split from Light Echoes from V838 Mon (APOD 03 Feb 2008)

[bystander]

Quantum Entanglement is a common but often misunderstood phenomenon that involves large balls of yarn and kittens. It is the bane of old ladies everywhere. It is known to be the cause of the Quantum Teleportation of socks from washing machines and dryers. Scientists are currently studying Quantum Entanglement in an attempt to conserve our matching sock supply. ...

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[Dr. Skeptic]

I'm not sitting on a fence, I know what I know and more importantly, I know what I don't know.

If the universe is "recycled" it is not on a "Newtonian" scale and "infinity" is not one of it's variables.

So then, what are your thoughts on entanglement?

With all the exotic, obscure mathematics involved in quantum mechanics and entanglement ("spooky action at a distance" ), I'm surprised you have such a problem with the concept of infinity. With all the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics, it still has a big problem with gravity, one thing with which Newton and Einstein both did well, and on which most (all?) cosmologies depend, at least to some extent.

Entanglement, though well documented, seems to be counterintuitive and nonproductive. Gravity, on the other hand, has a major influence on my everyday life.

I'm still waiting for "The Grand Theory of Everything", or perhaps what we need is "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".

Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.

Entanglement! Kittens! Evidently you've never gone Salmon fishing on a crowded river bank in Alaska!

[Martin]

^ =

I thought entanglement was a reference to the end result of marriage.

Questions:

Gravity is theorized in General Relativity to be the result of space-time warping due to the presence of mass? -yet this doesn't combine easily with Quantum Mechanics.

Why doesn't it combine well? Simply stated what is the nature of the conflict between GR & QM.

If a model cannot be found that easily combines GR & QM successfully. Will mainstream eventually turn on either GR or QM and look for flaws there and which one would be the most likely candidate?

Is it conceivable that a TOE may not be obtainable. Could it be that the conflict itself is needed to produce this apparent random universe.

Is a TOE a bold and unachievable desire, a pointless trek of a species which neither has the intellectual capacity nor the means to identify everything in its completeness. Are we simply insisting order upon random chaos.

[kovil]

In my universe;

Gravity and electric charge attraction are the result of a principle of Undividedness showing itself.

Momentum and Inertia and Time are the result of a principle of Changelessness showing itself.

Energy in its forms of electromagnetic radiation, the electrical nature of matter and matter itself are the result of a principle of Infiniteness showing itself.

I therefore seriously doubt that mathematics can create a fungibility by numbers between these three separate principals in the nature of the expression of the universe. Unless math can get to what is underlying the Changeless, the Infinite and the Undivided, it won't describe a theory of everything. And at this point, even the philosophy that describes the Changeless the Infinite and the Undivided doesn't pretend to describe what underlies those principles, it only describes those principles and how they show up in our physics.

[BMAONE23]

Perhaps the accurate comparison between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is more like Apples and Oranges, They are both fruit that grow from the flowers on trees but that is their only similarity. Maybe if we stop comparing the fruit and saying "they don't match" and look for the tree we might find the unifying theory of everything.

[harry]

Hello Mr Skeptic

You said

So then, what are your thoughts on entanglement?

Martin said

I thought entanglement was a reference to the end result of marriage.

Darn, I was going to say that.

===================================


The question is:

What entanglement do you mean?

No two particles can have the same wave centre.


Its amazing I was looking forward to reading up on the subject.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://www.imaph.tu-bs.de/qi/entanglement.html
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ppm/events/L ... ement3.pdf

A paradigm for entanglement theory based on quantum communication
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0458

“ENTANGLEMENT THEORY” : from q.Particles to q.Bits and from q.Bits to q.Particles
http://www.wbabin.net/science/manzelli11.pdf

Quantum Information and Entanglement Theory
http://idefix.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~breuer/QInfo.htm

[bystander]

Entanglement! Kittens! Evidently you've never gone Salmon fishing on a crowded river bank in Alaska!

Hey, the kittens and yarn thing is someone else's theory. It just seemed plausible, especially when it came to the socks disappearing. Just think what might happen when the kittens start playing with strings instead of yarn.

As to the salmon fishing in Alaska, is that an invitation?

Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a scientific theory, one of the most important ones studied in physics. It is so named because it is said to be "So simple, even a single (quantum) mechanic could understand all its principles." The prominent physicist Richard Feynmann switched from teaching freshman introductory physics to quantum mechanics, noting that QM is "so much easier."

Max Planck and Enrico Fermi first formulated quantum mechanics after discovering that single bits of matter could behave both like a particle and a rave. This particle-rave duality was later explained by the "color charge" associated with atoms, a consequence of the atomic tendency to vibrate in time with techno music and consume ecstasy pills (also known as "gluons").

String Theory

String theory is the theory of string panties. It claims that since a girl who wears string panties will get more attention than a girl that wears ordinary panties, bearers of string panties will ultimately make their trousers more and more thin and stretchy or heavy and baggy so that more and more of the string panty will be visible for the naked eye, which is odd, since it is not the string at all that catches the attention but the body part that is surrounding it.
...
String theory is also related to rope science that covers the practice of tying exceedingly complicated knots in them for research purposes.

The most complicated knots have been tied by such notables as Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve. These knots have been known to appear in different places at the same time (sometimes breaking the laws of physics and appearing at the same place and time), which only serves to complicate the knots further. Their efficacy in either covering or revealing posterior particles is the subject of incredibly close study in university laboratories.

[bystander]

Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.

OMG I just reread this. Are you really looking outside of the "known empirical universe"

You had better be careful. We'll have you believing in infinity, soon.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Perhaps the accurate comparison between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is more like Apples and Oranges, They are both fruit that grow from the flowers on trees but that is their only similarity. Maybe if we stop comparing the fruit and saying "they don't match" and look for the tree we might find the unifying theory of everything.

That just means we need to define a common relationship of the two fruits on a level smaller than the "fruit".

I expect a solution Friday!

[Dr. Skeptic]

Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.

OMG I just reread this. Are you really looking outside of the "known empirical universe"

You had better be careful. We'll have you believing in infinity, soon.

I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.

[harry]

Hello All

Dr Skeptic said

I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.

Ok,,,,,,,so what does it mean at the end of the day?

[harry]

Hello Martin

This interesting

II. Issuer Liability for Web Site Content

A. Issuer Responsibility for Hyperlinked Information -- The new release addresses issuer concerns that they can be held liable under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws for third-party information to which they link from their web sites.

1. The new release discusses the "entanglement" theory and the "adoption" theory as two ways in which an issuer can be held liable for statements of third parties (such as analysts):

a. Liability under the "entanglement" theory would depend upon an issuer's level of pre-publication involvement in the preparation of the information.

b. Liability under the "adoption" theory would depend upon whether, after its publication, the issuer explicitly or implicitly, endorses or approves the hyperlinked information.

Thats one form of entanglement.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello All

Dr Skeptic said

I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.

Ok,,,,,,,so what does it mean at the end of the day?

"Life" and "Cognition" cannot be resolved as empirical data. Conceptual values are "Qualitative" while Empirical values are quantitative, so let say I want to describe a shade of blue, quantitatively I can define it as 80% 478 nm, 19% 378 nm, and 1% other. Now if describe that shade of blue as a "soothing blue" color for me, I just placed a qualitative value to it - if I describe it as a "soothing blue" to someone else, they will in vision there own version of "soothing" based on there own cognitive values.

Infinity falls under the same "conceptual" definition as soothing is. It can't be measured, broken down into subsystem, convey empirical limits or values ...

Scientist that run into the most controversy are those that ignorantly attempt to resolving "everything" as empirical data - that would include those using infinity as an empirical point of reference.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic


Thank you for promp to read entanglememnt:

Still reading,,,,,,,,,,,,,darn,,,,,,,,, don't you hate it when you start reading something and you cannot put it down.

I Understand what you have written,,,,,last post,,,,,,,,,, but! my son is asking me to ask you to further explain, what does it mean to the origin or the workings of the universe.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Dr Skeptic


Thank you for promp to read entanglememnt:

Still reading,,,,,,,,,,,,,darn,,,,,,,,, don't you hate it when you start reading something and you cannot put it down.

I Understand what you have written,,,,,last post,,,,,,,,,, but! my son is asking me to ask you to further explain, what does it mean to the origin or the workings of the universe.

It means that the universe exceeds what can be explained by"Newtonian Physics" and cannot be limited to 4 dimensions.


Instead of reading revamped 50 year old publications on the web, try reading:

Brian Greene:The Elegant Universe

Or

Michio Kaku: Hyperspace

Don't take them a gospel, they do get things wrong, but, both are written with wonderful analogies to help visualize totally new and bizarre concepts of entanglement, super-strings, hidden dimensions, the quest for the ultimate theory of everything ....

[Martin]

The M-theory. It is humankinds greatest advancement in furthering our understanding of our universe.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

Read those.

Please do not assume what people read.

Yes! I read papers from the past, but its the "NOW" papers and evidence which plays the game.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Dr Skeptic

Read those.

Please do not assume what people read.

Yes! I read papers from the past, but its the "NOW" papers and evidence which plays the game.

Then I would have to suggest re-reading them because your antiquated arguments don't encompass any of the information of these books or any scientific resolves of the last 30 years.

[Arramon]

Next topic!!! Jeez... are you even on topic? Can we get some posts in the other APOD image days??? =b

This topic is a post hog. O.o

[harry]

Hello Arramon

Point well taken

================================

Mr Skeptic open a new topic, and I will discuss any issues.

Please leave your statements on the fence and focus on the topic.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Arramon

Point well taken

================================

Mr Skeptic open a new topic, and I will discuss any issues.

Please leave your statements on the fence and focus on the topic.

Science does not "sit on the fence", indecisiveness is reserved for opinions.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

You just proved my point.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Dr Skeptic

You just proved my point.

And what point would that be?

[Martin]

Skeptics:

How much time will pass after this very moment

[astrolabe]

None