Quantum Entanglement ?

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes it is. It allows us to see. Nuclear reactions in the sun form light and our photoreceptorcells absorb the photons.

The most simple example is that an electron can absorb and release a photon.

The subject is entanglement. Not the transmission and effects of electromagnetic radiation.

[DanTrentfield]

On 8/1/2017 at 11:54 AM, swansont said:

Teleportation is information transfer, not like Star Trek, where matter is teleported and is fictional.

There is no evidence of information being transferred. Whatever effect is happening, it is instantaneous (as far as we can tell), but there is no way to exploit this to communicate with anyone. Think of this example: you flip a coin. As soon as you see what one side it (heads) you instantly know what the other side is (tails). Does that require the transfer of information? Now imagine the coin is 1 light-second wide.  

Entanglement lasts until some interaction removes it, called decoherence. Anything that measures the state that's entangled removes it. 

Well you can 'teleport it Star Trek style' if you have something like 800TW or so to waste then you can totally demolish that 1 ton steel container over there with 1 ton of anti-matter and materialize that steel container again on the surface when you figure out how to condense energy into iron atoms and modify their structure and insert carbon to produce steel, You can open it up, get what you want, then beam it back up when you have 1 ton of anti-matter again, that's a 56 septillion dollar price tag per trip not to mention energy costs.

[Itoero]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

The subject is entanglement. Not the transmission and effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Ok but between entangled particles the act of measuring or observing is transferred. It's spooky reaction at distance.

[interested]

20 hours ago, Itoero said:

It's spooky reaction at distance.

Or maybe its spooky action directly connecting distant points in space via an unfolded 4th or interconnecting dimension. 

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, interested said:

Or maybe its spooky action directly connecting distant points in space via an unfolded 4th or interconnecting dimension. 

You keep saying that but not providing any support for it.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

Or maybe its spooky action directly connecting distant points in space via an unfolded 4th or interconnecting dimension. 

!

Moderator Note

Don't claim it if you can't support it. This is getting tiresome.

 

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, interested said:

Or maybe its spooky action directly connecting distant points in space via an unfolded 4th or interconnecting dimension. 

That's what the holographic principle provides. It states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region.

In my oversimplified explanation...two entangled particles are connected by 2D info. 2D info implies the absence of time and space. There is no space between entangled particles which allows the seemingly instantaneous collapse.

[dimreepr]

43 minutes ago, Itoero said:

In my oversimplified explanation...two entangled particles are connected by 2D info. 2D info implies the absence of time and space. There is no space between entangled particles which allows the seemingly instantaneous collapse.

 

you're missing the point, they aren't connected, other than in a ying-yang sense; when one is observed you know the other is its antipode.

For instance, when I wear a pair of shoes the connection is me, but when I take them off and lose one, all I know is which one I'm holding and which one I've lost.

Edited January 14, 2018 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

you're missing the point, they aren't connected, other than in a ying-yang sense; when one is observed you know the other is its antipode.

For instance, when I wear a pair of shoes the connection is me, but when I take them off and lose one, all I know is which one I'm holding and which one I've lost.

Please explain why I'm wrong Itoero?

Edited January 14, 2018 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

you're missing the point, they aren't connected

So ER=EPR is wrong?

I give neg rep because you deny the work of several of the 'best' physicists of this time and your example doesn't make any sense. You do know that more then two particles can get entangled?

[dimreepr]

On 1/14/2018 at 9:09 AM, Itoero said:

So ER=EPR is wrong?

I give neg rep because you deny the work of several of the 'best' physicists of this time and your example doesn't make any sense. You do know that more then two particles can get entangled?

Who knew????

On 1/14/2018 at 9:14 AM, dimreepr said:

Who knew????

 

A better question is, who cares? 

On 1/14/2018 at 9:09 AM, Itoero said:

So ER=EPR is wrong?

I give neg rep because you deny the work of several of the 'best' physicists of this time and your example doesn't make any sense. You do know that more then two particles can get entangled?

yes you're wrong, but who cares?

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

In my oversimplified explanation...two entangled particles are connected by 2D info. 2D info implies the absence of time and space. There is no space between entangled particles which allows the seemingly instantaneous collapse.

Firstly, I am not aware that the holographic principle says anything about entanglement. Do you have a relevant reference?

Secondly, reducing the number of dimensions from 3 to 2 is not really a great argument for the existence of 4 dimensions.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

So ER=EPR is wrong?

No one knows.

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Firstly, I am not aware that the holographic principle says anything about entanglement. Do you have a relevant reference?

No it doesn't but the ER EPR is based on the hologr

[Mordred]

No it isn't, you may find certain papers that include ER and EPR with the holographic principle but neither is based on each other. I certainly don't require the holographic principle to model EPR nor vice versa.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No it doesn't but the ER EPR is based on the hologr

Do you have a reference for that?

No. Because of course you don't.

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Firstly, I am not aware that the holographic principle says anything about entanglement. Do you have a relevant reference?

The ER EPR is based on the holographic principle.  But it's not literally said.

The holographic principle is a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.

The ER=EPR conjecture was proposed by Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena in 2013.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Secondly, reducing the number of dimensions from 3 to 2 is not really a great argument for the existence of 4 dimensions.

Why do you say that? The H principle doesn't remove or delete things, the principle explains things, it gives extra information.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

 

No one knows.

Yes but dimreepr seems to think he knows.

[Mordred]

One day you might actually study the mathematics involved in the holographic principle. Until then these random searches of yours will never make sense to the point where you actually understand what is going on. I've tried to explain how dimensions are treated to you before and how the holographic principle is a dimensional reduction. 

 

[Strange]

Just now, Itoero said:

The ER EPR is based on the holographic principle.  But it's not literally said.

In other words, you made it up.

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

Why do you say that? The H principle doesn't remove or delete things, the principle explains things, it gives extra information.

Good grief. The holographic principle says that the entropy of a 3D volume (that is THREE dimensions) can be encoded on a 2D surface (that's TWO dimensions).

So it  reduces the number of dimensions. And is therefore the opposite of increasing the number of dimensions to four.

And it doesn't give any extra information.

[Mordred]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

In other words, you made it up.

Good grief. The holographic principle says that the entropy of a 3D volume (that is THREE dimensions) can be encoded on a 2D surface (that's TWO dimensions).

So it  reduces the number of dimensions. And is therefore the opposite of increasing the number of dimensions to four.

And it doesn't give any extra information.

Specifically it relates directly to the number of independant variables involved. (mathematical definition of dimension).

The fustrating part is how does one explain dimensional compactification to someone that doesn't understand differential geometry under calculus. Let alone guage group duality required to understand the holographic theory grr.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Mordred

[Itoero]

19 hours ago, Strange said:

In other words, you made it up.

No. The ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)

It''s proposed by Leonard Susskind in 2013,, a proponent of the holographic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

No. The ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)

It''s proposed by Leonard Susskind in 2013,, a proponent of the holographic principle.

Just because Susskind has worked on both ER=EPR and the holographic principle doesn't mean that one is based on the other.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No. The ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)

It''s proposed by Leonard Susskind in 2013,, a proponent of the holographic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Why are you so determined to establish a connection, when none is needed? 

[Itoero]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

Good grief. The holographic principle says that the entropy of a 3D volume (that is THREE dimensions) can be encoded on a 2D surface (that's TWO dimensions).

So it  reduces the number of dimensions. And is therefore the opposite of increasing the number of dimensions to four.

And it doesn't give any extra information.

No, you are again completely wrong. If the holographic principle is correct then that doesn't change the three-dimensional space we live in which is a geometric setting in which three values (called parameters) are required to determine the position of a point. By proving the holographic principle you don't reduce the amount of coordinates needed to specify any point within the space.

 

[Strange]

Just now, Itoero said:

No, you are again completely wrong. If the holographic principle is correct then that doesn't change the three-dimensional space we live in which is a geometric setting in which three values (called parameters) are required to determine the position of a point. By proving the holographic principle you don't reduce the amount of coordinates needed to specify any point within the space.

As I didn't say either of those things, I'm not sure why you claim I did.

The holographic principle states that the information within a three dimensional space can be encoded on a two dimensional surface. You referenced it in support of four dimensional space. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in your claim, then I don't know how to make it any clearer.

But perhaps it would help if you explained (in your own words) what you think the holographic principle is. That might help me understand your claim that it equates to four dimensions instead of two.

[Itoero]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

The holographic principle states that the information within a three dimensional space can be encoded on a two dimensional surface. You referenced it in support of four dimensional space. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in your claim, then I don't know how to make it any clearer.

If it's encoded on a two dimensional surface then that doesn't change the observable dimensions we live in. And it's not a 4 or 5 dimensional space since the holographic dimensions are not space....they create space.