truedeity

"Because I wanted too. " I just preferred it that way, I wanted the experiment to provide as much information as possible so that if any technical issues came out that bookkeeping it would be embedded in the experiment. Suppose for example the experiment is not null, and particles pass through the slit, and in doing so the spin direction is changed. (Side note- perhaps it is possible that this does not cause decoherence, e.g. when a magnetic fields changes the spin of the particle, I think we have to get deeper into conservation laws to identify that this does indeed decohere just to ensure this experiment is truly null.) If the results on the wall display an interference pattern, one may prefer having more information, like to have the ability to measure the spin direction, of each particle, and knowing which particle it corresponds with on the wall, is like the Rosetta stone version of this experiment. It gives you bits of accounting that you might want to have. Because we sill need to answer the fundamental questions of the experiment, as to the nature of particles and its wave like behavior, etc...

I did not explain why I added the serial numbers, that's why you guys don't understand it completely. It's really a waste of energy to spend time on it though, I will not need it since the experiment is null. Serial numbers are for tracking, and I wanted to do tracking. The reason it is this way is because as particles are being sent one-at-a-time, we know which particle we are sending and when we are sending it. So when it lands on the back wall, I could point to that specific particle and say, "this particle was the 4th particle we sent, this particles pair is in this box."

I understand why interacting will destroy the entanglement. But I am thinking that this interaction will not destroy the interference pattern. The double-slit experiment has never been invoked in this manner. Partly, this is why I came up with Experiment #1. What is it about your knowledge that makes you think this type of interaction will collapse the wave function? Can you elaborate on that? If what your saying is true, adding a magnetic field around either of the slits will always result in a double band. Has that ever been tested? Because I only need to measure the particle once, after the results are in, I don't care if I destroy the entanglement. Strange- The significance is just that my version is different. There may be fundamental similarities but a totally different setup. This is a technical impediment not necessarily an impossibility. A lot will have to be designed and worked out to configure Apparatus 4. Something like a CD changer, once you select which pair you want to send a carton containing the particle is loaded and ready to be fired. I won't be putting serial numbers on the particles themselves. The serial numbers will correspond to a particular entangled pair, or one of the Apparatus 3 boxes. Each box contains one of the pair particles. The serial number will be written on the box. The image below taken from Wikipedia shows how the particles accumulate when being sent one-at-a-time, the result is single particles appearing on the screen. This is the version of the experiment Apparatus 4 performs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg

I am thinking of two different experiments. The first experiment does not involve entangled particles. The second experiment does. In the first experiment the purpose of flipping the spin of a non-entangled particle is to demonstrate simply that the spin can change, and that it is an isolated event, and this spin change should not cause the wave function to collapse. There is no way to know which slit the particle passes through, and 'which-path' cannot be known. Since 'which-path' is not known, we should expect to see the interference pattern. The first experiment is not a quantum eraser, also a difference in the quantum eraser experiment is that prisms are used. I am not using prisms in either the first, or second experiment. My second experiment is similar to the delayed choice quantum eraser but different because it will involve different equipment and a different way of conducting the experiment. Second experiment works like this- Aparatus 1) Is a "magnetic field generator capable of flipping the spin of a particle to spin up" Aparatus 1 simply creates a magnetic field which is directed twoards the right slit. *This aparatus does not measure a particles spin direction. It is just a magnetic field. Aparatus 2) Is a "magnetic field generator capable of flipping the spin of a particle to spin down." Aparatus 2 simply creates a magnetic field which is directed twoards the left slit. *This aparatus does not measure a particles spin direction. It is just a magnetic field. Aparatus 3) Is a device which can measure the spin of an entangled particle. It has two buttons, red and blue The red button measures the spin The bule button causes the device to self distruct, and releases the particle into the atmosphere so it can never be measured. Aparatus 4) Responsible for sending particles into the slits. It is a box with entangled particles inside, attached to the box is a computer which allows the user to type in the serial number of the entangled particle we want to send. We will need to buy enatngled particles from a lab who can manufacturer them and seperate each entangled particle into aparatus 3, and aparatus 4. I want to be able to send a specific entangled particle on-demand. The configuration and setup is exactly the same as the double-slit experiment, except that aparatus 4 is customized to fit our needs of sending specific particles. The double slit experiment will be tested exactly as it has been in the past where particles are sent one-at-a-time. At the end of an experiment an hour later, we will observe what the results are. Once the results are in, we will decide whether or not to press the red button, or the blue button, or neither.

Swansont - Correct, that is not the scenario I described initially, I proposed a new scenario because I did not know that you can only measure the entangled pair once. Initially, I described continuously measuring the entanglement which would not work. I updated my understanding a bit and then revised the experiment. The revision is basically the same as the delayed choice quantum eraser. Except I have a different idea about how to conduct that experiment. I am seeing a bit of miscommunication or misunderstanding about what I am trying to describe, and I think at least 1 potentially false assumption on the opposing side. So in order to discuss this we need to agree about some minor technical details. If I cannot clear up these technical details, a case for predeterminism cannot be made. (Also, I would not call it predeterminism... I would not make a case for predeterminism. I would would presume that the particles are able to travel "forwards" not just backwards in time.) So lets try to work out this issue in our thinking, here is how I view this- 1st there is no information to reconstruct the path. There is only information when you measure the entangled pair spin direction. The particle travels forwards in time to when you made the choice to measure the spin, then travels backwards in time to behaving like a particle instead of a wave. If the device measuring the particle is destroyed before measuring the particle, no information is obtained, and 'which-path' cannot be known. So I may be making a case for forward in time travel of quantum particles. To start, someone could devise a basic/simple experiment which uses a magnetic field to change the non-entangled particle spin direction as it enters the slit., and we would only be sending non-entangled particles in order to validate that this alone does not affect the interference pattern. There is no way to know which slit the particle goes through, we just create a device and emit a magnetic field at the slit which we know will affect its spin. In passing particles will not be relaying any information to outside consultants. No body will be calling these particles and asking for a status report, so there is no reason to expect that the double experiment will change its behavior.

As Swansnot said previously its not about changing the spin, its about knowing 'which-path' information. For example, magnetic fields at the slits should not destroy the interference pattern if we are sending non-entangled particles, because it would be impossible to know 'which-path' since there are no entangled particles. So the same should be true for entangled particles as well, because it is based on 'which-path' information. A particles passing through a magnetic field will not have any impact on the experiment since 'which-path' is still unknown. It should be business-as-usual for particles to pass through magnetic fields, its just that magnetic field is changing the spin, if there is no entangled particle it should not impact the experiment, if it is entangled it also should not so long as measurement on the spin is not performed. Because measuring gives you 'which-path' information. For the last part of your sentence, I am not sure why you say this "The same interaction breaks the entanglement." How do scientists influence the spin in prior experiments? The reason this seems unlikely to me is because they have to be able to know the particle is entangled to begin with, the only way you can know that is to be able to change the spin, and then perform the measurement of both particles to verify they are entangled. If what your saying is true, how did we ever figure out that particles are entangled to begin with?

The particle passes through a magnetic field, in doing its spin is changed. Changing the spin does not mean you have to perform the measurement on the entangled pair. We can wait, and suspend our decision to measure after the results on the experiment are in. The experiment will tell you whether or not you do, even though you have control to measure the entangled pair, or not. Results come in- A) A interference pattern shows on the back wall. Even though we have control to measure the entangled pair, we do not. The experiment told us what our decision was before we made the choice. B) The interference pattern is not shown on the back wall (just the two bands). Even though we have the choice not to measure the entangled pair, we "will" and do. The experiment told us what our decision was before we made the choice. What does it say about fate? The quantum eraser experiment seems similar but different somehow. I actually want to perform the measurements after the results. It seems that in quantum eraser is the measurement is performed after the particle passes through the slit, but BEFORE it his the back wall. My version is a little different- I want to do defer the choice of measurement to after the results come in.

The which path information is only gathered after the fact, after the particle has hit the back wall. I want to clarify my thoughts on that detail. The particle is simply passing through a magnetic field, and in passing we are NOT measuring its spin. Its just that we know the magnetic field around each slit imposes on the spin, of any particle passing through each slit. At that point no measurement is taking place, the particle is passing through a magnetic field, that's it and nothing else. Particles pass through magnetic fields all the time, its just business as usual for particles... since there is no observation on the slit, and the measurement has not been performed, the observer is left out of the experiment and there is no reason the wave function would collapse. I think the way the experiment has been claimed is that as soon as we try to measure which slit the particle passes through, means that the interference pattern goes away (as a result of wave function collapsing due to some observer). Since the particle is entangled, and we have a choice of whether or not we want to measure that entanglement. We can decide any future time to measure the particle spin. For example, 3 hours after the particle hits the wall. If you see a interference pattern on the wall, does that mean that we never get to measure the spin?

Why do you think that changing the spin at the slit will destroy the interference pattern?

Hmm, Since continuous measurement renders the entanglement null. Could the experiment be revised to measuring the particle only once after the particle passes through the slit? Perhaps the wall could have a sensor which triggers the measurement? I'm just not sure if it would be considered unreliable, does spin change too frequently? A particle passing through a slit should be affected by some magnetic field which changes the particles spin. At some point after the particle passes through the slit a measurement can be done on the entangled pair to recover the direction of the spin. Since we have labeled right/left slits for up/down spins respectively we can theoretically know which slit the particle passes through by doing the measurement. So we can have one device for each particle, once the particle hits the back wall (a detector of some sort) a signal can be sent to perform the measurement on that pair. So, we would be sending 1 particle at a time, waiting for the signal, and then measuring spin. Because we are not "observing" which slit the particle passes through the wave function should not be collapsed. If it does collapse, are there any implications?

I have an idea for an experiment, I will try to explain the setup. Here goes- The experiment is exactly the same as the double-slit experiment, except the only particles which will be sent will be entangled pairs. For each entangled pair, we have a monitoring device which measures its spin continuously, and logs the spin direction to a database along with the time that the spin was measured Near each slit there is some device which influences the magnetic field around the slit in such a way as to change the spin of the particle passing through the slit Since there are two slits, the slit on the right will change any particles passing through it to "spin up", similarly, the slit on the left will change any particles passing through it to "spin down" Lastly, the particles will have to be ordered and indexed to its respective pair in such a way that we can send a stream of particles towards the slit and be able to identify which entangled pair passed through the slit. The idea behind this experiment is to see if it affects the role the observer plays. As the experiment is explained, the observer measures which slit the particle passes through and as a result of that observation the particles wave-like behavior is collapsed. Will logging the entanglement allow us to know which slit the particle goes through without collapsing the wave function?

Mass is calculated using electron volts as its units. In the case of proton/neutron/electron its (Megaelectron volts), so mass is not related with size its related with energy content. Below are masses of the bunch- Neutron = 939.56563 MeV Proton = 938.27231 MeV Electron = 0.51099906 MeV

This books title is misleading, Krauss does not propose a universe from nothing, he refers to "primitive beginnings", which is not "nothing", I think nothing is a technical impossibility. The reason I say this is a technical impossibility is because dimensionlessness is just a crackpot concept. "Absolute nothing" implies lack of dimension so people need to be specific about the word nothing, by nothing you really mean "still something"

Matter cannot come from nothing

I want to find out what the minimum distortion (or curving) of space should be to prevent light from escaping that distortion. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-classical-black-hole I am not aware of any way of measuring the "amount" of distortion a mass imposes on space. Can anyone shed some light? If so, would you be able to tell me the minimum amount of distortion needed to capture photons such as in the case of an event horizon.