Transporters anyone?

Sigh...no. Transporters would be superluminal *information* transmission. Quantum theory does not allow for that. (It allows for superluminal *quantum* information transmission, which is something entirely different. For a transporter you'd need to transfer *classical* information - and that isn't in the cards with QM)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Causality is a model only existing in the human mind. There is no cause and effect in the universe. In the universe we have only DYNAMICS. Motion of an object for example is dynamics which has its numerical order which is time. Entanglenemt is imediate and so has no numetical order. I explain all that in my latest book ADVANCED RELATIVITY - BIJECTIVE PHYSICS.

Not sure if I understood it right. Does it somehow challenge hard determinists' logic of absence of free will?

Basically what's happening here is that physical theorists have shown that the Bell inequalities apply to many-particle entanglements, not just to two-particle entanglements. The authors of the paper suggest many-particle Bell tests to confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics and eliminate the possibility of local realism not only for two-particle but also many-particle systems.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

As I mentioned, albeit with some vociferousness, in another article's comment area, we ~DO~ get to vote on what reality is.

Just because you're the only person on the planet that believes this doesn't make it true.

If one takes QM and superimposes it and it's interface with the classical, they will find the signature of this in ALL of the well done parapsychological works that are out there. Which there are many thousands of studies, all done with the rigor any determinist would be proud of and expect at a minimum (and beyond).

Whut? QM doesn't do 'determinism'. Get with the program, man.

The results of those works show that determinism functions in world of information as a quantum field that is shaped by collectives of energy.

Wow. Just...Wow. Off your meds again?
Hint: Throwing together sciency words does not an intelligent seeming statement make.

@Dingbone, your "explanation" of entanglement omits two very important features:
1. Conservation laws
2. Heisenberg uncertainty

Handwaving about de Broglie matter waves is not sufficient to explain it. You'll want to study it a bit further for real understanding.

It's quite amazing how little I understand of all this. But does anyone actually know how entanglement is possible?

It appears to be a law of quantum physics, driven by Heisenberg uncertainty and conservation laws. Asking how it's possible is like asking how gravity is possible, or how Newton's Laws of Motion are possible. There is no underlying explanation. It is what it is, and it is what is observed.

And what constitutes such QM information transfer?

There is no apparent information transfer. That would violate Special Relativity Theory.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Or it could be that there is some other 'locality' assumption about space/time we haven't thrown out yet; and some dimension mapping beyond Minkowski space-time we haven't invented yet.
If we disbelieve 'spooky' actions and the 'magical' duality switching of Copenhagen interpretation.
Then somehow all space-time points must in some way touch (so entangled particles causally touch) and the 'two slits' touch so a 'particle' goes through both.
If we had some corrected/remapped view of space-time then GR and QM could then agree (as they must) and 'locality' would have a new meaning on some new brain bending sheet of graph paper.

no underlying explanation. It is what it is, and it is what is observed.

I don't think we have stopped asking 'how' just yet.
If we look at the repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment then the axis of QM spin is clearly remembered between passes. There cannot be memory without mechanism: so QM must (at least spin must) have some reason/mechanism we can enquire about: And spin seems to underlie the nature of matter-anti-matter (via the weak force) and therefore quantum space as we know it.

@Ding, first, there is no wave function collapse in the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation, and second, entanglement is a feature of quantum mechanics, not a feature of one or another interpretation of it and is therefore universal across interpretations.

Heisenberg uncertainty and conservation laws share this with entanglement; they also are features of quantum mechanics, not features of particular interpretations. So you still have not described entanglement itself.

Entanglement is a state where the value of an uncertain parameter of a particle is dependent on the uncertain value of the same parameter of another particle. The dependency is due to conservation laws; if they were not dependent then conservation would be violated. In common experiments, the parameter is spin angular momentum; it's possible to be entangled in other parameters, but difficult to arrange experimentally.

@EyeNStein, I'm familiar with the Stern-Gerlach experiment and have no idea what you're talking about. I know of no "memory" in Stern-Gerlach; it's simply proof that spin angular momentum is quantized, and that it is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on multiple axes, nothing more. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "memory" a little more clearly.

As for "how" there can be entanglement, one might as well ask "how" there can be Heisenberg uncertainty. At this time, there is no explanation for either, and we don't even see a path toward one. We can measure them, though, so we know they're there, and we don't see them in classical reality, so we know they're exclusively quantum phenomena.

Incidentally, I try not to be prejudiced against valid interpretations of QM; I somewhat favor Consistent Histories, and somewhat disfavor classical Copenhagen, but I have no strong opinion on de Broglie-Bohm, Jack Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, modern Copenhagen, or Many Worlds.

The question of "how" becomes nonsensical at some level in any case: "How" can only be answered by explaining via reference to some underlying reality. At some point there is no more 'underlying' reality - you're already at the most basic level*. At that point it's: "that's just the way it is"....which is somewhat vexing. (personally I'm hoping for something like three fundamental principles as a necessary symmetry break for anything to exist at all - where any two allow to derive the third.)

*whether QM is that or not is another matter

In the Stern-Gerlach experiment:
If the spin of a single electron is detected as 'up' on a Y axis test then if you repeat the same experiment on that same electron it always reads as the same on the Y axis. ( But randomly 50%/50% left/right or 50%/50% front/back on the X and Z axes if tested after any 'Y' test.)
The persistence and reproducibility of the reading between repeat testing on any axis you chose is memory (which can be wiped by testing at any orthogonal axis, after which it reads randomly 50%/50% on your previously chosen axis.) Here is a picture of repeat/sequence testing:-
https://en.wikipe...eriments

https://en.wikipe...eriments
In the above linked drawing:-
The first drawing shows memory on the z axis.
The third drawing shows wiping of the z axis reading by doing an x axis reading in between.

In the Stern-Gerlach experiment:
If the spin of a single electron is detected as 'up' on a Y axis test then if you repeat the same experiment on that same electron it always reads as the same on the Y axis.

Sure- but that's not memory, it's conservation of SAM. If you want to refer to conservation laws as "memory," go ahead, but no one's going to understand what you're talking about.

It's worth mentioning that SAM itself isn't directly conserved; it's actually jointly conserved with OAM, in a quantity denoted "J," but since there is no OAM in SG, SAM is effectively conserved.

(But randomly 50%/50% left/right or 50%/50% front/back on the X and Z axes if tested after any 'Y' test.)

Again, yes, that's correct, that's uncertainty in SAM on two axes.

Notice how both a conservation law and uncertainty combine in SG. This is why it's so important (though it does not show entanglement).

@DS I don't disagree as to the QM mathematics predicting this "memory" effect. (How could I? I don't understand half of it.)
But it most certainly is also a form of memory. The SG apparatus writes it and later reads it, and the orthogonal SG apparatus wipes it. Which means it has an actual underlying mechanism of some type. (Or the reproducible read after time has passed means our understanding of time is wrong??)
You could make a reliable memory chip out of this though it would be huge and you would need to wipe before writing (like an old UV EPROM chip) and you must dump half of your freshly randomised electrons every time you write.

A well made first point, @antialias.

Adding on to your other point,

whether QM is that or not is another matter

last I checked the SM had 23 free parameters, consisting of the mixing angles in the CKM and PMNS matrices, the masses of various particles, and a few miscellaneous parameters. (It's worth noting that the Wikipedia article on the SM leaves out the PMNS angles and claims there are only 19 parameters.) The number may be decreased at some point, however this doesn't explain dimensionality in any obvious way, so that kind of gets left out.

Since dimensionality interacts fundamentally with the conservation laws, it's pretty apparent that some of the most fundamental parameters are left out in this accounting; one can hope that with the advent of quantum gravity theory, an explanation for dimensionality will emerge, but that is not clear at this time, and my feeling is that it is essential.

deleted

@DS I don't disagree as to the QM mathematics predicting this "memory" effect. (How could I? I don't understand half of it.)

It's actually proven to be not only part of the math, but part of the physical reality as proven by experiment. That's quite an important fact and one that you will wish to keep carefully in mind; this is the difference between theory and experiment.

But it most certainly is also a form of memory.

Sure, but memory works because it relies on consistency. Consistency is a property of the dimensionality of spacetime; both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy emerge directly from consistency of results over space and over time, respectively, by Noether's Theorem. So we see that memory is dependent upon dimensionality, and the consistency of results across it. It's therefore better to talk about conservation laws than about memory, in this context, and much easier to understand.
[contd]

[contd]
I was not necessarily arguing you are *wrong* in calling it memory; I questioned why you did so, and I accept your explanation. However, terminology is important, and if you call it "conservation" there will be no chance that anyone will misunderstand. This will reduce confusion and frustration. You will note that I asked instead of assuming you were trolling. ;)

The SG apparatus writes it and later reads it, and the orthogonal SG apparatus wipes it. Which means it has an actual underlying mechanism of some type. (Or the reproducible read after time has passed means our understanding of time is wrong??)

You are correct, and there is a mechanism: it's Heisenberg uncertainty. This operates on spins on different axes, causing spin on one axis to become uncertain when spin on another axis is measured (and we can have a long discussion on what "measured" means if you like; you may find it interesting if you elect to do so, and it is on-topic).

[contd]

[contd]

You could make a reliable memory chip out of this though it would be huge and you would need to wipe before writing (like an old UV EPROM chip) and you must dump half of your freshly randomised electrons every time you write.

Actually, there are some condensed matter physicists working on something called "spintronics" that are working on something very like this. Their prototype devices have cell sizes orders of magnitude smaller than any current memory technology, and they are robust across power-off, but they are not currently reliable enough for use in a general-purpose computing platform. You are, however, thinking along the right lines.

Incidentally and aside from the conversation, the fact that the two most important quantities in physics, energy and momentum, are conserved as a direct result of consistency across dimensions is part of the reason that I do not reject string physics out of hand as unphysical. Since string physics bases the free parameters of the SM upon dimensionality, given the direct impact of dimensionality upon the most fundamental conservation laws, I think it is a reasonable approach, and given that it provides a discernible path to a quantum gravity theory, I think that it needs to be approached with much more vigor than is currently the case. Apparently naysayers like Lee Smolin, rather than invigorating physics as they claim to have wanted to do, have discouraged it, which was what we all thought would happen. I am less than pleased to be right about this, and think Smolin is a troll and should STFU.

I agree that QM spin conservation law is a perfectly valid way to look at remembered spin orientation.
But I'm saying that the fixed half spin looking down one dimension coupled with a forced random 50/50 half spin looking down any other of the two dimensions means there is some clever mechanism at work.
Something like an energy racetrack running round some special Calabi–Yau manifold which looks like half spin viewed from one space dimension direction, but random plus-minus twisting from any other space dimension. And the Stern Gerlach experiment twists/moves the orientation to line up electrons on one axis.

@EyeNStein, I repeat that the spin on two axes is Heisenberg uncertain. This is a very important result, different from momentum/position and energy/time Heisenberg relations, because it is discrete, not continuous. Spins are +/- discrete, that is, an integer or half-integer value, not continuous parameters like momentum, position, time, or energy. This is why the entanglement measured in most experiments is upon spin, not upon these other parameters.

Nor am I claiming that either these are the only uncertain parameters, nor that spin is the only discrete parameter; but it is easy to manipulate spin, and easy to measure it, so that's how most of the experiments are run.

If one accepts the Born Rule, and therefore the reality of Heisenberg uncertainty, then the outcome is obvious. It is only when the Born Rule and uncertainty are rejected because they are non-classical that any sort of paradox ensues.

@Da Schneib. Those are indeed important measured and real considerations. (At least in any measurement we can make within our 3 dimensions plus time environment.)
I don't mind how many extra dimensions there are and what non-Euclidean types those are; and I don't mind how strings have to dance within them: as long as someone is trying to run energy through their chosen system and 3D +time reality as measured is emergent. including quantised SPIN, and LOCALITY and DUALITY and UNCERTAINTY results.
What I do mind is elective ignorance with 'these are the discovered rules, don't look behind the quantum curtain' or its 'spooky action' just accept it (with no mechanism cause.)

I think its exciting that whatever dimensions the supposedly 'point-like' or 'string like' electron exists in must allow it to causally touch its entangled partner clear across the 3D universe. And cause this great debate over LOCALITY and its meaning.

Thanks @Hat1208
@DS.
Its also very interesting that a photon (as a 'particle') can potentially travel across our entire universe not experiencing any time or attenuation. While we observe its passage as waves in time and expect partial attenuation by space-dust. I know Special Relativity and QM has numbers for this. But its still a huge difference in perception of locality and duration and reality in general: Which makes me ask HOW does 'reality' do this.

@EyeNStein, I understand your position on limiting the field of inquiry, but I also agree with @antialias' point: there is a limit to the degree to which it is meaningful to try to discern some underlying reality for a given phenomenon. At a certain point, things become sufficiently different from our ordinary perceptions that it's necessary to stop and understand their implications; until we do, there's no point in asking why it's like that. Once these things are understood in and of themselves, then we can inquire as to why they are that way, and whether it is meaningful to even ask that question, but until we understand what they are, asking how they are that way will be meaningless even if we are presented an explanation on a platter.

[contd]

[contd]
Uncertainty, entanglement, SAM and OAM, and dimensionality are these sorts of things. Intuition fails with them; they are behaviors and characteristics that are completely unknown at our level of existence, in the classical world. (Well, perhaps not dimensionality, but when you start exploring that in the quantum world, you will find you have attempted to plumb a far deeper hole than you thought.)

Before we can see whether it even makes sense to ask how they can be that way, one must understand what they are and how they behave. Of these, entanglement is the one we are still pursuing and have the most to learn about. It doesn't make much sense to ask how entanglement can be when we don't even really fully understand all the ramifications of what it is yet.

For your example of the photon, @EyeNStein, there is in fact an explanation. It's a direct result of the fact that velocity is a 4D rotation; one can state with equal correctness that the speed of light is either the maximal 4-rotation, or the maximal velocity, possible in our version of spacetime, where time's geometric relation to the space dimensions is hyperbolic, rather than circular as the relations of the space dimensions are to one another.

The question that is pertinent to this discussion there is, why is time like that? And the answer today is, nobody's ever thought about it and written it down in a scientific paper. We know it's like that, but we don't know why. For that matter, we don't know why the 3 space dimensions are related circularly to one another, either. For now, we just have to accept that they are.

@Hat, thanks, man. @EyeNStein, I also think this was a good discussion, and it might even go on a while. We're turning over some rocks with interesting stuff under them.

Smart people like Renate Loll are thinking the hard thoughts and seeking emergent space and time from quantum origins:-
https://www.youtu...p;t=932s

(Well worth watching)

Pretty interesting video, @EyeNStein. I think the most significant thing she showed is that wormholes are impossible because they result in spacetimes that don't look like ours. That's a pretty significant result. It could constrain a lot of various quantum gravity hypotheses that are floating around.

Blah, blah, blah......
In the universe we have only DYNAMICS. Motion of an object for example is dynamics which has its numerical order which is time. Entanglenemt is imediate and so has no numetical order.

LOL. You just described - Causality!

@Hat, thanks, man. @EyeNStein, I also think this was a good discussion, and it might even go on a while. We're turning over some, rocks with interesting stuff under them.

Indeed you guys are, DS n Eyenstein! While not having the formal training you guys appear to have, My "Artist" is flat out following what you are discussing! (And busy as all get out with visualizations probable explanations for 'em...:-))
Thanks, guys! Mucho appreciated!

Here is a guy with a real physics PHD bending my brain cells and illuminating the quirks of locality and the Copenhagen interpretation:-
https://www.youtu...mp;t=52s

Completeness, consistency, decidability like dependence, determinism, and objectivity are a choice.

On self grasping, it is classical or condition probabilities without me.