On Complementarity And Entanglement
|
On Complementarity and Entanglement March 20 2007 (in PhysOrg forum) And this also drives me to reflect that complementarity and entanglement may be elements of circumstantial evidence for the omnipresence of dark energy and/or dark matter, involved also as transfer means/media for complementarity and entanglement. A. Albert Einstein: "I don't believe in mathematics." Indeed since the early 20th century verbally defined and expressed ideas about the universe have been on the decline, replaced more and more with contrived mathematic presentations. B. For complementarity = (a) relationship of theories explaining the nature of light or other quantized radiation in terms of both electromagnetic waves and particles, and (b) a relation between states or principles that together exhaust the possibilities:WE ARE VERY FAR FROM COMPREHENDING COSMIC SPACE, ENERGY AND MASS. C. The nature, states and "laws" of our presently quantized universe are FAR from their singularity's inflation status or even from their consequent "early" expansion status. It would take infinitely much more human imagination and mathematics to go through the steps of "back-compressing/implating" the universe to comprehend and define the cosmic genesis state, and ergo the nature, states and "laws" of the near-essence of the singularity state that must be omnipresent in the entire space of the cosmos since, due to, and by the initial inflation and consequent expansion. ——————- March 21 2007 Zephir, Having looked at the AWT links you suggested I'm glad that my post was very terse. Reference to anything that might be regarded a "theory" might turn into an Aether Higgs boson and draw many indignant comments or evoke spirited religious-like remarks and comments about entanglement, a matter of physics. The main purpose and point of my very brief thread opening post was plainly to express a rational common-sence reflection that some form of not-yet-detected texture must be omnipresent in the entire space of the cosmos since, due to, and by the initial inflation and consequent expansion. Another point of the thread opening post was that such a texture might be serving as an active medium involved in transfer of entanglements events that occur due to complementarity. —————— Mar 24 2007 In view of entanglements experimental procedures and data an element of complementarity that is delegated anywhere remains linked to its complementary co-element(s) via some sort of an event-unique link effected in the omnipresent space texture by the despatched element. —————— April 16 2007 Zephir, You wrote (and I marked > and <) "In fact, the entanglement is >>not connected with any transfer<<, but with existence of >>particle memory<< hidden in the phase of internal undulations in >>hidden particle dimensions<<" Please forgive me for my suspecting attitude towards the above three marked matters. Entanglement is exhibited when an element of the complementarity is identified at its away-location, i.e. eliminated from the "internal undulations" phase by proxy. This suggests transfer, I think… ——————————- April 16 2007 Bryn Richards, my head and heart are with you. Per my own scientism concept mathematics is a technological tool. It is not Science, but - like all technologies - it is a progeny of science. I am suspicious of a scientific matter that cannot be characterised/described verbally, or - for that matter - that is presented not plainly but "verbiagely"… —————— April 16 2007 Zephir, Seems to me that you and I differ basically thus: Zephyr: "The entanglement state basically means: a two or more complementary states of particles…are describing the behavior of TWO OR MORE entangled particleS completely." Dov: "… states or principles that together exhaust the possibilities OF ONE PARTICLE." Quoting from http://www.quantumlah.org/faq_science * Entanglement: two spatially separated and non-interacting quantum systems that have interacted in the past may still have some locally inaccessible information in common – information which cannot be accessed in any experiment performed on either of them alone. Quantum teleportation and some important quantum cryptography protocols exploit entanglement. * Uncertainty: knowing or measuring the value of one quantum observable (for instance, the position of a particle) implies an intrinsic uncertainty about the values of complementary observables (for instance, the momentum). This means in particular that obtaining some information about an unknown quantum system generally causes a disturbance to the quantum state of that system. The security of quantum cryptography relies on this tradeoff. —————- April 17 2007 Zephir, Re the nature of the differences between you, me and Wiki… this discussion can go on for ever as long as the definitions of the terms of the three above references are not clearly and tightly coordinated… Zephir, with sincere respect, the present state of this discussion reminds me of Three old guys : First one "Windy, isn't it?" Second "No, it's Thursday!" Third "So am I. Let's go get a beer." ———————— April 19 2007 A. Dov, March 24 2007: The main purpose and point of my very brief thread opening post was plainly to express a rational common-sence reflection that some form of not-yet-detected texture must be omnipresent in the entire space of the cosmos since, due to, and by the initial inflation and consequent expansion. Another point of the thread opening post was that such a texture might be serving as an active medium involved in transfer of entanglements events that occur due to complementarity. In view of entanglements experimental procedures and data an element of complementarity that is delegated anywhere remains linked to its complementary co-element(s) via some sort of an event-unique link effected in the omnipresent space texture by the despatched element. B. Zephir, April 16/17 2007: " Entanglement isn't quantum mechanic phenomena at all, it can be considered as the mechanical macroscopic phenomena, which is connected to the presence of the nested spatial dimensions, or even to concept of simple elastic inertial particle as such. For example, if you separate an undulating oil droplet in lava lamp by using of thin wire, you can obtain two undulating entangled droplets, whose state can be never described completely without reference to the other droplet. You can prove it easily, if you'll try to replace one of droplets by another one, with exactly the same size and frequency of surface waves. What do you think, can you succeed in such attempt, or not just? Try to consider just a classical Newtonian mechanics in this reasoning. Just try to answer my question. The very specific definitions of concept can be misleading as well, as they're introducing a less or more apparent constraints of thinking - or unnecessary parameters. Briefly speaking, you cannot define the phenomena perfectly, unless you understand it perfectly. Therefore I can feel, it's always better to understand this concept well, then to define it exactly. What do you think about it?" C. Dov: I feel exhausted. We know that entanglement is a Miles Blencowe (Science 2004 304:56)ENTANGLEMENT, DECOHERENCE, AND THE QUANTUM-CLASSICAL BOUNDARY http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040507-4.htm You ask me, Zephir, to answer your question. I understand the words of the question but I do not dig their combined message. I feel embarrased that either their message is beyond my comprehendability or that I'm being asked if I walk to school or carry my lunch… Sorry and exhausted, Sincerely, Dov —————————- April 21 2007 Vague "gut feelings": A. Entanglement involves linkage between complementary states via some sort of an event-unique link effected in the omnipresent space texture by the despatched element. The texture might enable the linkage by means of neutrinos. Neutrinos, now known to be massed, were probably involved in the genesis of the matter–antimatter asymmetry of the universe and in formation of cosmic structures. In the past decade neutrinos have been shown to be massive and observed to have changeable identity with oscillation between different states of different masses. It is not known yet how neutrinos oscillate between their states. B. A "neutrino mediated linkage" might involve a mechanism reminiscent of the recently indicated long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence that plays a role in photosynthesis. See http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14190 Gut-feelingly, Dov ———————- Holism And Reductionism In Conceiving The Universe Many works, theses and articles have been published about "reductionism versus holism" in regards to matters in many fields in many disciplines. "Entanglement" makes me suggest that the sense of the phrase "reductionism versus holism" in regards to the conception of the universe and to its components is akin to the senselessness of a phrase such as "observational methodology-instrumentation versus life". I confess arriving at this reflection as I have recently had a sobering consideration which is contrary to my earlier thinking. Until recently, having accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation for quantum phenonmenon, that the quantum world is pure probability whereas probabilites in the macroscopic world reflect a lack of knowledge, I regarded the quantum- and macro- worlds as yet incomprehensibly different. But now I realize that our "lack of knowledge" of the macroscopic world is not just a phrase but a real state-of-affair simply because we are unable to observe macroworld processes or conduct macroworld experiments as we do with the micro-quantum world elements, due to inadequate time-scales and observational capabilities. I now suggest that holism and its phenomenal entanglement manifestations inhere not only in quantum mechanics but are universally ubiquitous. My sobering realization occured when my memory linked this entanglement posting with an earlier post, # 268 : " Expansion, the ever increasing distance between galaxy clusters, is a manifestation of ongoing cosmic evolution, of the sum of processes continuously evolving in the universe. Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined. This holds for the universe composition and for its processes, for its energy forms and mass constituents (and also for the very rare bubbles of energy which we call Earth Life)." ———————- Thus another implication of entanglement is that if some have been expecting a Final Theory to be the epitome of reductionism, it is now obvious that in the holistic universe a Final Theory is as attainable for humans as the horizon and pursuing it is like a dog's chase of its tail… ———————- Seems scientifically reasonable conjecture that the space through which the universe inflated-expands is imbued with big-bang constituent(s) or/plus their evolution products. My conjecture is that the universe has two repetitive end-states, condensed and max-inflated, and in-between it evolves stochastically, unpredictably/incalculably, towards its next end state. ==================================================== Nov 14, 2005 (in biologicalEvolution forum) A. Recap of salient points I posted elsewhere re cosmic evolution: - Everything in the cosmos is fractal and is continuously evolving. - Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined. - Evolution can only be unfolded backwards; it cannot be calculated forward since it inherently courses towards ever more complex constellations. - Time in the cosmos is only a calculation factor, being proportional to inflation distance or to other real continuously changing cosmic parameter(s). - Nature's patterns and rules, at all cosmic levels, have not always been there. They have been evolving since the beginning, from nil through ever more complexity at an ever accelerating rate, consequent to and typical of an evolving system, towards an unfathomable end. - The Big Bang is not just an event that occured circa 14 BYA; it is still in process and will thus be to the far far end. B. Of Complementarity and Entanglement I know very little in physics. I read that " entangled entities are really parts of one system, and that system is unaffected by physical distance between its components. The system acts as a single entity" , and " When particles become entangled, they are inextricably linked, and a change to one is instantly reflected in the other, even if they are on opposite sides of the universe". And I read that this, so far, has been experimentally demonstrated over distances of several miles and for up to five particles. This drives me to reflect that complementarity and entanglement are inherent features of cosmic evolution: - It is impossible to de-evolve evolution because whatever "was" is "no more" as soon as it "was". - Everything, sensed ( by ? ) or not, from the basest conceivable system's element to the system's most complicated constellation, can be sensed/recorded only after it occured, at point(s) along the axis of time proportional to expansion distance. - The observed/sensed characteristics of most systems, regardless of observing/sensing means, is "statistical", since existence/reality is in actuality statistical. - Since the universe is a continuously evolving system of evolving sub-systems all things at all levels are inextricably linked/entangled. - And the quality/comprehension of observation/conception of the state of observed object/system is effected by the positional state of the observer relative to the observed phenomenum; if the observer is in an accelerated state relative to the observed phenomenum (overall acceleration in the cosmos is, effectively, only forward…) the observation/comprehension will be clearer; the higher the acceleration the clearer the observation. Very high acceleration of the observer is tantamount to reading the headlines of tomorrows newspaper. ========================================= 28 Aug 2006 : And this also drives me to reflect that complementarity and entanglement may be elements of circumstantial evidence for the omnipresence of dark energy and/or dark matter, involved also as transfer means/media for complementarity and entanglement. ===================================== Reading Tommorow's Headlines It seems to me that the last scientific reading-of-tomorrow's-headlines was during early 20th century, and that since then we are running trying to catch up with the then envisioned tomorrow's science. Maybe it is difficult now to evolve a similar scientific achievement because, in accordance with the fractal nature of the universe, while the cosmos undergoes galactic clumps inflation human's science's classic disciplines also undergo inflation, ever swelling and evolving into sub-disciplines with an ever overall weaker interlink. Maybe what science needs now in order to be capable again to read tomorrow's headlines is a closer structural cooperation between its proliferating disciplines under a dome of a wide-horizon information discipline. Dov |