This article shows why you can't use QE to send information faster than c.
TY for the link... very interesting..however..my theory includes information going INTO another dimension, somehow traveling to the other location (of the entangled particle) then popping back up into our dimension. Therefor NO time has passed (in our dimension), and NO distance has been traveled (in our dimension). The scientists are slow to endorse this idea, even though I have sent emails to magazines.
@ogb Slow because of the distinct possibility there are no other dimensions. In that case we are stuck with our big 4. If String and M brane theory is right we have 10 or 11 dimensions but good luck getting a way to test those theories, nobody has come up with a way to unambiguously test either one. One problem is there are many string theories and they think M brane is a montage of string so we have to await a new Ed Witten kind of genius to unravel all this.
@ogbsaid @Metal-Brain My apologies..I agree that the speed of light is not instantaneous . But QM might have some additional features to entanglement, like the instantaneous transfer of information... w/o using light..
"I agree that the speed of light is not instantaneous"
So it is NOT instantaneous according to you.
"But QM might have some additional features to entanglement, like the instantaneous transfer of information"
If light is NOT instantaneous how can QM be instantaneous? That is a contradiction. If QE cannot travel faster than the speed of light QM cannot either.
@ogbsaid TY for the link... very interesting..however..my theory includes information going INTO another dimension, somehow traveling to the other location (of the entangled particle) then popping back up into our dimension. Therefor NO time has passed (in our dimension), and NO distance has been traveled (in our dimension). The scientists are slow to endorse this idea, even though I have sent emails to magazines.
I am just curious;
Have you maths-defined your theory with actual physics equations?
Or at least attempted to do so?
Have you presented any specific physics equations that are specifically and uniquely for your theory?
I am currently writing a book, nothing to do with physics but rather only to do with statistical analysis, explaining my new original theory on statistical analysis and so far I have written down roughly about ~200 original equations in my book that are specifically and uniquely for my theory and even given each one its own unique formal name (Actually, I have done more than that by inventing a whole new branch of mathematics which I have named "tavology" complete with its own special notation and new maths constants. I had to! Because conventional maths was inadequate for defining my theory! But, obviously, it wouldn't be reasonable to usually expect someone with an ordinary typical scientific theory to invent a whole new branch of mathematics especially for it! )
@ogbsaid TY for the link... very interesting..however..my theory includes information going INTO another dimension, somehow traveling to the other location (of the entangled particle) then popping back up into our dimension. Therefor NO time has passed (in our dimension), and NO distance has been traveled (in our dimension). The scientists are slow to endorse this idea, even though I have sent emails to magazines.
That's fine, but how do particles cease to be entangled? Your wormholes, which is what this sounds like, need to form in a pairwise fashion when the particles are entangled and go away again when they're not or you need to have a wormhole link between every particle and every other particle in the universe and somehow cope with the way that the particle content of the universe changes.
@metal-brainsaid You are implying QE is faster than light
If what you mean by that is that QE allows faster than light communication, no; And I never said/implied the contrary.
If what you mean by that there can sometimes be no measured time delay between the measured properties of two entangled particles; that's just a scientific fact. Which are you talking about?
Obviously, to any non-moron, neither of the above implies light itself travels infinitely fast. QE isn't c.
@metal-brainsaid "I agree that the speed of light is not instantaneous"
So it is NOT instantaneous according to you.
"But QM might have some additional features to entanglement, like the instantaneous transfer of information"
If light is NOT instantaneous how can QM be instantaneous? That is a contradiction. If QE cannot travel faster than the speed of light QM cannot either.
When we send a signal using light an electron somewhere changes energy level and emits a photon, that photon is then absorbed by an electron in a detector or rod or cone cell or some such. That signalling requires an intermediary in the form of a photon.
In the case of the collapse of the wavefunction of two entangled particles there isn't an intermediary. The signalling would be through the wavefunction. What is required is that no physical information should be transmissible. The probability density needs to be Lorentz invariant, ρ = |ψ(x)|². But we can multiply ψ(x) by an arbitrary phase α = exp[ i θ(x, t)] and leave it the same, which for varying θ(x, t) leads to gauge theory, but that leaves a constant phase which doesn't do anything. It might be possible to set up faster than light signalling using some sort of phase over the two spin components which allows wavefunctions to collapse, but respects Lorentz covariance as far as measurable quantities are concerned but I don't know how to do it. I doubt it's possible even as a theory, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the speed of light is a hard barrier for causal influences, but not necessarily a barrier to correlation enforcing influence.
@deepthoughtsaid When we send a signal using light an electron somewhere changes energy level and emits a photon, that photon is then absorbed by an electron in a detector or rod or cone cell or some such. That signalling requires an intermediary in the form of a photon.
In the case of the collapse of the wavefunction of two entangled particles there isn't an intermediary. The signal ...[text shortened]... ard barrier for causal influences, but not necessarily a barrier to correlation enforcing influence.
@humysaid I am just curious;
Have you maths-defined your theory with actual physics equations?
Or at least attempted to do so?
Have you presented any specific physics equations that are specifically and uniquely for your theory?
Like Albert Einstein, my method is Thought Experiments... Have been working on the math a little, as I get the time..
time travel using entanglement
13 Mar '20 18:371 edit
Back to Top