I would have to agree archy that your illusion of a "perfectly" connected machine is premature at best, there are just too many unanswered variables concerning quantum mesh theories. I know you have connected some serious dots but when I see your surname amidst the list of notable physicists a change in perception may be in order, in other words, how is the book coming along?
On May 10, 8:03 am, 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.
