bangstrom

It is a description of a "quantum jump" but they also said the two electrons later become entangled. In my quote, they used the term,”...a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials ” to describe entanglement. Entanglement is a 4-vector event with three space-like vectors and a time-like vector extending both forward and backward in time. (advanced and retarded waves) This was my quote, “As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0 from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below” The last sentence is where they describe an entanglement.

The problem remains. When you measure the speed of light in units of length based on how far light travels in a given time and in units of time determined by the number of wavelengths of a cesium emission (or pick another emission) within your previously determined length, the value you get when you try to measure the speed of light will be the same as the value for c that you used in determining your values for length and time. Our units of distance, time, and c are all mutually determined. This is difficult to understand when measuring the speed of light over short distances but it becomes more clear when you consider the difficulty of measuring the speed of c over the distance of a lightyear. Light travels the distance of a light year in a year at the rate of c. So the rate of c can only be measured as the same as the value of c you used for calculating units of distance and time. This makes it impossible to measure c as anything other than it was decided to be by convention. You are describing the classical view which is not entanglement. There is no time interval to insert a block or a double slit between an entangled event. Entanglement is not possible unless the space between is open so a block would prevent entanglement in the first place. Entanglement is a violation of causality therefore also a violation of the EPR effect. It is described as a "violation of normal realism" but that is essentially causality to me. Entanglement is a correlation, but when the correlation is observed to have 'swapped' quantum locations in the before and after entanglement, that indicates an interaction. We can never observe the events as instant. Cramer and Mead describe them as simultaneous. As follows from SR, any two simultaneous events separated by distance will always be observed to also be separated by an interval of time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This makes c a spacetime dimensional constant rather than a speed of any kind. Einstein's Second Postulate was a provisional statement that was instrumental in his formulation of SR but whether we call c a speed or a dimensional constant makes no difference to the body of SR since the numerical value remains the same no matter what we call it. The "ground" state is the ambient energy level of the electron's environment. It is not an absolute zero.

As I said earlier, it is my understanding that ‘no-communication’ applies only to classical communication . Communication via entanglement can be observed when the particle coordination is reversed from its original condition indicating that ‘something has happened’ before and after entanglement. This is observed as quantum swapping. Entanglement can be used to communicate but it is impossible to observe such a communication as faster than light. Coordination occurs both with and without communication . The two are not mutually exclusive. Non-local interaction is the simplest form of interaction. Occam’s razor is violated when we insert what Mach called “unobserved metaphysicals” to explain events. Milo Wolff “When an energy exchange occurs between, say, two molecules one wonders what is traveling between them. If we don’t know, we say it is a “photon” Giving it a name doesn’t add any knowledge, but it allows us to feel better and we can pretend we know what travels.”

This indicates a misunderstanding of not only how particles become entangled, but also why particles become entangled. Neutrinos are unique animals, in the particle world. Have you ever heard of entangled neutrinos?

My statement was about the discrete nature of light with no mention of entanglement. Entanglement comes into play when one electron establishes a remote, nonlocal resonant connection with another electron possibly located far away. They become spontaneously entangled. One electron has an energy level above its ground state and the other electron has an energy level below its ground state. Conditions permitting, the high energy electron drops to a lower energy orbital while simultaneously the other rises to a higher energy level and both energy levels move towards a more equivalent state. One electron goes up in its individual atom as the other electron goes down with no need for energy to physically travel through the space between. Energy is conserved and no energy is lost to the void while waiting for a place to land. “As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11365 Article: Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of WaveFunction Collapse page 4

The translator was commenting about Tetrode's use of the words "massive particle" in other parts of the article. Tetrode wrote more than what I quoted. As I said earlier, the confusion was with my faulty memory. The electromagnetic part exists only at the extreme ends. The signal and sink. There is no "in between" an entanglement since it is nonlocal. A block between either particle would prevent entanglement in the first place so an entanglement can't be blocked. If neutrinos could be entangled, how could you tell? How is there nothing about entanglement here? Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms. This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts. There is no need for a particle exchange to make the amounts discrete.

I don’t agree the Tetrode quote is not about but I am reading the quote from the perspective of having read the entire article and not just a short quote. Here is another quote from the same article, “Thus purely on the basis of logic, there can be, in my view, no objection to this new formulation. It is actually no more than an extention of classical dynamics to relativistic interactions of point masses, as made necessary by Lorentz transformations. Moreover, there seems to be no contrary empirical evidence, at least so far as this initial analysis indicates. When solar radiation is emitted and then eight minutes later absorbed on Earth, in the intervening time interval, according to classical physics, it is to be found each moment at a distinct location as a field energy. This new theory, however, does not recognize fields, in its terms in the interval the energy is nonexistent, although it will reappear at the moment of absorption. This leads to no observable differences.” Hugo Tetrode I understand this last sentence to mean that light energy at the signal disappears and instantly reappears upon absorption at another location without passing through the space between. This sounds like entanglement to me. The time interval we observe between signal and sink can be accounted for by Special Relativity where we observe a time delay of one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

If you go back in the thread you will find that I corrected my statement about Kracklauer claiming electrons were unknown in Tetrode's time. This was wrong and I posted what Kracklauer actually said, "Translater's note; At the time of writing, 'electron' appears to have been virtually a synonym for 'charged massive particle.' So why isn't what blocked? I don't recall ever seeing anything about entangled neutrinos. The Cramer-Mead paper is all about entanglement as is the Freedman-Clauser experiment. I don't see the mismatch.

Electromagnetic. Which paper is this?

I failed to mention that, in TIQM, the mechanism for energy exchange is quantum swapping. The conventional view of quantum swapping is limited to quantum properties not observable on a large scale while TIQM includes the relative energy levels among bound electrons as separate quantum states that can be swapped in the before-and-after of entanglement. A description of how quantum states swap energy levels among electrons is no different from how they swap things like spin with the exception that a trans location of energy levels is observable while the former is not. Entanglement is not without communication and the item communicated is called ‘information.’ The thing violated by entanglement is usually called “normal realism” but that may be just a euphemism for causality. My understanding is that the violation of Bell’s inequality and the EPR effect demonstrated a violation of normal realism. Entanglement was a newly observed phenomenon not a “new property” in Occam’s sense as something made up ad hoc to explain the results. A simple explanation for how a particle decides was explained by Tetrode and it has changed little since his time.. “Suppose two atoms in different states of excitation are located near each other, normally it is to be expected that they would have little influence on each other; however, under special conditions with respect to positions and velocities, possibly also in the vicinity of a third atom, it might be that strong interactions occur, Such a situation could well lead to an energy transfer between atoms such that their excited states are exchanged. The energy loss of one and the gain of the other could occur in a time interval corresponding to their separation; that is, we would have an instance of emission from one atom and absorption by the other.” Hugo Tetrode Two or more separate particles, possibly greatly separated, act and interact as if they were side-by-side. I consider entanglement to be a non-local, causality-violating, interaction. The old ‘Spooky action at a distance.’ This may be a topic for further investigation.

"Undefined works for me." However, there are many attempts to define the undefinable. I forgot to mention the Cramer-Mead article I cited above can be found at,https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11365 Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of Wave Function Collapse Their model for the transmission of radiant energy does not include the involvement of a photon particle traveling through space from one electron to another carrying a quantum of energy. There is no passing through space in a measurable time. Our observations of the time it takes light to get from one electron to another always includes a relativistic amount of time at the constant rate of c. As I recall, Ruth Kastner called the passage of light from one atom to another as being beyond our concept of time. Here is another of her descriptions of the time of a signal from source to sink taken from same from my previously cited Cramer-Mead article. “that multi-body quantum systems with separated components that are subject to conservation laws exhibit a property called “quantum entanglement” [12]: Their component wave functions are inextricably locked together, and they display a nonlocal correlated behavior enforced over an arbitrary interval of space-time without any hint of an underlying mechanism or any show of respect for our cherished classical “arrow of time.” Entanglement is the most mysterious of the many so-called “quantum mysteries.”It has thus become clear that the quantum transfer of energy must have quite a different symmetry from that implied by this simple “photon-as-particle” interpretation. Within the framework of statistical QM, the intrinsic symmetry of the energy transfer and the mechanisms behind wave function collapse and entanglement have been greatly clarified by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics(TI), developed over several decades by one of us and recently described in some detail in the bookThe Quantum Handshake[12]. [We note that Ruth Kastner has extended her “probabilist” variant of the TI, which embraces the Heisenberg/probability view and characterizes transactions as events in many-dimensional Hilbert space, into the quantum-relativistic domain [13,14] and has used it to extend and enhance the “decoherence” approach to quantum interpretation [15]]

I said it would be absurd to try to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light-year, or any tiny fraction of that distance. This was hardly a demand. I also said the units of measurement don't matter. The point I was trying to make was that our units of distance, time. and the value of c are all mutually defined so that any attempt to measure c in the same units in which they are defined will only yield the values that were put into it. If you were to guess how far light can travel the distance of a light year over the time of a year, what would it be? Do you get it yet?

Could you explain the connection between HUP and superposition. They appear to be uncertainties about two different things. Ignore this, I see you already have. "In what follows we put forth a simple approach to describing the individual system (and its development in time),which Einstein believed was missing from statistical quantum theory and which must be present before any theory of physics could be considered to be complete. The way forward was suggested by the phenomenon of entanglement. Over the past few decades,many increasingly exquisite Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen [2] (EPR) experiments [3–11] have demonstrated that multi-body quantum systems with separated components that are subject to conservation laws exhibit a property called “quantum entanglement” [12]: Their component wave functions are inextricably locked together, and they display a nonlocal correlated behavior enforced over an arbitrary interval of space-time without any hint of an underlying mechanism or any show of respect for our cherished classical “arrow of time.” Entanglement is the most mysterious of the many so-called “quantum mysteries.”It has thus become clear that the quantum transfer of energy must have quite a different symmetry from that implied by this simple “photon-as-particle” interpretation. Within the framework of statistical QM, the intrinsic symmetry of the energy transfer and the mechanisms behind wave function collapse and entanglement have been greatly clarified by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics(TI), developed over several decades by one of us and recently described in some detail in the book The Quantum Handshake[12]. [We note that Ruth Kastner has extended her “probabilist” variant of the TI, which embraces the Heisenberg/probability view and characterizes transactions as events in many-dimensional Hilbert space, into the quantum-relativistic domain [13,14] and has used it to extend This paper begins with a tutorial review of the TI approach to a credible photon mechanism developed in the book Collective Electrodynamics[16], followed by a deeper dive into the electrodynamics of the quantum handshake, and finally includes descriptions of several historic experiments that have excluded entire classes of theories. We conclude that the approach described here has not been excluded by any experiment to date." John Cramer and Carver Mead This quote is too concise to clearly explain quantum entanglement violates causality or how the “photon-as-a particle” fails as a physical interaction while nonlocal entanglement secedes. These are dealt with the body of the text. In this thread, many of my comments have been elaborations on these topics. I have always considered entanglement to be a nonlocal interaction in violation of causality. "Spooky action at a distance."

I have no doubt you know better than me. Would that make it a straight line on the X axis?

I get an arctanh of zero. A wavelength of zero. Essentially a straight line on the time axis going nowhere. If correct, this raises some interesting interpretations about light. I have a philosophical concern about the idea of superposition but I can’t say it ain’t so. Their not knowing anything about the measurement of the first particle can occasionally be demonstrated in the autopsy of the event by the observation that one of their quantum states has quantum swapped with its entangled partner. This possibility is suggested by violations of the Bell test. It is my understanding that the no-communication theorem bears the caviat that it is limited to “classical” information. “Quantum entanglement refers to the phenomenon where particles share a quantum state, such that the measurement of one particle instantaneously affects the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, the no-communication theorem stipulates that these effects cannot carry classical information.” -Wikipedia- No-communication theorem Superpositions and violations of causality are not 'logical' from the classical point of view. I would replace the word logical with non-local to satisfy the contrarians.