Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

[SuperPolymath]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

No EFE, Anderson's , My equations, Mordred's equations,Fermilab's equations, Freidmann's, and  Even the Mandelbrot all agree on that it is there.

It could just as likely be what I said it was. Stop cookie cutting that won't do science any good

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I already explained action at  a distance is a misunderstanding popularized by pop media.

 There is no such thing as FTL communication between entangled particles as there is no need for it..However you ignored my reply which is the real science behind entanglement.

I"ve performed some of these experiments myself using the quantum dot detectors and particle entanglement diodes from Toshiba laboratory.

If motion is non-commutative beyond less than 1 planck length than QM is action at a distance there is no way around this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-shatters-ldquo-spooky-action-at-a-distance-rdquo-record-preps-for-quantum-internet/&ved=0ahUKEwiT4qbAjuXXAhUFMd8KHVuPB9kQFggoMAA&usg=AOvVaw3iq-cnwzHNUC8DlRLagjWH

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

It could just as likely be what I said it was. Stop cookie cutting that won't do science any good

If motion is non-commutative beyond less than 1 planck length than QM is action at a distance there is no way around this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-shatters-ldquo-spooky-action-at-a-distance-rdquo-record-preps-for-quantum-internet/&ved=0ahUKEwiT4qbAjuXXAhUFMd8KHVuPB9kQFggoMAA&usg=AOvVaw3iq-cnwzHNUC8DlRLagjWH

I dunno but at summation coords ∑∑∑∑∏(2,∞,∞,∞,6) I dunno what it is.

[SuperPolymath]

Just now, Vmedvil said:

I dunno but at summation coords ∑∑∑∑∏(2,∞,∞,∞,6) I dunno what it is.

You don't have to be able to! State the theory, show the math.

[Vmedvil]

3 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

You don't have to be able to! State the theory, show the math.

It has to be like a tear in like space or something no idea.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Sigh, don't trust pop media articles like that. An entangled state is a mixed state until a measurement is performed. (In actuality until any form of interference occurs upon that state which will collapse the correlation wavefunction. When particles are formed in pairs, you cannot know which is which without causing wavefunction collapse. The pairs follow the laws of conservstion of the Eightfold Wayen.

This includes, energy/monentum, charge, parity,isospin, parity,color(strong force), flavor(weakforce) etc.

These conservation laws automatically cause a correlation function as they must preserve these conservation laws.

Once you determine one state, you automatically know the other. It cannot be any other state but its opposite.  Hence no communication and no action either.

 The true challenge is preserving the entangled states at a distance as it is incredibly easy to collapse. 

 Now this can be useful for encryption but not FTL communication. Hence its applications for Quantum information theory. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

51 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 

49 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sigh, don't trust pop media articles like that. An entangled state is a mixed state until a measurement is performed. (In actuality until any form of interference occurs upon that state which will collapse the correlation wavefunction. When particles are formed in pairs, you cannot know which is which without causing wavefunction collapse. The pairs follow the laws of conservstion of the Eightfold Wayen.

This includes, energy/monentum, charge, parity,isospin, parity,color(strong force), flavor(weakforce) etc.

These conservation laws automatically cause a correlation function as they must preserve these conservation laws.

Once you determine one state, you automatically know the other. It cannot be any other state but its opposite.  Hence no communication and no action either.

 The true challenge is preserving the entangled states at a distance as it is incredibly easy to collapse. 

Than how could there be superluminal communication?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html&ved=0ahUKEwji4Jq7k-XXAhUlUt8KHURYA_IQFghLMAM&usg=AOvVaw2UDSknujRQ4qWThoSA-ujZ&ampcf=1

Two possible explanations:

A: the quantum interpretation: superposition or non-locality action

B: C traverses 1 planck length in 1 planck time, therefore C traverses 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times, so any sub-planckian curve with abrupt accelerations will lead to superluminal gravity waves. In teleparallelism (gravity = EM) this can link polarities (particle states) ftl via interactions between adjacent qubit cells. It can also collapse a wave (particle-scattering) into a particle as the masses attract & merge after being brought into close proximity by that which gives any subatomic particle motion, or anything in nature, motion, & that would obviously be expansion in option B. Expansion = wave function, gravity = wave collapse as well. These forces obviously mediated by DS & ADS fluctuating by the value of each other's curve to attain a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If this is about a boundless plane, the equilibrium never occurs. Translate that into mathematical expressions & you have a Nobel prize.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

There isn't any superluminal communication that is precisely my point. Stop relying on pop media articles. They will always mislead you because Authors that write them rarely understand the actual physics nor math involved.

Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to demonstrate this without using the math via showing how mixed probability states arise and how intetference causes the mixed state to become a pure state.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There isn't any superluminal communication that is precisely my point. Stop relying on pop media articles. 

Okay, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05465&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFgg1MAM&usg=AOvVaw2f0NO0v0UkDqseoL-Cv4Gf

Frankfurt institute of advanced studies. He must be making those credentials up.

[Mordred]

Ok lets start at the fundamentals. Title of that article.

The key term is correlation.

http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-correlation/

It is a statistical test if two or more datasets have a common trend. If for example I have a dataset x and a dataset y or some graph or waveform of each and I want to see if graph A follows one pattern of change compared to the other I use a correlation formula.

If both plot of values rise when one changes and the other also rises. This is positive correlation.

If one increases while the other decreases this is negative correlation. If one changes and the other neither increases or decreases neither is correlated.

 The strength of a correlation function is how closely the trends match.

An entangled pair is strongly correlated because of their very creation and the conservation laws.  So they will follow a correlated trend as a result.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[Mordred]

 

Just a side note You might spend a bit of time actually reading the full paper. It specifically states that correlation is not superluminal and supports the second view not the first view which is the conjecture of superluminal communication.

If you like I can quote you the specific lines lol. This paper actually counters your view.

 That's one of the dangers of simply looking for buzzwords you think support your argument, without taking the time to fully understand the reference.

What is even more amusing is it also states there is no physical process between the two states thanks for supporting my position and explanations and not yours lol.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

.

What is even more amusing is it also states there is no physical process between the two states

The term you're looking for is action at a distance. Synonymous with non locality

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05465&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFgg1MAM&usg=AOvVaw2f0NO0v0UkDqseoL-Cv4Gf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02587&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFggrMAE&usg=AOvVaw25NFx-7Zxq0pHHJQotw8RG

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.03093&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5YeBoeXXAhWlRN8KHeyYA28QFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw0-JG_pXEmEDw84Oyz7EQ4U

All of these articles say within 4 orders of magnitude faster than light. That is, nx10^4

Yet they all are on the assumption that there's no motion & it's something like non-locality, superposition, etc. Thus is the deception of the quantum interpretation.

I could provide more articles if you'd like.

4 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Than how could there be superluminal communication?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html&ved=0ahUKEwji4Jq7k-XXAhUlUt8KHURYA_IQFghLMAM&usg=AOvVaw2UDSknujRQ4qWThoSA-ujZ&ampcf=1

Two possible explanations:

A: the quantum interpretation: superposition or non-locality action

B: C traverses 1 planck length in 1 planck time, therefore C traverses 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times, so any sub-planckian curve with abrupt accelerations will lead to superluminal gravity waves. In teleparallelism (gravity = EM) this can link polarities (particle states) ftl via interactions between adjacent qubit cells. It can also collapse a wave (particle-scattering) into a particle as the masses attract & merge after being brought into close proximity by that which gives any subatomic particle motion, or anything in nature, motion, & that would obviously be expansion in option B. Expansion = wave function, gravity = wave collapse as well. These forces obviously mediated by DS & ADS fluctuating by the value of each other's curve to attain a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If this is about a boundless plane, the equilibrium never occurs. Translate that into mathematical expressions & you have a Nobel prize.

 

On 11/28/2017 at 2:12 PM, SuperPolymath said:

 

Two fairy tales, one claiming action at a distance, clear violations in the laws of motion defined by GR at the quantum level. The other, the one being modelled in this thread, just applying special relativity & a no limits argument for Zeno's paradox to explain things like bells theorem & double slit experiment

 

On 11/26/2017 at 11:54 PM, SuperPolymath said:

 

I mean, what seems more conceptually sound to you?

A: that a subatomic particle, the smallest unit of measurement, is a small expanding universe just like ours because it seems to behave just like our universe as per particle wave duality. And that you can always find smaller objects in nature

B: that a subatomic particle has no smaller components, is the mystical building block of nature, & turns into pixy dust as a wave. & that objects cannot be smaller than a Planck length (these are OLD school, like Capernicus, philosophies still taught in today's world)

Why do you keep avoiding the transplanckian problem?

An organism is composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles.

Particles expand into waves before collapsing into particles. Tell me, what do YOU think particles are made out of? It doesn't matter eventually you're going to get moving, interacting components that are fractions of a qubit, fractions of a planck length. Do you know what happens to C under scale relativity at that size? It looks just like the pairing of polarities between particles that is quantum entanglement. It's inevitable.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

 

Tell you what define local with regards to these experiments. Lets see how much you really understand.

Define local vs non local. Then after you do that I will provide the definition under QM.

Lets see if you really know what these papers are saying seeing as to how badly you muddled up the other one. Did you bother reading properly the first link above?

Once again you didn't read properly the second link

 " the EPR correlations cannot be used to send a signal, because the very idea of a signal implies the purposeful nature of its content, which is lacking in the measurement of a spin component. However, as we have seen, the choice between measuring S1 or S3 on a particle does affect the probability of finding a positive spin when measuring S3 on the corresponding particle, although this can be ascertained only after the results obtained on both particles become available. This is a special case of the “no-signaling” theorems"

what this means is the two must compare the results in order to ascertain the other state via sub luminal communication.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Tell you what define local with regards to these experiments. Lets see how much you really understand.

Define local vs non local. Then after you do that I will provide the definition under QM.

Lets see if you really know what these papers are saying seeing as to how badly you muddled up the other one.

I didn't muddle the other one at all. It's just like you said, the up down polarity of particle states if they are paired, regardless of distance. They attribute this to a superposition, the particle exists in two places simultaneously (non-locality pair)

Which is actually less logical than smaller components in the particle, 1/n planck lengths, interacting as small dominoes that are >C which eventually effect the big dominoes that =C (the polarity of a particle, it's state). This would be defined differently than non locality, this is what I'd like Vmedvil to express mathematically, you would define this as fluctuations in fractions of a particle that are 1/nx10^4 h (plancks constant) that propagate throughout adjacent qubit cells.  This is an interpretation that assumes total quantum cellular commutativity of qubit information...teleparallelism, where gravity = charge, more specifically frame dragging waves as opposed to fields, as sub planck bodies constantly experience abrupt accelerations.....

Your misleading responses have a certain emotionless, calculated algorithmic methodology to them that I'm all too familiar with.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Let me quote you the specific lines

"The first is that their apparent unlimited speed does not fit with the rest of physical phenomena that it is know. Therefore, an explanation is mandatory. Second, although quantum mechanics successfully predicts the statistical properties of the physical observables associated with entangled quantum systems, it does not offer a geometric interpretation of quantum correlations. This lack of geometric description in the framework of quantum mechanics, a theory whose dynamics has a spacetime interpretation in the form of sum over histories [15] is, from our point of view, an unsatisfactory situation"

Do you not understand the meaning of the second view in regards to lack of geometric description of QM in this section?

ie in the conclusion

In our proposal the quantum systems are in well defined states at each instant, but switch randomly and very fast among the available states described by the wave function, producing an effective apparent superposition of states. We quantify the time spent in each state in terms of a unit called switching time tS, which must depend on the system’s quantum inertia Iq. We have proposed a specific expression of tS as function of Iq in Eq.(1), and we have also proposed a lower bound relating the indeterminacy on the quantum inertia ∆Iq with the corresponding indeterminacy on the switching time ∆tS.

In other words this paper is about modelling Spacetime itself in a superposition state. Not about FTL communication.

 

Read the full paper and at least make sure you understand what it is actually talking about....

 

 

You could have at the very least  looked up Hamilton Randels emergent QM space-time model

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_Gallego_Torrome/publication/295699673_Classical_gravity_from_certain_models_of_emergent_quantum_mechanics/links/56cc8e0008ae96cdd071c11a.pdf?origin=publication_list

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

 

In other words this paper is about modelling Spacetime itself in a superposition state. Not about FTL communication.

 

 

Yes, the issue of the accepted interpretation I've been arguing about for pages.

you keep dodging the transplanckian problem.

An organism is composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles, particles are collapsed wave states. What are particles or waves composed of in your mind? It doesn't matter what their smaller components are, planck time is a unit of time in which C covers a distance of one planck length. C will cover a distance of 1/n planck lengths in <1 planck time if n<1. So components smaller than a planck length will interact faster than light, their gravity or charge (synonymous terms in teleparallelism) is non-static, that is, commutative, due to frame dragging, as a sub-planckian curve experiences a sudden abrupt accelerations a stationary EM/gravity field becomes a propagating wave. The collective subplanck interactions (&spins) in the fractions of a photon within it's wave will determine the state (polarity) of the photon when the wave function collapses. An alternative interpretation to the superposition of space.

[Mordred]

No it has absolutely nothing to do with your BS theory, these papers are in essence the difference between Schotastic vs Determined states. They are not less than Planck length and do not involve microverses whatever that garbage means.

The problem is you have zero comprehension of anything your reading. They don't even involve frame dragging which is quite frankly easily described as the Kerr Metric.

I am well aware of the IR/UV cutoff limits, Far more so than you will ever be and your foolishness is quite frankly getting on my nerves.

At every post I constantly have to point out your errors while you pretend to know anything about the topic of physics yet don't even understand the most basic definitions or terminology

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[SuperPolymath]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No it has absolutely nothing to do with your BS theory, these papers are in essence the difference between Schotastic vs Determined states. They are not less than Planck length and do not involve microverses whatever that garbage means.

I'm saying my interpretation makes more sense than a BS superposition. Not that they're related beyond the fact that particles are clearly influencing each other beyond C.

[Mordred]

Perhaps you should study the Feyman lectures and come back when you actually can comprehend what you read.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

 

[SuperPolymath]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Schotastic vs Determined 

The accepted stochastic assumption has been a calculated dead end for a hundred years. You can confuse the masses with super positions & planck limits, but youd have to buy my acceptance of it.

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

I'm saying my interpretation makes more sense than a BS superposition. Not that they're related beyond the fact that particles are clearly influencing each other beyond C.

Your interpretation is imaginary fantasy land that has no basis in physics

2 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

The accepted stochastic assumption has been a calculated dead end for a hundred years. You can confuse the masses with super positions & planck limits, but youd have to buy my acceptance of it.

Do you even know what the word Stochastic means?

[SuperPolymath]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Perhaps you should study the Feyman lectures and come back when you actually can comprehend what you read.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

 

Einstein>Feynman. Einstein wasn't a fan of the quantum interpretation. Teleparallelism was his idea. His theories, such as frame dragging & gravity waves detected by LIGO a century later, are the only ones that are still validated to this day. Einstein was the only physicist to earn a brain autopsy post-mortem.

Stop linking me to these poser misinformants & their cover-up theories. Link me Einstein talking about superpositions & non-locality. These were the very ideas he was against, the very thing preventing a GUT.

Edited November 30, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[Mordred]

Do you know what teleparallelism of vectors means? it means two vectors that are parallel to each other.

IE free fall motion in Euclidean space. I shudder to see what you understand as affine space lol.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

Ya, I am still trying to figure out what that is O((1/h)⁴) on Laurent series.  Mandlebrot equation h = ∞ , Anderson's O((1/x)⁶) x = ∞  on Laurent Series, O(x⁵) x = 0  Taylor Series, Einstein/my Equation Puiseux series O((1/g)⁶) g = ∞ ,  O(g⁶) puiseux series g = 0

which states at ∑S∑(1/x)⁶∑(1/g_uv)⁶∑(1/h)⁴∏O(2,∞,∞,∞,6) there is something odd, which 1/∞ = 0 , then it is (2,0,0,0,6)

 

Like it calculated the dimensions of it but not what it was.

S

X

 

g_uv

h

O

 

Which gives it 22 + 1 on h dimensions of direction. that are 0

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya, I am still trying to figure out what that is O((1/h)⁴) on Laurent series.  Mandlebrot equation h = ∞ , Anderson's O((1/x)⁶) x = ∞  on Laurent Series, O(x⁵) x = 0  Taylor Series, Einstein/my Equation Puiseux series O((1/g)⁶) g = ∞ ,  O(g⁶) puiseux series g = 0

which states at ∑S∑(1/x)⁶∑(1/g_uv)⁶∑(1/h)⁴∏O(2,∞,∞,∞,6) there is something odd, which 1/∞ = 0 , then it is (2,0,0,0,6)

 

Like it calculated the dimensions of it but not what it was.

S

X

 

g_uv

h

O

 

Which gives it 22 + 1 on h dimensions of direction. that are 0

Which g_uv actually has 4 within it so 26+1 , all 0

so g_uv looks like a point String but it should not have that many dimensions extra.

10-D object. (4 + 6)

They all say it is + 0  in value , so it doesn't effect them but still it says it is there.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

and the reason why I think it is what dubblesiox is talking about is it has to same dimensions as ∇² , which is 6  being that each Laplace has 3 dimensions within it, which would be like saying O(n⁶)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Vmedvil