A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

I understand the info re: 'correlation', but my understanding is that when one photon was stimulated, something occurred with the other photon, even though many miles apart.

If, as you say, the angle of measurement is changed for one photon, does that mean different angles of correlation will be present for the other photon?

Let me go into this a bit more for understanding.

First, photons can be polarized. We can detect this using polarized film (like in glasses). Photons polarized 'in line' with the film get through and those polarized perpendicular to the line of the film are blocked. After going through the film, ALL photons are polarized in line with the film.

Photons polarized at a different angle will have a *probability* of getting through that depends on the angle between the polarization of the photon and the line of the film.

Now, we can construct devices the produce pairs of entangled photons and direct them in opposite directions. Suppose we put polarized films far away from each others, but such that the photons go through them. The characteristic of entangled photons is that if you measure their polarizations in the same line, you will always get the same result. Either both go through or neither does.

Now, suppose we use this device to create many pairs of photons. At first, we set things up so the films at either end are in line with each other. What do we see?

Well, *both* sides see a random set of photons getting through.There is no way to predict which photons will and which will not get through and the randomness passes all standards of randomness we want to check.

But, when we bring those measurements together, we find that from each pair, either both went through or both were blocked. There is a perfect correlation here.

Next, we set the polarized films so that they are perpendicular to each other. What happens then?

Well, again both sides see a random set of photons going through. There is no way to predict which will go through and which will not. The randomness at both ends passes all standards of randomness we care to check.

But, when we bring the measurements together this time, we find that whenever a photon went through one side, the partner was blocked on the other. We have a perfect anti-correlation.

So, now we try to send a signal by adjusting our polarized film to send a sequence of 0's and 1's depending on our message using, say a film in line to represent 1 and perpendicular to be 0.

What is seen now? Well once again, *both* sides see a perfect set of random photons getting through. All standards of randomness are passed on both sides.

But when we bring the measurements together this time, we find perfect correlation when the films were in line and perfect anti-correlation when perpendicular. In that way, we can recover the message we sent (1 for same, 0 for different).

So, is there information sent between the two ends? NO! Both ends are random. There is no way to tell the difference *by looking only at one end* between aligned films and perpendicular films. No faster-than-light information is transfered because both ends are completely random. It is only when the measurements from both ends are brought together that we can get the message, but it is a slower than light thing to bring them together.

What Aspect's experiment did was essentially this, only also checked intermediate angles for the polarizations of the films. Again, at both ends, all measurements were random. All tests of randomness were passed. I tis only after the measurements were brought together that the *correlations* were seen.

I hope this helps some.

 

[godnotgod]

That is a mis-understanding, then. The measurements at the two ends are correlated. That is all. Nothing is made to happen on one end by events at the other.

So why, then, did Einstein refer to this experiment as 'spooky ACTIONS at a distance'? What's so 'spooky' about correlation? And what I have seen around the internet by other writers, is that there is indeed a response at the other end, but not necessarily the transfer of information.

"In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interact physically.

When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance."

How Quantum Entanglement Works (Infographic)

Looks like two schools of thought going on in regards to QM...again!

Changing the angle changes the amount of correlation. But there is nothing at either side that gives information that can be transferred to the other side. Both sides are random. But they are correlated.

I never said anything about information transfer.

So changing the angle changes the amount of correlation on the other end. Something changes.

 

[Polymath257]

So why, then, did Einstein refer to this experiment as 'spooky ACTIONS at a distance'? What's so 'spooky' about correlation? And what I have seen around the internet by other writers, is that there is indeed a response at the other end, but not necessarily the transfer of information.

Einstein was committed to the idea that particles have definite properties at all times. So, for example, the spin of an electron is either up or down.

In QM, this is a false assumption. QM is a local theory that is not a realist theory. All interactions are local, but particles and waves do not have definite properties before measurement.

Many people (including Einstein) have an idea that the properties are definite, but that there are non-local effects. This is an incorrect view of QM. Especially in quantum field thoeries, which are all relativistic, ALL interactions are local. But those interactions can set up correlations that are preserved.

So changing the angle changes the amount of correlation on the other end. Something changes.

Yes, the orientation of the filters. The amount of correlation measured is what is expected for two identically polarized photons going through filters oriented differently. The entanglement forces the two photons to be identically polarized. The randomness comes from the fact that the polarization is randomized (but identical between the two, like sides of a coin).

 

[Polymath257]

I never said anything about information transfer.

You claimed there is an influence from one side to the other. There is not. Both sides are random. That doesn't change. Both sides always have identical polarization (because of the way the entanglement is done). That never changes. The correlation is simply that of two identically polarized photons going through filters that are differently oriented.

 

[Polymath257]

Imagine a fish born into the sea. He does not have a clue that he is in the sea, nor that the sea is inside his body. Why? Because from the get-go, he is focused on two things: predators and food. The background of the sea is not apparent to him. Likewise, we are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but from the get-go, we are focused on food and our mother's touch. It's built into our biology, which, in reality, becomes one of the obstacles to becoming conscious of the sea of consciousness we exist within. The other obstacles are the developing sense of a local consciousness we call 'I', all reinforced by other 'I''s who are responsible for our social indoctrination, causing us to think, amongst other things, that we are conscious beings living in a dead, unconscious world with a brain that creates consciousness via chemical reactions. Pretty sterile view of life, and very, very sad indeed.

Again, this is your claim. There is no 'sea of pure consciousness'. That fish could easily detect the water around him just like we detect the air around us. A flip of another fish's tail and the wave would affect our fish. So only the most ignorant fish would think there is no water around them.

But that is NOT the case for us. No wave of consciousness goes past us when someone flips their tail. Instead, when our brains fail, so does our consciousness. And my consciousness is not the same as your consciousness. We are distinct consciousnesses within different skulls.

I don't see this as a 'sterile' view of things at all. Nor is it sad. It is simply the way it is. And we still get to experience this wonderful universe around us. We still get to interact with other consciousnesses through various means (including forums like this one). We get to make of it what we will.

 

[YmirGF]

Again, this is your claim. There is no 'sea of pure consciousness'. That fish could easily detect the water around him just like we detect the air around us. A flip of another fish's tail and the wave would affect our fish. So only the most ignorant fish would think there is no water around them.

But that is NOT the case for us. No wave of consciousness goes past us when someone flips their tail. Instead, when our brains fail, so does our consciousness. And my consciousness is not the same as your consciousness. We are distinct consciousnesses within different skulls.

I don't see this as a 'sterile' view of things at all. Nor is it sad. It is simply the way it is. And we still get to experience this wonderful universe around us. We still get to interact with other consciousnesses through various means (including forums like this one). We get to make of it what we will.

Maybe I am just thick as a fence post but if there was a Universal Consciousness®© wouldn't something like telepathy be fairly commonplace and easy to confirm? Given that we have virtually no verified tests of telepathy wouldn't that put the idea of a Universal Consciousness®© into doubt?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe I am just thick as a fence post but if there was a Universal Consciousness®© wouldn't something like telepathy be fairly commonplace and easy to confirm? Given that we have virtually no verified tests of telepathy wouldn't that put the idea of a Universal Consciousness®© into doubt?

Yes. There are many ways to verify a 'universal consciousness' in the same way a fish could verify the existence of water. If it is truly a background to our lives, then there would be clear and immediate effects we could easily detect. it really didn't take much to realize there is air around us, after all, even though it is invisible. But it is readily detectable and has consistent properties.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes. There are many ways to verify a 'universal consciousness' in the same way a fish could verify the existence of water. If it is truly a background to our lives, then there would be clear and immediate effects we could easily detect. it really didn't take much to realize there is air around us, after all, even though it is invisible. But it is readily detectable and has consistent properties.

What do you think some other immediate effects that could be easily detected be like?

 

[godnotgod]

Einstein was committed to the idea that particles have definite properties at all times. So, for example, the spin of an electron is either up or down.

In QM, this is a false assumption. QM is a local theory that is not a realist theory. All interactions are local, but particles and waves do not have definite properties before measurement.

Many people (including Einstein) have an idea that the properties are definite, but that there are non-local effects. This is an incorrect view of QM. Especially in quantum field thoeries, which are all relativistic, ALL interactions are local. But those interactions can set up correlations that are preserved.

In QM Field Theory, the idea is that the particle is the result of an excitation in the field, which, if true, would indicate nonlocality.

 

[godnotgod]

You claimed there is an influence from one side to the other. There is not. Both sides are random. That doesn't change. Both sides always have identical polarization (because of the way the entanglement is done). That never changes. The correlation is simply that of two identically polarized photons going through filters that are differently oriented.

I have already posted two sources indicating that there is indeed an effect on the other side, when this side is stimulated, and where no information transfer is involved.

As I keep telling you, there seem to be at least two schools of though about this, yours being just one, and you are not necessarily correct. Is your position one of established fact, or is it just a hypothesis?

 

[godnotgod]

Einstein was committed to the idea that particles have definite properties at all times. So, for example, the spin of an electron is either up or down.

In QM, this is a false assumption. QM is a local theory that is not a realist theory. All interactions are local, but particles and waves do not have definite properties before measurement.

Many people (including Einstein) have an idea that the properties are definite, but that there are non-local effects. This is an incorrect view of QM. Especially in quantum field thoeries, which are all relativistic, ALL interactions are local. But those interactions can set up correlations that are preserved.

You didn't answer the question: why did Einstein call entanglement 'spooky ACTION at a distance' if there is no response of the distant photon? You know. 'ACTION', as in 'response'.

Yes, the orientation of the filters. The amount of correlation measured is what is expected for two identically polarized photons going through filters oriented differently. The entanglement forces the two photons to be identically polarized. The randomness comes from the fact that the polarization is randomized (but identical between the two, like sides of a coin).

I can't seem to get a straight answer from you. Does a change in filter orientation over here mean any kind of change over there?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. There are many ways to verify a 'universal consciousness' in the same way a fish could verify the existence of water. If it is truly a background to our lives, then there would be clear and immediate effects we could easily detect. it really didn't take much to realize there is air around us, after all, even though it is invisible. But it is readily detectable and has consistent properties.

Nope. Understand that the fish/water example is only a metaphor, and all metaphors have limitations.

Even were the fish to leap out of the water, when he plunges back in, he would not know he is in the sea. He has already been conditioned at birth to immediately be highly alert to predators and food.

Universal Consciousness, though universal like the sea, is not a physical experience. It cannot be detected via any sensory apparatus in any way. Only universal consciousness itself, can prompt you to seek it, UC being resident within man at all times, though not apparent to man, due to the disturbance of his discursive mind. The thing about UC, is that it is responsible for the manifestation of the world, nourishes all living things, but does not interfere with the world, one reason why it is not readily detectable, and not detectable at all via the senses. For this reason, mystics make efforts to transcend perceptual reality, and seek higher ground, or Ultimate Reality, which is the background to all life.

 

[Polymath257]

In QM Field Theory, the idea is that the particle is the result of an excitation in the field, which, if true, would indicate nonlocality.

No, it does not. In fact, one of the basic assumptions within QFT is locality, in the form of causality: two events that are time-like separated have trivial commutator (or anti-commutator for fermions). The result is that a change in the field at one location cannot affect a change in the field at a location that cannot be accessed at or below the speed of light.

This is a fundamental aspect of QFTs and is part of the spin-statistics relationship (where fermions have half-integer spin an bosons have integer spin)

 

[Polymath257]

You didn't answer the question: why did Einstein call entanglement 'spooky ACTION at a distance' if there is no response of the distant photon? You know. 'ACTION', as in 'response'.

I can't seem to get a straight answer from you. Does a change in filter orientation over here mean any kind of change over there?

I *did* answer both questions.

Einstein was working under the assumption that particles have definite properties. In that view, correlation *does* correspond to causation. He was rejecting the quantum viewpoint, remember. he was ultimately wrong about this.

No.The change in the filter here does not cause a change over there. ALL that changes is the correlation. And that is because of the filter here affecting the measurements here.

 

[Polymath257]

I have already posted two sources indicating that there is indeed an effect on the other side, when this side is stimulated, and where no information transfer is involved.

As I keep telling you, there seem to be at least two schools of though about this, yours being just one, and you are not necessarily correct. Is your position one of established fact, or is it just a hypothesis?

It follows directly from the quantum description. QM is a local theory. it is built into QFTs. One of the *axioms* of QFTs is this locality.

The problems people have is that they attempt to describe these things with classical notions (particles and waves having definite properties). This will inevitably result is ludicrous results. The new theory isn't validated by the older concepts. It is the other way around.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. Understand that the fish/water example is only a metaphor, and all metaphors have limitations.

Even were the fish to leap out of the water, when he plunges back in, he would not know he is in the sea. He has already been conditioned at birth to immediately be highly alert to predators and food.

Universal Consciousness, though universal like the sea, is not a physical experience. It cannot be detected via any sensory apparatus in any way.

In that case, it is not testable. if it is not testable, even in theory, it is silly to say it exists.

Only universal consciousness itself, can prompt you to seek it, UC being resident within man at all times, though not apparent to man, due to the disturbance of his discursive mind. The thing about UC, is that it is responsible for the manifestation of the world, nourishes all living things, but does not interfere with the world, one reason why it is not readily detectable, and not detectable at all via the senses. For this reason, mystics make efforts to transcend perceptual reality, and seek higher ground, or Ultimate Reality, which is the background to all life.

Again, this is your claim. But it is only a claim. There is no evidence of this. There is no way to test this claim. And there is no detectable difference whether this claim is true or not.

In other words, it is an unnecessary addition that actually yields no new information of any relevance.

 

[godnotgod]

It follows directly from the quantum description. QM is a local theory. it is built into QFTs. One of the *axioms* of QFTs is this locality.

The problems people have is that they attempt to describe these things with classical notions (particles and waves having definite properties). This will inevitably result is ludicrous results. The new theory isn't validated by the older concepts. It is the other way around.

Others disagree. Two (or more) schools of thought. As you said, that is the nature of science. So really, you don't know for certain if your 'theory' is correct or not. Tomorrow, more information may shed enough light on the subject to modify or invalidate your 'theory' completely.

"Although entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon, its consequences in the laboratory are ultimately formulated in terms of classical quantities. Indeed, a measurement apparatus can be seen as a device that receives classical instructions (what measurement to perform) and produces classical results (the measurement outcome). Even if prior quantum messages are necessary to generate entanglement between initially independent parties, couldn’t the exchange of prior classical messages be sufficient to reproduce these classical measurement statistics? For generic entangled states (actually, for all pure entangled states, the answer is no! Indeed, the correlations between distant parties that can be generated through the prior exchange of classical messages—what computer scientists call shared randomness—necessarily satisfy Bell inequalities, but the correlations obtained by measuring entangled states violate these inequalities! Such correlations are called nonlocal. Operationally, nonlocality is therefore important because it allows discriminating classical from entangled states simply by analyzing their measurement statistics.

The relation between entanglement and nonlocality, however, is more subtle than it appears at first sight and the two concepts are not entirely equivalent. Indeed, there exist mixed entangled states that cannot generate nonlocal correlations, i.e., cannot violate any Bell inequalities. Recently, however, Masanes, Liang, and Doherty showed that for any entangled state ρAB, there exists another state σAB that does not violate the CHSH inequality (the simplest Bell inequality), but such that the combination of both states is nonlocal . Thus entangled states always have some hidden nonlocality that can be activated......

Buscemi introduces a semiquantum generalization of the usual Bell scenario that makes much tighter the relation between nonlocality and entanglement....By analogy with the usual Bell scenario, the correlations between which states are used as inputs and the measurement outputs are called local if they can be reproduced using only shared randomness, and nonlocal if they require entanglement."

Rest of the article here:

Physics - Viewpoint: A Closer Connection Between Entanglement and Nonlocality

(This is from 2012, and may be out of date)

 

[Polymath257]

Others disagree. Two schools of thought. You don't know for certain. Tomorrow, more information may shed enough light on the subject to modify or invalidate your 'theory'.

"Although entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon, its consequences in the laboratory are ultimately formulated in terms of classical quantities. Indeed, a measurement apparatus can be seen as a device that receives classical instructions (what measurement to perform) and produces classical results (the measurement outcome). Even if prior quantum messages are necessary to generate entanglement between initially independent parties, couldn’t the exchange of prior classical messages be sufficient to reproduce these classical measurement statistics? For generic entangled states (actually, for all pure entangled states, the answer is no! Indeed, the correlations between distant parties that can be generated through the prior exchange of classical messages—what computer scientists call shared randomness—necessarily satisfy Bell inequalities, but the correlations obtained by measuring entangled states violate these inequalities! Such correlations are called nonlocal. Operationally, nonlocality is therefore important because it allows discriminating classical from entangled states simply by analyzing their measurement statistics [see Fig. 1(a)].

Notice that here they are *defining* non-locality as simply violating Bell's inequalities. This is NOT the same use as what we have been debating. In other words, if there are correlations that are not producible via classical interactions, then they are called local. But, for purposes of interaction at a distance, it is the concept of locality that shows up for QFTs that is relevant. And ALL QFTS are local in that sense.

The relation between entanglement and nonlocality, however, is more subtle than it appears at first sight and the two concepts are not entirely equivalent. Indeed, there exist mixed entangled states that cannot generate nonlocal correlations, i.e., cannot violate any Bell inequalities. Recently, however, Masanes, Liang, and Doherty showed that for any entangled state ρAB, there exists another state σAB that does not violate the CHSH inequality (the simplest Bell inequality), but such that the combination of both states is nonlocal . Thus entangled states always have some hidden nonlocality that can be activated. Figure 1(b) illustrates this scenario.....

Buscemi introduces a semiquantum generalization of the usual Bell scenario that makes much tighter the relation between nonlocality and entanglement....By analogy with the usual Bell scenario, the correlations between which states are used as inputs and the measurement outputs are called local if they can be reproduced using only shared randomness, and nonlocal if they require entanglement."

There is a technical definition of locality here that is NOT what you are intuitively using. Simple violation of Bell's inequalities is *defined* to be non-local here, whether or not there is actually a non-local influence of that type you seem to think exists.

 

[godnotgod]

In that case, it is not testable. if it is not testable, even in theory, it is silly to say it exists.

I know I must have mentioned the fact to you previously that transcendent states are not testable via the methods of Logic, Reason, or Analysis, so the clue here is to lay such methodologies aside and pay attention to one's inner experience directly, and without thought. The usual scenario in the beginning stages is to simply watch the stream of thought from the discursive mind, until it eventually quiets down and comes to a complete stop. Then, and only then, will another kind of conscious awareness come into play. Zen people call this kind of awareness 'Big Mind', and it's presence is unmistakable. No, it is not one's delusive thought, since that has already been subdued, and is a product of mind. It is an entirely new kind of vision and experience, which has been validated independently throughout the world in different places and times. Just because it is untestable via your methodology does not mean it does not exist, which is a silly and even backwards kind of logic. A real scientist always keeps an open mind, at least in theory.

Einstein thought entangled particles were 'spooky', but we know they exist, but we don't really understand the true nature of entanglement. At least science does not, and probably never will, as it is limited by it's own design.

Again, this is your claim. But it is only a claim. There is no evidence of this. There is no way to test this claim. And there is no detectable difference whether this claim is true or not.

In other words, it is an unnecessary addition that actually yields no new information of any relevance.

See above. However, in spite of the fact that it is untestable via scientific methods, we do know there are changes in the brain and body of experienced meditators, validated by science, that are unmistakable. Such changes are the direct result of having entered into higher states of awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

Notice that here they are *defining* non-locality as simply violating Bell's inequalities. This is NOT the same use as what we have been debating. In other words, if there are correlations that are not producible via classical interactions, then they are called local. But, for purposes of interaction at a distance, it is the concept of locality that shows up for QFTs that is relevant. And ALL QFTS are local in that sense.



There is a technical definition of locality here that is NOT what you are intuitively using. Simple violation of Bell's inequalities is *defined* to be non-local here, whether or not there is actually a non-local influence of that type you seem to think exists.

Two schools of thought:

"Despite Einstein's misgivings about entanglement and nonlocality and the practical difficulties of obtaining proof one way or the other, Irish physicist John Bell attempted to force the issue by making it experimental rather than just theoretical. Bell’s Theorem, published in 1964, and referred to by some as one of the most profound discoveries in all of physics, effectively showed that the results predicted by quantum mechanics (for example, in an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality. The subsequent practical experiments by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman in 1972 seem (despite Clauser's initial espousal of Einstein's position) to definitively show that the effects of nonlocality are real, and that "spooky actions at a distance" are indeed possible.."

Nonlocality and Entanglement - Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle - The Physics of the Universe