Entanglement (split from Using entanglement to achieve...)

[bangstrom]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Funny enough, this 'dimensional constant' has the dimension of speed.

Yes, it has the dimensions of a speed in units of distance over time but not all dimensions of distance over time are necessary a speed. It is more like the speed of a computer than the speed of a ballistic object.

What Olaf Roemer discovered in the seventeenth century with his observations of the planets around Jupiter was simply a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in the constant ratio of units c. Logically, however, although c has the dimensions of speed, it need not be interpreted as a speed. The idea that light ‘travels’ in any sense is pure supposition. We never see light leave an object and ‘travel’ through the vacuum of space from one object to another.

Also, the observation that the speed-of-light has to be the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames is puzzling and defies common sense. It makes no sense that one speed should be the same for all observers independent of their individual, speeds. Observers in different inertial reference frames measure distance and time appropriate to their local conditions but they all measure time as a constant ratio proportional to distance and falsely call it a speed.

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Today it is interpreted as the maximum speed of causality. EM waves in vacuum and gravity have exactly this speed.

I have often heard of c described as the speed of causality and that sounds good to me. There must be a better term than “speed of causality."  The rate of causality? The rate of correlation? Anyhow, it ain't a speed.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Nope, no action. It is correlation. The no-communication theorem shows that even in QM there are no none-local actions. 'Action' implies energy transfer, and there is none. 

I agree it's a correlation and I prefer to call it an “event” which doesn’t imply traveling through space. I prefer models where energy is lost from one location and simultaneously gained at another without traveling through the space between. This is what we observe as described in SR, with an interval of time that is always proportional to the distance between.

 

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

Also, the observation that the speed-of-light has to be the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames is puzzling and defies common sense.

I don’t find this puzzling - just the opposite. The speed of light follows (eg) from Maxwell’s equations, so it would be a lot more puzzling if different observers experienced different laws of electrodynamics, especially since their speeds are not intrinsic physical properties of their own frames, but merely a measure of how they relate to other frames. Without this invariance of c, the universe couldn’t function, since you’d get unresolvable paradoxes.

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, bangstrom said:

You were perfectly, clear that covalent bonds are an entanglement and I find the idea quite valid but it was just novel to me.

 

 It may prove to be important but as of now, I find it to be speculative but worthwhile to keep in mind among other possibilities.

 

The idea of swapping states has been around for many years, even before what we normally think of as states were known. When I first learned of entanglement I thought such a bizarre phenomenon must be of some enormous importance but I had no idea what. Later I discovered the nonlocal, swapping of energy states among charged particles was a possible mechanism behind the transmission of light.

The possibility was first proposed by Hugo Tetrode in “Zeitschrift fur Physik” vol.6 1922. Here is a quote from Tetrode’s article as translated by A. F. Kracklauer. Kracklauer advised the reader that Tetrode’s mention of atoms should best be understood as electrons. Electrons were unknown in Tetrode’s time.

“Suppose two atoms in different states of excitation are located near each other, normally it is to be expected that they would have little influence on each other; however, under special conditions with respect to positions and velocities, possibly also in the vicinity of a third atom, it might be that strong interactions occur, Such a situation could well lead to an energy transfer between atoms such that their excited states are exchanged. The energy loss of one and the gain of the other could occur in a time interval corresponding to their separation; that is, we would have an instance of emission from one atom and absorption by the other. While according to classical understanding, emission is a random event leading to radiation that also randomly might somewhere at some time be adsorbed; here in this theory, the source and sink of a radiative interaction are virtually predetermined paired events.

That is, in effect, the sun would not shine at all were there no other charged bodies in the universe to adsorb its radiation.”-Hugo Tetrode 1922

The model of swapping energy states among entangled particles is an important part of N.”Viv”Pope and Anthony Osborne’s “Angular Momentum Synthesis” POAMS and later in John Cramer’s “Transactional Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics” TIQM. An excellent discussion of TIQM can be found in Chapter 5 of Carver Mead’s book “Collective Electrodynamics” and also in a 2020 collaborative article between Cramer and Mead. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11365

Here is a quote from the article,

“As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below”-Cramer and Mead 2020

Figure 1 and the quote can be found on p.4 of the article cited above.

Cramer and Mead consider the energy states between entangled electrons to be oscillating rather than in superposition until the wavefunction collapses fixing the energy levels where they are found at the instant of collapse.

 

But none of this is relevant to a pair of electrons in the same orbital, which is what we were talking about.

For a start they have the same energy. And swapping states would in such a case imply swapping spin orientations, since that is the only difference between their states. As this, if it were to occur, would have no observable consequences, it seems to me to be an example of what Pauli described, in another context, as an "uncashable cheque", i.e. a notion that can be disregarded on the principle of Ockham's Razor.  

 

P.S. Tetrode is someone I've only previously come across from a thing I dimly recall from Stat. TD, called the Sackur-Tetrode equation. The only reason I remember the name at all is because I thought at the time what a curse it must have been to be named after a thermionic valve. 😁

 

Edited 10 hours ago by exchemist

[swansont]

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Nonlocal action at a distance, aka entanglement

That’s not entanglement, and if you are acknowledging the time delay corresponding to c, it’s not nonlocal

[studiot]

I am finding this thread rather disappointing.

For one thing I can't deteremine what it is about.

Are we meant to be discussing Entanglement, the speed of light, action at a distance or what ?

 

 

For another thing, if we are meant to be discussing entanglement it is rather distressing to be told that what happens before during and and after entanglement is irrelevant.

 

 

[Genady]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Are we meant to be discussing Entanglement, the speed of light, action at a distance or what ?

They are entangled.

[studiot]

Just now, Genady said:

They are entangled.

But what about them ?

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

But what about them ?

Misconceptions.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

For one thing I can't deteremine what it is about.

bangstrom has made some dubious claims about entanglement. This thread was split to speculations so they could provide evidence to support those claims, and the rest of us could rebut anything that’s incorrect.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I am finding this thread rather disappointing.

For one thing I can't deteremine what it is about.

Are we meant to be discussing Entanglement, the speed of light, action at a distance or what ?

 

 

For another thing, if we are meant to be discussing entanglement it is rather distressing to be told that what happens before during and and after entanglement is irrelevant.

 

 

Surely what this sub-thread is about is a (dubious) assertion about communication, or action, taking place between entangled entities that are spatially separated. 

But a pair of electrons sharing a molecular orbital are not spatially separated, so there is no observational implication from them being entangled. 

Edited 59 minutes ago by exchemist