It is possible in QED, see e.g.
Théorie Quantique Relativiste - E. Lifchitz, L. Pitayevski
(Course de Physique Théorique - L. Landau, E. Lifchitz - T. IV Deuxième Partie)
At page 131 - § 125. Diffusion d'un photon par un photon
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I've read that two high energy photons can annihilate each other - they are their own anti-particle - and produce electron-positron pairs. It sounds recursive, with electron-hole pairs being created from the vacuum due to the uncertainty principle and thus providing charged particles which can catalyze an interaction between photons. This agrees with what you are saying of course. But from outside the box it will appear as if two photons have interacted.
Edit: I see Poplin beat me to it.
I still don't even see the need to even suggest undetectable wormholes and whatnot.
Let's just take a very simple experiment. A single particle is shot towards two detectors that are separated by a barrier and the particle is configured such that it is on both sides of the barrier.
Eventually, one detector will detect the particle and therefore we know that the other detector will not detect the particle.
Now you're asking something along the lines: how does the other detector know? But this doesn't even make any sense.
Let's just take a very simple experiment. A single particle is shot towards two detectors that are separated by a barrier and the particle is configured such that it is on both sides of the barrier.
Eventually, one detector will detect the particle and therefore we know that the other detector will not detect the particle.
Now you're asking something along the lines: how does the other detector know? But this doesn't even make any sense.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You probably meant to say "No quarks in an electron; three quarks make a baryon, such as a proton". Electrons and baryons are fermions.
Even if that were true I'm wondering why you're so quick to dismiss this.
Because it doesn't fit your wormhole idea?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It's not my idea, I don't have the math skills for all this. It is an idea that caught my attention, as a means to explain the apparent paradox of spooky action at a distance between two particles.
Another idea is there are no particles. The concept of particles is only as old as the Greeks and it has served us well. But nobody has seen one, they are inferred from experimental effects. Entangled particles are described by a single wave function, it becomes meaningless to call this something other than a single entity with certain properties. Is this what you were saying too ?
Another idea is there are no particles. The concept of particles is only as old as the Greeks and it has served us well. But nobody has seen one, they are inferred from experimental effects. Entangled particles are described by a single wave function, it becomes meaningless to call this something other than a single entity with certain properties. Is this what you were saying too ?
Sigh. I respect incredibly well what our ancestors did, but to refer back to their very outmoded theories in quantum physics seems bizarre.
Likewise, I find it a little weird to espouse non-mainstream (as much as QM is mainstream) theories, especially when one doesn't understand them. Not saying I do, but I fall back to having no opinion when I don't understand the situation. Or, more appropriately, the opinion that I'm ignorant and would need to learn before commenting.
Likewise, I find it a little weird to espouse non-mainstream (as much as QM is mainstream) theories, especially when one doesn't understand them. Not saying I do, but I fall back to having no opinion when I don't understand the situation. Or, more appropriately, the opinion that I'm ignorant and would need to learn before commenting.
I meant that you seem to have some preference to this idea, but that wasn't my main point.
> Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements
Yeah kinda, but I'm not saying there are no particles.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
What if the particles are simply the observable ends of a wormhole, not objects in their own right ?
Explains why their behaviour as an entangled pair Is described by a single wave function as it's just one system
Since the ends of a wormhole are all the same for the same type of wormhole the so called particles are all the same under our observation
Also consistent with the limitation that only two so called particles can be entangled since a worm hole can have only two ends
Explains why their behaviour as an entangled pair Is described by a single wave function as it's just one system
Since the ends of a wormhole are all the same for the same type of wormhole the so called particles are all the same under our observation
Also consistent with the limitation that only two so called particles can be entangled since a worm hole can have only two ends
You need to stop mixing up two areas that are largely incompatible (general relativity and QM).
A black hole is a much abused (as usual, by the media) solution of the Einstein field equation, under very simplified conditions (zero electrical charge and angular momentum). This solution appears to have singularities at R=0 and R=Rs (the Schwartzschild radius). To the extend that I am aware of, other more general solutions of the Einstein field equation are not known. Therefore, we can't predict the properties or even the existence of such general black holes.
Einstein general relativity and QM are incompatible for a few very fundamental reasons.
- Simply put, in EGR two particles (A, B) infinitesimally closed are still keeping their relative positions, we can still tell "A is on the left and B is on the right". In QM, because of the uncertainty principle, at very small distances, the "left" and "right" concepts are blurring away.
- To add insult to injury, in QM we have quantization of some fundamental concepts, including space (at a 1E-35 range), while in EGR we need to assume space as smooth, or at least continuous, at that range.
- And finally the Information Paradox, QM requires that black holes cannot destroy information (because all QM operators (including time evolution operators) need to be unitary, that is the outcome probability sum is 1). This is in direct collision with the EGR Schwartzschild solution, which leads to the conclusion that once something is beyond R=Rs, it's history is completely destroyed.
Merry Christmas!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Mixing up is what is needed. The two theories are very successful in many areas, but it is self evident that there is a need to mix them up, to go beyond the simple interpretations. I have read about the incompatibilities between the two Great theories and it is these very issues that are the most interesting. People more skilled than I have written that they see some commonality in the math of wormholes and entanglement which I view as an unlikely coincidence. It may not mean that wormholes explain entanglement at all, it more likely creates an entry point for more thought, an opportunity to mix up the two theories to better understand how their mutual paradoxes might be resolved. Both of the Great theories may eventually be modified and extended and there may then be another shift in how we view the universe and forcing us to take a different perspective. I don't mention wormholes in the simple sense of what you see in the movies, rather as a label for whatever it is that exists when we observe a single system that beavers as if two particles are entangled.
Perhaps, but not your pataphysics way. Grand unification theories are a much serious topic, that deserve more than pub/lounge level discussions. Leave it to those qualified (not me, I'm only a slightly informed amateur).
Ed Witten has spent the better part of 40 years trying to unify the two with String Theory. As far as I know, his efforts have been for naught and the whole thing has been discredited in some quarters.
So, on the the next one.
It may well be that we simply have to live with the paradox of a universe that operates simultaneously with both EGR and QM. As the Nelson Pass remarked on a different subject we should just 'get over it'
So, on the the next one.
It may well be that we simply have to live with the paradox of a universe that operates simultaneously with both EGR and QM. As the Nelson Pass remarked on a different subject we should just 'get over it'
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Don't worry Waly, there's no rules against pataphysics or any other discussion in the Lounge here and given that I have the paper qualifications I hereby authorise this discussion.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I don't know.
Does the act of measurement itself require an entanglement between subject and observer?
Does the act of measurement itself require an entanglement between subject and observer?
I was under the impression you are searching for an (as much as possible) genuine discussion. I'm afraid pataphysics and babbling over a pint do not qualify as such.
Unfortunately pataphysics is not my specialty, over a pint I prefer discussing about Rosie Huntington, so I have to stop here.
I guess it doesn't and no, I'm not even sure I understand your question, but measurement destroys entanglement or superposition.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.