Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

  1. Jul 16, 2006 #1
    [SOLVED] 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

    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)^0.5 (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. This apparent limitation is not
    fundamental problem, it is a signal to noise ratio problem. The information
    is actually being transmittted but it is swamped by the noise level of
    background photons. If the singal to noise ratio of the transmission could
    be sufficiently improved,communicating over a distance at a quasi-infinite
    velocity would be found to 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". (For diagram see
    http://einsteinhoax.com/cf53.htm. Omit the 45 degree polarizers. They may
    destroy the polarization coupling.)

    The source material for this posting may be found in
    http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
    http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
    http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at

    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:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
    mail reception is not blocked.

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 5, 2006 #2


    User Avatar

    When you "read" a photon's polarisation angle, you disturb it through the measurment process, and there's no way to know what the new state is, due to the Uncertainty Principle.

    When you disturb one, you disturb the other, so when you "read" the state of the other photon, you'll have no idea about it's previous state, again, due to the Uncertainty Principle.
  4. Oct 2, 2006 #3
    'Layman questions and propositions here.\r\n\r\nSuppose the information you want to send through quantum entanglement, you encode through change delay lengths instead of actual spin/orientation changes of the entangled particles.\r\n\r\nFor instance, you have the 2 entangled particles in place. You disturb particle A, particle B matches accordingly. This signals beginning of transmission.\r\n\r\nNext particle, A\' and implicitely B\', you only change after 2 nanoseconds delay (excuse the interval if it is ludicrously small for technical capabilities, replace with whatever is achievable) to signal a 1 bit, or 1 nanosecond delay to signal a 0 bit.\r\n\r\nFixed length of conversation, 1 for initiation, 8*1024 for message after which we assume end of connection, unless further bits are transmitted/received, and await a new initiation bit. Needless to say, a 1s only message would take twice as long to send and receive than a nulls only message. And bandwith limitations withstanding because of encoding in delay instead of change of particle.\r\n\r\nKeep loading new entangled particles in both the transmitter and receiver, have a generator assembly standing by midway or something, with each collapse.\r\n\r\nEven though relativity dictates that the signal will travel into the past, at least it will travel more or less the same time in back in the past. This should work, refined enough and with large enough difference between the 1 bit delay and 0 bit delay to be able to absorb any irregularities that might result in a 1 bit delay being smaller than a 0 bit delay on arrival.\r\n\r\nAll that remains to grapple with is causality, which frankly doesn\'t matter all that much, in my view. It\'s not like you\'d manage to collapse the whole of creation by supposedly invalidating causality, or at least know you have done so afterwards. As long as the message gets through, what\'s it matter if the need for it never arose in the first place because of it getting through?\r\n\r\nI don\'t have the audacity to suppose I\'m the first to have thought of this, but has it been tried, so as to make FTL communications possible?'
  5. Oct 2, 2006 #4
    'Moderated thread?'
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?