Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED], crackpot: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. A photon has no perspective. Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. OK. I'm convinced that you are a crackpot. Now, could someone (else) tell me if this is really a troll? [...] There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. I provided you with the lorentz transforms explicitly because you seem to be unfamiliar with them and so that you could plug in `c' for `v' and see the problem. It doesn't take any particular genius to realize what happens. But, go ahead and insist a while longer. Or, do like anyone else who read the post in which I provided you with the lorentz transforms could have done if they didn't already know what they were. Plug in the value of `c' for `v'. 'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. Another misconception. `C' is a constant in any inertial frame. `V' defines a relationship between two inertial frames. There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform coordinates to a photon, Really why? sheeesh... I provided you with the lorentz transforms in two different forms so that you could figure this out for yourself. I see that you were either unwilling or were unable to substitute v for c and deduce anything about the transformation. It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced. Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. Yikes. Buy an introductory text on relativity as I suggested. c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. What does that have to do with measuring velocities relative to `c' as you seem to believe? A lorentz transform is nothing more than a coordinate transformation that preserves the value of `c'. Since the entire puropse for which the lorentz trannsform was developed was to find a coordinate transformation between coordinates in which `c' has the same value, it's pretty much a tautology that `c' will be constant in those frames. There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. Since I haven't the faintest idea what this means, then the only way you could agree with me is to agree that you don't know what you are talking about. Which is perfectly ok with me. --
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:07:40PM -0600, blah wrote: From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED], crackpot: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. A photon has no perspective. Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. OK. I'm convinced that you are a crackpot. Now, could someone (else) tell me if this is really a troll? It's not a troll--at least not the kind you mean. -- By the time you swear you're his/Shivering and sighing, | Quit smoking: And he vows his passion is/Infinite, undying - | 267d, 14h ago Lady, make a note of this:/One of you is lying. | petro@ -- Dorothy Parker| bounty.org
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Replying to Blah Jim Choate wrote... It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced. Wrong. OK, Senior Choate, Pot, Kettle, Black. You should consider asking Tim for membership in the CACL contingent. let's try to communicate here. The phrase you missed in Blah's sentence above is absolute reference frame, and this sentence is conscise and precise enough that had we sent it back to about 1890, they probably would have been able to derive special relativity from it. And what -you- keep missing is his reference to -velocity-. There -is- a reference frame against which -any- velocity can be measured, c. Thus his statement is incorrect, as is yours. He is -not- talking about 'time' or 'space', he (and you) is in fact comparing apples and oranges. Look at the Lorentz Transformation, what is 'v' compared to? 'c'. There is -no- special time-space reference frame. That is -not- equivalent to 'c' or 'velocity/speed'. What is 'c'? It is a constant ratio between distance and time. That ratio is a constant, axiomatically so for Relativity. I suspect that what 'Blah' -meant- by his commentary that you couldn't write a transformation for a photon was the fact the equation either provides a '0' or 'infinity' as an answer depending on how one applies it (eg time, mass respectively). Clearly photons interact with the cosmos so they -must- be a valid candidate for an 'observer'. This means that there must be a transformation to view the cosmos from their perspective. No exceptions on that one, sorry. Photons are not -special-, otherwise we'd have an axiomatic conflict and the whole house of cards comes crashing down. If you believe that no such transform is constructable then don't bother replying, it's a waste of both our energy. I'd also suggest you take up another interest other than physics. What I am saying is that the Lorentz Transform is not complete/sufficient to explain what is going on. Whatever is going on with photons isn't magic or anything else, it's just the way the cosmos works. The transform works for all 'v' 'c', -but not equal to 'c'-. There is a comparable transform we can look at to see the problem. Mapping a sphere onto a plane. The mapping works for all points -but the N. pole- of the sphere. Think of the north pole as comparable to 'c', or latitude is comparble to 'v' if you will. From relativity physics (and a little imagination to extend the results of the transform if not it's absolute representation) we know the following: - Photons are very weakly interacting particles, they have no mass are are point-like, they are the boson for the EM force All the QM 'paradoxes' we have discussed so far relate to some sort of interaction with a photon, that implies to me that there is something about a photon we don't understand - When the v of a particle approaches c its mass grows without limit Note that a photon has no rest mass, so there isn't anything to grow to infinity. This appears to be a non-problem in viewing the cosmos from a photons perspective. - When the v of a particle approaches c it's time reference frame, it's view of the rest of the cosmos's clocks approaches 0. This means that from a photons perspective the cosmos has no time reference. - When the v of a particle approaches c it's distance scale, along the line of flight, approaches 0. From a photons perspective the cosmos has no distance along its line of flight. There are some other issues that would seem to imply that a photon has no particular 'line of flight' and that would seem to imply that it sees the cosmos as a point in -any- 'direction'. The typical example is to imagine yourself on a spaceship moving toward 'c'. What does the cosmos look like as you look out the window? It begins to form a ring around your axis with a black void forward and backward. One may extrapolate - The Lorentz Transform is written as a function of scalars, as is your presentation of it, yet the actual cosmos is a set of vectors. Now those vectors are written in reference to a -particular- time-space reference frame. The principle of simultaneity comes into play here. One must be very careful about derivations of functions when one feeds them the wrong data type. Q: In the 2-slit experiment in what direction is the photons 'line of flight' in relation to the axis of the two slits? A: They are for all intents and purposes co-axial. From the photons perspective the experimental apparatus has -no length- One last commment, QM (or any science for that matter) is -not- religion. It is -ok- to play with its assumptions (in fact its required). You make the same mistake that Tim, Declan, and
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. A photon has no perspective. Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. Anyone that wishes to have the short version and skip the detailed corrections to misconceptions, they may note simply that an observer in special relativity compares their results with other observers through a lorentz transform. The photon -is- an observer. It observes the device, just as the device observes it. There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. 'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform coordinates to a photon, Really why? It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced. Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. A photon has no perspective. Anyone that wishes to have the short version and skip the detailed corrections to misconceptions, they may note simply that an observer in special relativity compares their results with other observers through a lorentz transform. There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform coordinates to a photon, because the photon has no lorentz frame. Therefore, special relativity explicitly precludes any perspective which has been suggested as necessary for a relativistically correct description. Furthermore, since any observers which differ by a lorentz transform must give equivalent descriptions which differ by a lorentz transform, for any phenomena, requiring multiple descriptions for something defeats the entire reason for the existence of special relativity. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed of light it's mass grows larger (photons have -no- rest mass so 0 can't get any bigger than 0) and time -slows to zero-. It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced. Clocks _always_ keep the proper time in their own rest frame, which means that time dilation, etc., are effects seen by _other_ observers. However, a photon has _no_ rest frame. You cannot attach a clock to one. In addition, no modern text would refer to mass increase. Mass and spin are poincare invariants. An often recommended text is Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler. I recommend making an investment. A signal carries information. You can't use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. Then explain two entangled photons and how they behave. OK. And I'll even provide an example which is quite different from the usual epr cliche at the bottom. Fisrt, however, entangled photons do not propagate any _information_ faster than than light. In other words, for puposes of sending information, it's irrelevant what you think happens faster than light, because no information is propagated between the observers faster than light. Indeed, the photons are entangled precisely because the spins are completely indeterminate prior to measurement, so that there is no information to propagate until each observer measures the spin of their photon and cannot compare their measurements faster than light. If you want to know how this is applied to quantum cryptography, look at richard huges site at lanl: http://qso.lanl.gov/qc or charles bennett's site: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo If you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation relations for electromagnetic fields. I'm familiar with it, Then, you could presumably tell me what the commutation relations are and what they mean if I were to ask? Or was that merely a lead in to repeat what what you said earlier without really acknowledging the objection except as a formality? If not, don't make such claims, since I won't hesitate to ask when I think I'm being bullshitted. however that is taken from the perspective of the external observer, not the photon. Now, do the math -from the perspective of a the photons-. You are confused. Relativistic quantum mechanics is manifestly lorentz covariant, i.e., it's valid anywhere special relativity applies. Special relativity tells you that you cannot perform _any_ lorentz transform to a the frame of reference of a photon, because a photon has no frame in which it is at rest. If you think otherwise, show me the lorentz transform that accomplishes what you assert must be done. If you need the lorentz trans- forms: ct' = \gamma(ct - \beta x) x' = \gamma( x - \beta ct) or in hyperbolic form: ct' = ct cosh(A) - x sinh(A) x' = x cosh(A) - ct sinh(A) The fact that you think the physics is frame dependent, means that you don't even grasp the principle behind relativity, which is that the physics is frame independent. Let me ask you again: This would be the _first_ time since you didn't ask _me_ before. - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? Both of those are meaningless questions which may be attributed to classical bias in thinking the photon has a well-defined location from which such a perspective is possible. You can't attach a clock on something which has no point that defines a location. Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new discipline. I am -not- saying that it is -new-. I -am- saying that QM and Relativity have -not- been -completely combined- and that until that happens we won't and can't understand what is going on. As I previously pointed out, special relativity and quantum mechanics are the
Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:28:46 -0600 (CST)
Jim Choate wrote:
Tim May wrote...
I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
instantaneously,
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's perspective. A signal carries information. You can't
use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. If
you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in
Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation
relations for electromagnetic fields.
Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to
quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome
of experiments.
Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen
-any- time a photon is involved.
Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new
discipline. See Bjorken Drell, Vols. I and II, written circa 1963. The
dirac equation has been around for almost 3/4 of a century and the
klein-gordon equation has been around about 80 years. Had the physicists
of the 1920's been able to interpret the klein-gordon equation at the
time, we would have probably had a relativistic theory before the
non-relativistic theory. The schroedinger equation is a result of needing
an equation that's linear in the time variable, due to not knowing at the
time, how to interpret the quadratic which appears if one substitutes the
quantum operators for the dynamical variables in E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (c==1).
Your comment about photons is equally ridiculous. I can derive the qed
lagrangian from the dirac equation in about 1 page of arithmetic, just by
requiring the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant and applying
noether's theorem to obtain the conserved current. What do you think the
A^{u} in the covariant derivative is? Nevermind, I'll tell you. It's the
field of the electron. Sure, relativity is involved. And it's involved in
a very well understood way. Just start with the dirac lagrangian,
L = \Psibar(p/ - m)\Psi and make the substitution \Psi-\Psi\exp(iS),
where S is ann arbitrary function of the spacetime variable, to obtain
the new lagrangian, L'. For the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant,
the variation, \delta L = L' - L, must vanish to first order.
General relativity is irrelevant, since (1) we aren't in a strong
gravitational field and the gravitational interaction is about 10^{-32} of
the strength of the EM field, anyway, (2) spacetime is locally flat and
the minimal coupling model in general relativity assumes there is no
curvature coupling, (3) The main difference would end up being that the
photons would propagate along null geodesics that are curved rather than
along null geodesics that are flat. (4) You can replace the ordinary
gauge covariant derivatives with the general relativistically covariant
derivatives. [See for example, Problem Book for General Relativity,
Lighthman, et al, where there is a worked example which includes a
mention of curvature coupling (I think that's the name of the book, but
I don't have it handy, to check it)].
For relativistic quantum field theory to even work, one must appeal
to the same unobservability of the wavefunction, if one is to obtain
a conserved current.
***Reality is -observer- dependent***
The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into
account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is
involved.
There is no major hole. Not even a minor pinprick. You should take a
look at any relativistic quantum mechanics text or any text on quantum
field theory [Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic
Interactions, C. Quigg, is straightforward and physically illuminating].
QED is the most precise theory ever proposed in the entire
history of science. It's a purely relativistic field theory which served
as the prototype for the standard model, which currently explains all
known phenomena except gravity. Incorporating gravity and the standard
model into a single theory is a _technical_ issue not an issue of either
quanum mechanics or general relativity being wrong. Quite the contrary,
both are bviously correct for any purpose that doesn't include black holes
or possibly neutron stars, and even in those cases, one can do quantum
field theory. See Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime,
S. Fulling, for an example of quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years)
experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something
odd going on here.
Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one
possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit
experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am
not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other
basic things about the QM world it
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: 'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? From anyone's perspective. Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed of light it's mass grows larger (photons have -no- rest mass so 0 can't get any bigger than 0) and time -slows to zero-. A signal carries information. You can't use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. Then explain two entangled photons and how they behave. If you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation relations for electromagnetic fields. I'm familiar with it, however that is taken from the perspective of the external observer, not the photon. Now, do the math -from the perspective of a the photons-. Let me ask you again: - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen -any- time a photon is involved. Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new discipline. I am -not- saying that it is -new-. I -am- saying that QM and Relativity have -not- been -completely combined- and that until that happens we won't and can't understand what is going on. In particular I -am- saying that there is a fundamental error being made in experiments like the 2-slit and Entangled Photons, that error is that only -one- perspective is being looked at, the non-relativistic perspective of the mechanism, and that the -relativiistic perspective of the photon is being completely ignored-. You are throwing information away -a priori-. That to understand these results the experimenter -must- look at the perspective of all participants in the experiment, especially those who experience relativistic effects. And a photon is -always- relativistic. Reality is -observer dependent-, the mechanism observes the photon, the photon observes the mechanism. They are -not- in the same time-space frame. The mechanism behaves in its classical time-space frame and the photon behaves in its relativistic time-spacef frame (the only one it has, excepting slowing effects in BEC's). It's no small wonder the results make little sense. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: 'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? From anyone's perspective. Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed of light it's mass grows larger (photons have -no- rest mass so 0 can't get any bigger than 0) and time -slows to zero-. A signal carries information. You can't use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. Then explain two entangled photons and how they behave. If you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation relations for electromagnetic fields. I'm familiar with it, however that is taken from the perspective of the external observer, not the photon. Now, do the math -from the perspective of a the photons-. Let me ask you again: - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen -any- time a photon is involved. Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new discipline. I am -not- saying that it is -new-. I -am- saying that QM and Relativity have -not- been -completely combined- and that until that happens we won't and can't understand what is going on. In particular I -am- saying that there is a fundamental error being made in experiments like the 2-slit and Entangled Photons, that error is that only -one- perspective is being looked at, the non-relativistic perspective of the mechanism, and that the -relativiistic perspective of the photon is being completely ignored-. You are throwing information away -a priori-. That to understand these results the experimenter -must- look at the perspective of all participants in the experiment, especially those who experience relativistic effects. And a photon is -always- relativistic. Reality is -observer dependent-, the mechanism observes the photon, the photon observes the mechanism. They are -not- in the same time-space frame. The mechanism behaves in its classical time-space frame and the photon behaves in its relativistic time-spacef frame (the only one it has, excepting slowing effects in BEC's). It's no small wonder the results make little sense. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:28:46 -0600 (CST)
Jim Choate wrote:
Tim May wrote...
I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
instantaneously,
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's perspective. A signal carries information. You can't
use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. If
you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in
Quantum Mechanics, L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation
relations for electromagnetic fields.
Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to
quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome
of experiments.
Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen
-any- time a photon is involved.
Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new
discipline. See Bjorken Drell, Vols. I and II, written circa 1963. The
dirac equation has been around for almost 3/4 of a century and the
klein-gordon equation has been around about 80 years. Had the physicists
of the 1920's been able to interpret the klein-gordon equation at the
time, we would have probably had a relativistic theory before the
non-relativistic theory. The schroedinger equation is a result of needing
an equation that's linear in the time variable, due to not knowing at the
time, how to interpret the quadratic which appears if one substitutes the
quantum operators for the dynamical variables in E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (c==1).
Your comment about photons is equally ridiculous. I can derive the qed
lagrangian from the dirac equation in about 1 page of arithmetic, just by
requiring the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant and applying
noether's theorem to obtain the conserved current. What do you think the
A^{u} in the covariant derivative is? Nevermind, I'll tell you. It's the
field of the electron. Sure, relativity is involved. And it's involved in
a very well understood way. Just start with the dirac lagrangian,
L = \Psibar(p/ - m)\Psi and make the substitution \Psi-\Psi\exp(iS),
where S is ann arbitrary function of the spacetime variable, to obtain
the new lagrangian, L'. For the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant,
the variation, \delta L = L' - L, must vanish to first order.
General relativity is irrelevant, since (1) we aren't in a strong
gravitational field and the gravitational interaction is about 10^{-32} of
the strength of the EM field, anyway, (2) spacetime is locally flat and
the minimal coupling model in general relativity assumes there is no
curvature coupling, (3) The main difference would end up being that the
photons would propagate along null geodesics that are curved rather than
along null geodesics that are flat. (4) You can replace the ordinary
gauge covariant derivatives with the general relativistically covariant
derivatives. [See for example, Problem Book for General Relativity,
Lighthman, et al, where there is a worked example which includes a
mention of curvature coupling (I think that's the name of the book, but
I don't have it handy, to check it)].
For relativistic quantum field theory to even work, one must appeal
to the same unobservability of the wavefunction, if one is to obtain
a conserved current.
***Reality is -observer- dependent***
The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into
account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is
involved.
There is no major hole. Not even a minor pinprick. You should take a
look at any relativistic quantum mechanics text or any text on quantum
field theory [Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic
Interactions, C. Quigg, is straightforward and physically illuminating].
QED is the most precise theory ever proposed in the entire
history of science. It's a purely relativistic field theory which served
as the prototype for the standard model, which currently explains all
known phenomena except gravity. Incorporating gravity and the standard
model into a single theory is a _technical_ issue not an issue of either
quanum mechanics or general relativity being wrong. Quite the contrary,
both are bviously correct for any purpose that doesn't include black holes
or possibly neutron stars, and even in those cases, one can do quantum
field theory. See Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime,
S. Fulling, for an example of quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years)
experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something
odd going on here.
Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one
possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit
experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am
not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other
basic things about the QM world it
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,... Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when looking at an ion trap. There are lots of photons around for every atom but the interactions are with fields and the detection is of single photons (again with massive amounts of equipment, but the atoms don't interact directly as in EPR or double slit). With all due respect, Pooey Dr Mike. Take a nice, straightforward EPR using two correlated photons produced by KDP-downconversion. How do you exaplain the EPR experiements where pairs of photons are created via KDP downconversion? The two particles are separated at birth and travel through different paths through the apparatus. (And this apparatus can be made aribtrarily large.) If the apparatus does not permit us to determine the path of any single photon, the two photons will have completely coupled measureables (eg, polarization) at the output. The moment will are able to determine the path of ONE of the photons, then the measureable of the other becomes completely de-correlated from the other. This is true on the single photon level, and looked at up close its pretty startling. Now the odd thing (if this isn't odd already), is that we can (and have) perform the change from isolatable to nonisolatable AFTER THE PHOTONS HAVE ENTERED THE APPARATUS. (This was suggested by Wheeler and done around '94 as I remember). In a sense, then, the photons are 'aware' of events happening (relatively speaking) backwards in time. And this is not theoretical. It was predicted via quantum theory and seen in the lab many times. Now obviously we could step back and say that QM is a useful computational tool. Let's not worry about reality, but that's an intellectual dodge. Classical physics grew up around the desire to understand natural reality, and this new fad of ignoring what QM says about reality only arose as a way to move QM forward in the early days. Look, it's not like we say Don't think of light as an electromagnetic wave. E-M theory is merely a useful computational tool. Likewise just because we are in the odd situation of not knowing what QM says about the universe doesn't mean its not saying anything, or that what its saying is of no interest. With EPR (and, arguably, A-b), we are confronted with obvious proof that these particles communicate in ways that are completely different from the models developed prior to 1910 or so. (One of the few intelligent thoughts I've had on the subject is that the particles are still a single quantum object prior to measurement.) With respect to Cypherpunks and cryptography, then, we would be intellectually hypocritical if we thought there was anything inherently more secure about quantum cryptography. But we (I mean, pretty much every working physicist in the world) DO believe this, because this is really the way reality works. Wavefunction collapse actually objectively (if that's the right word in the quantum world) happens and there's no undoing it. It's a basic physical property of the universe. With respect to many worlds, David Deutch, et al have argued that for any single path taken by a particle in a quantum there are innumerable shadow photons in the other universes that communicate with the observed photon. We also see just one possible but the complete collection of shadow photons take all possible outcomes. Now while I don't really buy this explanation, I DO buy Deutch's desire to find a picture of the underlying reality (we once spoke on this issue and wildly agreed). I could go on but I've got work to do. No one's actually read this far anyway, have they? -Tyler Durden QM is a nice model that works. It is a good mathematical description of observed phenomena. What else do we need? The idea that a photon passes thru one slit or the other is just a model. What is the slit? It's really a whole bunch of fermions in a spacial pattern, and when an electron or photon interacts with that distribution we get the observed self interaction result. The model is self interaction. That may have nothing to do with reality. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,... Yeah, the TD gave that away :-) With all due respect, Pooey Dr Mike. Take a nice, straightforward EPR using two correlated photons produced by KDP-downconversion. How do you exaplain the EPR experiements where pairs of photons are created via KDP downconversion? The two particles are separated at birth and travel through Easy, the particles are correlated at birth. *they* know what their orientation is, it is fixed at birth. The math says *we* don't know. different paths through the apparatus. (And this apparatus can be made aribtrarily large.) If the apparatus does not permit us to determine the path of any single photon, the two photons will have completely coupled measureables (eg, polarization) at the output. The moment will are able to determine the path of ONE of the photons, then the measureable of the other becomes completely de-correlated from the other. This is true on the single photon level, and looked at up close its pretty startling. It is not suprising to me. The photons are correlated to begin with, when you learn one you know the other. You don't even have to measure it for a long time, you can know what it will be in 100 years if you can store it that long. Now the odd thing (if this isn't odd already), is that we can (and have) perform the change from isolatable to nonisolatable AFTER THE PHOTONS HAVE ENTERED THE APPARATUS. (This was suggested by Wheeler and done around '94 as I remember). In a sense, then, the photons are 'aware' of events happening (relatively speaking) backwards in time. And this is not theoretical. It was predicted via quantum theory and seen in the lab many times. Right, because they are correlated at birth. Once correlated, always correlated. The apparatus has nothing to do with it. Now obviously we could step back and say that QM is a useful computational tool. Let's not worry about reality, but that's an intellectual dodge. Classical physics grew up around the desire to understand natural reality, and this new fad of ignoring what QM says about reality only arose as a way to move QM forward in the early days. Look, it's not like we say Don't think of light as an electromagnetic wave. E-M theory is merely a useful computational tool. Likewise just because we are in the odd situation of not knowing what QM says about the universe doesn't mean its not saying anything, or that what its saying is of no interest. There's more than one way to look at things. That's all QM says. It also tells us reality is tied together, you can't separate energy-time or space-momentum. We grew up with classical ideas, we have to let those ideas go to accept QM as reality. With EPR (and, arguably, A-b), we are confronted with obvious proof that these particles communicate in ways that are completely different from the models developed prior to 1910 or so. (One of the few intelligent thoughts I've had on the subject is that the particles are still a single quantum object prior to measurement.) They don't need to communicate. That's the problem with the model. They start out correlated with a fixed orientation and maintain that correlation forever. With respect to Cypherpunks and cryptography, then, we would be intellectually hypocritical if we thought there was anything inherently more secure about quantum cryptography. But we (I mean, pretty much every working physicist in the world) DO believe this, because this is really the way reality works. Wavefunction collapse actually objectively (if that's the right word in the quantum world) happens and there's no undoing it. It's a basic physical property of the universe. What's more secure about QM is that you destroy the ability to use a data bit once it's been measured - you can't cut and paste. It has nothing to do with wave functions or collapse - it has to do with the fact that one side has already measured each one of the matched pairs and the other side hasn't. If Eve takes out data, it can't be used for transmission. You can still use spys and bypass the crypto :-) With respect to many worlds, David Deutch, et al have argued that for any single path taken by a particle in a quantum there are innumerable shadow photons in the other universes that communicate with the observed photon. We also see just one possible but the complete collection of shadow photons take all possible outcomes. Now while I don't really buy this explanation, I DO buy Deutch's desire to find a picture of the underlying reality (we once spoke on this issue and wildly agreed). I never really like the many worlds model. Feynman (sp??) diagrams work just fine for me! I could go on but I've got work to do. No one's actually read this far anyway, have they? Nope :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,... Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when looking at an ion trap. There are lots of photons around for every atom but the interactions are with fields and the detection is of single photons (again with massive amounts of equipment, but the atoms don't interact directly as in EPR or double slit). With all due respect, Pooey Dr Mike. Take a nice, straightforward EPR using two correlated photons produced by KDP-downconversion. How do you exaplain the EPR experiements where pairs of photons are created via KDP downconversion? The two particles are separated at birth and travel through different paths through the apparatus. (And this apparatus can be made aribtrarily large.) If the apparatus does not permit us to determine the path of any single photon, the two photons will have completely coupled measureables (eg, polarization) at the output. The moment will are able to determine the path of ONE of the photons, then the measureable of the other becomes completely de-correlated from the other. This is true on the single photon level, and looked at up close its pretty startling. Now the odd thing (if this isn't odd already), is that we can (and have) perform the change from isolatable to nonisolatable AFTER THE PHOTONS HAVE ENTERED THE APPARATUS. (This was suggested by Wheeler and done around '94 as I remember). In a sense, then, the photons are 'aware' of events happening (relatively speaking) backwards in time. And this is not theoretical. It was predicted via quantum theory and seen in the lab many times. Now obviously we could step back and say that QM is a useful computational tool. Let's not worry about reality, but that's an intellectual dodge. Classical physics grew up around the desire to understand natural reality, and this new fad of ignoring what QM says about reality only arose as a way to move QM forward in the early days. Look, it's not like we say Don't think of light as an electromagnetic wave. E-M theory is merely a useful computational tool. Likewise just because we are in the odd situation of not knowing what QM says about the universe doesn't mean its not saying anything, or that what its saying is of no interest. With EPR (and, arguably, A-b), we are confronted with obvious proof that these particles communicate in ways that are completely different from the models developed prior to 1910 or so. (One of the few intelligent thoughts I've had on the subject is that the particles are still a single quantum object prior to measurement.) With respect to Cypherpunks and cryptography, then, we would be intellectually hypocritical if we thought there was anything inherently more secure about quantum cryptography. But we (I mean, pretty much every working physicist in the world) DO believe this, because this is really the way reality works. Wavefunction collapse actually objectively (if that's the right word in the quantum world) happens and there's no undoing it. It's a basic physical property of the universe. With respect to many worlds, David Deutch, et al have argued that for any single path taken by a particle in a quantum there are innumerable shadow photons in the other universes that communicate with the observed photon. We also see just one possible but the complete collection of shadow photons take all possible outcomes. Now while I don't really buy this explanation, I DO buy Deutch's desire to find a picture of the underlying reality (we once spoke on this issue and wildly agreed). I could go on but I've got work to do. No one's actually read this far anyway, have they? -Tyler Durden QM is a nice model that works. It is a good mathematical description of observed phenomena. What else do we need? The idea that a photon passes thru one slit or the other is just a model. What is the slit? It's really a whole bunch of fermions in a spacial pattern, and when an electron or photon interacts with that distribution we get the observed self interaction result. The model is self interaction. That may have nothing to do with reality. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,... Yeah, the TD gave that away :-) With all due respect, Pooey Dr Mike. Take a nice, straightforward EPR using two correlated photons produced by KDP-downconversion. How do you exaplain the EPR experiements where pairs of photons are created via KDP downconversion? The two particles are separated at birth and travel through Easy, the particles are correlated at birth. *they* know what their orientation is, it is fixed at birth. The math says *we* don't know. different paths through the apparatus. (And this apparatus can be made aribtrarily large.) If the apparatus does not permit us to determine the path of any single photon, the two photons will have completely coupled measureables (eg, polarization) at the output. The moment will are able to determine the path of ONE of the photons, then the measureable of the other becomes completely de-correlated from the other. This is true on the single photon level, and looked at up close its pretty startling. It is not suprising to me. The photons are correlated to begin with, when you learn one you know the other. You don't even have to measure it for a long time, you can know what it will be in 100 years if you can store it that long. Now the odd thing (if this isn't odd already), is that we can (and have) perform the change from isolatable to nonisolatable AFTER THE PHOTONS HAVE ENTERED THE APPARATUS. (This was suggested by Wheeler and done around '94 as I remember). In a sense, then, the photons are 'aware' of events happening (relatively speaking) backwards in time. And this is not theoretical. It was predicted via quantum theory and seen in the lab many times. Right, because they are correlated at birth. Once correlated, always correlated. The apparatus has nothing to do with it. Now obviously we could step back and say that QM is a useful computational tool. Let's not worry about reality, but that's an intellectual dodge. Classical physics grew up around the desire to understand natural reality, and this new fad of ignoring what QM says about reality only arose as a way to move QM forward in the early days. Look, it's not like we say Don't think of light as an electromagnetic wave. E-M theory is merely a useful computational tool. Likewise just because we are in the odd situation of not knowing what QM says about the universe doesn't mean its not saying anything, or that what its saying is of no interest. There's more than one way to look at things. That's all QM says. It also tells us reality is tied together, you can't separate energy-time or space-momentum. We grew up with classical ideas, we have to let those ideas go to accept QM as reality. With EPR (and, arguably, A-b), we are confronted with obvious proof that these particles communicate in ways that are completely different from the models developed prior to 1910 or so. (One of the few intelligent thoughts I've had on the subject is that the particles are still a single quantum object prior to measurement.) They don't need to communicate. That's the problem with the model. They start out correlated with a fixed orientation and maintain that correlation forever. With respect to Cypherpunks and cryptography, then, we would be intellectually hypocritical if we thought there was anything inherently more secure about quantum cryptography. But we (I mean, pretty much every working physicist in the world) DO believe this, because this is really the way reality works. Wavefunction collapse actually objectively (if that's the right word in the quantum world) happens and there's no undoing it. It's a basic physical property of the universe. What's more secure about QM is that you destroy the ability to use a data bit once it's been measured - you can't cut and paste. It has nothing to do with wave functions or collapse - it has to do with the fact that one side has already measured each one of the matched pairs and the other side hasn't. If Eve takes out data, it can't be used for transmission. You can still use spys and bypass the crypto :-) With respect to many worlds, David Deutch, et al have argued that for any single path taken by a particle in a quantum there are innumerable shadow photons in the other universes that communicate with the observed photon. We also see just one possible but the complete collection of shadow photons take all possible outcomes. Now while I don't really buy this explanation, I DO buy Deutch's desire to find a picture of the underlying reality (we once spoke on this issue and wildly agreed). I never really like the many worlds model. Feynman (sp??) diagrams work just fine for me! I could go on but I've got work to do. No one's actually read this far anyway, have they? Nope :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote: Tim May wrote... I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating instantaneously, 'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome of experiments. Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen -any- time a photon is involved. ***Reality is -observer- dependent*** The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is involved. I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years) experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something odd going on here. Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other basic things about the QM world it doesn't explain, such as why I measure THIS outcome rather than THAT outcome), I'm personally at the point where I think some form of answer is needed, and that the above intellectual dodge is no longer valid. So at least many worlds is one possible attempt to answer why photons are able to know instantaneously about correlated photons far removed (and for me, and the late John Bell it is inescapable that they do indeed find out instantaneously). The error in this approach is not into taking account the relativity of the experiment. From the traditional approach we are testing the photon with the instrument, -but- the photon is also testing the instrument. How big is the slit -from the perspective of the photon-? In other words; how big is the cosmos to a signle photon? The answer is it has no dimension. Now since there is no time or distance scale from the perspective of the photon exactly -what- is happening instantaneously? Answer, nothing. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote: Tim May wrote... I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating instantaneously, 'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome of experiments. Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen -any- time a photon is involved. ***Reality is -observer- dependent*** The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is involved. I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years) experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something odd going on here. Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other basic things about the QM world it doesn't explain, such as why I measure THIS outcome rather than THAT outcome), I'm personally at the point where I think some form of answer is needed, and that the above intellectual dodge is no longer valid. So at least many worlds is one possible attempt to answer why photons are able to know instantaneously about correlated photons far removed (and for me, and the late John Bell it is inescapable that they do indeed find out instantaneously). The error in this approach is not into taking account the relativity of the experiment. From the traditional approach we are testing the photon with the instrument, -but- the photon is also testing the instrument. How big is the slit -from the perspective of the photon-? In other words; how big is the cosmos to a signle photon? The answer is it has no dimension. Now since there is no time or distance scale from the perspective of the photon exactly -what- is happening instantaneously? Answer, nothing. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote: One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a description of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be classically derived in a fairly straightforward manner. But it doesn't explain how AB is able to predict said phenomenon in about 4 lines while they need many pages of fairly difficult EM theory. That's pretty cool. In this case QM is just a short cut. For me it's clear that A/B and EPR show us that QM is telling us SOMETHING about reality, but we don't yet understand what it is. Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when looking at an ion trap. There are lots of photons around for every atom but the interactions are with fields and the detection is of single photons (again with massive amounts of equipment, but the atoms don't interact directly as in EPR or double slit). QM is a nice model that works. It is a good mathematical description of observed phenomena. What else do we need? The idea that a photon passes thru one slit or the other is just a model. What is the slit? It's really a whole bunch of fermions in a spacial pattern, and when an electron or photon interacts with that distribution we get the observed self interaction result. The model is self interaction. That may have nothing to do with reality. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
QM, EPR, A/B
Tim May wrote... I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating instantaneously, just the quantum mechanics is about measurables ground truth of what we see, what has never failed us, what the mathematics tells us and what is experimentally verified. Whether there really are (in the modal realism sense of Lewis) other worlds is neither here nor there. Naturally, I would be thrilled to see evidence, or to conclude myself from deeper principles, that other worlds have more than linguistic existence. Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome of experiments. I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years) experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something odd going on here. Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other basic things about the QM world it doesn't explain, such as why I measure THIS outcome rather than THAT outcome), I'm personally at the point where I think some form of answer is needed, and that the above intellectual dodge is no longer valid. So at least many worlds is one possible attempt to answer why photons are able to know instantaneously about correlated photons far removed (and for me, and the late John Bell it is inescapable that they do indeed find out instantaneously). One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a description of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be classically derived in a fairly straightforward manner. But it doesn't explain how AB is able to predict said phenomenon in about 4 lines while they need many pages of fairly difficult EM theory. For me it's clear that A/B and EPR show us that QM is telling us SOMETHING about reality, but we don't yet understand what it is.
QM, EPR, A/B
Tim May wrote... I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating instantaneously, just the quantum mechanics is about measurables ground truth of what we see, what has never failed us, what the mathematics tells us and what is experimentally verified. Whether there really are (in the modal realism sense of Lewis) other worlds is neither here nor there. Naturally, I would be thrilled to see evidence, or to conclude myself from deeper principles, that other worlds have more than linguistic existence. Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome of experiments. I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years) experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something odd going on here. Many worlds (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit experiment know about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there are other basic things about the QM world it doesn't explain, such as why I measure THIS outcome rather than THAT outcome), I'm personally at the point where I think some form of answer is needed, and that the above intellectual dodge is no longer valid. So at least many worlds is one possible attempt to answer why photons are able to know instantaneously about correlated photons far removed (and for me, and the late John Bell it is inescapable that they do indeed find out instantaneously). One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a description of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be classically derived in a fairly straightforward manner. But it doesn't explain how AB is able to predict said phenomenon in about 4 lines while they need many pages of fairly difficult EM theory. For me it's clear that A/B and EPR show us that QM is telling us SOMETHING about reality, but we don't yet understand what it is.
Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote: One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a description of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be classically derived in a fairly straightforward manner. But it doesn't explain how AB is able to predict said phenomenon in about 4 lines while they need many pages of fairly difficult EM theory. That's pretty cool. In this case QM is just a short cut. For me it's clear that A/B and EPR show us that QM is telling us SOMETHING about reality, but we don't yet understand what it is. Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when looking at an ion trap. There are lots of photons around for every atom but the interactions are with fields and the detection is of single photons (again with massive amounts of equipment, but the atoms don't interact directly as in EPR or double slit). QM is a nice model that works. It is a good mathematical description of observed phenomena. What else do we need? The idea that a photon passes thru one slit or the other is just a model. What is the slit? It's really a whole bunch of fermions in a spacial pattern, and when an electron or photon interacts with that distribution we get the observed self interaction result. The model is self interaction. That may have nothing to do with reality. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
