investigations have shown not only that the Newtonian solution has periodic roots, but also that there are inherent singularities in the method... and those singularities are what cause your model to "go nuts".

Fine, program for close encounters, and reduce the time increment. Much better simulation but still the same problem. Clusters would fly apart much faster than they do in real life.


You have found one solution that folks like Poincaire discovered: Asymmetric time. One of the best techniques is one where each body has its own time step increment for integration. There are several other techniques for getting better approximations (at least for the 3-body problem):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation

The problem seems to stem from linear processing, linear math, linear Thought.


Not really. The problem is mostly due to singularities and chaos (i.e. sensitivity to initial conditions). In fact, Poincaire's work on the N-body problem is actually some of the most important foundational work to explaining and advancing chaos theories in the 20th century. If you think your attempt at simulation was difficult, try also taking into account collisions! Many modeling methods have completely ignored the possibilities of collisions between bodies because they raise the uncertainty of the solution to stellar levels (pardon the pun).

The world just doesn't work that way (linear).


Amen. I totally agree, bro. The world is chaotic. Loops within loops, and Heisenberg Uncertainty confounds our attempts to predict the future at each (integration) step! ;)

So why can't we do it on paper, whip up a will be was warp drive, open up a subspace channel, damn the photon torpedoes, take the time tunnel to tomorrow via yesterday and live happily ever after?

mmph. It's gotta be easier than this. Folks are making it too hard... there's a simple answer out there, a "42" answer... somewhere...


Wish it were that easy... but one thing you can take heart in is this: The complexity of the real world proves to us one thing that many spiritual traditions have told us for a long time: Everything is interconnected! We are all part of one, larger "whole".

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: entanglement?

Postby ryguy » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:23 pm

Yikes...Ray, you just gave me flashbacks of the worst course I ever had to take in college - "Non-Linear Equations".

Yeah...an entire course

....ok, I'm getting cold flashes now...*shakes*...think happy thoughts...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: entanglement?

Postby torbjon » Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:59 pm

but that's the kicker, it IS easy... we're just... I dunno, to 'smart' to see it. My kid (your kid any kid) can unconsciously / subconsciously perform the computations necessary to throw and catch a ball Before she could string two words together into a sentence. A monkey with the brain the size of a raisin can calculate the vectors / forces / trajectories needed to leap from tree to tree, even taking in atmospheric and other variables, and do these calculations in a nanosecond. Doing the math to hit a ball with a club 150 yards down the fairway and sink it in a tiny little hole, complete with variable winds / air density etc. is Whack Math but high school drop out dunderheads do it alla the time... it's more natural than cerebral... but try to write that math down and it gets Insane long before you reach page two, ya know?

You mentioned Asymmetric Time as one of the 'cheaters' folks use to nail things down... null time right? Take a static snapshot of an active system, perform the functions on the static model, then increment the model... which sort of 'works' but not really and is no where Close to the reality we seem to occupy. The implications of a null time / static model is that there is a finite time unit... which is something I have never experienced or had adequately explained to me... Simply putting a zero into the equation doesn't cut it. The computer might like it but the universe doesn't seem to function that way...

There seems to be a reciprocal duality going on that is so fundamentally Basic we're incapable of seeing it... like fish in a fish bowl, we're too much a part of the system to See the system... we look and we see this insanely long and complex series of equations that seems to drift into an infinite regression / progression when in reality what we are looking at is nothing more complex than a simple circle... PI is mind numbing. A circle my kid can draw, grasp, understand and utilize.

I feel that the time units are the primary stumbling block to our understanding of what's Really going on here... biologically we seem to be hard wired to perceive past/present/future in that order ergo that's the way it IS even though it may not really be that way... what's wrong with an all encompassing 'nowness'? Nowness seems to be more the way the universe functions as opposed to an infinite series of if/thens...

bah, getting entirely too metaphysical here...

What's your take on Simultaneous Actions? I see the universe as functioning that way, as a simultaneous action, but I'm not seeing that reflected in classical (and non classical) physics... especially on the quantum level, which is weird 'cause those guys Really go off the deep end when chatting theoretical BS.

Like the entanglement problem I posed earlier: what Really happens when two entangled particles are collapsed at the same time? Something Has to happen, and I can't believe I'm the only numbnut on the planet to ever ponder that but I'm not finding anything / anybody that can really explain that nor can I get my head around the existing math enough to really understand it...

Before you toy with that go watch Century of the Self, dangit, it's soooo up your alley and a pleasant and thought provoking diversion.

As a side note: So THIS is where nutty crunchy existential metaphysical mind numbing BS goes, in the REALITY section *slaps forehead* silly me... and here I thought this section was for stuff like, you know, death and taxes.
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: entanglement?

Postby Access Denied » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:25 am

Finally got some time do so some writing… Mmmm brain food, my favorite.

torbjon wrote:There's no real Basic Science forum here, is there? ... I don't know where to put this.

Sure there is… and now you do.

I’ve been thinking about creating an “Advanced Technology” forum here too but I’m afraid it would flop. Would be fun to chat with folks about “Area 51” type stuff and space exploration...

torbjon wrote:The problem seems to stem from linear processing, linear math, linear Thought.

If you think that’s a problem, try taking a couple semesters of calculus… or worse control systems theory.

[nods to Ray and Ryan]

torbjon wrote:The world just doesn't work that way.

Depends on how you look at it… literally.

torbjon wrote:So I've been following quantum entanglement for some years now and for some reason That set of brainiacs just don't seem to get that simple "Simultaneous Processing" gig... why is that?

Because it violates causality.

torbjon wrote:Ergo you can't use quantum entanglement / quantum teleportation for FTL or instantaneous communication.

Yeah but it’s still cool.

torbjon wrote:This is so freeking linear it drives me crazy.

Yeah well Einstein wasn’t too happy to discover God plays dice either.

torbjon wrote:So what happens if Bimbo A and Bozo B both measure their respective entangled particles at the same instant?

My guess is it would be the end of the world as we know it because it can’t be done.

torbjon wrote:Whose measurement collapses what particle where and why?

Define simultaneous. You can’t…

Absolute time and space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space

Common moment

A common moment is a hypothetical moment in time that is measured as the same time for two or more events at different points in space by all observers in the universe. It assumes existence of a time that runs at the same rate for all observers in the universe or at least that can be "scaled" to such a common rate, in which this "common moment" can be determined. Such hypothetical time is called absolute time. In cosmology it is usually called "cosmic time".

According to relativity theory there can't be such time and each observer (whether stationary or non-stationary relative to other observers) has its own time running at different rate than the times of at least some other observers in the universe. Therefore, strictly speaking, there are no "common moments" in nature since it is not possible to establish uniquely the simultaneity of two events in two different points in space for some observers. Nature doesn't need "simultaneity" for anything since nature doesn't operate at a distance, but only on contact between interacting agents, so the simultaneity, as not existing in nature, is a human rather than a physical idea, following from imprecise measurements of time. So is the "common moment".

However the differences between measurements of time may be smaller than the ability to detect them and so we may postulate an "approximate simultaneity" and "approximately common moment" for most practical purposes.

Since Particle A and Particle B, entangled or not, can’t occupy the exact same point in space it’s impossible to calculate the exact time each Bozo needs to make their measurement in order to make them occur simltaneously because it’s impossible for us to reference absolute time… you know, cuz it’s all relative.

torbjon wrote:The real world does simultaneous reciprocal equations alla the time... in fact it seems kinda like the Natural Order Of Things...

Per above actually it’s not… it’s all about cause and effect… one thing leads to another …everything happens for a reason… as disagreeable as this reality may be to those searching for a deeper meaning.

However, (pardon the philosophical tangent) contrary to popular belief (?) causality does not imply the loss of free will… in fact it enables it as organized systems of matter (e.g. a planet, human being, or death ray gun) can “conspire” together (intelligently or otherwise) to “exert” (through one or more of the four fundamental forces) their collective “influence“ (total potential energy) on other matter (or systems of matter) in their immediate surroundings (local frame of reference aka “the happiest idea of Einstien’s life")… for better or worse.

Or something like that…

Anyway, your basic premise is correct, fundamental interactions are inherently non-linear and rapidly become horribly complex to quantify… it’s just that technically speaking nothing occurs simultaneously in nature.

torbjon wrote:So why can't we do it on paper, whip up a will be was warp drive, open up a subspace channel, damn the photon torpedoes, take the time tunnel to tomorrow via yesterday and live happily ever after?

Theoretically (on paper) we “can” as discussed in my “epic” post on Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive here…

viewtopic.php?p=16926#p16926

Unfortunately it simply isn’t practical… and in all likelihood never will be.

The energy requirements are astronomical… literally.

torbjon wrote:mmph. It's gotta be easier than this. Folks are making it too hard... there's a simple answer out there, a "42" answer... somewhere...

There is, it’s the “secret” of mass–energy equivalence…

E=mc^2

Or if you prefer, the meaning of life according to AD…

”Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes you’re the windshield”

torbjon wrote:"Just keep swimming, swimming swimming. Just keep swimming" - Dorry

Sage nod… even Nola can teach us something.

torbjon wrote:but that's the kicker, it IS easy... we're just... I dunno, to 'smart' to see it.

I think the problem is a lot of folks are so desperately looking for a deeper meaning where there quite possibly isn’t any that they literally fail to see the forest for the trees.

And what a truly beautiful, immense, and magical forest it is…

torbjon wrote:…we look and we see this insanely long and complex series of equations that seems to drift into an infinite regression / progression when in reality what we are looking at is nothing more complex than a simple circle...

By we I assume you’re referring to string theorists.

torbjon wrote:I feel that the time units are the primary stumbling block to our understanding of what's Really going on here... biologically we seem to be hard wired to perceive past/present/future in that order ergo that's the way it IS even though it may not really be that way...

As discussed above our perception of time is inherently limited and “human” but there are numerous examples of the asymmetric (one-way) nature of time…

Arrow of time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric, meaning that the theoretical statements that describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed; yet when we describe things at the macroscopic level it often appears that this is not the case: there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time. An arrow of time is anything that exhibits such time-asymmetry.

One good example is the human phenomena of memory… the amount of information we store increases with time… that is until that nasty demon Entropy borne of the Second Law of Thermodynamics kicks in and our brains start to fall apart.

There’s some more examples at the above link if you’re interested. Entropy (or more generally irreversibility) is kind of a cool thing to ponder… or depressing depending on how you look at it.

torbjon wrote:what's wrong with an all encompassing 'nowness'? Nowness seems to be more the way the universe functions as opposed to an infinite series of if/thens...

See above… that later is pretty much what it is… and while “living in the now” is certainly one way to cope with it all… doing so can lead to unintended consequences for one’s emotional and physical well-being later on. God gave us a supercomputer to learn from the past and anticipate the future, why not use it?

torbjon wrote:bah, getting entirely too metaphysical here...

OK then how about some really cool science?

Discovery may make ghost imaging a reality
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ry_062908/

Three scientists believe they have discovered a method to make an image of an object without aiming a camera or sensor directly at it. And that could eventually allow Air Force satellites to photograph images on Earth through clouds, according to Yanhua Shih, a scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

[snip]

Ron Meyers and Keith Deacon — who work at the Army Research Laboratory with Shih — are the first to demonstrate ghost imaging of opaque objects in a recent experiment, partially funded by the Air Force, in which they photographed a toy soldier.

Instead of aiming a camera at it, the scientists pointed it at the light source — a chaotic laser shining on the toy. They aimed a sensitive light meter at the toy.

Albert Einstein explored the basic research behind ghost imaging — quantum entanglement — which he called “spooky action at a distance” in 1935. Shih discovered ghost imaging in 1995, but the theory has yet to leave the laboratory.

[snip]

Defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin has shown interest in quantum entanglement, acquiring a U.S. patent in May to develop quantum radar that could defeat stealth aircraft and find camouflaged improvised explosive devices and mines, according to the patent.

Further research into ghost imaging could also lead to new methods to develop high-resolution photographs, Shih said.

Spooky indeed…

[I almost feel guilty posting this as I can already hear the conspiracy theory wheels grinding]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: entanglement?

Postby torbjon » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:46 pm

Not forgotten, just pondering...

I have a problem with "causality". It implies "primal cause" which in itself negates "causality" (which is a duality I actually can live with and accept, but then "primal cause" becomes a rather interesting question in and of itself)

OR

It implies "infinity", which, by definition, includes all that is and all that isn't, which is another interesting kettle of worms.

off to pick up Nola
laters
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: entanglement?

Postby Nemo » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:56 am

I skimmed the above and didn't see this so:

If the Universe started at a Big Bang as a very dense object or singularity, geometric point, however it gets defined, I would think that it would start as being either infinitely dense and small or at least smaller that the minimum Plank length. From that minimum point, it would expand outwards to what we can see today.

In a qualitative way, as I see it, at it's very beginning the Universe was one thing. There simply wasn't any "room", (no such thing as space) for it to contain anything else or to consist of any parts, forces, or elements smaller than itself. At that point it would be "whole unto itself" so to speak. As it expanded it became many things and created time, space, matter, anti-matter, gravity, strong force, weak force, tables chairs, etc. As I see it all of those seemingly separate "things" would be, by definition, still the one thing that started out and that there should be instantaneous "connections" or forces between them which accounted for and maintained that essential "oneness" or "wholeness" no matter the eventual distance apart.

Looked at another way, wouldn't everything created as it "crystalized" out from the expanding singularity all be interconnected, as described above, as part of an entangled whole? We do now know that mass=energy, but that's all so far.

I've thought that the entire Universe may be instantaneously interconnected since the 80's. These effects may not be seen at our macroscopic scale and may be present at the quantum level with the quantum foam, where particles and virtual particles are constantly coming into being and vanishing. Per the above, this would be the level where gravity connects the entire Universe, where all forces are balanced out, etc. This field could "inform" electrons and other sub atomic particles where they are to form, vanish, etc. It would also "tell" the photons ahead of time where each should travel to in the two-slit experiment so that after time has elapsed, the correct interference fringes would result.

An instantaneous "slice" through the timeline of this universe, as I see it, could be described as being analogous to a hologram which actually contains multi dimensional information and whithin which all points are interconnected.
I see the holographic plate which is my analogy as being "interconnected" in the sense that no lens is used to make it and the thousands of interference fringes are all interconnected. Every point is interconnected. The light wasn't guided or focused by a lens, instead the object was bathed in laser light and the information from the entire object is compacted, condensed, instilled into the maze of interference fringes. Each point on the holographic plate contains the information from all other points, and connects to all other points on the plate. That is how I see an instantaneous "slice" through the timeline of an interconnected or entangled Universe as "looking". I have some other ideas also as to how each instant of time in the universe (as described above) could come about as the result of a "multi-verse".

I asked a physicist about this recently but didn't get any response.

Does this make sense?
Nemo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:16 pm


Google

Return to Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron