FTL information transfer....

[upriver]

How do you have FTL information transfer in EU? Can you do it with massive objects? Can a component of the electrical force be FTL?
Do you have to remove inertia to have FTL information transfer?
Entanglement as well as tunneling is FTL. How?

[Influx]

Information is not an intrinsic part of the universe. It is a human concept. Since information is represented by matter, the speed of information is governed by the speed of said matter.

[BecomingTesla]

I have to disagree with Influx on this one - information is not represented by matter. Information is shared and distributed from matter to matter, but it whether it's a ray of light hitting your eye, or a particular frequency of sound moving through the air, or the data of a particular website moving through your fiber optic cable, information is always propagated a signal between matter.

Just the same, if quantum entanglement is in fact a phenomena that occurs instantaneously, then this means that information propagates faster than light, and that energy can be transmitted in some form faster than the speed of light. There's absolutely no way that entanglement can happen without the transfer of information. If the Particle A changes its spin from X to Y, and that instantaneously shifts Particle B's spin from Y to X, then the information of the change in state that occurred in Particle A absolutely had to be shared with Particle B in some way. If not, then that either means that (a) the shift in Particle B occurred randomly, and it just so happened that it occurred when Particle A shifted, or (b) that somehow, Particle B can gain new knowledge about Particle A, despite the fact that Particle B had absolutely no communication with Particle A. Which would be impossible.

Either entanglement is not actually occurring instantaneously and Einstein was right, or information can propagate from particle to particle faster than light through some other kind of mediation.

[willendure]

I have to disagree with Influx on this one - information is not represented by matter. Information is shared and distributed from matter to matter, but it whether it's a ray of light hitting your eye, or a particular frequency of sound moving through the air, or the data of a particular website moving through your fiber optic cable, information is always propagated a signal between matter.

Just the same, if quantum entanglement is in fact a phenomena that occurs instantaneously, then this means that information propagates faster than light, and that energy can be transmitted in some form faster than the speed of light. There's absolutely no way that entanglement can happen without the transfer of information. If the Particle A changes its spin from X to Y, and that instantaneously shifts Particle B's spin from Y to X, then the information of the change in state that occurred in Particle A absolutely had to be shared with Particle B in some way. If not, then that either means that (a) the shift in Particle B occurred randomly, and it just so happened that it occurred when Particle A shifted, or (b) that somehow, Particle B can gain new knowledge about Particle A, despite the fact that Particle B had absolutely no communication with Particle A. Which would be impossible.

Either entanglement is not actually occurring instantaneously and Einstein was right, or information can propagate from particle to particle faster than light through some other kind of mediation.

Entanglement can be faster than light, but cannot transfer information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[BecomingTesla]

If no information is being shared between Particle A and Particle B, then I'm sorry, but entanglement is not a real phenomena. Particle A and B happen to just change their spins at coincident times, making it seem like one affects the other. If Particle A doesn't send out, in some form, the new information about its change of state into the Universe so that Particle B can learn about the change of state, then there literally no possible way that Particle A can be affecting Particle B. What you're saying is equivalent to suggesting that one day, because you teach yourself calculus, I am going to instantaneously learn geometry, despite the fact that neither one of us has spoken to one another or communicated this new information with one another through any medium. Suggesting that that one can learn about the other, without speaking to *something* to learn about how Particle A has changed, is a completely break down of causality. You're welcome though to explain this theorem in more detail, to illuminate otherwise.

Unless Particle A and Particle B are communicating information, one isn't affecting the other. And if they are sharing information, then either (a) entanglement is not instantaneous or (b) special relativity doesn't hold, and information can propagate faster than light.

[BecomingTesla]

As a mathematical heuristic, quantum mathematics is great. As a physical theory, QM is the biggest mess I've ever freaking seen. This is what happens when you pass the torch from *actually* mechanists i.e. people who have to deal with the physical mechanisms of the real world and who interpret it within a rational way, over to mathematicians. Does the math work? Sure. Can you interpret that math into anything vaguely resembling a rational physical theory? No one seems to think so, and since the rise of mathematical formalism, no one from the culture of academic science even cares. So long as the mathematics work - and they do work, that can't be denied - no one cares about making actual sense of the world we live.

Physics isn't about physical science anymore, and to me, that's a problem. One that needs to be corrected.

[willendure]

No one cares about making actual sense of the world we live.

Maybe our senses deceive ourselves. Our perception of the world, is after all a model that exists in our minds that is the product of evolution that shaped use to survive and reproduce. QM seems very counter-intuitive, but that alone does not mean it is not a correct description of reality.

[BecomingTesla]

Our perception of the physical Universe is not the model, it can't ever possibly be the model because our perception is the experience itself. Our perception of the Universe *is the thing that is happening*. As Descartes asserted, the fact that you think is the only discernible proof that you have that you actually exist, and that this is all just *happening*. Our attempts to communicate that experience through language, either linguistically through words or mathematically through symbols, is where we build the model. Experience is the terrain, communication is the map. The fact that our ability to communicate with things at the atomic/sub-atomic level is limited (i.e. our ability to correctly receive and translate signals emitted from our interaction with them - our ability to "measure" them), doesn't change the fact that physically, the Universe only has one set of laws. Nature doesn't segregate, there is no "separate but equal" just because we've created "micro" and "macro" scales in our mind. If everything *above* the quantum scale operates through a describable and rational physical mechanism, then so does the quantum.

Quantum mathematics is a perfectly valid description of reality - it can be used to correctly predict the results of experiments. But a mathematical object that you can construct to symbolically represent a physical object might not necessarily *be* an object that exists in reality. And the fact that QM cannot be interpreted through a logically consistent physical theory means that the mathematical objects we're using to drive our experiments don't represent anything that is *physically* real. No physical object can be in two places at the same time, no physical objects can affect one another without some form of contact between them (either directly or through mediation), no physical objects pop in and out of existence like virtual particles - and they can't do this because it rejects logic, the same way that 1+1=3 rejects mathematical logic. When a particle is changing its spin from -1 to +1, this is a mathematical representation of a physical change that must be happening because it is producing a measurable result. If entanglement is real, and Particle A is affecting Particle B through this physical change, then there must be a mechanism that physically communicates this change to Particle B. Otherwise Particle B doesn't know - and can't possibly know - about the change in Particle A, so as to respond. Particle B cannot possibly respond to a command that it isn't being given.

When the one-fluid and two-fluid theories of electricity couldn't be used to create a consist physical theory to explain electrostatics and electromagnetism, Faraday decided to throw those ideas out and create his own physical theory using the lines of magnetic and electric induction as the medium. Maxwell was able to build a mathematical model to describe the theory, and the rest was history. If "particles" as a physical construct can't be used to rationally explain the experiments in QM, then they need to be discarded and a new object has to take its place.

[antosarai]

Perhaps you'd like reading Donald L. Hotson's seminal papers?

http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/HotsonIE86.pdf

[Frantic]

If "particles" as a physical construct can't be used to rationally explain the experiments in QM, then they need to be discarded and a new object has to take its place.

Exactly. As soon as the word "Virtual Particle" is used, that is something different, and it deserves a name.

A virtual particle is something that is not a particle, but its really close to it, that's what virtual means.

I could call a photon a virtual particle.

[scowie]

Our perception of the Universe *is the thing that is happening*

Which perception? You can have many individual perceptions of the world, all of which differ greatly. A simple thought experiment shows this...

Imagine you are lying in a very still crystal clear lake with one eye and one ear underwater and the other eye and ear open to the air. A meteorite strikes the lake some distance ahead of you. You would see and hear this occuring at 4 different times for the 4 relevant sensory organs. Your eye that is open to the air sees the surface of the lake struck first, followed some [rather short, of course,] time later by your submerged eye, then later still your submerged ear hears the strike, then lastly your open-air ear hears it. So which perception is true? Obviously none of them are. But with a brain capable of reasoning and knowledge of the laws of physics, it is possible to deduce when this event actually happened.

[Frantic]

Looks like we are getting into metaphysics now.

There is something to be said that each perception is unique, while that which is perceived is also unique. Such that they could never be one.

So to say the "perception of the Universe is the thing that is happening." Is in a sense pointing out that the Universe is not happening...It simply exists. The perception is what is happening.

Creating models of one's perception of the universe cannot be the same as a model of the universe.


But then what of perception? When it is no longer cognitive but algorithms? No longer organs but sensors? I have asked myself a question I cannot answer, I need to think on this one.

[Zyxzevn]

If "particles" as a physical construct can't be used to rationally explain the experiments in QM, then they need to be discarded and a new object has to take its place.

Exactly. As soon as the word "Virtual Particle" is used, that is something different, and it deserves a name.

A virtual particle is something that is not a particle, but its really close to it, that's what virtual means.

I could call a photon a virtual particle.

Virtual particles are "particles" that do not exist. We can not measure them.
There are even virtual photons that are necessary to explain electromagnetic forces when there are no
photons being exchanged. The normal static electric force, and static magnetic force already have this
necessity.
So this makes me conclude that forces are not at all transferred by particles. These particles are rather
pseudo-particles.

[BecomingTesla]

@antosari: Lol, those are actually a part of my library already. Read them and loved them, full of really fantastic ideas. At some point my research/teaching path will reach Dirac, and I'm really glad to have that info as a reference point for asking new, critical questions.

@Frantic and Zyxzevn: The idea of virtual particles is a bit ridiculous, and honestly, it stems from the rejection of just admitting that there needs to be a medium occupying space, where these short-lived forms of motion are measured. "Virtual", as a description of something occurring in our physical universe, doesn't make sense. And nothing simply pops in and out of existence. I likewise don't believe that forces are mediated by particles, but instead, various forms of motion within said medium, which is how we used to view the various forces of the Universe when they were significantly more unified in a physical/conception way.

@scowie: I have to respectfully disagree with you. When the meteorite strikes the ground, it emits two particular signals, one visual signal and one audio signal. As both of those signals propagate through their respective mediums, they're all affected by said mediums so that the signal carries all of that information with it when it reaches us. The signal received by my eye is determined by (a) the condition of my eye, and (b) the condition of the medium the signal was traveling in. The same is true for my eye underwater, and for both ears and their respective conditions. If I can determine (a) and (b), and understand how this would affect the unique, original signal, then I can determine how I should be interpreting the signal, based off of relative, base-line conditions. All four perspectives are not wrong, all of them are correct - they are the result of mechanical phenomena and the mechanical condition of my receiving apparatus.

[scowie]

@BecomingTesla: You havent disagreed with me there, other than about the semantics of what "true" or "wrong" means. When I said neither of these perceptions are true, I mean in terms of timing. The event doesn't occur when you see (or hear) it. It occured some time in the past and finding out when that was exactly requires doing some calculations.

It is possible to perceive one event happening before another when in reality it was the other way around. In that case your perception of the order of events is clearly wrong. My point is that there is a reality that is distinct from our perceptions. Our perceptions can be a puzzle that needs working out to get to the reality.