Quantum Entanglement ?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

If it's encoded on a two dimensional surface then that doesn't change the observable dimensions we live in.

Agreed. No one said it did.

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

And it's not a 4 or 5 dimensional space

Agreed. So I'm not sure why you raised it in the context of a discussion of four dimensional space.

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

the holographic dimensions are not space....they create space.

What? Apart from the fact that appears to contradict your first statement, the holographic principle doesn't "create" dimensions. It describes to projection of information in a 3D volume onto the 2 dimensions that make up the surface of that volume. These are not "new" dimensions. They are 2 of the 3 existing dimensions.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Strange

[Itoero]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

that it equates to four dimensions instead of two.

I never said that. But if you think like that, it's rather 5 dimensions instead of 2.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Itoero

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I never said that.

Well you brought up the holographic principle in the context of a discussion of four dimensional space. 

Quote

But if you think like that, it's rather 5 dimensions instead of 2.

Good grief. You have gone beyond making things up to spouting complete gibberish.

The room I am in has a volume and the walls have an area.That does not equate to 5 dimensions. The 2D area of the walls is not an extra two dimensions, they are 2 out of the existing 3 dimensions.

 

[Mordred]

Iteoro you seem to think Strange and I are misleading you. Thats fair so let me provide with a couple of links that describe the holographic principle and compactification. I will for now start with the methodology directly developed by Maldacena

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

notice on that link it mentions compactification of both the [math]ADS_5[/math] 4+1 dimensions into the ADS boundary hyperslice. Then it models the CFT (conformal field theory) as a cylindrical surface boyndary ?

From that link...

Three-dimensional anti-de Sitter space is like a stack of hyperbolic disks, each one representing the state of the universe at a given time. The resulting spacetime looks like a solid cylinder.

 

 

Compactification requires complex mathematical objects. (key note mathematical not physical).

Look at it this way in order to describe a cube I require height, width and length. 

Or do I if each side is identical ? If all sides are identical I can remove one of those dimensions. Rougjly speaking each side has a symmetry duality with any given side.

Now the compactication above is far far more complex as it literally involves compactification of string theory (which attempts to model all particle degrees of freedom from a fundamental string) that fundamental string (usually a spin 2 graviton but not always) gives rise to other harmonic strings via (as often described by analogy changing the string tension just like tightening a guitar string changes the frequency of superposition of harmonic strings upon the fundamental string frequency).

Every particle has a spin characteristic, they also have chemical potential etc described by the particles cross section. In the holographic principle these quantum bits of information of each  particle  is what is encoded via its temperature contribution

to entropy. It is the quantum information defined by entropy of each particle that is encoded upon each boundary surface ie each hyperslice etc. To do this requires the use of gauge groups. There is variations of AdS/Cft that uses different gauge groups under different symmetry group compactification methods that lead to say [math] ADS_7[/math] mentioned in that link above.

Wow is that a mouthful. However I was serious when I stated one must examine the math involved to properly understand ADS/CFT. Its just like GR. In order to fully understand how the EFE works one must learn the mathematics.

(PS I actually find it rather amusing to see downvotes when a poster is telling the truth.) It simply proves how abused the reputation system actually is. Such examples of abuse is downvotes simply because someone states something that argues against the down voter. Regardless of how accurate the down voted post is.

I for one have probably downvoted posts less than a dozen times in three years. However its rather meaningless to me as I will always have my institutionalize credentials ie degrees.

I could literally describe all the mathematics behind both ADS/CFT including how they apply to string theory but I know very few readers will be able to follow it.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Mordred

[MigL]

This thread has become ridiculous, other than for the snippets of valuable information such as above. Thanks Mordred.

Some OPs ask a question about a subject, then several pages in, after looking it up on Wiki, decide they know more than the experts they've asked the question of.
Then they start arguing with rep points.

[Mordred]

Thanks Migl. What is more complex to explain is how String theory works with open and closed strings on a lightcone. Which is part of the ADS stacking mentioned in the diagram above.

A visual image is to take a lightcone. Draw a sinusoidal at some vertical point till it connects to the two outer edges. (open string) now instead of connecting to the lightcone boundaries have the string wrap around the circumference of the lightcone at some arbitrary vertical points till the string connects its two ends with each other (closed string).

Each vertical string will have its own hyperslice identity but using strings in this manner one can accurately describe a lightcone object.

If I recall correctly this is termed orbifolding under string theory but I will have to double check that. (my string theory textbooks are currently packed).

Ie the image above would be more accurate if the cylinder was replaced by a lightcone but that would add confusion.

Anyways understanding lightcone relativistic strings takes several chapters. One starts by applying the surface of the lightcone as a boundary condition. (usually using the Minkowskii metric).

lol a little side note my string theory textbooks taught me far more about relativity than any relativity textbook I own or read. 

This article isn't nearly as good as "A First Course in String Theory" 

https://www.amazon.ca/First-Course-String-Theory/dp/0521880327

however it covers the details though doesn't explain it nearly as well as the textbook above.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.physics.uci.edu/~tanedo/files/notes/StringNotes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsKz64NvYAhUE12MKHfbnClsQFjADegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0q83wPAAIvUJ4Gct7Bol45

Edited January 16, 2018 by Mordred

[interested]

On 1/16/2018 at 3:37 AM, Mordred said:

Thanks Migl. What is more complex to explain is how String theory works with open and closed strings on a lightcone. Which is part of the ADS stacking mentioned in the diagram above.

A visual image is to take a lightcone. Draw a sinusoidal at some vertical point till it connects to the two outer edges. (open string) now instead of connecting to the lightcone boundaries have the string wrap around the circumference of the lightcone at some arbitrary vertical points till the string connects its two ends with each other (closed string).

Each vertical string will have its own hyperslice identity but using strings in this manner one can accurately describe a lightcone object.

If I recall correctly this is termed orbifolding under string theory but I will have to double check that. (my string theory textbooks are currently packed).

Ie the image above would be more accurate if the cylinder was replaced by a lightcone but that would add confusion.

Anyways understanding lightcone relativistic strings takes several chapters. One starts by applying the surface of the lightcone as a boundary condition. (usually using the Minkowskii metric).

lol a little side note my string theory textbooks taught me far more about relativity than any relativity textbook I own or read. 

This article isn't nearly as good as "A First Course in String Theory" 

https://www.amazon.ca/First-Course-String-Theory/dp/0521880327

however it covers the details though doesn't explain it nearly as well as the textbook above.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.physics.uci.edu/~tanedo/files/notes/StringNotes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijsKz64NvYAhUE12MKHfbnClsQFjADegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0q83wPAAIvUJ4Gct7Bol45

I have bought books on string theory before, they are expensive like the one in your link. Is the one in your link worth buying, if so why? All the others I have lead to questions like those below.

I know under string theory more than 3 spacial dimensions are assumed to exist. Would one or more of these go some way to explain the effects of quantum entanglement. 

I am aware Entanglement allows two particles separated by 3 D space to mirror each other or behave as one particle, would another dimension allow instantaneous information transfer from one particle to the other, without going through 3 D space. 

Quantum fluctuations are assumed to borrow energy and then repay it when they disappear, might they be borrowing it from an extra dimension. 

Light speed is constant for all observers in 3 D space, regardless of how fast they are moving in 3D space. If they are all viewing it from the same reference point via another dimension, then ???. Insane

I am aware there are multiple versions of string theories and some explain things better than others. Is any one better than the rest, super string theory caught my eye is it worth following up on?

I am aware in maths that extra dimensions can be invoked to make analysis easier ie for want of a better example for some one on the ground observing a spinning cube, inside a lift, on an aeroplane doing loop the loop, might give me 12 dimensions to play with if I do not include time. This however does not explain instantaneous information transfer via entanglement, does string theory allow extra interconnecting spacial dimensions, like wormholes perhaps?. 

This might be dodgy ground, photons dont experience a passing of time, distance may be shortened for them and might tend towards 0 or plank length maybe, could information transfer across our perceived 3 D space between particles be due to some relativistic effect, whereby the distance a photon experiences between point A and point B is zero or close to zero. 

@ Itoero thanks for the read, I read it, absorbed most of it, I need to read the last chapter again. But for what it is worth I think the holographic idea is more about speculation and possible routes of enquiry that might be interesting for the reader to pursue.  Politicians use wordology to confuse people, I think the book may be using mathology incorporating various complicated ideas from different theories claiming to make sense of something, but leaves one feeling a bit confused, like a politician. The book however is good from the sense it made me think. It put some ideas in my head, and did not put me to sleep.

 

[Mordred]

Out of the 6 String theory books I read, the link above teaches String theory in the most easily understood manner. It starts by detailing how String theory works with relativity and QM and provides valuable insights into all three topics.

For example the fundamental differences between Heisenburg vs Schrodinger operators is discussed in one of its chapters. Its earlier chapters detailing the weak field limit on GR via the weak field approximation using the Minkowskii tensor via two observers S and S primed and how this relates the the lightcone gauge to the covariant and contravariant indices is one of the best methodologies I have yet to come across.

In essence the book doesn't assume any priori in other related physics topics though still requires the priori of Calculus and differential geometry.

PS the lightcone gauge itself is the null geodesic characteristics for massless particles such as the photon with ds^2=0 line element you mentioned above. The book does an excellent job describing the differences on the ds^2 worldlines for massive and massless particles.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

1 hour ago, interested said:

I know under string theory more than 3 spacial dimensions are assumed to exist. Would one or more of these go some way to explain the effects of quantum entanglement.

As far as I know, string theory builds on quantum theory and goes no further to "explain" entanglement than quantum theory does (*). The extra dimensions (if they exist) are "compactified" (which is why we are not aware of them) and so I don't see how they could explain any long distance effects.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Quantum fluctuations are assumed to borrow energy and then repay it when they disappear, might they be borrowing it from an extra dimension. 

The same again, really. The uncertainty relationship between conjugate properties that allows quantum fluctuations appears to be a fundamental aspect of reality. I suspect that looking for a"reason" why the universe behaves like that is futile.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Light speed is constant for all observers in 3 D space 4D space-time, regardless of how fast they are moving in 3 D space 4D space-time.

FIFY. Again, the invariance of light speed is due to the nature of space-time. I'm not sure how extra dimensions would change that. Lorentz invariance applies equally to movement through those other dimensions.

It seems to me that the fact that the laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations) are the same regardless of whether you are moving or not, should be rather intuitive.

1 hour ago, interested said:

This however does not explain instantaneous information transfer via entanglement

There is no information transfer.

1 hour ago, interested said:

could information transfer across our perceived 3 D space between particles be due to some relativistic effect, whereby the distance a photon experiences between point A and point B is zero or close to zero. 

No. Because:

1. There is no information transfer

2. The photon does not provide a valid frame of reference

3. The effects of entanglement are instantaneous in our frame of reference (not that of a photon - if it existed).

4. Entanglement occurs between particles with mass and therefore do not travel at light speed.

 

 (*) Entanglement is perfectly well explained in quantum theory - your reluctance to accept that is due to the fact it is counterintuitive and/or not being familiar with quantum theory. I would suggest Feynman's lectures on QED as one way of getting a better insight into non-locality. He doesn't talk about entanglement specifically, as far as I remember, but once the idea of non-locality (as captured in his sum of all paths method) is understood, then entanglement is just a straightforward extension of that concept.

[interested]

On 1/17/2018 at 11:59 AM, Mordred said:

Out of the 6 String theory books I read, the link above teaches String theory in the most easily understood manner. It starts by detailing how String theory works with relativity and QM and provides valuable insights into all three topics.

For example the fundamental differences between Heisenburg vs Schrodinger operators is discussed in one of its chapters. Its earlier chapters detailing the weak field limit on GR via the weak field approximation using the Minkowskii tensor via two observers S and S primed and how this relates the the lightcone gauge to the covariant and contravariant indices is one of the best methodologies I have yet to come across.

In essence the book doesn't assume any priori in other related physics topics though still requires the priori of Calculus and differential geometry.

PS the lightcone gauge itself is the null geodesic characteristics for massless particles such as the photon with ds^2=0 line element you mentioned above. The book does an excellent job describing the differences on the ds^2 worldlines for massive and massless particles.

Thanks I now have the book. 

On 1/17/2018 at 12:19 PM, Strange said:

There is no information transfer.

Quantum Teleportation transfers information, see earlier posts by Swansont.

Not quite star trek but Beam me up Scottie, 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, interested said:

Quantum Teleportation transfers information, see earlier posts by Swansont.

The information is transferred classically (i.e. at, or below, light speed).

[interested]

On 1/17/2018 at 12:19 PM, Strange said:

I suspect that looking for a"reason" why the universe behaves like that is futile.

Star Trek again, The borg like to say "resistance is futile". 

I prefer carborundum illegitimi non,   non deficere, aut in 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Quantum Teleportation transfers information, see earlier posts by Swansont.

Quantum teleportation ≠ entanglement

[interested]

On 1/17/2018 at 12:19 PM, Strange said:

string theory builds on quantum theory and goes no further to "explain" entanglement than quantum theory does

You seem to have a flat lander view of things.  

Via the powers of google and possibly pop science. Can string theory shed any light on extra dimensions, entanglement and separate particles acting as one separated by space? It seems it does, the link below is interesting, for those that are interested, and suspect there may be more to space than meets the eye.

https://www.quantum-energy.org/en/quantum-physics/string-theory-and-theory-of-entanglement

 

 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, interested said:

You seem to have a flat lander view of things.

What does that even mean? That I don't see why I should accept your faith in a 4th spatial dimensions which you think are useful for reasons your are unable to explain or justify? Sounds more like a rational view, to me.

8 minutes ago, interested said:

the link below is interesting

You seem to have misspelt "complete bollocks".

"Quantum energy: Get your own spiritual experience" 

Nein Danke.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Strange

[interested]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem to have misspelt "complete bollocks".

Misspelled 

I spelled the words string theory is string theory complete bollocks for you

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

"Quantum energy: Get your own spiritual experience" 

I am not a religious person, but if you believe in something I wont condemn you for it. All hail quantum theory.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, interested said:

Misspelled 

I spelled the words string theory is string theory complete bollocks for you

I am not a religious person, but if you believe in something I wont condemn you for it. All hail quantum theory.

A strawman is a polite way to spell complete bollocks.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, interested said:

I spelled the words string theory is string theory complete bollocks for you

Are you dyslexic by any chance? Or is your native language not English? I just ask because you seem to have problems understand simple statements, and I wonder how much allowance I should maker natural disadvantages.

I did not say string theory is bollocks. I said the quantum-woo-spiritual-energy-hippy-crap website you linked to was bollocks. Because, in technical terms, that is what it is.

 

22 minutes ago, interested said:

Misspelled

"they're both allowed! Spelled is by far the most common past tense form in America, and spelt used to be the most common past tense form in Britain "

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/spelled-versus-spelt

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Misspelled 

Both spellings are legit.

1 hour ago, interested said:

I spelled the words string theory is string theory complete bollocks for you

The site is bollocks. That has no reflection on a theory that other people work on, which it happens to mention.

Some of what you write is bollocks. Again, that has no effect or reflection on the theories you misunderstand and misrepresent.

[interested]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Both spellings are legit.

The site is bollocks. That has no reflection on a theory that other people work on, which it happens to mention.

Some of what you write is bollocks. Again, that has no effect or reflection on the theories you misunderstand and misrepresent.

I only ask questions based on the bollocks I read, currently I am reading about string theory which is really interesting, and can include extra dimensions, which I do not think are bollocks. 

I was completely unaware of biological entanglement until I read the link above, which has been unaminously declared as bollocks or spiritual clap trap, spooky action maybe. Using your arxiv tip heres a link on the subject https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053 entanglement in DNA, nothing spooooooooooooooooky or spiritual about it.

We model the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA as a chain of coupled quantum harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. Crucial parameters in our model are the distances between the acids and the coupling between them, which we estimate from numerical simulations [1]. We show that for realistic parameters nearest neighbour entanglement is present even at room temperature. We quantify the amount of entanglement in terms of negativity and single base von Neumann entropy. We find that the strength of the single base von Neumann entropy depends on the neighbouring sites, thus questioning the notion of treating single bases as logically independent units. We derive an analytical expression for the binding energy of the coupled chain in terms of entanglement and show the connection between entanglement and correlation energy, a quantity commonly used in quantum chemistry..

If my questions are only bollocks, it is an improvement on complete bollocks, I must be improving, thanks for the encouragement.

As for the spelling blame an american spell checker.

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, interested said:

I only ask questions based on the bollocks I read,

You need to find better sources.

16 minutes ago, interested said:

currently I am reading about string theory which is really interesting, and can include extra dimensions, which I do not think are bollocks. 

Nobody said string theory was bollocks.

16 minutes ago, interested said:

If my questions are only bollocks, it is an improvement on complete bollocks, 

Nobody said your questions were bollocks. The problem is, you try to explain things you obviously haven't understood.

[interested]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Nobody said your questions were bollocks. The problem is, you try to explain things you obviously haven't understood.

I am trying to ask questions on things I do not understand or completely believe, my questions are not intended to be explanations. If I do not believe I say so, ie I think their are more dimensions, I do not think it is spooky or spiritual. Extra dimensions dont need to spacial or time related in my opinion, but I am just learning.

My questions are not bollocks, Thanks

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, interested said:

If I do not believe I say so, ie I think their are more dimensions

Again, what you (or anyone else) believes about the number of dimensions or the existence of unicorns is irrelevant. I don't care if you think there are 13³/₄ dimensions. But if you are going to keep making these claims (which you do, repeatedly, and ad nauseam) then you need to provide some evidence. How hard is that? If there is no evidence, then feel free to hold on to your beliefs/delusions, but stop repeating them here if they are not based on science.

[interested]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Again, what you (or anyone else) believes about the number of dimensions or the existence of unicorns is irrelevant. I don't care if you think there are 13³/₄ dimensions. But if you are going to keep making these claims (which you do, repeatedly, and ad nauseam) then you need to provide some evidence. How hard is that? If there is no evidence, then feel free to hold on to your beliefs/delusions, but stop repeating them here if they are not based on science.

Clearly you think my questions are bollocks. Straw man someone else.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, interested said:

Clearly you think my questions are bollocks. Straw man someone else.

No one is suggesting your questions are bollocks, it's your insistence that the answers are bollocks because you disagree without reason.