| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2005 03:10:44 PM |
| Object: |
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" |
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by Drs.
Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by "local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm
belief that information could not travel faster than the velocity of light.
Indeed, if this were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky".
Quantum theory required, for example, that "paired photons" maintain
polarizations which were opposite in direction . If the polarization angle
of one of the "paired photons" were changed, the polarization angle of the
other photon of the pair must instantaneously change to match. ("Paired
photons" are produced by the self annihilation of an artificial atom
composed of an electron and a positron. They are polarized in opposite
directions and are emitted in opposite directions. Their polarization angle
is, of course, random with respect to the external world.)
Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions, they
rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous coupling of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite
velocity and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that
information could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they
had to conclude that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of
"hidden variables". (These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily
hidden, one of them for example, is the polarization coupling of "paired
photons".Since this coupling had been shown to propagate at an "impossible"
infinite velocity, it was necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea
of "spookiness". If the effect were accepted without the idea of
"spookiness" it, the existence of an absolute velocity reference frame for
space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be accepted. Since this is currently
dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained.
An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen School" of
physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there was only the
reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to Schroedinger's
Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that would be subject
to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was detected by
instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the decay of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind
this was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This
does not seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that
counts in this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the
observation by an external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead
prior to his observation, it is one or the other, but not both. The fact
that the observer does not know is meaningless. It is only attributed as
having meaning as a result of intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat
Paradox is not a paradox.
A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum theory is
the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each particle in the
Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable
"Parallel Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our
Universe began. When one considers the number of particles in the Universe,
the number of ways in which they can interact, and the number of instants of
time since the Universe began, the number of Universes which are required
under this theory is, incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally
incredible is that each of these Universes contains the same amount of
energy as our own and each of its particles occupies the same space at the
same time as do its brothers. This interpretation seems to have a large
number of believers of high reputation. In spite of this, the writer has no
qualms about asserting that any physicist who would accept such a concept is
in the wrong line of work. I understand that Wal-Mart is hiring.
When one examines the concept that information cannot propagate faster
than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on the fact that
information is almost always encoded in the form of energy. Since the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2>^0.% (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation
becomes imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly
cannot propagate faster that the velocity of light. When information is
encoded in the form of the polarization angles of "paired photons", however,
this limitation does not occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon
does not change its energy. As a result, no energy transfer is involved in
changing their polarization angles. If one extracts the Lorentz
Transformation for Angle using the conventional Lorentz Transformations, one
find that this transformation is unity since angle is equal to a LENGTH
along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the radius of that arc. Accordingly,
the Lorentz Transformation for Angle becomes ((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5
or unity. One might conclude, therefore, that the relativistic processes do
not impose a velocity limit on the propagation of the polarization angle of
the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect that velocity to be
infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.
Physicists have also concluded that even if information could be
transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by
their source was completely random. If this limitation could not be
overcome, the conclusion would indeed by true, but consider that would
happen if a pair of parallel axis polarizers were installed at opposite ends
of the photon source. In this case the paired photons which were emitted
would not be randomly polarized but would be polarized in parallelism.
Communicating over a distance at an infinite velocity would then be
perfectly feasible. The most dangerous part of this conclusion is that it
would establish the existence of "absolute time" and the existence of the
classical Aether and would demolish the hare-brained concept of
"space-time".
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Guy Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" |
19 Mar 2005 02:34:54 AM |
|
|
"Einsteinhoax" <einsteinhoax@isp.com> wrote:
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by Drs.
Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by "local" causality.
You know, Newton's gravitation relies on spooky action at a distance too.
I don't suppose that ever occurred to you though.
Ain't no mileage in railing against Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" |
20 Mar 2005 10:22:48 PM |
|
|
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
------------------------------
Are there any experiments which support this ? I'm not arguing the point,
but I'd be fascinated to find out more in this area.
I was under the impression that no progress had ever been made in the area
of applying transfinite set theory in physics. Please advise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" |
18 Mar 2005 07:33:19 PM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
[snip 130 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" |
18 Mar 2005 03:14:13 PM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
