I'm not sure of the perfection Pat, but we should be messing more with the thought experiments as you often have. It would be good if others would let the imagination roam and for us to find ways not to exclude so easily through 'cleverness'. The truth is not enough!
On 10 May, 14:03, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 May, 00:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Entanglement is the idea that particles can be linked in such a way > > that changing the quantum state of one instantaneously affects the > > other, even if they are light years apart. I'm always interested in > > "spooky action at a distance", or any serious blow to our conception > > of how the world works. In 1964, physicist John Bell calculated a > > mathematical inequality that encapsulated the maximum correlation > > between the states of remote particles in experiments in which three > > "reasonable" conditions hold: that experimenters have free will in > > setting things up as they want; that the particle properties being > > measured are real and pre-existing, not just popping up at the time of > > measurement; and that no influence travels faster than the speed of > > light, the cosmic speed limit. Many experiments since have shown that > > quantum mechanics regularly violates Bell's inequality, yielding > > levels of correlation way above those possible if his conditions hold. > > That pitches us into a philosophical dilemma. Do we not have free > > will, meaning something, somehow predetermines what measurements we > > take? That is not anyone's first choice. Are the properties of quantum > > particles not real - implying that nothing is real at all, but exists > > merely as a result of our perception? That's a more popular position, > > but it hardly leaves us any the wiser. Or is there really an > > influence that travels faster than light? In 2008 physicist Nicolas > > Gisin and his colleagues at the University of Geneva showed that, if > > reality and free will hold, the speed of transfer of quantum states > > between entangled photons held in two villages 18 kilometres apart was > > somewhere above 10 million times the speed of light (Nature, vol 454, > > p 861). > > This is not the science that lets us build stuff, but I do feel some > > kind of buzz about not being quite so trapped by the rather crude > > inevitability of being stuck with the limitations of the speed of > > light. > > Isn't it far simpler to just accept that the two photons are tied > together in a dimension outside our line of sight? That's my proposal > via string theory and, if true, makes the speed actually instantaneous > rather thna some multiple of C that, for all intents and purposes > SEEMS instantaneous. In fact, as you know, I propose that ALL quanta > are constantly entangled and, whilst we only see entanglement when we > isolate specific quanta, entanglement is the natural state of all > quanta and is what ties all the universe into one completely > interactive and interdependent 'thing'. It seems that science keeps > trying to contrive around entanglement when, in my opinion, it should > accept that it is the natural and normal state of affairs and that the > state of entanglement is a constant feature of quanta--the one that > joins them into one perfectly connected machine.
