Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Thomas Ray: ""I do not derive any mathematics from any empirical model. I set out an..." in Classical Spheres,...

Thomas Ray: "Last was mine." in Classical Spheres,...

Thomas Ray: "I retire in a couple of weeks. What could be better? :-)" in FQXb (bio)

William Orem: "Thanks, Tom. Good to hear from you, and I hope all is well in your world." in FQXb (bio)

Pentcho Valev: "The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity IV Originally "length..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

click titles to read articles

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

Quantum Computers Get Real
Fighting decoherence to scale up quantum technologies.

Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space
Satellite experiments could soon investigate the boundaries of quantum physics and relativity.

April 18, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: How Quantum Entanglement Transcends Space and Time [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

Blogger George Musser wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 18:34 GMT
Quantum entanglement is the great soap opera of modern physics. The human spectacle—Einstein discovers entanglement, his colleagues mostly ignore him—was bad enough. But the particles themselves are enacting a sappy romance. Bring two of them together (they also do threesomes and more) and they establish a bond that no physicist can put asunder, acing the particulate equivalent of the Newlywed Game, in which physicists make measurements on the particles and the particles respond in a coordinated way. 

But how do they do that? What *is* entanglement, really? Is there any explanation for it or must we accept it as a brute fact of the world? These are the questions that have brought me to the National University of Singapore's Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT), which is graciously hosting me for two months so I can get away from the hurly-burly of my day job at Scientific American and start work on a book. (An FQXi mini-grant is also helping to cover my expenses.) I had been here hardly more than a few days before faculty member Valerio Scarani and his colleagues posted a paper ( on precisely the questions that motivated my trip.

Their research concerns one of the possible ways entangled particles might stay in sync: they pass hidden signals between them. Theory and experiment rule out standard lines of communication such as light rays, so these hidden signals would have to be an exotic backchannel like nothing else in nature. They are strictly private to the entangled particles; a third party such as a latter-day Alexander Graham Bell can't commandeer the backchannel to transmit his or her own messages.

Experiments using closely synchronized measurements on entangled particles have shown hidden signals would need to zap from one particle to the other at least 10,000 times faster than light. (See also “The Speed of Spookiness” by CQT’s Vlatko Vedral.) So, any such backchannel would flout Einstein’s special theory of relativity. But that's not a deal-breaker. As long as the signals are hidden, they pose no overt contradiction to relativity. Besides, it’s not as though physicists have a lot of other good options to explain entanglement. Once-promising possibilities, such as some internal memory to the particles, have been ruled out.

A hidden signal 10,000 times faster than light would be practically instantaneous, but for theorists, "practically” instantaneous is a long way from truly instantaneous. No matter how high the speed is, as long as it is finite, they can think of entanglement as a process that unfolds in spacetime. It starts at particle A and covers the distance to particle B. But if the speed is truly infinite, then the very concept of a propagating signal makes no sense. Once at A, it is automatically at B, too.

No direct timing experiment could ever tell whether the speed were truly infinite; a lower limit is the best it can do. But Scarani and his co-authors—Jean-Daniel Bancal, Antonio Acin, Yeong-Cherng Liang, and FQXi members Stefano Pironio and Nicolas Gisin—have found an indirect, though no less powerful, way to gauge the speed of putative hidden signals.

An earlier paper by Scarani and Gisin outlined the basic argument. Suppose you have three entangled particles interconnected by hidden faster-than-light signals. You measure both particles A and B at exactly the same time—too quickly for the hidden signal to pass between them—so the outcomes should be uncorrelated. A short while later, you measure particle C. A hidden signal *does* have time to get to it from the other particles, so C will be correlated with both of them. But if A and C, and B and C, are correlated, then surely A and B should be, too. Ergo, a contradiction—in which case hidden signals can't have a finite speed after all.

This argument has a loophole, though. Just because A and C, and B and C, are correlated doesn't necessarily mean that A and B are, too. In fact, there are counter-examples in which they're not. The new paper gets around that by bringing in a fourth entangled particle. Then the argument does hold. Two of the particles are measured at precisely the same moment; the outcomes are uncorrelated. But the correlations among the other particles imply that those two particles should be correlated after all. "You really cannot construct an explanation of quantum mechanics with signaling," Scarani says. "The speed must be infinite, full stop."

(Image above right courtesy of Bancal et al.)

The authors quantify this conclusion in terms of an inequality. Finite-speed hidden signals would satisfy the inequality, but quantum mechanics violates it. In fact, in quantum mechanics, such signals could never remain hidden. Third parties would be able to exploit them, in overt contradiction with relativity theory. All good relativity-loving physicists must conclude that, to remain hidden, the bonds between entangled particles would have to act in a truly instantaneous way.

If so, whatever causes entanglement does not travel from one place to the other; the category of “place” simply isn't meaningful to it. It might be said to lie *beyond* spacetime. Two particles that are half a world apart are, in some deeper sense, right on top of each other. If some level of reality underlies quantum mechanics, that level must be non-spatial. The prime example of a theory that postulates such a reality, pilot-wave theory, is holistic—bound together into an inseparable whole, allowing effects to appear instantaneously in every corner of space. (For more on pilot-wave theory, see “Teaching an Old Wave New Tricks” (pdf).) Maybe that should please the lovers of the world. On the quantum level, they really are inseparable.

I am grateful to Theiss Research, under whose auspices I received an FQXi mini-grant to help pay my way in Singapore.

(Edited on 26 October to clarify what all good relativity-loving physicists must conclude, in response to Ken Wharton's comment.)

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Thanks for the nice article George, but I beg to differ with the main message. In my view nature is perfectly local and perfectly real. The so-called non-local correlations are no different from those exhibited by Dr. Bertlmann's socks discussed by Bell in one of his paper. The infinite speed is then not at all a mystery. However, EPR correlations must be understood as occurring within the parallelized 3-sphere, which is the correct model of the physical space we live in. More generally, ALL quantum correlations can be understood as local correlations occurring within a parallelized 7-sphere. This is of course my personal view, and it is far from universally understood or accepted.


report post as inappropriate

George Musser Jr replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 00:26 GMT
Thanks, Joy. I have it on my list to delve further into your arguments. Let's chat when I get to a closer time zone.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT
Let me just add a link to my papers for those interested to know what I am talking about.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
I'm in Joy's corner on this question, though I think one need make a distinction between observer entanglement (Einstein) and quantum entanglement which is subsumed by observer entanglement.

Though we are stymied in many ways by what "real time" means when we deal with discrete phenomena, we are perfectly clear on what relativity has to say about "real spacetime" in the continuous functions of classical mechanics.

That is, real time doesn't stop when we make a measurement (i.e., nonlocality doesn't apply). There are classical analogs for the variability of time within a specified local spatial domain where angular momentum is conserved, such as Kepler's elliptical orbits that sweep "equal areas in equal times."

In Einstein's physics, observer entangled (pair correlated) physical processes that share the same rate of change at one time remain correlated at all other times. So instead of just measuring within the geometry of time (real line topology - oo to + oo) or the geometry of space in the Euclidean limit, the geometry of Minkowski space (spacetime) paves the way to a complete topological generalization of the same sort conceptually that characterizes Kepler's mechanics -- and which being coordinate free is capable of describing the evolution of spacetime all the way back to the cosmological initial condition.


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT
What is the difference between quantum entanglement, versus an invisible wire connected between two entangled particles? An invisible wire transmits information between the two particles at the speed of light. Entanglement is supposed to be about correlation. I've seen electric circuits that didn't work properly. The output LED's were only correlated to the switches; they would work "sometimes", and other times, a switch would be thrown, and two LED's would light up. How is quantum entanglement/correlation different from that?

report post as inappropriate

Member Ken Wharton wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
"All good relativity-loving physicists must conclude that the bonds between entangled particles act in a truly instantaneous way."

Speaking as a 'good relativity-loving physicist', I found this statement a bit ironic – since in relativity the very concept of "instantaneous" is not objectively definable. Still, I think your point is that enforcing correlations via faster-than-light signaling would need a "preferred" reference frame in which those signals were instantaneous. Fair enough -- but it's still good to note that this in turn would be in conflict with some of the deepest principles of relativity.

As for the stronger claim: "If some level of reality underlies quantum mechanics, that level must be non-spatial", I'll point you to a soon-to-be-published paper by Huw Price, Pete Evans, and myself: . Here we argue that this claim is less well established than it is usually assumed to be.

report post as inappropriate

George Musser Jr replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
I see your point; I was just trying to convey (clumsily, perhaps) the reductio of Bancal et al.'s argument.

report post as inappropriate

Member Ken Wharton replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Thanks for the reply and the edit above – the added words help clarify the tension between these two different precepts of relativity: 1) no faster-than-light signaling vs. 2) No preferred reference frames / No objective simultaneity (Lorentz invariance). I think you're basically saying that to save 1), we have to get rid of 2). And perhaps you're also implying that 1) is somehow more "important" to a 'relativity-loving physicist' than 2)?

For me, if forced to give up one of those, I'd be more comfortable giving up 1) than 2). Although, once any one of them goes, relativity is certainly in trouble. Which is why I'd rather save them both, and explain entanglement via local hidden variables that depend on future measurement settings (keeping all the direct correlations on time-like paths).

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Ken and George,

2. has to go in the quantum realm as non simultaneity belongs to space-time IMHO. Space-time is a fabricated output reality produced from received data input; that data has taken different lengths of time to arrive at the observer and so has temporal spread incorporated into it.

This means that space-time is -made- from the persisting data in the environment it is not the environment.

Relativity does not have to be in trouble. It can be seen as the output(Image) reality from processing of received data, from the environment.Incorporating temporal spread. Existing -within- a reality that exists unobserved (not formed from received data) where there is no temporal spread but everything that exists exists simultaneously.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear All,

We can fully comprehend concepts of quantum mechanics such as entaglement and superposition, if we can realize the singularity that lies with in us.

Everything is always connected in singularity and the so called space-time difference between the things that we experience in duality is just an optical illusion.

Please see how

I superpositioned myself to be me.



report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Ken,

Shouldn't we say that "signaling" must obey relativity (speed of light c), but that quantum entanglement does not allow us to signal. If I have put one entanglemd electron on board a satellite heading to the edge of the solar system, and the other electron in a detector machine, the satellite would have no way of transmitting a signal to my electron any kind of information. Presumably, I would want to use N entangled pairs of electrons. Even if the satellite onboard measurinng equipment was programmed to execute a simple command, "measure each electron until a spin "up" is found", there would be no way of knowing which of the entangled electrons back on earth in my detector, had been measured, and which ones had not been measured.

report post as inappropriate

Sabal Mitra wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 01:29 GMT
Entanglement actually isn't as counterintuitive as we think it is. At least that's what I've tried to explain here.

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 01:31 GMT
Ha, I managed to misspell my name :) .

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 01:34 GMT
Quantum entanglement allows us to send a signal at the speed of light. Quantum entanglement is basically an invisible wire between two particles. That invisible wire is of the form:

What if a patch of space-time is made out of a collection of waves of the form,

I suggest that nature itself is made up of tiny patches of space-time, shaped like wires.

-the speed of light is guaranteed to be c across the length of this wire;

the velocity of light is fixed to be,

-the wire provides all of the waves necessary to satisfy the Schrodinger equation.

The wire unifies quantum mechanics and special relativity. The wire defines both distance and time. Length contraction and time dilation occur when the wire gets shorter and its clock pace gets slower.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Entanglement of points , a kind of math's thinking :

a matimatical point :

1. in principle ha no dimensions

2. can be used as starting point.

3. every point is unique, and can be written as afunction relative to other points.

4. Once two points are interelated all other points have interralions that are relative to the first relation.

5. Because of the interrelation of all points , changing the topology of one point is changing the topology of every point.

6.All the points are interrelated and ghanging their topological or causal relation is changing "at the same moment" all the others.

7. So all points in our universe are entangled.

In our experiments we are willingly remotely entangling particles.

If we are accepting the mathimatical "point" of view ten we are willingly remotely changing all the other particles of our universe.

There is no speed of light (arrow of time) neccecerry , because the measurement of one of the "points" of our willingly remote entanglement experiments causes a block universe (no time flow) created before the Planck Wall , wher all points (particles) are immediately changed with the order of observation .

Entanglement is not only a local feature , through holographic effects of for example gravity it is also a property of other realities. The entanglement of our matter (5%) and the non visible other matter , what we call now dark matter, is the cause of the expanding universe.

PS Joy, you say : The THREE SPHERE is the CORRECT model, you have to add "as for now", and even that is relative, there are no models that can apply for the medal "most correct".

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 07:07 GMT
To visualize "entanglement" think of sending a red and a blue particle via UPS to a destination.  The particles are put randomly into a small box and the box is sent off (wavelength-hops).  At the destination the box arrives as an elongated weird shape with a lump at each end (sometimes that happens when we ship things). The box is opened and the particle at one end is red and the other end is blue. Is there a reason to postulate that observing one particle caused the appearance of the other. Both particles were present at their respective locations when the package arrived (appeared).

Observing one did not cause the appearance of the other. When the observation was made there was only one entangled object with a large wavelength. It is only after the measurement (opening the box) when the entanglement was broken that two particles appear far from each other.

With this way of looking at entanglement there is no faster than light signalling needed.

A definition of wavelength hopping is given at:

report post as inappropriate

Bryan Sanctuary wrote on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT
I am with Joy Christian, nature is real and local. Before I accept non-locality and persistent entanglement, I have to turn over a lot of stones.

I have recently found that a single spin contains not only states up and down but also entangled ones. That is a single spin acts as both a particle and a wave. The wave properties have basically been missed and these lead to new matter waves that will account for the lost correlation of EPR. I need a bit more time to flush it all out but it supports a local realistic model that obeys all the properties of quantum mechanics.

By the way, EPR might have entangled their states but it was Schrodinger in 1936 that coined the term entanglement.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT
Interesting all that, interesting .Very very interesting.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
Hi Brian,

You "found that a single spin contains not only states up and down but also entangled ones. That is a single spin acts as both a particle and a wave."

May I ask for the experiments on which these findings are based?

By the way, do you consider the Stern/Gerlach experiment compelling evidence for something so far inexplainable? How do you imagine half spin, and how do you imagine entangled states?


report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Hi Brian and Eckard,

I agree that nature is real and local, but only when we are looking at masses above the Planck mass.

And the Stern/Gerlach experiment demonstrating spin is even more dramatic than the dual split in showing that the quantum world is different. For a completely different spin on spin take a look at:

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
I think the term "entanglement" is something of a misnomer. It would seem that when we combine two quanta, we end up with a larger quanta and when we divide that larger quanta, the result is not the original two, but the larger one divided. The question then, is whether we are actually dividing it, or stretching it. Tests would seem to suggest the quanta is not discrete particles, but a form of wave extending between the two detectors. This would suggest quanta only appear as particles when we measure them exactly and are a form of wave, or field if our measurement devices are more passive.

Consider the two slit experiment. When the light goes through the slits it is a more passive, less intrusive test than the photon detector. Which actually absorbs the energy in a precise fashion, rather than just channeling it, like the slits. As the theory goes, we measure what we test for.

How would this apply to other phenomena, such as the redshift of distant galaxies? What if the light is not traveling as discrete quanta, but unbroken waves, that only coalesce into specific quanta of energy when the photon detectors in our telescopes record them? Wouldn't we be measuring an entangled photon billions of lightyears in diameter? Maybe a way to test this would be to compare the light from a distant star, as it is simultaneously recorded by two different telescopes. That would be a big test of entanglement.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 08:51 GMT

The question is, what is happening, as opposed to what are we detecting!

Not that it is easy to dis-entangle these (Ergh, no more jokes-Ed).


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:30 GMT

We can only sample what's happening. How do we best interpret what we detect.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 15:29 GMT

By understanding the process that enabled the detection. Perceptions are like fossilisation. We find something, and because of our knowledge of the process, we can reverse-engineer that knowledge to approximate what actually ocurred. Obviously, in real life, it is not necessary to do so, all the time. But that is different from ignoring it, or imposing a flawed process upon the evidence, and thereby arriving at a faulty view of reality.


report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
I have a problem with entanglement.

I see a connection between entanglement and wave function: when particle-antiparticle is created in the space, then I think that the wave function front of the pair have a finite velocity.

If we create a double electric layer in the vacuum, then there is an electrostatic energy reduction because of the pair creation, and an energy reduction because of the wave function of all the particles in the Universe: the double layer contain an infinity of wave function tails, and I think that the interaction of the particles with the double layer field produce an energy absorption; then I think that there are two possible alternative:

1. there is an energy absorption because of a movement of a far away particle, without a observable cause in the double layer

2. there is an energy absorption because of an apparition of a particle in the double layer because of an instantaneous transfer in the double layer; this can be a proof of the entanglement, if we have a particle creation - without antiparticle - in the double layer

I think that the wave function of a pair have a finite velocity, like an electric field, but I think that the interaction between particle and field is like a rigid body interaction (instantaneous transfer).

I think that is possible to observe the wave function of the Universe kernel, measuring the asymmetry of the double layer mass creation, if it is possible to eliminate the pair creation and background noise: the Universe kernel is the only region that is observable in each zone of the Universe (maximum observability), and the Universe border is the region with minimum observability zone: there is an asymmetry in the particle wave function tails.

These are only hypothesis, and I share they because they seem - to me - interesting.



report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
Instantaneity demonstrates that larger and smaller space and invisible/visible space are ultimately unified.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
Space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible satisfies instantaneity. This space is larger and smaller space in an equivalent and balanced fashion.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 01:56 GMT
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Eigenstates are supposed to be possible places where a quantum particle, like an electron or a photon, might be detected. Even if we're not actually trying to detect a particle, it could still be in one of those eigenstates. Since particles have an energy content, then whichever eigenstate(s) the particle is in, it is considered "energized".

Eigenstates are just mathematical constructions of wave-functions. The simplest wave function is for a photon which is:

This means it travels along the x direction and it's frequency is

If there is a photon with that frequency, then we know that it's wave-function (its eigenfunction) is energized. If there is not a photon with that frequency, then we know that there is still a wave function available for it, but it's not energized. But it could be energized if a photon of that frequency comes along.

This is the simplest way to try to unify QM with GR, by weaving the space-time continuum out of wave-functions. In what way is this approach inconsistent?

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 06:38 GMT
Hi Jason,

I'm sympathetic to your efforts, but the big problem here is that plane wave solutions are not square integrable and therefore violate one the central assumptions of standard quantum mechanics. So the approach you are proposing cannot work in this way. This problem is usually resolved by constructing a "wave packet" out of a superposition (or more often, an integral) of plane wave solutions, which is usually square integrable.

Also, once you bring in General Relativity, you have to take into account that for photons the proper time is zero, and use an affine parameter in its place.


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 08:09 GMT
Dear Armin,

I am so grateful that someone has finally challenged my idea on a relevant technical issue. I hope you will entertain a few of my rebuttals/ideas.

I believe there is merit to constructing the fabric of space-time with sums of wave-functions. I have tried to draw a picture of this.

For particles and larger quantum systems, the fabric of space-time gets more complicated. This is where the quantum mechanics math gets very complicated and specialized.

The idea is to take a patch of space-time, build it up with a range of wave-functions for each frequency; but there is a catch. This "bundle" of wave-functions is the smallest patch of space-time.

I agree with you that quantum entanglement will not allow superluminal transmission of information. At best, quantum entanglement is an invisible fiber optic cable that passes from particle A to particle B. I believe that a photon, or some other kind of information, may travel from particle A to particle B at the speed of light. But the speed of light restriction is part of the characteristics of the invisible wire. It's part of the characteristics of the quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is about wave-functions connecting two particles. To me, that means that the quantum entanglement (a wave function connection) is what limits the speed of light to c. The wave function itself is responsible for the special relativity.

Since quantumly entangled particles can be moved around without restriction, then they make perfect tethers between two particles that move relativistically with respect to one another. For this reason, I expect time dilation to occur between the two ends of a wave function that stretches between the two relativistically moving particles.

The calculation of the Cosmological constant was too large by about 120 orders of magnitude. I believe this error was made because all of the oscillators were assumed to be "energized". When in fact, in cold empty space, most of them are not. If an oscillator is energized, it must be a photon. If it's not energized, it still has to be an oscillator. I think that a wave-function fits the bill. A wave function is something that can be energized, but it can be un-energized as well.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Hi Jason,

You said:"I am so grateful that someone has finally challenged my idea on a relevant technical issue. I hope you will entertain a few of my rebuttals/ideas."

Well, I know exactly how it feels, and that is why I am offering my feedback to you. Keep in mind that although I have taken almost all the coursework of a physics major I'm not a professional physicist, however what I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 06:05 GMT
The way I see it, hidden-variable theories, when considered in a relativistic context usually require one to either give up relativity (permitting superluminal influences and/or preferred frames), or even worse, causality, because for spacelike separated events you can find frames in which the order of the events (i.e. cause and effect) is reversed.

It frankly surprises me that with all the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT
I just came across an interesting article I had not seen previously, the link is here:

Those familiar with my work will know why I find this very interesting. I suspect that one day condensed matter experiments will complement the type of experiments such as the one that is the topic of this blog.


report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT
Instantaneity fundamentally and ultimately unifies physics -- with observer, observed, theoretically, and actually (and much more). I proved this in/as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 00:20 GMT
Hi Armin,

I've been watching a Stanford video on Tensors and the Einstein equations.

I was just noticing that the tensor g_{\mu \nu} is actually a vector; I haven't yet seen what this vector is used for. I'm guessing that g_mu,nu operates on a vector. Anyway, I'm still trying to learn the nuts and bolts of general relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti wrote on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 08:08 GMT
MIT Physics Professor David Deutsch has written a history of how quantum entanglement went from a neglected corner of physics to the mainstream in the 1970's called "How the Hippies Saved Physics."

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti replied on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 08:10 GMT
Correction, I meant David Kaiser not David Deutsch.

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti wrote on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 08:15 GMT
Quantum entanglement cannot be used as a communication channel without an auxiliary light speed limited classical key to unlock the message at the receiver? Hermitian observables guarantee orthogonal sender base states that erase any nonlocal influence of the sender settings on the detection probabilities at the receiver. However, this is no longer true when the entangled whole has different macro-quantum coherent Glauber sender states. Glauber states are non-orthogonal eigenstates of the non-Hermitian photon destruction operator. The Born probability interpretation breaks down because of "phase rigidity" (P.W. Anderson's "More is different"). This is a new regime that is to orthodox quantum theory what general relativity is to special relativity. Antony Valentini has argued that the breakdown of the Born probability rule entails "signal non locality" (aka entanglement signals). The space-time interval between the sending and the receiving irreversible measurements is irrelevant depending only on the free will of the local observers. That is, this is a pre-metrical topological information effect. There is asymmetry between the sending and the receiving. Therefore, there is no ambiguity between active (retro) cause and passive effect.

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT
I just want to mention that everyone might be overlooking one possibility concerning the entanglement. If an informational representation in nature *precedes* the spatial one (as I discuss in my developing book), than the observed instantaneous "correlations" are attributed to the informational rather than the spatial level.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT

You might be right.

"It was first pointed out by Itamar Pitowsky of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem that if Tweedledum can accelerate his spaceship sufficiently strongly, then he can record a finite amount of the universe's history on his own proper time clock whilst his twin brother, who is not accelerating, records an infinite amount of proper time elapsing on his clock. A pseudo super-task seems to be possible in principle without doing violence to the structure of space and time and the laws of relativity.(33) Pitowsky wanted to know if this device would permit a 'Platonist computer' to exist -- one that could carry out an infinite number of operations along some trajectory through space and time and print out an answer that we could see. Alas, in this simple example the observer who measures the infinite history cannot have access to the infomration that it contains.(34) It cannot reach him. In order for the receiver to stay in contact, he has to accelerate dramatically as well in order to maintain contact with the flow of information. Eventually, the g-forces become stupendous, and he is torn apart, no matter what he is made of." (~ J. Barrow, *The Infinite Book," Pantheon 2005)

(33) I. Pitowsky, "The Physical Church Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity," Iyyun, 39, 81-99 (1990)

(34) "An accelerated observer can experience a finite amount of peoper time along his trajectory through space and time, but there will be no point on it from which he can look back and observe an infinite elapsed history along the space and time path of any unaccelerated observer."

I think that the condition of which you speak (" ... an informational representation in nature *precedes* the spatial ...") might be identical to Joy Christian's initial condition. Indeed, information that is independent of spatial coordinates has to logically be time itself. The rest, as they say, is history.


report post as inappropriate

Paul Read replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT

"If an informational representation in nature *precedes* the spatial one (as I discuss in my developing book), than the observed instantaneous "correlations" are attributed to the informational rather than the spatial level".

I need to be careful here, because these words might mean something different from what I read. So, I will just ask, for now, in simple terms what is this and how does it work?


report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT

I re-posted your message in the right place.

"I need to be careful here, because these words might mean something different from what I read."

You are quite right.

Paul, with my apologies, may I refer you to the above description of this (see the link in my first message). Of course, I will be happy to discuss here any questions you may have.

In that developing book I discuss the new kind of, structural, math., which, I suggest, might be needed in science.

One of the implications is that the reality we are familiar with might be the spatial instantiation of the primary--temporal, or informational--reality.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
At Planck size information transfer is immediate, see my articles here:

attachments: New_Insights_in_SR__final.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 21:03 GMT
The FUNDAMENTAL DEMONSTRATION/INCLUSION/INCORPORATION of instantaneity is not only fundamental to time, but it is also essential in order to generally and fundamentally unify physics. Instantaneity kills General Relativity.

Physics [ultimately] happens in and with time. There is no getting around this.

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 02:02 GMT
Please don't be offended, but I'm shocked that a physicist would conclude that there needs to be a communication "backchannel" between two entangled particles. This is just another case of projecting classical-type thinking onto the quantum world. It may take us another 50 years to get out of this hole, insisting that the quantum world must be essentially classical in certain key ways.

To me, the most obvious solution is that the particles are constrained by the (necessary) logical consistency of the world, period. It would be logically inconsistent to measure two entangled particles as both spin-up -- impossible. The universe does not allow (or should I say produce?) impossible events, and that's all it comes down to. No hidden variables, no backchannel communication, no violation of SR.

If you want a mechanism, it's information-theoretic. The particles exist fundamentally as information, and as long as FTL signaling is not involved, an informational network need not be constrained by spacelike separation.

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 02:41 GMT

You confused me: Aren't you saying the same thing against which you are protesting?

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 06:55 GMT

"If an informational representation in nature *precedes* the spatial one (as I discuss in my developing book), than the observed instantaneous "correlations" are attributed to the informational rather than the spatial level".

I need to be careful here, because these words might mean something different from what I read. So, I will just ask, for now, in simple terms what is this and how does it work?


report post as inappropriate

Andrew Palfreyman wrote on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
Entanglement is an existence proof for at least one extra macroscopic dimension, possessing the odd property of being "unseen"

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
Wrong! There is no such thing as quantum entanglement. No one has ever "seen" a quantum entanglement. All one ever "sees", and could ever "see" in any experiment, are correlations between measurement events. These correlations are the evidence that the physical space in which the measurement events are occurring has the symmetry and topology of a parallelized 7-sphere, S^7, which is a 7-dimensional octonionic sphere. Those of us who live in this sphere "see" the evidence of all seven dimensions all the time. We call this evidence "quantum correlations." Those of us who are stuck in the Flatland of R^3, however, think that there is some magic going on in the world, and they call this magic "quantum non-locality."

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 11, 2011 @ 09:31 GMT

Correct. Given the nature of what is being considered, there is no possibility of direct experience. It must be hypothecated. But why does a possible solution to this practical problem then imply that there is a different structure to the reality from that which can be directly experienced? It may be that there are more dimensions to reality, but as I said at the outset, this seems like a "leap of faith". Though your new expression is noted.


report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
Reality is at bottom potential and actual and theoretical/thoughtful. These must be brought together. Dreams ultimately and fundamentally do this. Instantaneity fundamentally balances and unifies what is fundamental force/energy in keeping with inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing (both at half strength force/energy). Balanced and equivalent repulsion and attraction, observer and observed, Middle force/energy and middle distance in/of space tied to/with our origination and growth.

You all are lying about and evading this fundamental unification of physics that I have clearly proven. It is sickening. is garbage. Try refuting what I have said

Math fell apart at 4 dimensions. Now, we are at 7??? Let me guess: A big lie goes over better than a small lie?????

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
The fourth dimension in space indicates an averaging (in relation to the 3 dimensions) as space that is equally (and it is BOTH) invisible and visible -- electromagnetically and gravitationally -- in keeping with combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space as the same space (with middle distance and middle force/energy). The fourth dimension fundamentally would indicate instantaneity and gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength force/energy).

Gravity and inertia have to be at half strength force/energy to unify them and to fundamentally unify physics.

The fourth dimension suggests a fundamental balancing/equivalency of force/energy and/with distance in/of space.

The limitations of what this known mathematical unification (in a fourth dimension) is are clear. But my intention here is to show what it theoretically SHOULD demonstrate.

However, mathematics cannot fundamentally combine and include opposites in conjunction with fundamental instantaneity. Math has sharp/definite limitations, and dreams don't need mathematics to be the ultimate in physical unification. I proved that definitively.

The lesson: You cannot outguess, outpredict, or outsmart the body, our growth, sensory experience, and nature. They do what they want to do. They really don't need math, do they? I don't either.

Strange how you all love to be lost. Why are the theoretical requirements of fundamental unification in physics never even discussed. I have discussed them, now haven't I?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 22:52 GMT
I participated in the forum: SPACE, PROPULSION & ENERGY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL FORUM. Very good oportunity for someone such as myself. The technical problems for making my remote presentation were definitely challenging. For example, the audio did not work. I had to communicate by means of one cell phone to another cell phone to a microphone. However, the host Dr. Tom Valone performed his management and fix-it role excellently.

I don't know if my presentation was well received. I prepared for a general audience. The questions I received seemed to indicate that I should have aimed higher. Anyway, it is over. I gave my message that theoretical physics needed a new approach beginning with making both force and mas into definable properties. I gave one useful result to support my case. There are many more useful results. I am reporting this back here because has been an open site for years. Theoretical physicists should not participate in inventions. Mass must be represented by the same terms of expression as is its empirical evidence and not turned away from it into an indefinable property..


report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
I bought a very new webcam combination stereo microphone model c920. I am not saying that it is not worth buying. I think it is probably excellent. My problem is that it does not yet have its own software that is compatible with Internet Explorer 7. It is now working for me but it is using generic software for its basic functions. This message is not a complaint to Logitech nor to readers here. It is intended to suggest that when one is faced with the choice between the very latest product or an older product that has worked well: Stay with the older product! Buy the newer product when there is no urgency. This is a case of newer not necessarily being better. I guess 'very new' can mean 'very much too soon'. Also, allow for the time for the software to catch up with the product. This is a case of time being relative.


report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT
Instantaneity is, ultimately, fundamental to physics -- in line with the fact that gravity cannot be shielded.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Feeling is fumdamental to thought. Thought is fundamental to physics. Feeling is, ultimately, fundamental to force/energy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Gravity and/together with the ACTUAL. Don't forget this.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Without gravity, we are literally out of touch with reality. Think! This is a fact of great and ultimate/fundamental significance.

report post as inappropriate

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.