8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime

In summary, the conversation discussed the concept of 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with 4 additional dimensions in the imaginary plane, which is believed to provide a mechanism for quantum entanglement. However, the validity of this theory was questioned, as well as the credibility of the source website. The conversation also touched on the idea of entanglement violating relativity and the use of higher dimensions in other theories. Overall, the concept of 8-dimensional spacetime and its relation to entanglement remains a topic of debate in the scientific community.
  • #1
rodsika
279
2
How viable is 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with the extra 4 dimensions in the imaginary plane. This is said to give mechanism for quantum entanglement because doing a Pythagorean calculations can make the distances 0. See:

http://whyentanglement.com/ [Broken]

reviewed by Ken Renshaw
Ken Renshaw was Chief Scientist at Hughes Aircraft where he was a satellite systems designer and program manager.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No. No it cant. And that webpage is outrageously, and offensively, stupid.

Lets look at some excerpts from the first page:

Quantum entanglement is appearing in more diverse places in the literature. It appears in biology as part of how certain species navigate or localize prey. It appears in chemistry where it is used to explain experiments of teleportation of DNA. People are publishing papers on using quantum entanglement in computers and encryption schemes.
Not only are there no sources cited, but both the biology and chemistry proposals are absolutely ludicrous. There is definitely no experiment that has teleported DNA. And if species navigate using entanglement (which makes zero sense by itself), we sure as hell wouldn't know about it.

For most people who are not theoretic physicists or mathematicians, quantum entanglement is an unexplained mystery, something to be used to explain phenomena that can be generated in scientific experiments, for which there in no other explanation.
Horribly improper grammar, and just poor sentence construction.

...

Quantum entanglement occurs because particles can be physically separated in four dimensions and have no separation, for the transfer of information, such as quantum states, in eight-dimensional space.
The way geometry works is that if you're separated in at least one dimension, you're separated overall. You can't have a lesser separation overall than in anyone dimension.

And is the fact that this guy was an airplane engineer supposed to give him credence in theoretical physics?!
 
  • #3
zhermes said:
No. No it cant. And that webpage is outrageously, and offensively, stupid.

Lets look at some excerpts from the first page:


Not only are there no sources cited, but both the biology and chemistry proposals are absolutely ludicrous. There is definitely no experiment that has teleported DNA. And if species navigate using entanglement (which makes zero sense by itself), we sure as hell wouldn't know about it.


Horribly improper grammar, and just poor sentence construction.


The way geometry works is that if you're separated in at least one dimension, you're separated overall. You can't have a lesser separation overall than in anyone dimension.

And is the fact that this guy was an airplane engineer supposed to give him credence in theoretical physics?!

Wait, that person was just presenting the paper "Superluminal transformations in complex Minkowski spaces" peer reviewed in the Foundations of Physics

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980FoPh...10..661R

So try to attack the concept of 8-dimensional spacetime with the 4 as imaginary plane. It's like a person that tries to present Dirac Equation by saying the Dirac Sea is real and out there or inhabited by fairies, it doesn't mean the Dirac Equation is wrong, just his misunderstanding. So please try to comment on the 8-dimensional spacetime part, another paper was in the same page you visited at the bottom of it..
 
  • #4
The current explanation for entanglement is that when particles become entangled, they occupy different 3 dimensional coordinates but occupy the same 4-5 dimensional coordinates. To me there isn't anything particularly wrong with that notion, many other theories predict the existence of higher dimensions.
 
  • #5
questionpost said:
The current explanation for entanglement is that when particles become entangled, they occupy different 3 dimensional coordinates but occupy the same 4-5 dimensional coordinates.
That's just not true...
 
  • #6
zhermes said:
That's just not true...

Entanglement is proven to exist, and the only way for it to happen without breaking the foundations of relativity is for what my other post was saying to be true.
 
  • #7
rodsika said:
the concept of 8-dimensional spacetime with the 4 as imaginary plane.
Well, it requires traveling faster than c in some of those dimension.
It goes backwards in time in at least one temporal direction, and by symmetry it seems like that should include the standard time coordinate (but they don't comment).
Otherwise I don't get much of the details, but its entirely un-motivated, and aesthetically ugly.

This is actually an offshoot of much earlier (better) work called 'Twister theory' that (I think) Penrose started. I think standard twister theory is still 4D (kind-of) but makes those 4 dimensions complex (thus 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary). I think twister theory preserves causality by restricting the types of lorentz boosts (which this paper abandons).
 
  • #8
questionpost said:
Entanglement is proven to exist, and the only way for it to happen without breaking the foundations of relativity is for what my other post was saying to be true.

Entanglement does exist. The rest is false. Cite your sources.
Also, entanglement doesn't violate relativity.
 
  • #9
zhermes said:
Entanglement does exist. The rest is false. Cite your sources.
Also, entanglement doesn't violate relativity.

Entanglement would violate relativity because if nothing can travel faster than light, then without extra dimensions it would imply information is traveling faster than light.

I suppose it's just theoretical that it needs extra-dimensions, but black holes are also still theoretical as no one has actually observed them directly, people have only observed what their expected mathematical properties should do to matter.
 
  • #10
zhermes said:
Well, it requires traveling faster than c in some of those dimension. It goes backwards in time in at least one temporal direction, and by symmetry it seems like that should include the standard time coordinate (but they don't comment). Otherwise I don't get much of the details, but its entirely un-motivated, and aesthetically ugly. This is actually an offshoot of much earlier (better) work called 'Twister theory' that (I think) Penrose started. I think standard twister theory is still 4D (kind-of) but makes those 4 dimensions complex (thus 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary). I think twister theory preserves causality by restricting the types of lorentz boosts (which this paper abandons).

Yes, I heard many physicists are looking into higher dimensional space like 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary (or complex). The only difference is that they don't propose that it can explain entanglement? But is the Pythogorean theorem when applied to the 4 real and 4 complex spacetime equal to zero true at all? Just focus on this. The web illustrates it for laymen but the latter half is from a paper not written by him at all.
 
  • #11
rodsika said:
Yes, I heard many physicists are looking into higher dimensional space like 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary (or complex). The only difference is that they don't propose that it can explain entanglement? But is the Pythogorean theorem when applied to the 4 real and 4 complex spacetime equal to zero true at all? Just focus on this. The web illustrates it for laymen but the latter half is from a paper not written by him at all.

I'm pretty sure Brian Green and Michio Kaku and all those modern string and multi-verse theorists who's books I've read (though a while ago) advocate extra-dimensions and use them to explain phenomena in quantum mechanics. Whether or not it's entanglement specifically is something I'd have to look up.
If you know how to view extra-dimensions, it becomes a lot more clearer how they could exist.
I suggest watching the movie "flatland" if you really have no idea how to comprehend extra dimensions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CynemTIex9I&feature=related).
 
  • #12
rodsika said:
Yes, I heard many physicists are looking into higher dimensional space like 8 dimensions; 4 real, 4 imaginary (or complex). The only difference is that they don't propose that it can explain entanglement? But is the Pythogorean theorem when applied to the 4 real and 4 complex spacetime equal to zero true at all? Just focus on this. The web illustrates it for laymen but the latter half is from a paper not written by him at all.

Or since my descriptions are not clear. Let's use the author (paper) own words: "The least number of dimensions that has the property of nonlocality and that is consistent with Poincairé invariance or Lorentz invariance is eight dimensions. In this space, each physical spatial distance has an imaginary temporal counterpart, such that there is a zero spatial separation in the higher dimensional space. Likewise for every real physically temporal separation, there is a counterpart imaginary spatial separation that subtracts to zero on the metric... Consistency with the relativity theory is assured"

Is the above possible? If you still don't know how it work. The original website I shared explained it for laymen.. and again he just got the idea from peer reviewed works by others. It's not his own theory of course.
 
  • #13
rodsika said:
Or since my descriptions are not clear. Let's use the author (paper) own words: "The least number of dimensions that has the property of nonlocality and that is consistent with Poincairé invariance or Lorentz invariance is eight dimensions. In this space, each physical spatial distance has an imaginary temporal counterpart, such that there is a zero spatial separation in the higher dimensional space. Likewise for every real physically temporal separation, there is a counterpart imaginary spatial separation that subtracts to zero on the metric... Consistency with the relativity theory is assured"

Is the above possible? If you still don't know how it work. The original website I shared explained it for laymen.. and again he just got the idea from peer reviewed works by others. It's not his own theory of course.

It's basic relativity applied to the existence of mathematics itself. In a way it's saying each dimension has it's own positive and negative numbers and square roots and etc. Whether or not it works so consecutively and uniformly is something I don't know.
It's actually very similar to my theory I posted in the "Beyond the Standard Model" section. I didn't even know for sure imaginary planes existed until today when someone confirmed it because whenever I googled them, and for some reason it just got deleted...
 
  • #14
questionpost said:
Entanglement would violate relativity because if nothing can travel faster than light, then without extra dimensions it would imply information is traveling faster than light.
Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Again, cite your sources, or don't conjecture.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:quant-ph/0212023
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/q/quantum_entanglement.htm
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

Especially nice proof/derivation:
http://everything2.com/title/Quantum+entanglement+and+faster+than+light+communication

Especially nice discussion:
http://www.quora.com/Can-photon-teleportation-transfer-information-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
 
  • #15
rodsika said:
In this space, each physical spatial distance has an imaginary temporal counterpart, such that there is a zero spatial separation in the higher dimensional space. Likewise for every real physically temporal separation, there is a counterpart imaginary spatial separation that subtracts to zero on the metric...
Maybe I'm missing something, but no, It doesn't seem like this makes sense. This should lead to singularities in the most basic calculations...
 
  • #16
zhermes said:
Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Again, cite your sources, or don't conjecture.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:quant-ph/0212023
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/q/quantum_entanglement.htm
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007

Especially nice proof/derivation:
http://everything2.com/title/Quantum+entanglement+and+faster+than+light+communication

Especially nice discussion:
http://www.quora.com/Can-photon-teleportation-transfer-information-faster-than-the-speed-of-light

Well, maybe entanglement can't send new information at least at this point in our understanding, but DIS-entanglement at least would violate relativity because DIS-entanglement occurs instantaneously...

http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/papers/Epistemology_and_QM.pdf

"For entangled states, this seemed to imply that the state of a distant physical
entity would be determined by the properties of an entangled partner measured locally, which
seemed to require that energy be exchanged faster then light."

And whoa, an article on extra-dimensional entanglement

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n9/full/nphys1996.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
questionpost said:
Well, maybe entanglement can't send new information at least at this point in our understanding, but DIS-entanglement at least would violate relativity because DIS-entanglement occurs instantaneously...

http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/papers/Epistemology_and_QM.pdf

"For entangled states, this seemed to imply that the state of a distant physical
entity would be determined by the properties of an entangled partner measured locally, which
seemed to require that energy be exchanged faster then light."
Its becoming very clear that you're lacking the most basic facilities of logic. That article (not a theoretical physics article, nor peer-reviewed, nor even published) is only reciting a historical account as emphasized by the phrase 'this seemed to imply'.

Furthermore you clearly haven't read any of what I linked because you don't understand the most basic point that information transfer has nothing to do with whether or not entanglement can have effects at arbitrary velocities. It still can't transfer information and thus does not violate relativity.
 
  • #18
questionpost said:
Entanglement would violate relativity because if nothing can travel faster than light, then without extra dimensions it would imply information is traveling faster than light.
First, as zhermes said, entanglement does not transmit information, there are lots of threads on this topic. Second, even if it did, that by itself does not necessarily violate relativity. If the laws governing FTL are the same in every frame then you have FTL and relativity. Relativity doesn't say that nothing can go FTL, just that if information does go FTL then it can violate causality.
 
  • #19
*sigh* no I understand QM. At this point, ENtanglement isn't sending information, DIS-entanglement. Can you show me an article that says dis-entanglement doesn't happen instantaneously?

Here's an article that even says plain entanglement happens instantaneously, probably referring to when the state of one changes in the response to another.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html

And whoa, even information transfer?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm

I don't get why you guys are so rigid, quantum mechanics is only half a century old and almost constantly being revised and debated over.
 
  • #20
questionpost said:
*sigh* no I understand QM. At this point, ENtanglement isn't sending information, DIS-entanglement. Can you show me an article that says dis-entanglement doesn't happen instantaneously?
I never claimed that it didn't happen instantaneously. Only that (1) it doesn't transmit information and (2) that even if it did that wouldn't necessarily violate relativity.

The howstuffworks reference is hardly a mainstream scientific reference supporting your point. It is clearly garbled nonsense since it talks about "the atomic structure of a photon". It is a pop-sci account of some research that they don't understand and incorrectly characterize.
 
  • #21
So if DIS-entanglement happens instantaneously which you don't disagree with, couldn't we force, say, a "spin up" on an entangled particle on one end, thus determining that the particle on the other end has to have the opposite spin upon disentanglement at a faster rate than light?
 
  • #22
questionpost said:
couldn't we force, say, a "spin up" on an entangled particle on one end, thus determining that the particle on the other end has to have the opposite spin
No. Entanglement doesn't work that way.
 
  • #23
zhermes said:
Its becoming very clear that you're lacking the most basic facilities of logic. That article (not a theoretical physics article, nor peer-reviewed, nor even published) is only reciting a historical account as emphasized by the phrase 'this seemed to imply'.

Furthermore you clearly haven't read any of what I linked because you don't understand the most basic point that information transfer has nothing to do with whether or not entanglement can have effects at arbitrary velocities. It still can't transfer information and thus does not violate relativity.

Information could be transmitted through entanglement but we cannot observe such an event, much like tachyon's could exist but they cannot communicate with ordinary matter.
 
  • #24
JPBenowitz said:
Information could be transmitted through entanglement but we cannot observe such an event
Then it isn't information.
 
  • #25
DaleSpam said:
No. Entanglement doesn't work that way.

Well...do you have evidence that it doesn't work that way? Because I've only seen articles that say it does, and there's plenty of room for quantum mechanics to change.
 
  • #26
questionpost said:
Well...do you have evidence that it doesn't work that way? Because I've only seen articles that say it does, and there's plenty of room for quantum mechanics to change.
Once again. I posted many articles and sources that thoroughly and simply explain everything we've been discussing. Read them.

In regards to:
questionpost said:
I don't get why you guys are so rigid, quantum mechanics is only half a century old and almost constantly being revised and debated over.
We're 'so rigid' because we don't just make things up. Just because QM is still young, doesn't mean that one should wildly and ignorantly, conjecture and speculate on already explained phenomena.
 
  • #27
Thread closed pending Moderator review.
 

1. What is 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime?

8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical concept that describes the geometry of the universe. It is a 8-dimensional space that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time from our everyday experience with four additional dimensions that are used to describe the behavior of particles at very high energies.

2. How is 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime different from our everyday experience of space and time?

In our everyday experience, we are only aware of three spatial dimensions (length, width, and height) and one dimension of time. In 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, there are four additional spatial dimensions that are not directly observable in our everyday experience. These dimensions are used to describe the behavior of particles at very high energies.

3. What is the significance of 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime in physics?

8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is important in physics because it provides a mathematical framework for understanding the behavior of particles at high energies, such as those found in particle accelerators. It is also a fundamental concept in theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

4. How is 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime related to the theory of relativity?

8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is a key component of the theory of special relativity, which describes the relationship between space and time in the absence of gravity. It is also used in the theory of general relativity, which explains how gravity affects the curvature of spacetime.

5. Can 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime be visualized?

No, 8-dimensional Minkowski spacetime cannot be visualized in the same way that we can visualize three-dimensional space. However, mathematicians and physicists use mathematical tools and techniques to represent and understand the behavior of particles in this space, even though we cannot directly observe it in our everyday experience.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
781
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
61
Views
14K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top