# Thread: On the meaning of entanglement.

1. ## On the meaning of entanglement.

On the meaning of entanglement Wikipedia:

"For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-½ particles.". . . .

Because Particle Decay is a form of acceleration, the equal and opposite reaction to this acceleration, is imparted on Dark Matter in the form of dark energy. sending it in the opposite direction, away from the particle, transforming it to space-time. Here's how:

In this instance, the accelerating spin-zero particle, splits the Dark matter particle in two parts,-"space" and "time". This allows the "acceleration properties" of the particles to be locked by space-time, and the two remaining "spin-1/2" particles reflect the spin properties of the divided Dark matter particle,(Satisfying what we observe), and the information of that energy transaction, is recorded to space-time, in the form of Dark energy. Here's the equation:

Dark energy equals : Normal matter divided by Dark matter squared.
or,
DE = M / DM^2
or,
.683 = .049 / .268^2

Wikipedia on percentages of the Universe: Dark energy = .683, Normal matter = .049 and Dark matter = .268

2. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Originally Posted by David Hawkins
On the meaning of entanglement Wikipedia:

"For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-½ particles.". . . .

Because Particle Decay is a form of acceleration, the equal and opposite reaction to this acceleration, is imparted on Dark Matter in the form of dark energy. sending it in the opposite direction, away from the particle, transforming it to space-time. Here's how:

In this instance, the accelerating spin-zero particle, splits the Dark matter particle in two parts,-"space" and "time". This allows the "acceleration properties" of the particles to be locked by space-time, and the two remaining "spin-1/2" particles reflect the spin properties of the divided Dark matter particle,(Satisfying what we observe), and the information of that energy transaction, is recorded to space-time, in the form of Dark energy. Here's the equation:

Dark energy equals : Normal matter divided by Dark matter squared.
or,
DE = M / DM^2
or,
.683 = .049 / .268^2

Wikipedia on percentages of the Universe: Dark energy = .683, Normal matter = .049 and Dark matter = .268
If you are going to quote Wiki, provide links to the articles...

That said, "Dark Matter" is simply matter that is not radiating towards us (or its radiation is too weak to detect).
Therefore, we are not detecting any light from that source. Therefore, all we can observe as effects are impacts on photon densities (local effects on geodesics) responsible for Einstein Rings, Red shift, etc.

In fact, we can't observe "normal matter" at all outside our solar system, and there is an argument that we don't "observe" matter at all, since locally (subjectively) the speed of light is instantaneous, although we can model an energy interaction by assuming light has mass (radar, antenna resistance, laser weapons on fast burn boosters, etc...)

From a photon (quantum) perspective, if m0 = CT, then the wave equation for energy comes from:

so identically

Then the momentum is given by
If the particles do not interact, , so p = 0 (there is no momentum transfer) Such energy-conserved photons are "counted" simply by multiplying m' by integers n En = n*m' = hv

Other values of [tex]\theta[\tex] are evaluated around the unit circle in the complex plane.

For functions such as ,sin \theta] (i.e., Fourier series), note that (e.g.) p = d/dt [tex](cos \theta) = sin \theta[\tex], so that there is a momentum transfer at either end of each cycle, which means infinite momentum (and thus infinite energy) for such linear functions, unless m0 = 0.

(One can introduce a cutoff, however, and include a lifetime in the characterization, but this introduces other complications- gravity as curved lines in Feynman diagrams)

When analyzed further, the effect of light-on- light interactions are due to spin/polarization - we only see the photons that are "spun" along the geodesic towards us, the others are spun away. Einstein interprets this as gravity without specifying a massive gravitating object, since he is only concerned with local action along the geodesic. If we interpret such an interaction, it must be in terms of constants observed on earth (or in the Solar System) where "experiments" are performed using observable material bodies (e.g., the "precession" of Mercury, where Mercury assumes the role of a photon relative to the mass of the sun).

These are all observed at the BB temperature of the earth, heavily influenced by the sun on our local EM environment. Applying cosmological interpretations to locally derived mathematics interpreted in terms of locally measured constants (e.g. C) is IMO fuzzy thinking, especially since many of such interpretations also include Boltzmann's constant, etc.....

So instead of "dark Matter/Energy" the model should be "photons we may or may not see interacting with other photons we may or may not see) - a "gravitating mass) in the sense of a planet is an (almost) "hidden variable", and is hidden outside our ability to observe it by spectral shifts..... (invisible planets circling visible stars - and even those are only visual at a tiny, tiny range compared to the size of our own galaxy, not to mention galaxies far away...)

So I guess I call bullshit on all such percentages cosmologically .... IMO, YMMV ...

(Nevertheless, if one MUST do religion in the name of physics, such percentages (or others like them, with different parameters and error bars) are probably the best we have.

3. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

"
So I guess I call bullshit on all such percentages cosmologically "
'
l'll admit,the hypothesis totally depends on DM not only being invisible, but transparent as well. But this is not so trivial to me. I happen to think we will eventually find, that space-time is made of something after all.

4. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Originally Posted by David Hawkins
"
So I guess I call bullshit on all such percentages cosmologically "
'
l'll admit,the hypothesis totally depends on DM not only being invisible, but transparent as well. But this is not so trivial to me. I happen to think we will eventually find, that space-time is made of something after all.
The whole point is that space-time is made of something. It is called a photon (a patch of aether), and the rest is religion... (even where there are no patches...)

The relation of mass to "space-time" is ; i.e. relative photon density. Otherwise it is just imaginary clocks and rulers, trying to measure that Great Flapping Brane In The Sky....

5. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

[QUOTE}The relation of mass to "space-time" is ; i.e. relative photon density. [/QUOTE]

I take it your not very comfortable with the estimated percentages of our Universe?

Do you think that the fabric of space-time is made of photons, or that the dark energy properties of it is photonic aether?

6. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Correlation is the reason for the universe to exist. The Big Bang created something out of the dark energy through chaos. This is what gave life to the particles that created all we get to explore in the universe.

7. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

[QUOTE ] The relation of mass to "space-time" is ; i.e. relative photon density. Otherwise it is just imaginary clocks and rulers[/QUOTE]

If, YOU were to be given the task of figuring out what such percentages of our Universe are, and YOU had 20-30 years of practice to get it right and you had everything we know up to this point, and YOU had all of our technologies available, all available resources, the support of. . . a lot of very intelligent people, plus, YOU got to use . ."imaginary clocks and rulers." How accurate do you suppose you could call it?
Wouldn't "relative photon density" just be one of many factors that are considered?

8. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Originally Posted by David Hawkins
[QUOTE ] The relation of mass to "space-time" is ; i.e. relative photon density. Otherwise it is just imaginary clocks and rulers
If, YOU were to be given the task of figuring out what such percentages of our Universe are, and YOU had 20-30 years of practice to get it right and you had everything we know up to this point, and YOU had all of our technologies available, all available resources, the support of. . . a lot of very intelligent people, plus, YOU got to use . ."imaginary clocks and rulers." How accurate do you suppose you could call it?
Wouldn't "relative photon density" just be one of many factors that are considered?
IMO, such cosmological analyses are fools' errands, motivated by a religious faith that someone can somehow "understand god" without having to account for one's consciousness at the business end of his very own geodesic (it is not a coincidence that Wheeler imagines "its from bits" in his fevered mind .. That is, one must consider the "Ow" of Physics as well as (and distinct from) the "Wow" - and resign yourself to drinking your tea and eating your rice if you wish to ignore the distinction (the "Tao" of physics)

There are two possible (incompatible) models for the universe:

1. The very large - here you are using Tensor Calculus (e.g. the FLRW metric), which implies continuity, geometric optics, and in particular, h -> 0, where Planck's constant is the same parameter implied in the definition of the derivative, so "space-time" is smooth. In particular, there is NO photon interaction, since c is supposed to be a Universal constant, valid as a tangent at all points along the geodesic for a single world line, where STR only applies at a local (infinitesimal) field point.

2. The very small - in this case h is relevant, but only for the "length" = mass of a single photon, which is infinitesimal at the scale of the Universe. Hence "Doppler" as applies to space expansion is irrelevant (such a model would require that boundary conditions exist at the observer and the "edge" of the universe, wherever that is - i.e. a non-Copernican model - we are at the "center of the universe" as an observer. In QFT each particle in the universe gets its own degree(s) of freedom, and must be included in a "complete" cosmological model without integrating - hence a linear system represented by a non-analytical tensor - e.g., a Fock space with an invertible metric....)

(One also has Newton, in which the distance measured by velocity of light is instantaneous (i.e., c is not relevant as to our local subjective experienc), and so involves action at a distance - useful in calculating ballistic missile trajectories).....

One can model mass as "curvature" in space-time, but the geometries must be closed for conservation of mass-energy OR geodesics must stop and start at some event in "space-time" Furthermore, such a diagram is a model of the past and future; from a QM perspective, observers exist only on the real axis and can only communicate with each other in Galilean coordinates at the speed of c (determined at the observers's frame at an instant in space-time.

One can mix the models; to see this, deconstruct v/c in STR into its space-time components. For STR, at least space or time must be identified with the mass parameter, but not both (unless there is no perturbation given by v) If v is included, then the "time dilation" equation is actually the mass change of a photon by light-on-light interaction, since v is just another mass c', so is determined by v/c = c'/c locally, where ct is the standard measure for a contra-variant "wavelength" where x' = xc/ . I did this in my pdf about the "Origin of the Universe"; and it is the fundamental reason that QFT and GTR are fundamentally incompatible.

Since one can verify QFT but NOT GTR at their respective scales (one can't do experiments on galaxies), one is stuck with our local view point. QFT, however, is limited to the configuration of the experiments used to measure its constants (e.g., the LHC), and at some point this configuration (e.g. a gluon field) will have an effect on the total energy at the point of particle collisions); nevertheless, we are still limited to interpreting the experiments in terms of the environment in which we live, and the "vacuum" at earth's surface consists of (at least) photon from the sun and the earth's surface. Similarly, our galaxy lives in a "vacuum" that is at least strong enough to propel the earth around Sagittarius' "black hole"

So instead of the "Universe expanding" by some sort of Doppler, the Hubble constant should be interpreted in terms of comparing a local photon with an incoming photon (or, rather still, the spectral lines.) However, even this is subject to the assumption that h and c are the same in a far distant galaxy (and if they are not, how would anyone tell, except by that same energy shift), especially if it is not molecular clouds causing the shift but light-on-light interaction via spin/polarization.

To try to reconcile these perspectives cosmologist wax into various fantasies: "branes" clapping together (based on the model of displacement current in Maxwell's equations, which are, above all, continuous functions in either the integral or differential characterization), "parallel" universes, based on a profound misinterpretation of the wave function, ridiculous hypotheses derived from extrapolation of Boltzmann's constant, etc. in cosmological extrapolation of macro parameters such as temperature, pressure, etc.

Finally, at long last, we are finally beginning to make distinctions between "Reduction" and "Emergence" physics, and the limitations of each: e.g. Quantum Triviality

See This Thread for a discussion of light-on-light "entanglement" (where we discuss an experiment that purports to measure the "slowing down" of light in ("our") vacuum by light-on-light interaction) - but such an entanglement can only exist for the lifetime of the "shortest" photon, and even then, it is only discernable to a phase (if that) by the Uncertainty Principle...

One really has to understand to the Lorentz transform, how it was modified by Einstein, and its (different) interpretation by Pauli and Dirac to include spin polarization as well as both quantized geodetic and frame dragging (e.g. Gravity B Probe) in "GTR" experiments (which actually model a variation in C by the permittivity and permeability constants that define it locally).... (the accelerometers and gyroscopes in Gravity B are subject to local quantization ultimately, like anything else - interpreted in terms of current flow/Fermi levels as "hidden variables"...)

So, eventually if religion is not involved, one has to decide if the Universe is a turd or a swimming pool, or a figment of your imagination.... You pays your money, and you takes your choice..

9. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Furthermore, such a diagram is a model of the past and future; from a QM perspective, observers exist only on the real axis and can only communicate with each other in Galilean coordinates at the speed of c (determined at the observers's frame at an instant in space-time.
Then how do you account for the fact that that "instant" in space-time was created the very moment it was observed?

10. ## Re: On the meaning of entanglement.

Originally Posted by David Hawkins
Then how do you account for the fact that that "instant" in space-time was created the very moment it was observed?
I can't (since I don't feel it). That's the blip in your (well, ok, my) eye.

(Sign at LLNL: "Do not gaze into laser with remaining eye...")

Some people call it the universe and imagine coordinate systems, some people call it "god", I call it my All Encompassing Wow ....

Of course if "bit" refers to spin, one can create an "it" (non-interacting photon- a "boson") with bits "fermions" having spins that are the same (i.e., opposite "directions" at the "circumferences" where they interact) (a "splat")... the others are unobservable...

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•