Friday, January 22, 2010

Historical Figures Lead Us to the Topic of Entanglement

The Solvay Congress of 1927

We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the fundamental physical and mathematical hypotheses are no longer susceptible of modification.

--Heisenberg and Max Born, paper delivered to Solvay Congress of 1927

You know I have watched the long drawn out conversation on Backreaction about what was once already debated, to have advanced to current status in the world represented as a logic orientated process with regard to entanglement.

What are it's current status in terms of its expression experimentally to know what it is we are doing with something that had been debated long ago?

Solvay Physics Conference 1927 02:55 - 2 years ago

The most known people who participated in the conference were Ervin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Auguste Piccard, Paul Dirac, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others. The film opens with quick shots of Erwin Schrodinger and Niels Bohr. Auguste Piccard of the University of Brussels follows and then the camera re-focuses on Schrodinger and Bohr. Schrodinger who developed wave mechanics never agreed with Bohr on quantum mechanics. Solvay gave Heisenberg an opportunity to discuss his new uncertainty principle theory. Max Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function ended determinism in atomic world. These men - Bohr, Heisenberg, Kramers, Dirac and Born together with Born represent the founding fathers of quantum mechanics. Louis de Broglie wrote his dissertation on the wave nature of matter which Schrodinger used as basis for wave mechanics. Albert Einstein whose famous response to Born's statistical interpretation of wave function was "God does not play dice." Twenty-nine physicists, the main quantum theorists of the day, came together to discuss the topic "Electrons and Photons". Seventeen of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners. Following is a "home movie" shot by Irving Langmuir, (the 1932 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry). It captures 2 minutes of an intermission in the proceedings. Twenty-one of the 29 attendees are on the film. --- It's Never too Late to Study: --- Notice: This video is copyright by its respectful owners. The website address on the video does not mean anything. ---


The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory

First published Mon May 10, 2004; substantive revision Wed Aug 5, 2009

In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise.

Might I confuse you then to see that their is nothing mystical about what our emotive states implore, that we might not also consider the purpose of Venn Logic, or, a correlation to Fuzzy logic to prepare the way for how we can become emotive entangled in our psychology, are ways "biologically mixed with our multilevel perspective" about how photons interact, to see that such a color of debate could have amounted to a distinction that arises from within. Which can manifest itself on a real world stage that is psychological forced out of the confines of human emotion, to be presented as a real world force "bridle or unbridled" with regard to the human condition?

See :

  • Entanglement Interpretation of Black Hole Entropy 

  • See Also:Backreaction: Testing the foundations of quantum mechanics


    1. Plato, there is indeed much rehashing of philosophical positions at that prolonged and bracing thread at Backreaction. However, I've proposed an experiment to recover information supposedly lost to decoherence, so that would be a new empirical intrusion into that debate. You can get to that at my name link, it's the post Decoherence Interpretation Falsified?

    2. I don't know what went wrong with the link, try again or go to the Name link:
      Decoherence Interpretation Falsified?

    3. Hi Neil,

      Just some links you might be interested in to help orientate your views current and see if they can help further to elucidate or to help refine your experiment.

      Variation of the Standard Two-Pin-hole "welcher-Weg" Optics Experiment

      Afshar's trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave interference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe how much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through which the photons passed.


      Question (Albert Einstein):

      If a photon is detected at Detector A, how does the photon’s wave function Y at the location of Detectors B & C know that it should vanish?

      Situation: A photon is emitted from an isotropic source. Its spherical wave function Y expands like an inflating bubble. It reaches a detector, and the Y bubble “pops” and disappears. See:Einstein's Bubble


      On Blogging and Experiment

      kathryn cramer

      The Transactional Interpretation, which involves a forward/back in time handshake, is one of the few (perhaps the only) interpretation(s) left standing after the Afshar test.

      Shahriar S. Afshar

      Dear Lubos,

      "Therefore we have humiliated Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, the Copenhagen interpretation, complementarity, the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics as well as the rest of physics."

      From the content of your response, I can only conclude that you have not fully read my preprint:


      The Single Photon Experiment at Rowan University is a Success!

      "Not often in life has a man given me so much happiness by his mere presence as you have done," Einstein wrote to Bohr. "I have learned much from you, mainly from your sensitive approach to scientific problems."


      Wave Function and Summing over Histories

      Dealing with a 5D World

      It required a leap of faith Neil.

      Bohr's principle of complementarity predicts that in a welcher weg ("which-way") experiment, obtaining fully visible interference pattern should lead to the destruction of the path knowledge.


    4. Dealing with a 5d world

      Yet Lubos and Verlinde have words about the entropic process currently?

      Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

      How would then would we reduce Higher dimensions to relativity?

      Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

    5. A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole".

      Gravity and the Photon

      One needed a way in which to perceive the world of the photon and how this is "gravitational induced."

      Then the world seems like a different place then it did before.


    6. Hi Plato,

      Yes indeed old arguments, which as of now have raged for almost a century. This however does not indicate a flaw with science, yet rather more as to why it is such a success, since it has doubt being the most important aspect of the philosophy by which the need for belief is something it’s attempting to have no need, outside of perhaps the conviction it brings.



    7. Hi Phil,

      This however does not indicate a flaw with science, yet rather more as to why it is such a success

      Indeed the question of philosophy in relation to the physics to me is an important one as well, as it seeks to have a firm footing, as much as, experimentation seeks to culminate any position assumed in any thought experiment manifests in reality.

      Sean Carroll in relation to his new book dispenses with this view of philosophy(remember David Albert and him?) going after a accumulated version of the cosmologist point of view as it rests with them today.

      The relationship between Bohr and Einstein was a long one seen in relation to the rise toward the "developing views" as to which now skipping over the many individual scientists along the way, leads us toward the issues of entanglement today.

      I wanted to provide some back ground for Neil in terms of what existed, and helped formed my views. What these views have accumulated to this point in time is that it is understood, what I write today in terms of the multi-level perspective has a deeper correlation to the human condition.

      It is not seen as some mystical insight as Ain Soph would have one believe as to be the signs of old men scratching marks on cave walls. :)

      The geometrical understanding has it's relation even here as to angular perspectives or spin. to be taken "as a whole" in relation to the two parts of itself displaying .3 to .7 to be calculated and seen, as the 1.

      More then, that it is one of a corollary incident to our understanding that the truth displays the full scope of the reality we are working with.


    8. Thanks for the video of 1927 Solvay, Plato. That was Paul Ehrenfest who stuck his tongue out, yes? Ehrenfest's demise is the saddest in the history of Physics IMO, worst than Heinz Pagels' or Pierre Curie's. He was vastly instrumental in getting Bohr and Einstein together.

      In my early studies of QM I found myself quite mad at Bohr. I later found this to be a common occurrence. Lately I have revised my view of him into something more positive. Not perfect mind you, as Copenhagen Interp, Complementarity, and even Correspondence show signs of weakness, but the deeper I dig into this stuff the more they make sense, "weak right" being better than "strong wrong," so to speak.

    9. Plato said...

      A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it.

      And yet, gravitons CAN escape it. What does THAT mean? That ..

      a) Gravitons don't exist, meaning our understanding of gravity is seriously flawed
      b) Spin-2 gravitons are truly awesome [female canine]s

    10. Actually, the BH situation is even weirder than that. "Ordinary photons" cannot escape the BH, but "virtual" photons need to be able to (if you believe in "exchange" theory of forces) since Q is always conserved. IOW, the charge on a black hole remains despite the collapse. A star starting out with 1000 Coulombs (+) still has that charge as a BH.

      So exchange particles need to transcend that barrier regardless. Consider: a gravitational wave emitter wouldn't be able to send energy out of the BH either, the same infinite red shift problem. It's the kind of "actual" particles that carry real energy that can't cross the barrier. I wonder what other people have said about that.

    11. Hi Steven,

      Bohr and Einstein propelled each onward by Einstein's thought experiments and Bohr replications to the contrary. So they actually fed off each other professionally.:)

      One can see "this relation" in respect to Gellman and Feynman as well.

      Feynman and Gellman
      For instance let us say that Feynman's thinking was more like Artistole, while Gellman's Plato's

      What was distinctive about either was that one, Gellman saw eternal and immutable patterns inherent in the phenomena of the material world, while, Aristotle saw these as myth? Feynman worshiped nature itself.
      See:Plato and Aristotle ( Steven take special note toward the end of that post:)Also see: Plectics

      This relationship can cast many toward aversions toward the larger scientific population as shown by the exploitation of a continuing resolve to a long held difference of opinion.

      This is not unhealthy when held in regard to the best of what each other can be in our pursuits, rather then, to degrade or manifest the "factions of separation from on a emotive level," from what is a wanting to understand and be true to the heart.


    12. Hi Steven,

      Personally I don’t think there are such things as gravitons, as from the GR perspective there is no force involved in its actions, other then what matter/energy dictates the architecture of space time to be. Then again a black hole is not strictly defined by the quality of space-time we call gravity, yet can also have charge and angular momentum that can manifest to be externalized. When it comes to black holes they have more than the externalization of gravity that have them seem paradoxical, for at the singularity there would be infinite mass, infinite angular momentum and an infinite charge potential and yet no gravity at all, that is if we consider the centre of mass having none at all as it is at this point where it is counterbalanced (Newtonian limit). So perhaps with all these paradoxes the better question might be to consider if a black hole can be real as instead before we even consider the existence of the graviton.



    13. Before I get more on-topic, a brief further note about particles and BHs: I now think it's more challenging than I thought. REM that virtual particles really do have to mediate energy changes. For example, push two positive charges closer together. The work you did shows up as change of potential energy, but that means more real energy in the field itself. So if two charged BHs approach (say, gravity outweighs charge) then the VPs mediating (?) the interaction must also account for changed field energy. I think it's a can of worms.

      As for Platonism, Aristotle: our universe is "multifarious" and different approaches are different aspects of a greater reality. Some may really be wrong somehow, but there isn't just IMHO one road to truth and reality.

    14. Hi Neil,

      Suffice is it to say that a thought experiment can hold many variables in mind, as to forecast a problem with a solution?

      I mean we've talked about Penrose in terms of his quest toward quanglement. Also see the Plane of Simultaneity

      Susskind in the spirit of the "elephant and blind men," asks the question in terms of a "thought experiment?"


    15. Hi Neil,

      In light of things like conservation and symmetry so often at the same time has action to be necessarily compliant with these qualities of nature, such that the probability cancellation found in the path integral solutions simply have us know what can’t be (rather then what else can) and further as proof why they can’t, as being forced to be consistent with natures bedrock qualities without need of alternatives.

      That’s to say although it would be nice to imagine worlds where these qualities didn’t exist, where nothing is requires being conserved or symmetrical in form, as to have action without limit or direction. However I would ask if constructed so unreasonably are they or any able to be real? I think the most difficult thing for many to understand being not that reality is so reasonable, yet rather what that implies as to having it only able to be this way.



    16. Hi Neil,

      Just as a follow up it is interesting to note that when it comes to reason, that is at least as it;s found in the nature of man it’s been recently discovered to relates to the , understanding of chaos rather than with some random nature felt by some to be so prominent. It’s also interesting the role self organization has in all this. I find it then significant how all this now is being attempted to be applied to computing in general in relationship to what some may call AI. What I find to be the commonality with what I mentioned before is that forming out of chaos we find both the conservation and the symmetry still to underlie all of this, that not in having it found as the mechanism, yet rather its goal or reason if you like. That’s to ask is it mechanism that manifests reason or rather merely a requirement as to have it be so and with it reality.

      “But this is certain, and an opinion commonly received among theologians, that the action by which he now sustains it is the same with that by which he originally created it; so that even although he had from the beginning given it no other form than that of chaos, provided only he had established certain laws of nature, and had lent it his concurrence to enable it to act as it is wont to do, it may be believed, without discredit to the miracle of creation, that, in this way alone, things purely material might, in course of time, have become such as we observe them at present; and their nature is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming in this manner gradually into existence, than when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state.”

      -René Descartes [Discourse on The Method: of Rightly Conducting The Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (1637) ]



      Postscript for Steven:

      Despite your main claim of focus as to being on something other than the foundations it just may turn out to be exactly what they will become:-)

    17. Phil,

      Foundations are definitely what I'm about, but Foundations don't pay the bills. They're probably more important than anything else, but this old World rewards us for our degree of specialization, nothing more.

      That sucks for me personally, as I am a natural-born Generalist. So I suck up and seek that which is my greatest passion, and focus there, in search of a speciality which for me currently, is just beyond the horizon of my vision.

      Not quite there, but getting closer. And it will astound you how quickly I zero in, and once there, dominate. My first paper will definitely thank you and Plato (the blogger) for inspiration ... you would both make this easier if you published, but no worries, mate. Do your own thing.

    18. Hey everyone, Chad Orzel has gone decoherently ballistic at me, at the post Neil Bates Owes Me $160. Check it out. I don't think he quite understand my point. Note well my caveats and further clarifications. I think he's being a putz.