The return of Bohm's pilot wave theory

[Zinjanthropos]

Casually speaking: Don't know if I'll say this well enough to be understood but I hope you get my drift.

Trying to think of anything close to an analogy for entanglement. The best I could muster was an infinity mirror, perhaps a series of them. If I put two parallel mirrors apart from each other, stick an object in between, the image will be displayed indefinitely with each image appearing smaller and farther away. Some say to infinity. Trouble is that light just keeps on reflecting, bouncing back and forth, taking an infinite(?) amount of time. I thought if you kept adding mirrors then the initial image would get farther away in less time. If you only looked at the last mirror you would see the original image appearing much farther away than it appeared then when only two mirrors were used but in the same amount of time. It would eventually look as if it is instantaneously happening over vast distances. 

That got me to thinking that entangled particles possess some kind of reflective property that to an observer, only makes it appear information is travelling long distances in no time at all. The entangled particles seem to be a reverse image of each other depending on which mirror one is looking into. But that would mean when we attempt an experiment to test entanglement that at each end the observers are somehow looking into a mirror, I think. Don't know why but I started thinking the 3rd dimension, which I call depth, has something to do with this spooky action.

My head is going to explode but I like thinking about this stuff as long as nobody has the absolute answer.

[Syne]

It is true that the information only appears to be traveling a long distance in too little time. The wave function can be imagined as a probability cloud that spreads out over time. This cloud always encompasses both entangled particles. So when one is observed, it collapses this probability cloud for both, forcing the other to take on the complimentary parameters. The information between the particles is always "connected", as long as they are coherently entangled.

[Secular Sanity]

My head is going to explode but I like thinking about this stuff as long as nobody has the absolute answer.

I don’t know if you read the conversation that Syne and I were having about stopped light, but you can think of that as reflection. 

"Quantum interference can be used to make an opaque medium transparent. Usually, the propagation of a pulse or beam of light through a resonant medium is strongly affected by absorption. However, when two light beams are used, it is possible to create a window of transparency which allows both beams to propagate with (almost) no absorption. A typical model of such 'electromagnetically induced transparency'(EIT)."

The ions are orbited by electrons.  The magnetism of electrons is their spin.  The movement is mediated by magnetic forces.  Same thing with a wave, a (spin wave). You can think of it as collective atomic Raman excitation. They’re basically transferring the photons to the quantum system and back again. This is a reflection of the laser's light wave, and unlike transparency, with reflection there is absorption.  During this brief moment of absorption, the material is no longer transparent.  When the control beam’s intensity is decreased the group velocity can be brought to zero.  This means that the contribution of the photons to the polariton state is also reduced to zero. They’re absorbed. They turn the beam back on and the dark polariton state is re-accelerated.  It’s a reflection, and this what makes the original information still obtainable.

I hope that makes sense.  If not, let me know.

It’s a little tough to be a good story teller when you're an outspoken female atheist.  You have to leave out a lot of personal details.   That in and of itself can make your head explode (literally), but I’ll give it a shot.  

I don’t know if you were paying attention to all the hoopla surrounding Brian Cox’s "everything is connected to everything" statement he made in his BBC - "A Night with the Stars" program or not, but I was in a discussion where someone claiming to be him, popped in to explain himself a little better.  

Was Brain Cox Wrong?

Extra Footage

Well, I had thought that quantum entanglement had to be created by direct interactions between subatomic particles. I had previously watched a lecture where John Bell said that you cannot get away with saying that there is no action at a distance. You cannot separate off from what happens in one place from what happens in another. They have to be described and explained jointly.

John Bell

At the time, not only did his voice bug me, but what he said, as well.  I looked into and tried to understand Tsirelson’s bound.  Unfortunately, no one in the discussion wanted to tackle the link to Tsirelson’s bound.  Shortly there after, though, Daniel Rohrlich gave a lecture on the physically meaning of it.

Retrocausality as an Axiom

Hopefully, this will give you a better idea of what they’re talking about.

Good day to you, Zinjanthropos…Syne.

[Syne]

My head is going to explode but I like thinking about this stuff as long as nobody has the absolute answer.

I don’t know if you read the conversation that Syne and I were having about stopped light, but you can think of that as reflection. 

"Quantum interference can be used to make an opaque medium transparent. Usually, the propagation of a pulse or beam of light through a resonant medium is strongly affected by absorption. However, when two light beams are used, it is possible to create a window of transparency which allows both beams to propagate with (almost) no absorption. A typical model of such 'electromagnetically induced transparency'(EIT)."

The ions are orbited by electrons.  The magnetism of electrons is their spin.  The movement is mediated by magnetic forces.  Same thing with a wave, a (spin wave). You can think of it as collective atomic Raman excitation. They’re basically transferring the photons to the quantum system and back again. This is a reflection of the laser's light wave, and unlike transparency, with reflection there is absorption.  During this brief moment of absorption, the material is no longer transparent.  When the control beam’s intensity is decreased the group velocity can be brought to zero.  This means that the contribution of the photons to the polariton state is also reduced to zero. They’re absorbed. They turn the beam back on and the dark polariton state is re-accelerated.  It’s a reflection, and this what makes the original information still obtainable.

That reflection has nothing to do with quantum action-at-a-distance like Zinjanthropos was surmising. That's just a fancy way to utilize absorption.

I don’t know if you were paying attention to all the hoopla surrounding Brian Cox’s "everything is connected to everything" statement he made in his BBC - "A Night with the Stars" program or not, but I was in a discussion where someone claiming to be him, popped in to explain himself a little better.  

Was Brain Cox Wrong?

Extra Footage

Well, I had thought that quantum entanglement had to be created by direct interactions between subatomic particles. I had previously watched a lecture where John Bell said that you cannot get away with saying that there is no action at a distance. You cannot separate off from what happens in one place from what happens in another. They have to be described and explained jointly.

John Bell

The Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions within an isolated quantum system, so their energy or spin must only differ if they share the same spatial probability distribution. IOW, they are only excluded from having the same energy, spin, and position, but as long as they do not share the same position, they can have the same energy and spin. Only one property must be different to qualify as a different quantum state.

Even though some (starting with Everett) postulate a universal wavefunction, it is not practically useful.

[Secular Sanity]

That reflection has nothing to do with quantum action-at-a-distance like Zinjanthropos was surmising. That's just a fancy way to utilize absorption.

Of course.  Thanks for clarifying that, Syne.

The Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions within an isolated quantum system, so their energy or spin must only differ if they share the same spatial probability distribution. IOW, they are only excluded from having the same energy, spin, and position, but as long as they do not share the same position, they can have the same energy and spin. Only one property must be different to qualify as a different quantum state.

Even though some (starting with Everett) postulate a universal wavefunction, it is not practically useful.

Mm-hmm...very good, Syne.  Thanks for adding that.  

[Zinjanthropos]

Haven't been ignoring things. I've been so damn busy with my avocation as a basketball referee the last few days. I'll try and read all the links before I start smacking the keys again on this topic. I enjoy being the layman surrounded by experts or at least the knowledgeable. Don't want to get ahead myself there. If I wasn't aware of the casualness of the forum I would never have posted my thoughts here. Not saying it's likely to happen here but in my life I've seen several good ideas originate just from people talking amongst each other. I congratulate Stryder because it seems he's taken that lesson to heart.

[Syne]

Hey, as long as you don't get offended when people try to clarify your understanding, I'm all for trying to learn by making your own assumptions. If your assumption ends up being right, or even close, it can really help develop a more intuitive understanding.

[Zinjanthropos]

Hey, as long as you don't get offended when people try to clarify your understanding, I'm all for trying to learn by making your own assumptions. If your assumption ends up being right, or even close, it can really help develop a more intuitive understanding.

Do we know if it is possible to travel exclusively through time with total disregard to distances? Are there any theories about it that sound plausible? Moving through time without accelerating to c. A photon can travel vast distances at c and experience no aging/time, is that correct?

[Syne]

Hey, as long as you don't get offended when people try to clarify your understanding, I'm all for trying to learn by making your own assumptions. If your assumption ends up being right, or even close, it can really help develop a more intuitive understanding.

Do we know if it is possible to travel exclusively through time with total disregard to distances? Are there any theories about it that sound plausible? Moving through time without accelerating to c. A photon can travel vast distances at c and experience no aging/time, is that correct?

One way of looking at relativity is that everything is moving through time at c, and that motion in space reduces motion through time. So your total motion through tame and space is always equal to c. Moving faster in space makes you move slower in time. This is a simple way to understand length contraction and time dilation. Since speed requires distance it is rather meaningless to say "speed through time", except that relativity views time as just another dimension, like those of space.

[Zinjanthropos]

Do we know if it is possible to travel exclusively through time with total disregard to distances? Are there any theories about it that sound plausible? Moving through time without accelerating to c. A photon can travel vast distances at c and experience no aging/time, is that correct?

One way of looking at relativity is that everything is moving through time at c, and that motion in space reduces motion through time. So your total motion through tame and space is always equal to c. Moving faster in space makes you move slower in time. This is a simple way to understand length contraction and time dilation. Since speed requires distance it is rather meaningless to say "speed through time", except that relativity views time as just another dimension, like those of space.

Just thinking and off track for a minute, since the BB every particle that exists today has been pushed, pulled, propelled etc in one way or another across the vastness of the space time continuum (one of my favorite words). That would mean, relative to one another, no two particles are of the same age....would that be correct?

If so then would entangled particles be separate from one another by their ages?