Entanglement

[mememe]

So, I was reading an article on entanglement the other day that popped up on the main stream media, and it started me thinking. Dangerous, I know.

 

I've always been one of those skeptics in many aspects of physics, like the idea of a big bang, or time, or space-time. I have to see things for myself to believe it. I have to admit, after spending 30 years searching for a better explanation, I always seem to find my way back to Einstein, and the big bang. And believe me, I came to these realizations kicking and screaming. The man was brilliant, and science seems to have things pretty well under control.

 

I never gave quantum entanglement much thought. It was just one of those mysteries to be solved that seemed very much over my head. Yes, I get it, but it's an odd thing, because it seems as if it violates the primary tenets of Einstein, mainly, a speed limit.

 

I'm not so sure science isn't over thinking the problem, after giving it a little thought.

 

Instantaneous communication or interaction at a distance seems to lack one thing, time.

 

The distance between those entangled particles can definitely be defined as space.

 

With the above being the actual observed phenomena, one could actually define entanglement as purely a function space, minus time.

 

What I propose is that particle entanglement occurs when two particles collide to become tangled in the same shared or encapsulated quanta of space. The space-time which would normally lie between them is only comprised of raw space. Time gets squeezed out in the process. Empty space, or space without time, is a dimensionless void, where distance becomes a meaningless concept. Space without the dimension of time would also render velocity meaningless. Every ordinate within that empty space becomes instantaneously accessible no matter how far apart they are from an outside observers perspective. As far as those two particles are concerned, they're always touching each other. That pairs "universe" so to speak, becomes a party of two, with each particle impacting the other in an inverse and instantaneous manner. This concept is based solely on the observed phenomena. The combined pairing of the entangled particles is still bound by normal space-time as we understand it externally. In other words, they cannot separate the distance between them at a rate greater than the laws of motion we are bound to, even though the communication between them is instantaneous. Third party interaction with those entangled particles also seems to be bound to conventional physics as we understand the laws.

Like the idea or not, it does actually give evidence to the existence of a space-time fabric exactly as Einstein predicted. It also gives credence to an inflationary period in the big bang theory. In addition to these two items, it also tends to help explain the differences between Relativity and QM. Space-time is breaking down on the quantum level, or propagating on the weaves of the space-time fabric. You certainly can't predict an event if time where randomly fluctuating.

 

Once again, I find myself back at the big bang, and back at space-time. The idea that space and time was a "woven" fabric created after the big bang, seems very plausible to me. If they can be woven into a single fabric, it sure makes sense to me that they can be unwoven in some process. Entanglement just might be raw space, providing strong evidence towards the reality of Einstein's space-time theory, and also gives some concrete evidence to a hyper inflationary period for a big bang before the existence of time.

 

I don't know.

 

But this also leads one to consider the meaning of time itself.

Space without time completely lacks a resistance to motion.

Space with time seems to define a resistance to motion.

if entanglement is purely a function of (space) - (time), I would postulate;

time=resistance to motion

If space lacks time, then resistance to motion drops to 0, and all motion or interaction between objects becomes instantaneous in nature.

 

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with any of this, but it seems there is a correlation between the effects of gravity and the effects of time. Mass also seems to be factor of time. Mass is defined roughly by a resistance to motion. If time becomes unwoven from the fabric of space, and if entanglement represents a timeless state of space, resistance to motion drops to 0 resulting in instantaneous interaction between objects. It is a definition of space without Einstein, more or less proving Einstein space-time. That set is still bound to Einstein externally, but within that set the laws of physics are different. Seems to define the challenges of Quantum Mechanics very well in my view.

Time appears to be a natural resistance to motion woven into the substrate of space. It's what gives us comprehensible material dimensions in which to traverse. If everything in our universe were to occur in an instantaneous manner, the universe would be a very incomprehensible place of existence. If my hypothesis or speculation on entanglement is "somewhat" correct, than that resistance of time can be manipulated by some natural processes.

Edited September 20, 2016 by mememe

[Strange]

We have an existing theory that predicted and explains entanglement, so I'm not sure what the point of this is.

 

And I think you are taking the "fabric" metaphor a little too literally.

[geordief]

What kind of particles can be entangled? I see that it is not only pairs but groups where this is possible.

 

Do these pairs ,say have to be the same kind of particle (eg 2 photons) or is it enough that they are created from the same event ?

 

There is no such a thing as degrees of entanglement is there?

Edited September 20, 2016 by geordief

[Phi for All]

Can I have an example of "raw space"? Also, if time allows motion (stop time, stop moving, right?), how can it be a resistance to motion?

I'm not so sure science isn't over thinking the problem, after giving it a little thought.

This statement is absolutely delicious. It encapsulates the problem, its solution, and all the irony you could ask for,

[MigL]

Massless particles don't actually 'experience' time.

Yet their speed is limited to c.

They are certainly not 'instantaneous'.

[mememe]

Can I have an example of "raw space"? Also, if time allows motion (stop time, stop moving, right?), how can it be a resistance to motion?

 

 

This statement is absolutely delicious. It encapsulates the problem, its solution, and all the irony you could ask for,

 

"Stop time, stop motion" I never said time was stopped.

 

Time wouldn't be stopped, it wouldn't exist between the pair. That's a much different scenario. It's a little difficult to calculate a velocity without a clock. Space without time doesn't even allow for a concept of motion or distance between two objects. They're always directly connected. That's what I see anyway.

 

"This statement is..."

 

I can do without the rude derogatory comments intended to insult me in some manner. I certainly didn't post something with the intent of being degraded.

 

I'm simply proposing an idea.

 

Is "raw space" a reality? I don't know. It would only be observable indirectly, as in an entanglement like process.

 

Bypassing time doesn't seem too wild a concept in physics. Worm holes. Folded space. Warp drives. Etc.

 

Space minus time is a very odd state.

Massless particles don't actually 'experience' time.

Yet their speed is limited to c.

They are certainly not 'instantaneous'.

 

Massless particles don't actually 'experience' time

And who exactly came to that definitive conclusion? Time may simply be in a relative state of pause, or more appropriately, at the maximum cycle (or resistance) of 1. I don't see any conclusive evidence that contradicts the possibility.

 

Not sure what you mean on the last two sentences. C is the maximum limit for both time and velocity. Reach the limit of time, and you've reached the maximum velocity in the universe. Bypass time, and velocity becomes meaningless. The two are related.

 

The way I see it anyway.

We have an existing theory that predicted and explains entanglement, so I'm not sure what the point of this is.

 

Glad everything is resolved to your satisfaction.

 

 

And I think you are taking the "fabric" metaphor a little too literally.

 

You may think it, but you would be wrong.

 

With all due respect.

[Phi for All]

"Stop time, stop motion" I never said time was stopped.

 

Time wouldn't be stopped, it wouldn't exist between the pair. That's a much different scenario. It's a little difficult to calculate a velocity without a clock. Space without time doesn't even allow for a concept of motion or distance between two objects. They're always directly connected. That's what I see anyway.

I didn't say time was stopped in your example. I asked why it would act as a resistance to motion.

 

I can do without the rude derogatory comments intended to insult me in some manner. I certainly didn't post something with the intent of being degraded.

 

I'm simply proposing an idea.

I never intend rudeness; that seems to always be individually perceived. I'm sorry it came off that way. I was pointing out the irony of claiming, after underthinking about it, that science is overthinking about it. It seemed obvious that the answer is to think more about it, which you obviously have. Again, it was an observation, and wasn't intended to degrade, insult, or disparage.

 

Is "raw space" a reality? I don't know.

This wasn't my question though. I was asking for an example to help me understand the space without time concept.

[mememe]

I didn't say time was stopped in your example. I asked why it would act as a resistance to motion.

 

 

Sorry, I saw your statement "(stop time, stop moving, right?)", and answered that instead. I further elaborated on that question under MigL, who stated that massless particles don't experience time, which isn't really known.

 

Time is frequency. I suppose the short answer is, motion is altering frequency from one state to another. The higher the frequency the shorter the increment of time. I think it would be reasonable to consider there is a cap on frequency at 1.

 

To answer your question directly though, I don't know. What I see is a correlation between the frequency of time and motion, as most people readily accept. I guess the question is whether that correlation is a bound state. Thinking off the cuff, maybe space resists the change in frequency from a higher to a lower state. Maybe that's the "arrow of time". It's like a natural uphill or downhill. High frequency is downhill (low velocity), and low frequency(higher velocity) is uphill.

 

 

 

I never intend rudeness; that seems to always be individually perceived. I'm sorry it came off that way. I was pointing out the irony of claiming, after underthinking about it, that science is overthinking about it. It seemed obvious that the answer is to think more about it, which you obviously have. Again, it was an observation, and wasn't intended to degrade, insult, or disparage.

 

Fair enough. I would like to point out, under thinking has never been an issue with me, although I definitely understand what I am thinking could be completely wrong. I can live with that.

 

 

 

 

This wasn't my question though. I was asking for an example to help me understand the space without time concept.

 

Unfortunately, I think it will always be conceptual in nature, which does little to help my case here. I understand it's more like a leap of faith, which I would never ask anyone to take unwillingly. Space without time is not a directly observable state. I suppose it could be considered an infinite state, because it cannot be defined in measurable terms as we are accustomed to doing things. It's true value would be 1, or 0, depending on how one would like to assign a numeric value, if they chose to do so. The distance between any two objects within that timeless state would always be a 1 or 0. Their velocity would always be defined as 1 or 0. That's how I see "raw space". Space without time lacks a definition of material dimensions, because it doesn't require time to traverse any distance as viewed from a third party observation. Distance is always uniform in this state.

As I said in my original post, I never bought into the concept of "space-time". I've been a perpetual skeptic. But when I finally removed time from space, and imagined what that "raw space" might be, I could see what the results might look like from a conceptual standpoint. The universe would be incomprehensible, in my view. Time has to be a part of the 'fabric". Our universe as we understand it requires those combined elements of space and time, in order to slow it down enough to a comprehensible state. We need a speed limiter or governor. That element of time embedded in space is not understood from a physical standpoint. No one knows what it really is, other than its impact on clocks and aging. Most study is based on physical properties of matter, and time plays a third party role in the observational process. I think time might be that universal governor keeping everything synchronized in a comprehensible manner.

[Strange]

Glad everything is resolved to your satisfaction.

 

Well, the thing is we have an existing, very precise theory, which predicted entanglement (and then decades later, it became possible to demonstrate it in the lab).

 

You seem to be taking the existence of entanglement as a given and then trying to describe what happens. Would you have been able to predict something as unitutitive as entanglement if you hadn't already known about it?

 

 

 

You may think it, but you would be wrong.

 

OK. But space-time is not a fabric. Not even metaphorically. It isn't made of anything. It is just a mathematical description of the distances (in both time and space) between events.

[mememe]

 

Well, the thing is we have an existing, very precise theory, which predicted entanglement (and then decades later, it became possible to demonstrate it in the lab).

 

You seem to be taking the existence of entanglement as a given and then trying to describe what happens. Would you have been able to predict something as unitutitive as entanglement if you hadn't already known about it?

 

Is that a question? Are you suggesting people shouldn't think any further than what is already roughly understood theoretically? Keyword, "theoretical". Really? They may not have even discovered entanglement without Einstein's theories. and Einstein didn't even seem to like what they were suggesting, as you don't seem to like what I'm suggesting.

 

Of course I would have never predicted entanglement. I dare say, .00000000001% of the scientific community was a capable of making that sort of prediction.

OK. But space-time is not a fabric. Not even metaphorically. It isn't made of anything. It is just a mathematical description of the distances (in both time and space) between events.

 

Maybe, maybe not. According to the big bang theory, time didn't exist at some point. Certainly seems to be a little more to it than a simple mathematical definition. Something happened in raw space before time existed, according to accepted theory.

[Strange]

 

Is that a question? Are you suggesting people shouldn't think any further than what is already roughly understood theoretically? Keyword, "theoretical". Really?

 

I am not suggesting that at all. I am just pointing out that one test of the value of an idea (before it becomes a theory) is that it can make predictions which can be tested.

 

And, in science, the word "theory" doesn't mean some vague supposition but rather a detailed explanation of phenomena that has been confirmed by evidence, probably from multiple experiments.

 

 

They may not have even discovered entanglement without Einstein's theories. and Einstein didn't even seem to like what they were suggesting, as you don't seem to like what I'm suggesting.

 

I am not sure that Einstein was the first to realise that quantum theory predicted entanglement, but he was certainly the first try and use the apparent paradoxical nature to show that QM was incomplete. Turns out he was wrong that time.

 

 

According to the big bang theory, time didn't exist at some point.

 

Well, not really. Although you can extrapolate back to an infinitely dense point, I don't think anyone believes that is a realistic thing to do.

 

 

Something happened in raw space before time existed, according to accepted theory.

 

I don't believe there is any current theory that says space existed before time. (Personally, I'm not even sure what "before time" would mean; you need time to define "before".)

[Mordred]

if there is no time. The BB couldn't happen in the first place. You need time to have a change...

 

The singularity problem of the BB can be solved by avoiding the infinite values with a Planck length cutoff point. Or on temperature the Planck temperature ( which is often suggested as the maximum temperature.)

 

Numerous BB models in particular LQC use this cutoff to deal with the singularity problem.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mordred

[mememe]

if there is no time. The BB couldn't happen in the first place. You need time to have a change...

 

That's what I find fascinating about entanglement. Instantaneous interaction between two particles at a distance lacks the element of time. I suppose it's possible that the element of time between them is simply singular, or fixed. 0 or 1. I have a hard time seeing what the difference is though. I guess I would have to lean towards a 1, rather than a 0.

 

I'm not sure I would agree with your statement in more general terms. Of course, we need time to comprehend the universe as we experience it, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest it's a prerequisite for a universe. It might be perfectly fine with an instantaneous event, that cannot be marked with a beginning or an end. The beginning and end could be superimposed on itself. Who knows for sure?

 

 

The singularity problem of the BB can be solved by avoiding the infinite values with a Planck length cutoff point. Or on temperature the Planck temperature ( which is often suggested as the maximum temperature.)

 

I'm not sure arbitrarily setting a cutoff point to avoid an infinite result is a valid approach. Sure, it probably helps solve a mathematical problem, and maybe many things in our universe, but it doesn't necessarily define reality. I don't know.

 

I know very little about LQC. Looks pretty interesting on the surface.

Edited September 26, 2016 by mememe