Quantum Entanglement ?

[interested]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Space-time is used to describe x,y,z,t dimension (the clue is in the name!)

Thanks for stating the obvious

10 hours ago, Strange said:

The fourth dimension is time. I'm not sure how the "substance" of space (if there is such a thing) can be considered a dimension.

I was considering and mentioned previously on the black hole thread the problem of time between quantum mechanics and space time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Space time does not cast any light on quantum entanglement, for that another dimension is required. 

11 hours ago, interested said:

Can the substance of space be considered to be a fourth dimension connecting all x,y,z points in the universe. ? 

Is the term space/time used to describe XYZ dimensions, which only exist because of quantum fluctuations from the substance of space. The substance of space having no dimensions but connects all points in space, like a 4th dimension? 

I will adjust the above question. Can the substance of space be considered to be a fourth dimension connecting all x,y,z,t points in the universe. ? 

Is the term space/time used to describe XYZ,t dimensions, which only exist because of quantum fluctuations from the substance of space. The substance of space having no dimensions but connects all points in space, like a extra dimension? 

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Imagine you want to meet up with someone. You need to specify 4 dimensions: the location (3) and the time (1). You don't need to specify the substance of where you meet.

You are taking the mickey. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, interested said:

You are taking the mickey.

No, just trying to give you a (non-technical) idea of what a dimension is: a degree of freedom. 

Your questions about whether the "substance of space" could be an extra dimension are meaningless. 

[interested]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

No, just trying to give you a (non-technical) idea of what a dimension is: a degree of freedom. 

Your questions about whether the "substance of space" could be an extra dimension are meaningless. 

Your view on space is blinkered. I will try and make this as simple as I can for you.

1) First remember the Mantra everything is quantum fluctuations, this includes everything from virtual particles to planets and entire solar systems.

got it, if not go back to 1.

2) Ok lets move on, space is expanding at an accelerating rate due to Quantum fluctuations otherwise known as Dark Energy

got it, if not go back to 2.

3) Mass absorbs quantum fluctuations giving the appearance of stretched space equivalent to space time.

got it, if not go back to 3.

4) The apparent contraction and expansion of space is due to Quantum fluctuations in space, being produced at a steady rate, but absorbed in proximity to mass at a rate greater than they are being produced, causing a flow towards mass, to fill the vacuum. 

  got it, if not go back to 4.

5) Quantum fluctuations can be entangled and particles separated by distance can act as one, information is transferred instantly.

got it, if not go back to 5.

6) To avoid violating relativity information transfer between entanglement  particles requires at least one more dimension.

got it, if not go back to 6.

7) Quantum fluctuations appeared originally out of empty space

got it, if not go back to 7.

8) Space without quantum fluctuations is philosophically zero nada no dimiensions, no time no space time etc.

got it, if not go back to 8.

9) Space only exists with quantum fluctuations, a vacuum in space with no Quantum fluctuations constitutes a black hole.

got it, if not go back to 9.

10) Under Quantum entanglement all things could to a certain degree be entangled.

got it, if not go back to 10.

11) From your Mantra above: quantum fluctuations make up all things they appeared out of space and can appear directly connected whilst still separated by space. Space time explains the apparent curvature of space. The common thing between Quantum fluctuations and space time is SPACE.

got it, if not go back to 11.

Quantum entanglement requires an extra dimension to explain entanglement without violating GR. Is that dimension the substance of space.

I think we already have discounted the concept of infinities and singularities in GR as stretching the truth a little, the concept of everything being squashed down to the plank length we also agreed was a nonsense. If the Big bang concept is to be believed starting with radiation, we must consider the reverse process otherwise known as the Big Crunch. When matter is crushed it gets hot, in a black hole if all the matter in the universe was squashed to the plank length it would have temperatures equivalent to and exceeding those predicted for the theoretical big bang. 

Hawking also predicts that the centre of blackholes may be full of radiation possibly resulting from matter decomposing back to radiation due to immense temperatures and pressure. He theories this supports a Black hole  core and prevents it from collapsing, raadiation has inertia and may well be able to do this, but what happens when the core all becomes radiation. etc

Any way the thread is about Quantum entanglement, not space time, I was just pondering the concept that both GR and the Quantum world are explaining the same thing but looking at the problem differently.

There is no time travel in quantum mechanics, or in entanglement, at least that is what Swansont tells me. So from that point of view the time problem popps its head up yet again. If you swing grand father clock around your head it will tick slower due to increased inertia on the pendulum. If you move an atomic clock at an different angles to a  moving gravitational field it may effect the time also.

The movement of Quantum fluctuations are what makes space time equations work. Space time does not exist without quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations and entanglement require an extra dimension to allow instant information transfer. That dimension is not time, unless you are talking about space\time in which case you are on the wrong thread.

 

[Strange]

I see you are back to making stuff up again...

18 minutes ago, interested said:

1) First remember the Mantra everything is quantum fluctuations, this includes everything from virtual particles to planets and entire solar systems.

Citation needed.

19 minutes ago, interested said:

2) Ok lets move on, space is expanding at an accelerating rate due to Quantum fluctuations otherwise known as Dark Energy

Citation needed.

19 minutes ago, interested said:

3) Mass absorbs quantum fluctuations giving the appearance of stretched space equivalent to space time.

Citation needed.

19 minutes ago, interested said:

4) The apparent contraction and expansion of space is due to Quantum fluctuations in space, being produced at a steady rate, but absorbed in proximity to mass at a rate greater than they are being produced, causing a flow towards mass, to fill the vacuum. 

Citation needed.

22 minutes ago, interested said:

5) Quantum fluctuations can be entangled and particles separated by distance can act as one, information is transferred instantly.

Citation needed.

22 minutes ago, interested said:

6) To avoid violating relativity information transfer between entanglement  particles requires at least one more dimension.

Citation needed.

Quote

8) Space without quantum fluctuations is philosophically zero nada no dimiensions, no time no space time etc.

Then how come GR works as a classical (non-quantum) theory?

And how come we can build models of space-time with zero energy and hence no quantum fluctuations?

24 minutes ago, interested said:

9) Space only exists with quantum fluctuations, a vacuum in space with no Quantum fluctuations constitutes a black hole.

Citation needed.

25 minutes ago, interested said:

Quantum entanglement requires an extra dimension to explain entanglement without violating GR.

It doesn't violate GR (or even SR) because no information is transmitted.

[interested]

On 12/6/2017 at 5:14 PM, interested said:

If you swing grand father clock around your head it will tick slower due to increased inertia on the pendulum. If you move an atomic clock at an different angles to a  moving gravitational field it may effect the time also.

The above statement is the only thing I stated above which is clearly wrong, if you swing a grandfather clock around your head quickly the clock will tick slower, as it would if you lowered it into a black hole, making the pendulum experience more gravity. If you drop a grandfather clock from a great height the pendulum will no longer experience gravity and slow down whilst in free fall.  Clearly no one wants to debate the problem of time between the quantum world and space time. Is an atomic clock analogous to a grandfather clock? What tends to interest me, is what people do not know, not what they think they know. The problem of time has suddenly intrigued me, because no one attempted to discuss it, and that also is intriguing to know why. 

On 12/6/2017 at 5:41 PM, Strange said:

I see you are back to making stuff up again...

Ditto , almost everything I have stated or has been posted by others in answer to questions are from links to the work of various scientists. In my previous post I tried to point out to you that this thread is about QUANTUM entanglement not relativity or space time. 

 

On 12/6/2017 at 5:41 PM, Strange said:

Mantra everything is quantum fluctuations,

Mordred told me, also read Mordreds thread on what space is.

Ref requests for citations I have already posted links earlier on, on this and the dark matter and black hole threads.

On 12/6/2017 at 5:41 PM, Strange said:

It doesn't violate GR (or even SR) because no information is transmitted.

citation required

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

The above statement is the only thing I stated above which is clearly wrong, if you swing a grandfather clock around your head quickly the clock will tick slower, as it would if you lowered it into a black hole, making the pendulum experience more gravity. If you drop a grandfather clock from a great height the pendulum will no longer experience gravity and slow down whilst in free fall.  Clearly no one wants to debate the problem of time between the quantum world and space time. Is an atomic clock analogous to a grandfather clock? What tends to interest me, is what people do not know, not what they think they know. The problem of time has suddenly intrigued me, because no one attempted to discuss it, and that also is intriguing to know why. 

If you swing a grandfather clock around your head it will stop working. Pendulum clocks are bad to use as examples, as their frequency has an explicit dependence on g that has nothing to do with relativity. They are not analogous to atomic clocks for this reason.

If you think nobody has discussed time here it means you haven't looked very hard. Feel free to open a new thread.

[Mordred]

Not everything is quantum fluctuations your taking those two terms a little out of context. Space is simply volume itself, you haven't indicated you haven't understood that part. Now onto the fluctuation portion. A fluctuation is distinctive from an excitation. This may sound trivial but it isn't. Probably would be a good idea to add the term Fields to your Mantra. A field fluctuation is in essence the harmonic oscillator vibrations from the field ground state. This is where the the HUP is described and defined. These fluctuations can give rise to the field excitations that we associate as particles. Now don't start thinking everything is fields either. A field is an abstract device that we can assign a value or function to every coordinate.

 The trick to understand is that physics is about modelling relations. This includes relations between various coordinates/events of a field. We are measuring the properties we come to associate at each coordinate an describing their relations to other coordinate properties. Physics doesn't concern itself too much with "What is". We leave that philosophers.

This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to express things in the mathematical detail as sometimes its easy to make statements too heuristic.If I try to get too mathy (new word lol) very few people will understand it and no one learns. So its a real struggle to keep explanations as simple as possible and at the same time avoid confusion.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Mordred

[interested]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you swing a grandfather clock around your head it will stop working. Pendulum clocks are bad to use as examples, as their frequency has an explicit dependence on g that has nothing to do with relativity. They are not analogous to atomic clocks for this reason.

If you think nobody has discussed time here it means you haven't looked very hard. Feel free to open a new thread.

It all depends on how fast you swing it, if it is in a higher gravity environment it will tick faster. If it is in a lower gravity it will tick slower until there is no gravity and it will stop all together. The clock itself is a mechanical oscillator and not an atomic clock which works differently. An atomic clock is a harmonic oscillator of sorts, that might be affected by moving through a gravitational field in an analogous way. Does an atomic clock speed up with higher gravity and slow down in free fall, would a particle oscillate slower in free fall than it would in a strong gravitational field?

You can see my line of thought above and why I wrote what I wrote. 

You are most likely correct, the analogy was a quick response, however it has started a line of thought as you can see above which I might start a thread on once I have a line of questions worked out and checked to make sure no one else has already covered this angle. There is already quite a bit available on the internet ref the problem of time it is not a new subject but just one of those things where two highly successful theories do not agree. It is therefore interesting. I suspect both may be correct but are looking at things from slightly different angles. Gravity affects harmonic oscillators especially mechanical ones could it affect an atomic clock, in the same way. If this was the case the problem of time would vanish, would it not? 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Space is simply volume itself, you haven't indicated you haven't understood that part

I may be having a problem with the concept of expanding space and dark matter, not helped by reading links like the following https://www.universetoday.com/135570/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/ 

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

A fluctuation is distinctive from an excitation

I have been viewing everything as quantum fluctuations in space including everything from virtual particles to real particles to everything in the universe. I need to go and have a bit of a read up on the difference, between an excited fluctuation and a quantum fluctuation it could just be a case of wordology on my part. 

Should the MANTRA be space is supported by quantum fluctuations that give rise to field excitations.

I think I need to have a bit of a read on this.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to express things in the mathematical detail as sometimes its easy to make statements too heuristic.If I try to get too mathy (new word lol) very few people will understand it and no one learns. So its a real struggle to keep explanations as simple as possible and at the same time avoid confusion.

I am a engineer the maths does not scare me, but like everyone else I do prefer simple explanations, ie the executive summary before I get into detail. I have read a lot of what has been written mathematically on the forum and it is mostly understandable to me. 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Physics doesn't concern itself too much with "What is". We leave that philosophers.

How can you start to model something without having a "what or concept of what is" to model.  

---------------------------------------

Will a virtual particle in a zero gravity environment last longer than the same particle in a high gravity environment ?

 

 

[Mordred]

OK lets try an example everyone can relate to.

Start with an oscilloscope and assume were measuring an electrical circuit. We start with some baseline voltage reading that is approximately zero but the closer you look at that signal the more interference you start seeing. We call this static from other signals and the harmonics of the baseline signal.  This is the fluctuations were talking about. There is no distinctive signal that we can see, its random static or fluctuations.

Now you get a signal that comes in a sharp "Excited" state. This is the excitations were talking about distinctive signals that we can readily trigger our oscilloscope onto and take measurements upon. Now keep in mind this is a macro world descriptive, when dealing with the quantum level the analogy does apply but under much greater resolution.

\now I have been trying to get this to work with latex so bear with me. The representation will not be exact. Let us look at a Feyman diagram which is a representation in and unto itself specifically thee amplitudes of particle reactions.

[math]\array{e^+ \searrow &&\nearrow u^-\\&\\ &\leadsto^\gamma &\\ e^-\nearrow &&\searrow u^+}[/math]

Not pretty but close enough. The inbound legs on the diagonal arrows is the particles we typically define as real ie not virtual. Same as the outbound diagonal lines. In th actual diagrams the lines are all connected but haven't mastered that trick under latex yet roflmao

the squiggly horizontal line is the non measurable VP interactions ie field fluctuations between the inbound and outbound legs. (excitations)

Does that help?

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, interested said:

I may be having a problem with the concept of expanding space and dark matter, not helped by reading links like the following https://www.universetoday.com/135570/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/ 

A few things to note, expansion and dark energy are separate things. Expansion doesn't really need any further explanation. It happens for the same reason gravity does. we may get further insights into both of those from a future theory of gravity, but it won't change the big picture.

BTW: The article is a bit misleading about this, mixing up expansion and dark energy. But from reading the original press release (I haven't had time to look at the paper, yet) the paper seems to be about dark energy (accelerating expansion) not just expansion.

Acceleration of expansion is currently unexplained. Many people think that the vacuum energy (which gives rise to quantum fluctuations) should be the explanation - except it is massively too big. These guys think they have come up with an explanation for how most of it gets suppressed so just a bit "leaks out" to power accelerating expansion. It will need others to review and challenge this to see if it works.

There is a very brilliant and very opinionated physicist who has blogged about this. He is not afraid to call well-known scientists crackpots if he thinks their ideas are wrong. However, he has some cautiously positive things to say about this paper (partly because he thought of the idea first!) so there may turn out to be something it. Which would be excellent.

https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/w-z-unruhs-solution-to-cosmological.html

 

8 hours ago, interested said:

How can you start to model something without having a "what or concept of what is" to model.  

A model is something that works to describe the observations. It doesn't;t necessarily correspond to "reality" (whatever that is).

[swansont]

9 hours ago, interested said:

It all depends on how fast you swing it, if it is in a higher gravity environment it will tick faster.

Pendulum clocks don't like to be accelerated. The oscillations get all fouled up. It probably won't tick at all.

9 hours ago, interested said:

If it is in a lower gravity it will tick slower until there is no gravity and it will stop all together.

And that's not due to a relativistic effect. It's a mechanical effect on the clock, and nothing to do with an effect on time, which is why it's not particularly illuminating.

9 hours ago, interested said:

The clock itself is a mechanical oscillator and not an atomic clock which works differently. An atomic clock is a harmonic oscillator of sorts, that might be affected by moving through a gravitational field in an analogous way. Does an atomic clock speed up with higher gravity and slow down in free fall, would a particle oscillate slower in free fall than it would in a strong gravitational field?

An atomic clock would slow down if it were lower in a gravitational potential ("strength of gravity" is not the proper metric for such an analysis)

9 hours ago, interested said:

You can see my line of thought above and why I wrote what I wrote. 

Yes, I think I can. It's wrong.

9 hours ago, interested said:

You are most likely correct, the analogy was a quick response, however it has started a line of thought as you can see above which I might start a thread on once I have a line of questions worked out and checked to make sure no one else has already covered this angle. There is already quite a bit available on the internet ref the problem of time it is not a new subject but just one of those things where two highly successful theories do not agree. It is therefore interesting. I suspect both may be correct but are looking at things from slightly different angles. Gravity affects harmonic oscillators especially mechanical ones could it affect an atomic clock, in the same way. If this was the case the problem of time would vanish, would it not? 

Two theories disagree? Relativity governs this. What is the theory that disagrees?

 

[interested]

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

OK lets try an example everyone can relate to.

Start with an oscilloscope and assume were measuring an electrical circuit. We start with some baseline voltage reading that is approximately zero but the closer you look at that signal the more interference you start seeing. We call this static from other signals and the harmonics of the baseline signal.  This is the fluctuations were talking about. There is no distinctive signal that we can see, its random static or fluctuations.

Now you get a signal that comes in a sharp "Excited" state. This is the excitations were talking about distinctive signals that we can readily trigger our oscilloscope onto and take measurements upon. Now keep in mind this is a macro world descriptive, when dealing with the quantum level the analogy does apply but under much greater resolution.

\now I have been trying to get this to work with latex so bear with me. The representation will not be exact. Let us look at a Feyman diagram which is a representation in and unto itself specifically thee amplitudes of particle reactions.

e+↘e−↗⇝γ↗u−↘u+

Not pretty but close enough. The inbound legs on the diagonal arrows is the particles we typically define as real ie not virtual. Same as the outbound diagonal lines. In th actual diagrams the lines are all connected but haven't mastered that trick under latex yet roflmao

the squiggly horizontal line is the non measurable VP interactions ie field fluctuations between the inbound and outbound legs. (excitations)

Does that help?

 

I fully understand the concept of electrical noise, and have had in  my earlier career some very expensive laboratory equipment at my disposal. I am also familiar with fourier analysis of wave forms, and how to extract signals from the noise. So yes I fully get this explanation. Thanks you very much indeed. 

Quantum fluctuations are equivalent to electrical back ground noise and are virtual particles.

Quantum excitations are equivalent to the signals on the circuit and are real particles. 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

A few things to note, expansion and dark energy are separate things. Expansion doesn't really need any further explanation. It happens for the same reason gravity does. we may get further insights into both of those from a future theory of gravity, but it won't change the big picture.

BTW: The article is a bit misleading about this, mixing up expansion and dark energy. But from reading the original press release (I haven't had time to look at the paper, yet) the paper seems to be about dark energy (accelerating expansion) not just expansion.

Acceleration of expansion is currently unexplained. Many people think that the vacuum energy (which gives rise to quantum fluctuations) should be the explanation - except it is massively too big. These guys think they have come up with an explanation for how most of it gets suppressed so just a bit "leaks out" to power accelerating expansion. It will need others to review and challenge this to see if it works.

There is a very brilliant and very opinionated physicist who has blogged about this. He is not afraid to call well-known scientists crackpots if he thinks their ideas are wrong. However, he has some cautiously positive things to say about this paper (partly because he thought of the idea first!) so there may turn out to be something it. Which would be excellent.

https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/w-z-unruhs-solution-to-cosmological.html

Yes I know it is about the accelerated expansion, you will see in my response above that quantum fluctuations accelerating the expansion of space is exactly whatI was alluding too. I also thought I wrote it in such general terms that it could not be shown to be wrong.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, interested said:

I also thought I wrote it in such general terms that it could not be shown to be wrong.

Don't think you said anything wrong. I just wanted to be sure you weren't misled by the article mixing up the cause of expansion and the cause of acceleration. Also, that you appreciate it is just one paper so we can't jump any conclusions about it yet.

[interested]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

A model is something that works to describe the observations. It doesn't;t necessarily correspond to "reality" (whatever that is).

A better analogy is that the model is taking a black box with known inputs and known outputs and trying to theorize what is inside the black box causing the outputs from the known inputs.

Garbage in garbage out, if the model does not take into account all the inputs it may not be completely correct.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, interested said:

Quantum fluctuations are equivalent to electrical back ground noise and are virtual particles.

Quantum excitations are equivalent to the signals on the circuit and are real particles. 

Nice summary.

[interested]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Two theories disagree? Relativity governs this. What is the theory that disagrees?

Time.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, interested said:

A better analogy is that the model is taking a black box with known inputs and known outputs and trying to theorize what is inside the black box causing the outputs from the known inputs.

Garbage in garbage out, if the model does not take into account all the inputs it may not be completely correct.

That's not a bad analogy. The thing is, one could come up with a description of the internals that works perfectly but doesn't actually match what is in the box. As far as science is concerned, that doesn't matter; if you can't open the box all you want is a model that describes what it does.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Strange

[interested]

As you see going around in circles has benefits, it works like a drill, and gets a deeper understanding at each pass.

Thanks all for the inputs.

[Mordred]

Well done your getting a good grasp of it.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, interested said:

Time.

Um, what? Who developed it, and where is it written up? I think you're just making stuff up again.

[interested]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Um, what? Who developed it, and where is it written up? I think you're just making stuff up again.

I thought the problem of time was common knowledge, I am very surprised you do not know about it. It is not my idea, it is the work of scientists so I am making nothing up. I have already posted a couple of links on this subject, hoping someone would discuss it under the black hole thread I started. I will start a thread specifically on this subject, as time is not really to do with quantum entanglement, I will re-post some of the links I have posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time I have formed an opinion on the subject already, so if you can change my mind, it would be interesting to see what arguments you can put forward against my view. Many Physicists seem to have views in the same direction as me, so I guess I may not be a million miles from the truth. Since it will be speculative on my part, I will start the thread under speculations if that is alright with you.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

I thought the problem of time was common knowledge, I am very surprised you do not know about it. It is not my idea, it is the work of scientists so I am making nothing up. I have already posted a couple of links on this subject, hoping someone would discuss it under the black hole thread I started. I will start a thread specifically on this subject, as time is not really to do with quantum entanglement, I will re-post some of the links I have posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time I have formed an opinion on the subject already, so if you can change my mind, it would be interesting to see what arguments you can put forward against my view. Many Physicists seem to have views in the same direction as me, so I guess I may not be a million miles from the truth. Since it will be speculative on my part, I will start the thread under speculations if that is alright with you.

 

These are not competing theories that disagree. As the links says, these are " interpretational problems", much like there are multiple interpretations of QM

[interested]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

These are not competing theories that disagree. As the links says, these are " interpretational problems", much like there are multiple interpretations of QM

Exactly "interpretational  problems", and it is the curvature of space and time which I think can be viewed in a way which gets around interprataional problems between Quantum mechanics and relativity. But I strongly suspect you wont agree, having done a bit of background reading, on your posts on other threads started by others on this forum over the years. Time travel is one thing you might have to accept is an interpretational problem, that can be explained away, a bit like a pendulum clock operating in different levels of gravity. A pendulum has mass and measures time reasonably accurately in a stationery gravitational field. An atomic clock has mass and measures time in a stationery gravitational field, I would not assume the pendulum clock had travelled in time if I accelerated it or if I changed the level of gravity it was experiencing, and time either slowed down or speeded up.

Quantum excitations resonate as do mechanical systems made up of quantum excitations. The time dilation effect seen in atomic clocks could be the same effect as seen in a pendulum clock. Only the measured time is changing not actual time, also Quantum fluctuations not experiencing gravity might resonate differently and last longer in real time than they would in a high gravity environment.

As you can see I still mulling the subject over.

[interested]

Question is this link related to entanglement, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-flatland-quantum-hall-physics-d.html ie proof of a 4th dimension type of thing.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, interested said:

Question is this link related to entanglement, https://phys.org/news/2018-01-flatland-quantum-hall-physics-d.html ie proof of a 4th dimension type of thing.

It certainly isn’t “proof” of anything (remember, this is science so there is no proof). 

However it could possibly be evidence for a possible effect that might be consistent with a 4d Hall effect.