Posting #23:- A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
(See also our sister site reticsessays.com)
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by
Drs. Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be produced by
"local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm belief that
information could not travel faster than the velocity of light. Indeed, if this
were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky". Quantum theory required,
for example, that "paired photons" maintain polarizations which were opposite in
direction . If the polarization angle of one of the "paired photons" were
changed, the polarization angle of the other photon of the pair must
instantaneously change to match. ("Paired photons" are produced by the self
annihilation of an artificial atom composed of an electron and a positron. They
are polarized in opposite directions and are emitted in opposite directions.
Their polarization angle is, of course, random with respect to the external
world.)
Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions,
they rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous coupling of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite velocity
and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that information
could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they had to conclude
that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of "hidden variables".
(These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily hidden, one of them for
example, is the polarization coupling of "paired photons".Since this coupling
had been shown to propagate at an "impossible" infinite velocity, it was
necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea of "spookiness". If the effect
were accepted without the idea of "spookiness" it, the existence of an absolute
velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be accepted.
Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem remained.
An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen
School" of physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there was
only the reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to
Schroedinger's Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that would
be subject to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was detected
by instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the decay of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind this
was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This does not
seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that counts in
this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the observation by an
external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead prior to his observation,
it is one or the other, but not both. The fact that the observer does not know
is meaningless. It is only attributed as having meaning as a result of
intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is not a paradox.
A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum
theory is the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each particle
in the Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable "Parallel
Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our Universe began.
When one considers the number of particles in the Universe, the number of ways
in which they can interact, and the number of instants of time since the
Universe began, the number of Universes which are required under this theory is,
incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally incredible is that each of these
Universes contains the same amount of energy as our own and each of its
particles occupies the same space at the same time as do its brothers. This
interpretation seems to have a large number of believers of high reputation. In
spite of this, the writer has no qualms about asserting that any physicist who
would accept such a concept is in the wrong line of work. I understand that
Wal-Mart is hiring.
When one examines the concept that information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on the
fact that information is almost always encoded in the form of energy. Since the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation becomes
imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly cannot propagate
faster that the velocity of light. When information is encoded in the form of
the polarization angles of "paired photons", however, this limitation does not
occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its energy.
As a result, no energy transfer is involved in changing their polarization
angles. If one extracts the Lorentz Transformation for Angle using the
conventional Lorentz Transformations, one find that this transformation is unity
since angle is equal to a LENGTH along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the
radius of that arc. Accordingly, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle becomes
((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore, that the
relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation of the
polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to expect that
velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.
Physicists have also concluded that even if information could
be transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by their
source was completely random. This apparent limitation is not fundamental problem, it is a signal to noise ratio problem. The information is actually being transmittted but it is swamped by the noise level of background photons. If the singal to noise ratio of the transmission could be sufficiently improved,communicating over a distance
at a quasi-infinite velocity would be found to be perfectly feasible. The most dangerous
part of this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of "absolute
time" and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the
hare-brained concept of "space-time". (For diagram see "Block Diagram of Faster than Light Communicator". Omit the 45 degree polarizers. They may destroy the polarization coupling.)
The source material for this posting may be found in "The Einstein Hoax" (1997) ; "Gravity" (1987) ; and "Corrections to Special Relativity" (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the Postinglog.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.
To Other Links:-