A Matter of Waves

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

A Matter of Waves

Postby azzamunza on November 5th, 2018, 5:19 am 

I tend to go into these synapsis firing probability outcomes for varies theories.

I don't pretend to know any academic level of science aside from some general physics and chem. However, I do tend to have the ability to understand the physics of physics and have a comfortable and exciting understanding of some quantum theory and probabilities. Just like how I visualise the neural network in our brains transferring an electrical signal from our input devices and developing a fractal almost lightning-like flow through our synapses as it runs probabilities, feeding the information back for review and the feeding the info back into the process until a normalised result is satisfied.

Anyway, this is my first post so Hello if you are reading this for the first time.

Ok, the actual reason for this post is actually more Physics-based, hence the location of this post.

I have a question generated from one of these probability outcomes, which I hope to add more data too or void my theory totally, which I'm quite happy to hear also.

Again, apologies for any lack of understanding.

My question is:

Could Matter be a piece of potential in the form of a wave that holds it's neighbours in a standing wave pattern based on its properties?

Could this Matter wave be endless and link two entangled particles, no matter where they are in the universe. They are locked in the same matter wave. Observing one would cause the wave to collapse into a probability and break its wave connection.

Also, just some simple questions.

Does the size of matter change on a particle when it's doing laps say around the LHC. I'm curious about whether the act of a particle flowing around a circle would cause some form of force that would suggest compression of space around the perimeter for the particle path.

Could changing the path by pushing the particle cause a physical push back in the opposite direction?

Ok I'll leave it there for the moment. My brain is comfortable with this venting.

Thanks guys

Aaron
azzamunza
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 05 Nov 2018


Re: A Matter of Fields

Postby Faradave on November 5th, 2018, 12:21 pm 

Aaron,

Welcome to SPCF.

azzamunza wrote:Could Matter be a piece of potential in the form of a wave that holds it's neighbours in a standing wave pattern based on its properties?

This question becomes answerable if rephrased as follows: "Why do electrons occupy orbitals around a nucleus rather than crash into it?" The conventional answer is that they occupy 3D standing wave regions described by the Schrödinger equation. (Colored underlines are clickable links.) When the electrons of neighboring atoms mutually participate in these appropriately modified orbitals, it is considered a covalent bond.

azzamunza wrote:Could this Matter wave be endless and link two entangled particles, no matter where they are in the universe. They are locked in the same matter wave. Observing one would cause the wave to collapse into a probability and break its wave connection.


You are following a "timelike" worldline (4D path) in spacetime. Different observers will see you at different relative speeds but all will agree that you are moving less than universal speed limit c, which is sufficient to qualify your path as timelike.

Electrons (having rest mass like you) also have timelike worldlines but the regions they occupy are governed by electromagnetic (EM) relations with the nucleus. EM influence propagates at speed limit c and is thus, "lightlike".

Quantum entanglement is "spacelike" relationship between particles, which may be seen as instantaneous or even retroactive (backward in time) but never "causal" or communicating any signal, as that would violate speed limit c. Entanglement is thus considered a nontraversable connection which may serve as the reference (like a shared axis) about which the entangled properties are coordinated.

azzamunza wrote:Does the size of matter change on a particle when it's doing laps say around the LHC.

Fundamental particles, such as electrons, are considered "point particles" and thus have no "size" to change. Composite particles, such as protons, have a measurable size which will shrink relativistically in the direction of motion. Similarly the shape of particle fields (such as gravitational intensity) may be expected to shrink in the direction of motion. There can also be changes in the character of fields (e.g. an electric charge will become increasingly magnetic, the faster it is seen to be moving.)

So, if you consider a "particle" to include its fields, yes shape (if not size) alters with motion.

azzamunza wrote:whether the act of a particle flowing around a circle would cause some form of force...Could changing the path by pushing the particle cause a physical push back in the opposite direction?

A circular path is one of constantly changing direction. Superconducting magnets along the LHC don't just motivate the particles but act to contain the beam, which becomes much more massive (relativistically) as it accelerates.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby azzamunza on November 5th, 2018, 11:37 pm 

Great answers! I'll have follow on questions but great explanation!
azzamunza
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 05 Nov 2018


Re: A Matter of Fields

Postby bangstrom on November 6th, 2018, 7:26 am 

Faradave » November 5th, 2018, 11:21 am wrote:

Quantum entanglement is "spacelike" relationship between particles, which may be seen as instantaneous or even retroactive (backward in time) but never "causal" or communicating any signal, as that would violate speed limit c. Entanglement is thus considered a nontraversable connection which may serve as the reference (like a shared axis) about which the entangled properties are coordinated.


How can it be possible that entanglement is “spacelike” but never “causal?” When entanglement is lost, there is a chance that both formerly entangled particles will be simultaneously and permanently changed otherwise we could never observe that they were ever entangled in the first place. Something happens at both ends of the entanglement which requires a prior two-way communication. I don’t understand how coordination works without communication.

Recent experiments to determine the rate at which the changes take place post entanglement find them to be far greater than c. Instant as far as anyone can tell.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Instant Reply

Postby Faradave on November 6th, 2018, 11:42 am 

bangstrom wrote:Recent experiments to determine the rate at which the changes take place post entanglement find them to be far greater than c. Instant as far as anyone can tell.

That's right! Yet a "spacelike" interval is defined as a faster-than-light connection. That is ∆space > ∆time, so it has slope ∆space/∆time > 1 (speed c = 1 in natural units).

Since faster-than-light travel is equivalent to going backward in time, any such transmission would not be causal but instead retrocausal, the cause occurring after the effect. No such phenomenon has ever been observed nor even allowed in the Standard Model (which incorporates Relativity).

Image
Spacetime intervals, divided into regions based upon slope (inverse of speed), are conventionally illustrated in the Minkowski diagram (left). The retro-causal nature of spacelike connections is better seen as negative slope with undistorted (Euclidean) interval-time coordinates (right).

bangstrom wrote:When entanglement is lost, ...both formerly entangled particles will be simultaneously and permanently changed ...Something happens at both ends of the entanglement...

Breaking entanglement is indeed a mutual change in state. That change is caused from outside the entanglement and, as you point out, can occur only at the ends of the entanglement connection (recently characterized as a wormhole). A curved-space, radial-time model of the cosmos (consistent with the interval-time coordinates above and the expanding balloon analogy) shows a simultaneous entanglement connection is inaccessible to the present because, being faster-than-light, it tunnels through the past as vx.

Image
Modeling space expanding as the cosmos ages along temporal radii, speed limit c (vmax) is tangent to any location on a spatial simultaneity with a non-traversable entanglement connection available along the shortest 4D path available (time= t1 to time = t1) via vx.

bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.

It works like a long umbilical tether between astronauts in deep space. Even out of sight and without communicating, they can, by prior agreement, both spin oppositely with respect to the tether. This is analogous to a quantum total-spin-zero entangled state with respect to their vx connection.
Attachments
tether 2.jpg
Distant astronauts, entangled by a tether, can each unilaterally adhere to a prior mutual spin state by referring to their shared connection (the tether) rather than by communicating with each other.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Instant Reply

Postby bangstrom on November 7th, 2018, 4:11 am 

Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:
Since faster-than-light travel is equivalent to going backward in time, any such transmission would not be causal but instead retrocausal, the cause occurring after the effect. No such phenomenon has ever been observed nor even allowed in the Standard Model (which incorporates Relativity).


Never observed? Any observation at one end of an entangled pair of particles causing the simultaneous loss of entanglement at the opposite end can be viewed as “retrocausal” by any observer nearer to the remote end. Every observation of entanglement is an observation of a phenomenon contrary to SR's second postulate (and the second postulate alone) which calls into question the validity of the second postulate about nothing faster than light. Specifically, entanglement is a violation of the EPR effect which is nonessential to SR. The violation of the EPR effect has been known since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties.

Did you read your own reference? Quantum entanglement

Faradave » November 6th, 2018, 10:42 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:I don't understand how coordination works without communication.

It works like a long umbilical tether between astronauts in deep space. Even out of sight and without communicating, they can, by prior agreement, both spin oppositely with respect to the tether. This is analogous to a quantum total-spin-zero entangled state with respect to their vx connection.


A “prior agreement” does not make a physical connection nor does it imply the maintenance of a total-spin-zero entangled state and there is no demonstrable tether with entanglement. Your model works as a model for entanglement only if it can be demonstrated to have an observable difference between a connection and no connection at all. How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Reading Lessons

Postby Faradave on November 7th, 2018, 12:53 pm 

bangstrom wrote:…entanglement is an observation of a phenomenon contrary to SR's second postulate …which calls into question the validity of the second postulate about nothing faster than light.
Did you read your own reference? Quantum entanglement

Of course! More than that, I understood it. Did you? I invite you to provide any quote from it supporting faster-than-light communication. What I find is:

"However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible."

The lesson being that "correlation" is different than "communication" or "translation", as shown in this Minkowski diagram.
Image


You're missing the difference between retro-temporal (correlation) and retro-causal (communication & translation), which I find better illustrated in interval-time coordinates.
T2 speeds.png
Interval-time coordinates ("Times Square") reveal faster-than-light correlation as being retro-temporal, which includes an instantaneous connection in some frames.


bangstrom wrote:The violation of the EPR effect has been known since the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties.

If by "violation of the EPR effect" you mean "violation of Bell's inequality", we agree. The entanglement correlation connection is indeed "spacelike" or "superluminal" but it is also non-traversable.

"They proposed that a non-traversable wormhole (Einstein–Rosen bridge or ER bridge) is equivalent to … quantum entanglement … An entangled state is a linear superposition of separable states. … a superposition of such states is connected by a wormhole. … The authors pushed this conjecture even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles … are connected by Planck scale wormholes."

bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?

The physical connection is a wormhole as quoted above. I described it as a "spinhole" three years prior to those noted authors. I further model the exact location of such wormholes, inaccessibly traversing the past (see vx above). Thus, entanglement may only be broken by interaction with one of the entangled particles directly. ~ Beauty! ~
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Reading Lessons

Postby bangstrom on November 7th, 2018, 5:10 pm 

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:
Did you read your own reference? Quantum entanglement

Of course! More than that, I understood it. Did you? I invite you to provide any quote from it supporting faster-than-light communication. What I find is:

"However all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible."


I interpret what the quote calls "mutual information between particles " to involve a ftl exchange of quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information.
My understanding is that what the quote calls the “mutual information” or a “correlation between the measurements” is spacelike. Then it concludes that the same spacelike “correlation” can not be used a ftl transmission of information but it fails to explain why.

My explanation as to why is because we can never observe a spacelike communication as ftl. It will always appear as timelike because, as we know from SR, any two events separated by space are always separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This makes it impossible to observe any spacelike signal as anything but timelike since we can only observe as timelike the sending and reception of the signal.

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 11:53 am wrote:
bangstrom wrote:How is your model for entanglement any different from a nonexistent connection?

The physical connection is a wormhole as quoted above. I described it as a "spinhole" three years prior to those noted authors. I further model the exact location of such wormholes, inaccessibly traversing the past (see vx above). Thus, entanglement may only be broken by interaction with one of the entangled particles directly. ~ Beauty! ~


I understand what you are saying but it misses the point of my question. My question was about observations. What observation(s) supports your model. How can we observe two or more particles, like your two astronauts, and know they are or ever were connected? How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles. I don’t see where this is a part of your model.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Shared vs. Sent

Postby Faradave on November 7th, 2018, 10:09 pm 

bangstrom wrote:…quantum information which is not the same as an exchange of classical information

Keep it simple. Information is information. A qubit is simply a bit in superposition. That means it can exist in an undecided state (roughly, like a coin in mid flip) and, relating to entanglement, that the state can be correlated. That does not mean information is transmitted. Rather a shared state is distributed over more than one location. That's a key feature of "superposition", being in more than one position at a time.

So, no one in quantum mechanics is saying that entangled particles are swapping (i.e. communicating) information back and forth faster-than-light. Rather, the state is considered distributed over both locations. That may sound like instantaneous communication, and that might be OK, …IF you can understand that instantaneous "motion" isn't really moving, its being (in multiple locations at once).

bangstrom wrote:Then it concludes that the same spacelike “correlation” can not be used a ftl transmission of information but it fails to explain why.

Yup. Think of "correlation" as "coordination". The entanglement connection is a physical reference about which shared properties may be coordinated without the need for communication.

So, if this reference connection is characterized as a spinhole (spacelike-interconnecting wormhole) why is it non-traversable? Because of the fundamental unidirectionality of time. We mistakenly take bidirectional spatial freedom for granted. But in a curved-space, radial-time model, bidirectional translational freedom is only available so long as it does not violate the outward-only direction of time. That's exactly what vx attempts to do in spanning the shortest possible route between two locations in the same spatial simultaneity. Still, nature doesn't forbid such a connection, so long as nothing (e.g. mass-energy or information) can go through it.

Image

bangstrom wrote:as we know from SR, any two events separated by space are always separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance

That will confuse you. The events of (you, now) and (me, now) exist separated in space but not by time.

Any two causally related events exist such that the effect event is on or within the light cone of the cause event. (If transmission entails rest mass, the effect event lies within.)

bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.

My model (Phyxed) is meant to recover all the observations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (without gaps or weirdness). So, in this case, what you seek is the essence of Bell's experiment. It has many versions, all of which statistically demonstrate two spatially separate, entangled particles share properties as if they were one. He deserves all the credit he's given for this. Phyxed merely reveals where the spinhole resides.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Shared vs. Sent

Postby bangstrom on November 8th, 2018, 1:23 am 

Faradave » November 7th, 2018, 9:09 pm wrote:

bangstrom wrote:What observation(s) supports your model. … How do two particles connected by a wormhole/spinhole behave any differently from any two non-connected particles.

My model (Phyxed) is meant to recover all the observations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (without gaps or weirdness). So, in this case, what you seek is the essence of Bell's experiment. It has many versions, all of which statistically demonstrate two spatially separate, entangled particles share properties as if they were one. He deserves all the credit he's given for this. Phyxed merely reveals where the spinhole resides.


I am not asking about Bell’s experiments so this does not answer my question. I keep rephrasing the question because I can’t find the answer in Phyxed that matches Standard Model of Particle Physics. I may be missing something. You mention “spinholes” and you explain what they can not do. I can follow that but it leaves me wondering, What do spinholes do? What observable change do they leave behind that gives evidence that they exist?

My confusion begins where you say spinholes can not do what my understanding is that entanglement does.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re:Symmetry for You & Me

Postby Faradave on November 8th, 2018, 10:58 am 

bangstrom wrote:You mention “spinholes” and you explain what they can not do. I can follow that but it leaves me wondering, What do spinholes do? What observable change do they leave behind that gives evidence that they exist? ... you say spinholes can not do what my understanding is that entanglement does.

To the extent that you assert faster-than-light communication, spinholes do not provide that.

Spinholes are a passive reference analogous to a mutual tether, by which two distant astronauts can coordinate their spins. Passive, yet if cut, assurance of coordination is immediately lost.

But particles are not thinking astronauts so, how can they coordinate anything? The answer lies with the conservation laws, in the case of quantum spin, conservation of angular momentum. The total angular momentum after a particle pair creation must equal that before creation, typically the pair is entangled with total spin zero.

You've heard of Noether's theorem which states that for each such conservation law there is a corresponding symmetry. No spatial axis is adequate to describe quantum spin. That axis must be non-spatial so that quantum spin can occur in a spatial 3-plane of rotation. (Classical spin occurs in an ordinary 2-plane of rotation.) A spinhole acts as a mutual, extra-spatial axis of symmetry for quantum spin. This is seen as chord vx to the spatial arc (time = t1) above.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Re:Symmetry for You & Me

Postby bangstrom on November 8th, 2018, 1:28 pm 

Faradave » November 8th, 2018, 9:58 am wrote:
You've heard of Noether's theorem which states that for each such conservation law there is a corresponding symmetry. No spatial axis is adequate to describe quantum spin. That axis must be non-spatial so that quantum spin can occur in a spatial 3-plane of rotation. (Classical spin occurs in an ordinary 2-plane of rotation.) A spinhole acts as a mutual, extra-spatial axis of symmetry for quantum spin. This is seen as chord vx to the spatial arc (time = t1) above.

I see, or better, what I don't see here appears to be a problem in that there is nothing to observe. If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist? They don't appear to do or change anything to the particles involved that is evident to an observer.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Fragility Ability

Postby Faradave on November 8th, 2018, 7:01 pm 

bangstrom wrote:If spinholes can form and be lost without leaving a trace, how do you know they exist?

I consider that a breakthrough in your understanding! How can something be lost unless it had existed in the first place? That's exactly why we believe in spinholes (or more generally, a spacelike entanglement connection).

Entanglement is actually quite fragile (again, it has to be something in order to be fragile). Any measurable interaction on either particle will break the entanglement (termed "quantum decoherence"). Phyxed interprets this as knocking the particle off the shared spacelike spin axis. (Recall, "spacelike" means having a superluminal slope in 4D, not "spatial" as within a simultaneity.)

Here's a question you might ask yourself. If entangled particles could somehow communicate faster-than-light, why should that stop on disentanglement? Electrons persist in communicating at speed c with each other (electrically repelling), even when they aren't transmitting light quanta. Should superluminal communication be different?

bangstrom wrote:[Spinholes] don't appear to do or change anything to the particles involved that is evident to an observer.

What they do is provide spin correlations (established by observing many pairs of entangled particles) which are statistically impossible without a coordination reference.

In a single particle, prepared with spin up, the sign (+/- for parallel or antiparallel spin direction) of subsequently measured spin components correlate statistically according to the angle the new axis makes with the prepared axis.

Entanglement is established by the fact that such spin correlations also occur between two spatially separate but entangled particles, in contrast to unentangled particles. That's what Bell's theorem brilliantly did for quantum mechanics.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests