- #1
Hamble
- 7
- 0
Hi!
For some moths ago I was thinking on the significance of the EPR-paradox and I think I have found a new way to tackle the refutation of locality in QM that was presented by Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky. The whole principle of my idea is the treat time in the exactly same way as we treat space when we consider the paradox.
Please take time to read through this post, I assure you that you will find the whole idea very interesting (if I am able to explain it well).
Let me begin:
The first thing I want to make clear is that to be able to explain my idea as simple as possible, I will concentrate on an one-dimensional example of the entanglement where a particle is entangled to the vacuum state and not another particle. But once you understand my idea you will be able to fit it on any example you want to (I am of course aware of the fact that a more advanced experiment is in need to prove the principle of entanglement and in that way Bells theorem).
The experiment is based on a particle with a very simple and unrealistic wave function- as mentioned it will be able to fit to more advanced and realistic cases- which can be detected in two detectors. The particle has two possible positions which each are traveling away from each other, towards the two detectors. Now, imagine that they will each reach a detector at the same point of time so it is clear that the wave function collapses faster that the speed of light. Otherwise, if no “information” was being sent we would be able to detect two particles from one wave function (belonging to one particle).
http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=experiment1at0.png
The experiment is being illustrated in the picture series where the x-axis is time and the y-axis is the space (one-dimensional because of my limitations in paint of course)
Now when we consider the EPR-paradox we think of the room being determined at the point of detection. We now know where it is, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation it is meaning less to consider the particle state before the detection. The travel it took in time is still undetermined.
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eprmd5.png
The picture shows our view of the paradox (in this example) some communication must have been sent between the two points with uncertainty, there seems to be no other way to explain the phenomena.
Now my thought is that in the same point that we detect where the particle is in space our detection determine its journey in time! It’s in this way not only the uncertainty the space that is affected by a measurement but the uncertainty in time as well. When we think about it why shouldn’t time be affected by a measurement?
So when the measurement occurs we are not only determining which possible position it can receive but also which possible ways it cloud have taken.
I’m not saying that the way of the particle is totally determined because that would contradict the interference of a double split experiment, but it’s history is now restricted to the possible histories of the particle, i.e. after the detection we can be sure that the particle didn’t go further away from the detector that it would be able to reach back in time (see picture).
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=solutionhz5.png
Of course treating time in this was, just as we treats space, seems to challenge the causality of QM but the price seems very fair when you consider the logical point in treating time this way. The only thing we do is the restric its position in time just as its position in space is beeing restricted when its being measured.
I am also aware of the fact that my view doesn’t contradict the results being predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation, but it clearly takes away an important an very unintuitive way of looking at the whole theory of QM, and does not contradict the special theory of relativity.
Best Regards Humble.
EDIT: Can add a new picture which shows the whole experiment again in the new perspective http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=experimentuw6.png .
For some moths ago I was thinking on the significance of the EPR-paradox and I think I have found a new way to tackle the refutation of locality in QM that was presented by Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky. The whole principle of my idea is the treat time in the exactly same way as we treat space when we consider the paradox.
Please take time to read through this post, I assure you that you will find the whole idea very interesting (if I am able to explain it well).
Let me begin:
The first thing I want to make clear is that to be able to explain my idea as simple as possible, I will concentrate on an one-dimensional example of the entanglement where a particle is entangled to the vacuum state and not another particle. But once you understand my idea you will be able to fit it on any example you want to (I am of course aware of the fact that a more advanced experiment is in need to prove the principle of entanglement and in that way Bells theorem).
The experiment is based on a particle with a very simple and unrealistic wave function- as mentioned it will be able to fit to more advanced and realistic cases- which can be detected in two detectors. The particle has two possible positions which each are traveling away from each other, towards the two detectors. Now, imagine that they will each reach a detector at the same point of time so it is clear that the wave function collapses faster that the speed of light. Otherwise, if no “information” was being sent we would be able to detect two particles from one wave function (belonging to one particle).
http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=experiment1at0.png
The experiment is being illustrated in the picture series where the x-axis is time and the y-axis is the space (one-dimensional because of my limitations in paint of course)
Now when we consider the EPR-paradox we think of the room being determined at the point of detection. We now know where it is, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation it is meaning less to consider the particle state before the detection. The travel it took in time is still undetermined.
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eprmd5.png
The picture shows our view of the paradox (in this example) some communication must have been sent between the two points with uncertainty, there seems to be no other way to explain the phenomena.
Now my thought is that in the same point that we detect where the particle is in space our detection determine its journey in time! It’s in this way not only the uncertainty the space that is affected by a measurement but the uncertainty in time as well. When we think about it why shouldn’t time be affected by a measurement?
So when the measurement occurs we are not only determining which possible position it can receive but also which possible ways it cloud have taken.
I’m not saying that the way of the particle is totally determined because that would contradict the interference of a double split experiment, but it’s history is now restricted to the possible histories of the particle, i.e. after the detection we can be sure that the particle didn’t go further away from the detector that it would be able to reach back in time (see picture).
http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=solutionhz5.png
Of course treating time in this was, just as we treats space, seems to challenge the causality of QM but the price seems very fair when you consider the logical point in treating time this way. The only thing we do is the restric its position in time just as its position in space is beeing restricted when its being measured.
I am also aware of the fact that my view doesn’t contradict the results being predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation, but it clearly takes away an important an very unintuitive way of looking at the whole theory of QM, and does not contradict the special theory of relativity.
Best Regards Humble.
EDIT: Can add a new picture which shows the whole experiment again in the new perspective http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=experimentuw6.png .
Last edited:
) . So I guess I only can deliver a theoretical part of this theory , but it still contains, in my view, a whole new possible way of looking on QM, with locality.