Entanglement

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Entanglement

Post by silvio.caggia »

Can someone tell me how RS2 explains entanglement?
Thanks
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Temporal Adjacency

Post by bperet »

When two motions (atoms, particles, photons, etc) are adjacent in coordinate (3d) time, their structures will cootinue to interact with each other, regardless of spatial separation (localized in time is nonlocal in space).

As an analogy, tape two flashlights together at a random angle. Turn them on. The flashlights are the structure in time, the spots they leave on the walls are the locations in space. If you move one flashlight, the spot it is generating moves--but the other spot is also affected, since the flashlights are taped together (adjacent in time).

Since we cannot directly observe time, all we see are the spots on the wall with some kind of "entanglement" where one spot appears to affect the other.
Every dogma has its day...
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Thanks Bruce,

Post by silvio.caggia »

Thanks Bruce,
But following your example of flashlights, is it possible to act on a spotlight on the wall and produce a reaction on the other spotlight?
How RS2 explains an experiment like this:
http://www.nature.com/news/entangled-ph ... ox-1.15781
Regards
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

A better link about the above

Post by silvio.caggia »

A better link about the above experiment (contains a schema and more technical info):
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/entan ... ingers-cat
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

An Entangled Portrait of Schrödinger’s Cat

Post by bperet »

But following your example of flashlights, is it possible to act on a spotlight on the wall and produce a reaction on the other spotlight?

How RS2 explains an experiment like this:
Yes, one spot would affect the other. The flashlight and its projection (the spot on the wall) are still the SAME object.

I looked at that experiment and I think they may have cheated a bit... here is the diagram:

Image

Based on the description, the angled lines are mirrors, NL1 and NL2 are the crystals that split the light into red/iR, "O" is the stencil and the two objects with cat tails are the images. If the image was formed and photographed at mirror "c" on the top right--I'd be quite impressed. But the fact that extract the IR light then cross the stencil photons with just a light beam at BS2 appears to be more of constructive/destructive interference, because the resulting image has a positive and negative image.

I am ususally suspicious of the results when an experimental setup looks overly complicated, as this one does. If you are dealing with quantum entanglement, you would only need one crystal, NL1, the mirror at D1, the stencil at "O" and put the cameras at D2 (iR camera) and "c" (visible light camera). Any changes to the photons in either path would affect the other. Since they did not do this, and are having photons interfere with each other through partially-reflecting mirors, IMHO it looks more like a magician's trick "done with mirrors."
Every dogma has its day...
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Basically it's a Mach-Zehnder

Post by silvio.caggia »

Basically it's a Mach-Zehnder interferometer
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MachZehnder_interferometer
complicated in some way... :-)

Ok, let's imagine the simplified version you suggest... You say: "Any changes to the photons in either path
would affect the other"
But could we use it for communications? Or not?
If the answer is yes another "problem" raises: if the "receiver" arm would be shorter than the "trasmitter" one, you receive infos BEFORE they are sent... A sort of impossible time machine... :-) (See John Cramer Transactional Interpretation for details)
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

EPR communication

Post by bperet »

But could we use it for communications? Or not?

If the answer is yes another "problem" raises: if the "receiver" arm would be shorter than the "trasmitter" one, you receive infos BEFORE they are sent... A sort of impossible time machine... :-) (See John Cramer Transactional Interpretation for details)
Yes, it can be. And for some VERY secure communication, too. I had worked out a device some years ago (which may be buried on the forum here somewhere already), based on quantum entanglement to transmit binary information.

The basic problem you face is that we cannot deal with single photons, since the "wire" to conduct them would have to be smaller than the smallest atom. That's just geometry--a photon has no net spatial displacement, being represented as a linear vibration (birotation). So you are always dealing with an aggregate of photons (wave functions). And that's the problem--the quantum entanglement, being temporal, has no correspondence between the geometry of one half to the other, in the entanglement. All you know is that if you alter one entangled photon, the other will change. But since you are dealing with an aggregate, you start with a random pattern--so when you alter that random pattern, the random pattern on the other side changes, but to another random pattern. Probability takes over, so the net "change" is zero. It happens, but without geometric correlation, you can't really tell it happened.

The fix... Nehru, in his papers on birotation, brought up the Zeeman effect and discusses circularly polarized photons. Photons are normally linearly polarized (planar). A major characteristic of the circularly polarized photon is that it is a rotation--not a vibration--and therefore possesses torque. And that's how you do it... treat a linearly polarized photon as a "0" and a circularly polarized one as a "1" and you can transmit binary information. On the receiver side, the pattern being received is still geometrically random, but now the photons--rather than changing linear orientation--are showing up with or without a net torque. Circularly polarized photons also refract differently in a crystal, creating in "e-beam" (extraordinary), so it should be fairly easy to detect.

The problem I ran into in building such a device was the photon source, which needs to send photons in opposite directions. Emission tends to be in random directions, because of the atomic structure altering the coordinate time of the photon flight path.

The device, itself... take a quantum entanglement generator so photons are emitted down opposing fiber optic cables, so you have entangled pairs traveling in opposite directions. At some fixed distance (your "arm" question) you put the transmitter, which is just a device to alter the polarization between linear and circular. On the other side, at just a bit more (1 natural unit) past the distance as the transmitter is from the source, you put your receiver, which is basically a crystal beam splitter to split off the circular from linear polarized photons. And now you have an instantaneous, binary communication system that is 100% secure. The photons between the source and receiver/transmitter are just random. The transmitter modifies the polarization at a specific distance, causing a corresponding change at the receiver side at the same distance, where the data is pulled off, and the photons continue on, but as all "zeros" (linear polarization).

The "problem" you mention never occurs, because the photons have no independent motion--they are carried by the progression at the speed of light (unity). It gives a one-to-one correspondence between space and time. If you travel at 1 mph for 1 hour, you go 1 mile. If you go 1 mile, you've triaveled 1 hour. A shorter receiver arm will just give you zeros... the altered entanglement has not occurred yet. There is no causality involved.
Every dogma has its day...
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Thanks Bruce,

Post by silvio.caggia »

Thanks Bruce,
Your machine seems to me very similar to a machine I sketched 2 years ago in a semi-serious post:
22passi.blogspot.nl/2012/12/the-cxy-paradox-post-di-silvio-caggia.html?m=1
Now you solved my problem to analyze the beam and recognize the "(+)" configuration made by the superposition of two orthogonal linear polarized beams: it is circular polarized!
I have not understood if you succeded or not in building the machine... If not and the problem is the source of entangled photons you should ask to Zeilinger at Vienna University, they have lasers and down-conversion cristals that generate millions of entangled photons per second!
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Photons have no independent

Post by silvio.caggia »

Photons have no independent motion,
But how do you explain this experiment?
scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/05/04/entangled-in-the-past-experime/
arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834
it seems to show a clear action-in-the-past!
Another Zeilinger's trick? :-)
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Inverse entanglement

Post by bperet »

Photons have no independent motion,

But how do you explain this experiment?
That's an easy one... it is "inverse entanglement," since Victor is "entangling in space" instead of coordinate time. With regular entanglement, you get instantaneous "action at a distance", with inverse entanglement, you get "instantaneous action at a duration." Action at a distance means that distance (clock space) is irrelevant to the effect; action at a duration means that clock time is irrelevant to the effect.

But what I find interesting is that it indicates that "entanglement" (both temporal and spatial) is probably the norm for atoms, rather than the exception. We just don't recognize it as such, so it may well be that "all is one" in an entanglement sense.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply