Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Essay AbstractIn the spirit Einstein’s imaginative embrace of c as constant, the author suspends disbelief, asks |Alice>, |Bob>, and |Ellerman> for help taking seriously and discovers a ‘reference-frame’ for entanglement that makes it ‘structural’ and thus ‘non-communicating’ in way that may not violate relativistic or quantum empirical evidence. He then faces the terror of grappling with the implications.
Author BioDean L. Waters is a father of six with a day job who loves troubleshooting complex systems.
Download Essay PDF File
Dean,
I really enjoyed reading your essay. While I agree with your motto "Think Crazy. Prove Yourself Wrong," I don't think your idea about entanglement is crazy. It has been noted that people who come up with important new ideas about topics in physics often do so very soon after first encountering them, so the fact that, as you say, you only recently thought of entanglement in this context, is probably an advantage!
I have been down a very similar path on the subject of entanglement, and more generally, locality. I finally decided that if things influence each other, they ought to be considered close together, and that denying this comes from taking the hypothesized structure of spacetime too seriously. This is part of what I call the causal metric hypothesis. I explain this further in my essay here:
On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.
On the specific subject of entanglement, things become a bit complicated in my opinion because it is a quantum-theoretic phenomenon; you have to ask whether effects that seem "nonlocal" arise from a misinterpretation of the metric structure of spacetime (which can be understood classically), or from a purely quantum mechanism like superposition. I don't know for sure what the answer is, but I think the idea you suggest should certainly be taken seriously.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with the contest! Take care,
Ben Dribus
report post as inappropriate
Author Dean L Waters replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Ben,
Thank you for your kind comments.
As with so many things, I'm not quite sure by what you been by the misinterpreting the metric structure of space time in the context of nonlocality. I've been following entanglement since the early 1990's. It has taken me twenty years of beating my head against the concept of entanglement through popular literature and whatever papers I could get my hands on. I seemed to either get the math ... or thought experiments carrying a lot of linguistic baggage, but very little conceptual framework as to what allowed any of this to occur.
My understanding of relativity has considerably less depth. My degree is in Math & Comp. Sci, so I have a fair, but not adequate grasp of much of the mathematics. I do have a stubborn desire and ability to visualize and sketch consistent (or at least falsifiable or incrementally useful) metaphors for mathematical structures. Someone once said, "you can't visualize quarks" ... so of course, I've been trying ever since. Although this has led to some interesting visual metaphors, I haven't succeeded!
I do have a sense, though, that via the concept of duals, more than one kind of space can exist simultaneously with interacting references. (It occurs to me at the moment, that this is what I considered to be structure in the paper) These interacting-references show up in the orthogonal/complex-conjugating nature of the interactions of nature (measurements, observers, decoherence, colliders, etc.) as the jumpy and random aspects of quantum mechanics that seem so peculiar to a classical perspective.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of clear language to describe such things, and my confidence in my illustrations is still ... well, it is hard to *prove* an illustration if you can't describe the math! That may go a long way in explaining the hesitance in my descriptions.
Thanks again.
Dean
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Dean,
My way of working is very visual too, though I didn't have space to fit any of that into my essay. I have a ridiculous number of diagrams in my own LaTeX files though, probably upwards of 600. I find I don't mess things up as often if I make figures of everything I possibly can. Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dean Waters,
Demonstrating the quantum entanglement that describes the nonlocality of action at a distance is indicative of the
string nature of the matters in universe.With best wishes
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Dean L Waters replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Jayakar,
After a quick look at your essay it seems quite interesting. While seeking to understand the role of charges and color of quarks I made several tetrahedral clay models and numerous drawings to explore the potential rotations of tetrahedra, as well as their potential links to non-local spaces so I look forward to reading your paper in more depth.
Dean
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
to post reply or comment.