JoeLight

I think it makes to much sense to not continue and see how far that route gets us.

Entanglement does theoretically involve instantaneous communication, Recently some fine scientists measured the rate of transfer between to quantum particles to be more than 10,000 times the speed of light. Its likely instantaneous however we don't have the technology to measure it any better than that because our equipment is effected by time. Saying that QED involves time travel is a ridiculous statement. The quantum realm doesn't depend anything on time or space. Time in space seem to exist only because of the behavior of the quantum realm. Its actually starting to look very much like ever since the big bang all the energy in the universe is slowly moving toward a state of equilibrium due to the probabilistic nature of particles, which seems to be responsible for the flow of time, and the interactions of these particles seems to be responsible for the localization of particles. The Law of Gravity is not responsible for mass. Mass effects gravity but Mass is determined by the interaction of the bosons of particles with the Higgs Field as they try to achieve there lowest energy state. Imagine the Higgs field as an invisible net. If a particle passes though the net at the speed of light without touching it than the particle has no mass. But if the net slows the particle down than the particle now has mass. The more the Higgs field slows the particle down the more mass it has. This is a proportional effect rather than probabilistic. This explains why photons are massless because they travel at the speed of light and electrons travel at near the speed of light and so they have very little mass. Particles like Protons and Neutrons are effected by the Higgs field much more and so they travel slower and have a higher mass. The higher the mass they higher the effect of gravity. This is possibly caused by something called a graviton but your right nobody knows for sure. Ultimately when I comes to what is actually happing to a particle when its not interacting is impossible to tell. You have to interact with it to even know its existence. Its like if I have a colored light in a box with a switch that turns the light off when the box is opened. If you want to know what color the light is you have to open the box to look at it. Unfortunately when you open the box the light is gone and you have no way of telling what color it was before you opened the box. The Dual nature of particles acts as the switch that's blinding us from seeing what is going on when a particle isn't interacting. This dual nature also provides us with 2 different states a particle can be in. Much like the on/off switch. The light is on in the box but nobody can see it. Now if I write open me on the box and I randomly carry the box around I would be simulating the probabilistic nature of particles. If carry the box out in the middle of a field its not likely anybody will open the box and the light will remain lit. But if I carry it though the local mall someone is much more likely to open it and the light will switch from on to off. That person can see that there is a light bulb and can say the light exists but is completely oblivious to what it color the light was before the box was opened. QED mathematically predicts the likelihood the interaction will occur just like predicting the likelihood somebody will open my box. It cant tell us what the particles are doing when the is no interaction occurring, nor does it attempt to. Knowing what the particles do when they are not interacting seems to be impossible because our ability to observe anything is restricted to observing there interactions. If no interaction occurs then we cant see it. If nobody opens the box you don't even know the light is there. This is the problem that we have with the Quantum realm. Rather than viewing quantum mechanics as having to follow the classical laws of physics (because it doesn't) try to remember quantum mechanics is governing the classical laws of physics. Its absolute simplest form of math there is. If you only have 2 particles they ignore each other or interact with each other. We as beings of interaction can only see them when they interact. Its all random chance at this level. There are so many interactions going on at the same time though that you cant see the absence of interactions unless we do an experiment like the double slit. 1 simple rule governs the universe. Chance. On/off, yes/no, is/isn't etc.

Is there any studies going on to discover what is actually occurring ,if anything, between A and B or since the math is there and if we know A we can accurately predict B, is it something that were not looking into at the moment? I know it has been in question for a long time.

Thanks for all the help guys I have a few more questions Do electrons when behaving like a wave use the electro magnetic field as a medium? If so, does this play any role in inductance? Is there a name to describe particles such as photons and electrons that can have wave like properties. For instance particles that have both particle and wave like characteristics are called _______? I know photons are sometimes call Quanta. Lastly if photons are massless how does gravity have an effect on light? For instance black holes.

Thank you for answering my question. What evidence, or experiments, have confirmed that the height of wave is not a constant. Have we been able to see it as a variable or are we assuming it can change? If so could you point me in that direction so I can read about it? If anyone has good sources of information on this stuff please share. When you start searching the wonderfully wide web lol you get a lot of useless information. I'm really trying to learn here.

We view increasing the amplitude as increasing the displacement of the crest from the resting state. How do we know were not simply increasing the number of waves rather than changing the characteristics of them. so instead of doubling the amplitude of 1 wave your actually adding a second which still doubles the energy output without with changing the peak of the crest? Is it possible to or has anyone ever performed experiments with the photoelectric effect using single photons or waves of light?

Why do we assume a photon is a particle that is dislodging electrons from the metal surface. Couldn't the vibration of the electromagnetic field be responsible for the freeing of electrons and at low frequencies there just simply enough of a vibration to free the electron regardless of the intensity? I guess I just don't understand why the photoelectric effect means light has to behave as particle.

What properties of photons are particle like. What makes us think the photon is ever a particle at all and not exclusively a wave.

I have a question about photons and haven't been able to research an answer. If I'm standing by the road and I'm looking at a yellow line on the road for instance, I know that photons are being emitted by the yellow paint and travel as wave form in primarily the yellow spectrum to my retina where they then become photon particles again and my brain processes the chemical reaction in my eye and allows me to see the line. My question is why do we see the origin of the photons rather than where they currently are. How does my brain know that the photons came from a specific distance rather than just being bombarded with color from a direction. It makes sense to me why we would know the direction the light is coming from but the distance part confuses me. How does the brain allow you to see the photon as it was 10 feet away and not as it is at my eye. Is it a characteristic of the photon. Is the photon itself just a form of data being interpreted by the brain?

I would never go as far as to say consciousness has any impact on reality. But our own consciousness does limit what we are able to observe. The human body has limitations. For instance a microscope only enhances the ability of the human eye to see something very small. Who knows how much is out there that we don't know about, that we have never and will never see. Dark matter for instance is something that mathematically makes since but we as humans have never found a way to observe or interact with it. Nobody really knows what it is or even if it is. Human evolution has only given us a limited set of senses that allow us to observe the universe. There are even things our subconscious mind does that we are never aware of without the help of technology. But technology can only do so much. In that sense our consciousness limits our knowledge of reality. Not that it alters reality in anyway but our snapshot is skewed. Unfortunately because of this human limitation we may never fully understand the universe. Its a sad tale

This is good stuff, I used the word "fired" for lack of a better term. I totally agree with you. I don't think the electron really travels at all. I'm wondering if maybe the potential for the electrons existence at any point in space time traveling from point A to B. Even in an atom an electron doesn't have a definite location relative to the nucleus. The electron just exists anywhere and everywhere in its orbital. We can interact with that electron and when we do it briefly has a definite location in space. What if this potential for the electron to exist as a particle behaves like a wave. As that potential passes the detector the detector interacts with the electron giving it a definite location in either slit 1 or 2. Meaning there is now only a potential for existence at whatever slit the electron is currently at. With only one wave at one slit there cant be an interference pattern. However, when you take the detector away the electron is no longer interacted with at the slits and it has no definite location in space, so the potential now has 2 waves, a wave at slit 1 and a wave at slit 2. If the potential does behave like a wave you would then get the interference pattern where your detecting the electron at point B. To me this would explain why an electron behaves like a particle when your looking at it and a wave when your not which is why the probability equation always accurately predicts the electrons location. The interaction with the electron at the slits is the only thing changing in the experiment. We all know this. I'm proposing interaction with the electron is what makes it behave particle. I don't have the means to perform any sort of experiments for this idea. I'm just throwing it out there for someone else who can.

I'm not a physicist so forgive me if this is completely wrong. Its just a thought. I’m under the understanding that potential energy and kinetic energy are very different in that potential energy is the potential for an interaction, and kinetic energy is a measurement of the actual interaction. Since we cannot observe something without witnessing the interaction then potential energy shall never be observed making it nothing more than function of probability. When and electron is fired at the 2 slits it has the potential to pass through either one of the slits or hit the barrier and not pass at all because the electron does not have a defined location until its actually observed. When it isn't observed it has the potential to be on an infinite number of paths. This potential for the electron to travel in any direction could be described much like waves of light and this wave function amplifies and cancels itself just like the wave function of light. For the sake of this explanation I am going to call this a potential wave. The kinetic energy that we can observe does not exist until the measurement is made. When we measure the electrons at the screen they have the potential to be at multiple locations and the probability of the location follows the same interference pattern that light waves do. To measure them we have to interact with them which convert their potential energy into kinetic energy and also define the electron as a particle with a definite location. By simply observing the electrons at the barrier you have now defined its location and it can no longer travel through slit1 if it is already in slit 2. This eliminates the ability for the potential wave from the electron to pass through slit 1 and interfere with the potential wave from slit 2 as there is no electron to have a potential wave in slit 1 and there is in slit 2 and you end up with 2 solid lines rather than the interference pattern. If you were to do the same experiment but add 2 more slits in the middle of the dense line on the second screen and allow them to further pass to a 3rd screen and you observe the electrons at the second screen you would have and interference pattern on the second screen and 2 defined lines on the third. I don’t know if this is already a proposed theory. I had never seen the double slit experiment until the other day and the scientist asked the question “why does this happen”. Immediately this is what came to mind. I’m good at visualizing the way things work but lack the Math skills and Vocabulary to do much with it. Any input on this?