Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters of the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you want to do with the result. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the blue ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the same time, are you then going to conclude that their wave functions collapsed at the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of light??? One should not needlessly multiply entities. The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It is one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* of the state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we look in the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/insert pet name here. Hi Robin, It seems that there's more to it than just local hidden variables. Here's the best I've found at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox See Measurements on an entangled state. And particularly, Resolving the paradox, Hidden variables, Bell's inequality. Although at first sight the easy answer seems to be QM is an incomplete theory, it seems that QM captures some of the essence of the way reality works, in particular with respect to non-locality/wholeness, and observer effects. Experiments done to test Bell inequalities point to a statistical strength of QM that is greater than any theory of local hidden variables. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
On 06/08/2010 11:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously ... I don't think that's quite right. You've described the hidden gears model of QM and my impression is a superposition of states is more than just simple state which we don't happen to know at present. For a possibly overly simplistic example, consider a single photon in a beam of non-polarized light. Let it encounter, and pass through, a vertical linear polarizer. We have now measured a single parameter of its state -- and, if it got through the polarizer, we have found that its polarization is vertical (/exactly/ vertical). Before we sampled it, its polarization was described by a superposition of states, with all polarization angles being *equally* *likely*. Yet, since half the time a nonpolarized photon will get through the polarizer, after we sample it we would conclude that there was actually a 50% chance that it was vertically polarized. Next consider a beam of incoherent unpolarized light passing though a polarizer. Note the before/after difference: Before the beam encounters the polarizer, *all* polarization angles are equally likely for each photon in the beam. Yet, after it passes through a polarizer, we find that HALF the photons in the beam (the ones which passed through the filter) are -- and, apparently, WERE -- *vertically* polarized. By the act of *measuring* the polarization, we seem to have retroactively changed the beam from a collection of randomly polarized photons to a 50/50 mix of vertically and horizontally polarized photons.
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters of the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you want to do with the result. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the blue ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the same time, are you then going to conclude that their wave functions collapsed at the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of light??? One should not needlessly multiply entities. The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It is one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* of the state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we look in the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/insert pet name here. Hi Robin, It seems that there's more to it than just local hidden variables. Here's the best I've found at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox See Measurements on an entangled state. And particularly, Resolving the paradox, Hidden variables, Bell's inequality. Although at first sight the easy answer seems to be QM is an incomplete theory, it seems that QM captures some of the essence of the way reality works, in particular with respect to non-locality/wholeness, and observer effects. Experiments done to test Bell inequalities point to a statistical strength of QM that is greater than any theory of local hidden variables. This is good reading also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism Btw, it seems I would be with the Bohm interpretation, which preserves realism but not locality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
Ok, I read the wired article only, are they claiming that the photon can be copied without collapsing the wave function yet produce non-entangled copies? Probably not, but if so then that could be used to cheat and actually read the copies without collapsing the wave function. That is of course not considered to be possible so I guess they aren't saying that. Just checking.
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:21:12 -0400: Hi, Maybe polarizers do more than measure? Perhaps they actually change the polarization angle? e.g. if the electric field is more vertical than horizontal, then it gets forced completely vertical, if more horizontal then completely horizontal. Since essentially all photons will fall in one category or the other. On 06/08/2010 11:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously ... I don't think that's quite right. You've described the hidden gears model of QM and my impression is a superposition of states is more than just simple state which we don't happen to know at present. For a possibly overly simplistic example, consider a single photon in a beam of non-polarized light. Let it encounter, and pass through, a vertical linear polarizer. We have now measured a single parameter of its state -- and, if it got through the polarizer, we have found that its polarization is vertical (/exactly/ vertical). Before we sampled it, its polarization was described by a superposition of states, with all polarization angles being *equally* *likely*. Yet, since half the time a nonpolarized photon will get through the polarizer, after we sample it we would conclude that there was actually a 50% chance that it was vertically polarized. Next consider a beam of incoherent unpolarized light passing though a polarizer. Note the before/after difference: Before the beam encounters the polarizer, *all* polarization angles are equally likely for each photon in the beam. Yet, after it passes through a polarizer, we find that HALF the photons in the beam (the ones which passed through the filter) are -- and, apparently, WERE -- *vertically* polarized. By the act of *measuring* the polarization, we seem to have retroactively changed the beam from a collection of randomly polarized photons to a 50/50 mix of vertically and horizontally polarized photons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to change the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly. I tried to write a response to Roarty's comment and found it difficult to distinguish the change from there simply being a maintained difference from the beginning. If I'm correct, the separated entities (photons, atoms, electrons) behave as a superposition of states, which would show up as being able to pop up as either state, and also to interfere with themselves, as in a two-slot experiment (which requires that they be superpositions, if I'm correct, i.e., waves rather than particles,), but then, when one is collapsed into a unique state, the other behaves, then, as the opposite state only. This is the spooky action at a distance that Einstein was concerned about. Roarty's comment assumes that the two entangled entitys are really only one or the other state, from the beginning. I searched for and found no really good explanations of quantum entanglement and why this interpretation isn't considered legitimate, but my sense is that this is because it then leaves unexplained the behavior of each particle, before one is revealed, and the other then is revealed immediately as the opposite, as if it is both states at once. Mauro, how can you tell the difference between the pair of switches, with one of the pair in one state and the other in the other, from the beginning, only hidden, from quantum entanglement, which assumes that both switches are in both states until one is checked, and then both are revealed. All the explanations I saw did not explain why one would follow the both-states interpretation. I think it has to do with the behavior of each particle prior to collapse, just as a beam of electrons impinging on two slits will form an interference pattern on a screen, as if each electron goes through two holes, as a wave, but anything that one does to cause or determine that a particular electron goes only through one hole will eliminate the interference pattern, and one will get only an image of each hole from the separate passages.
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to change the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly. I tried to write a response to Roarty's comment and found it difficult to distinguish the change from there simply being a maintained difference from the beginning. If I'm correct, the separated entities (photons, atoms, electrons) behave as a superposition of states, which would show up as being able to pop up as either state, and also to interfere with themselves, as in a two-slot experiment (which requires that they be superpositions, if I'm correct, i.e., waves rather than particles,), but then, when one is collapsed into a unique state, the other behaves, then, as the opposite state only. This is the spooky action at a distance that Einstein was concerned about. Roarty's comment assumes that the two entangled entitys are really only one or the other state, from the beginning. I searched for and found no really good explanations of quantum entanglement and why this interpretation isn't considered legitimate, but my sense is that this is because it then leaves unexplained the behavior of each particle, before one is revealed, and the other then is revealed immediately as the opposite, as if it is both states at once. Mauro, how can you tell the difference between the pair of switches, with one of the pair in one state and the other in the other, from the beginning, only hidden, from quantum entanglement, which assumes that both switches are in both states until one is checked, and then both are revealed. All the explanations I saw did not explain why one would follow the both-states interpretation. I think it has to do with the behavior of each particle prior to collapse, just as a beam of electrons impinging on two slits will form an interference pattern on a screen, as if each electron goes through two holes, as a wave, but anything that one does to cause or determine that a particular electron goes only through one hole will eliminate the interference pattern, and one will get only an image of each hole from the separate passages. As you say, this seems to be related to the process of observation in itself. The example then will be: The two entangled color balls are inside closed boxes. The entanglement would be manifested by the fact that when you open one of the boxes to check the color of its contained ball (i.e. collapse of the wave function of one of the particles) the other box also opens magically and reveals a ball of the other color. That is, the magic lies not in the complementary colors of the balls (something that can be defined from the beginning, but unobserved (and here we have the epistemological debate of QM, Copenhagen interpretation, etc.)), but in the fact that when one of the entangled balls is observed, the other one also reveals its color. I was thinking that what could be interesting to answer is a question like this: What operation or process in a higher dimensional manifold can produce what would look like a reflection on a lower dimensional one? The idea would then be that a higher dimensional particle would be equivalent(i.e. it would be the same higher dimensional entity) to any number of these reflections on a lower dimensional manifold. That is, that higher dimensional particle could reflect or proyect as one, two, four, etc. particles in lower dimensions. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
Here's Wired's article on the subject: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/human-quantum-entanglement-detector/ T
RE: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:29 PM I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of ny given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. Hi I read some articles post your reply and found the Wikipedia description very much in keeping with your description above. My only quibble being the states are in constant flux which is why researchers are using them for crypto keys. I was misled by a blog article regarding instantaneous communication - apparently only the crypto key is instantaneous while information must be sent via a conventional channel which they term teleportation. Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters of the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you want to do with the result. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the blue ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the same time, are you then going to conclude that their wave functions collapsed at the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of light??? One should not needlessly multiply entities. The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It is one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* of the state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we look in the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/insert pet name here. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:16:27 -0300: Hi, [snip] As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to *change* the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly. You can only know if something has changed, if you can observe it. You can only observe any given photon once. That's because in order to do so, you have to absorb it, at which point she aint no more. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be a concern to some. Presently the communication is only temporary with a record that only stands around 100 miles between sender and receiver. A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional plane(or volumetric cross section, btw) will be shown as a spatial displacement in the other dimensions, while the coordinates of both resultant particles on that specific dimensional axis will remain the same. All this is intrinsicly related to the way quantum entanglement really works(which is something that has intrigued me for years), and the precise answer must be sought there, I think. Regards, Mauro Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be a concern to some. Presently the communication is only temporary with a record that only stands around 100 miles between sender and receiver. A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional manifold are the same for both particles, the answer is yes. I suppose that could be named dimensional adjacency, hyper dimensional adjacency, or something like that. The idea would be: all the points that lay in a given n-dimensional manifold would be adjacent with respect to any n+m (m0) orthogonal axis to that plane. That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional plane(or volumetric cross section, btw) will be shown as a spatial displacement in the other dimensions, while the coordinates of both resultant particles on that specific dimensional axis will remain the same. All this is intrinsicly related to the way quantum entanglement really works(which is something that has intrigued me for years), and the precise answer must be sought there, I think. Regards, Mauro Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
-Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy FR: A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? ML: That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional plane(or volumetric cross section, btw) will be shown as a spatial displacement in the other dimensions, while the coordinates of both resultant particles on that specific dimensional axis will remain the same. Gentlemen: There is a direct connection of this phenomena with LENR, which is easy to miss. Probably because it has not reached a threshold of meme entanglement yet. But it is meme-related. This would be in the putative probability field of QM, which influences reaction rates and turns true randomness into stochastic likelihood. This can be seen most famously in a controversial techniques which Rusi Taleyarkhan used to increase the neutron yield in cavitation experiments - which involved seeding the reactor with a tiny secondary source of radiation which would create a few neutrons. There was no duplicity - this was planned and explicit. However, he did not mention probability field by name, as his underling rationale: to his detriment IMHO since the technique became a focal point of contention without a cogent rationale. His results were positive and found to be orders of magnitude greater, even after the contributing source was factored out. The strategy can be framed as this: a baseline continuity (even at very low level, but persistent) creates a spatial probability field within its zone which can massively alter the reaction rate of what would otherwise be extremely rare QM reactions in that zone. He got a lot of criticism for the technique (primarily from ignorant or jealous competitors for funding, and also his failure to adequately explain the rationale behind it) ... but the underlying concept is, well ... arguable if not sound, in QM. See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. (Good grief, not that Charles Schultz ;-) IOW there is a reputed probability field in QM in which the likelihood of a rare reaction is governed in stages of probability plateaus - by what can best be described as the presence of the past to use Sheldrake's terminology ... which is to say, it is influenced by habit or continuity - leading to a altered probability over randomness (once there is a threshold level of reaction) which, in effect, creates a positive feedback and leads to a drastically higher probability field at a new plateau. But my favorite Marvel-ous evidence for this - at least in the life imitating art category of hi-test proof (eighty at least) is most famously seen in Comics, as well it should be: http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Probability_field ... as we all appreciate from time to time, life is stranger than Fiction, often seems to imitates it - which is only because we never cease to marvel at the insight of metaphor, derived from over-generalization. Which mental process (metaphor) is, in effect, a QED-like reflection of its own positive feedback loop in the brain, if you catch my drift. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
ON Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:37 Mauro Lacy said If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional manifold are the same for both particles, the answer is yes. I suppose that could be named dimensional adjacency, hyper dimensional adjacency, or something like that. Mauro, Yes that is what I meant but I used the term adjacent to avoid any suggestion that particles might violate the physical property of occupying the same point at the same time. Even though we are talking extra dimensions (of space and or time) I was being cautious and knew a sender and receiver only needs to be local so I took the path of least controversy. Best Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be a concern to some. Presently the communication is only temporary with a record that only stands around 100 miles between sender and receiver. A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? Regards Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:41:55 -0400: Hi, [snip] ON Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:37 Mauro Lacy said If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional manifold are the same for both particles, the answer is yes. I suppose that could be named dimensional adjacency, hyper dimensional adjacency, or something like that. Mauro, Yes that is what I meant but I used the term adjacent to avoid any suggestion that particles might violate the physical property of occupying the same point at the same time. Even though we are talking extra dimensions (of space and or time) I was being cautious and knew a sender and receiver only needs to be local so I took the path of least controversy. Best Regards Fran While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to *change* the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly.
