Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Action at a Distance vs. Entanglement
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Rock Brentwood
Nov 18, 2011, 5:54:24 AM11/18/11
to
There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
(A) direct contact
(B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
This is a kind of "retro"-question. In the world of classical non-
relativistic theory, form (B) of Newton's Third Law gives us the
ability to wiggle an object at one spot and to have a corresponding
woggle take place a million miles away at the same time.
So the question that was never fully resolved before the advent of the
Relativity paradigm is: does this also provide a means for
communicating information or is the process somehow "fundamentally
uncontrollable" so that no information can be transmitted by means of
"Third Law Entanglement", to coin a phrase?
If we pose a non-relativistic analogue of the "no superluminal
communication" hypothesis -- a No Communication condition -- the form
it would take here is that simultaneous action at a distance (somehow)
cannot be used to transmit information. It is a principle entirely
appropriate in the setting of classical physics, since one of the main
points of criticism of Newton's theory (by Newton's contemporaries and
those who came after) was the ability that Newton's theory provides
for direct instantaneous communication over long distance.
So, if one starts with this No Communication premise, then the only
way to prevent wiggles from being able to produce woggles in a
controlled manner is for some kind of fundamental information-
destroying randomness to be incorporated in the phenomena covered by
form (B) of the Third Law.
The result is what looks like a golden route from classical non-
relativistic theory straight to non-relativistic quantum theory; in
which form (B) of the Third Law, coupled with the No Communication
condition, now becomes the phenomenon of non-relativistic quantum
entanglement. Direct Action at a Distance is downgraded to Direct
Influence at a Distance.
(A) direct contact
(B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
This is a kind of "retro"-question. In the world of classical non-
relativistic theory, form (B) of Newton's Third Law gives us the
ability to wiggle an object at one spot and to have a corresponding
woggle take place a million miles away at the same time.
So the question that was never fully resolved before the advent of the
Relativity paradigm is: does this also provide a means for
communicating information or is the process somehow "fundamentally
uncontrollable" so that no information can be transmitted by means of
"Third Law Entanglement", to coin a phrase?
If we pose a non-relativistic analogue of the "no superluminal
communication" hypothesis -- a No Communication condition -- the form
it would take here is that simultaneous action at a distance (somehow)
cannot be used to transmit information. It is a principle entirely
appropriate in the setting of classical physics, since one of the main
points of criticism of Newton's theory (by Newton's contemporaries and
those who came after) was the ability that Newton's theory provides
for direct instantaneous communication over long distance.
So, if one starts with this No Communication premise, then the only
way to prevent wiggles from being able to produce woggles in a
controlled manner is for some kind of fundamental information-
destroying randomness to be incorporated in the phenomena covered by
form (B) of the Third Law.
The result is what looks like a golden route from classical non-
relativistic theory straight to non-relativistic quantum theory; in
which form (B) of the Third Law, coupled with the No Communication
condition, now becomes the phenomenon of non-relativistic quantum
entanglement. Direct Action at a Distance is downgraded to Direct
Influence at a Distance.
ANS
Nov 19, 2011, 4:05:32 PM11/19/11
to
Although I have not thoroughly thought your scenario through, my first
instinct would be that such a "no superluminal communication"
condition would lead to internal inconsistencies. Perhaps it is due to
my lack of imagination, but I find it really hard to imagine that one
could not use the allowed action-at a distance to transgress the limit
of your proposed condition. Since you are the one proposing the idea,
I would say the burden is on you to show how this proposal could be
concretely implemented (i.e. which spells out exactly how it becomes
impossible not to take advantage or action at distance to communicate
faster than the proposed limit).
Apart from that, how do you enforce such a finite speed limit in a non-
relativistic theory? Since in a non-relativistic theory you could in
principle transform to a frame that is moving arbitrarily fast with
respect to your current one, it seems to me you would have to
formulate it in the form of an invariant speed limit, but then your
theory comes very close to being a relativistic theory (apart, from
the possible internal inconsistencies mentioned above).
Armin
Jos Bergervoet
Nov 19, 2011, 4:05:36 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 18, 11:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
wrote:
...
delay you are done. In the same way as Maxwell's theory
makes the Coulomb repulsion non-instantanious.
--
Jos
wrote:
...
> since one of the main
> points of criticism of Newton's theory (by Newton's contemporaries and
> those who came after) was the ability that Newton's theory provides
> for direct instantaneous communication over long distance.
>
> So, if one starts with this No Communication premise, then the only
> way to prevent wiggles from being able to produce woggles in a
> controlled manner is for some kind of fundamental information-
> destroying randomness to be incorporated in the phenomena
> covered by form (B) of the Third Law.
Why would that be the only way? If you just create time
> points of criticism of Newton's theory (by Newton's contemporaries and
> those who came after) was the ability that Newton's theory provides
> for direct instantaneous communication over long distance.
>
> So, if one starts with this No Communication premise, then the only
> way to prevent wiggles from being able to produce woggles in a
> controlled manner is for some kind of fundamental information-
> destroying randomness to be incorporated in the phenomena
> covered by form (B) of the Third Law.
delay you are done. In the same way as Maxwell's theory
makes the Coulomb repulsion non-instantanious.
--
Jos
ben6993
Nov 20, 2011, 4:07:14 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 18, 10:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
wrote:
My apologies for intruding with a non-standard and non-mathematical
interpretation of QM/QED. I hope that is OK given notice that I not
trying to claim that I am using standard QM.
I believe that QM/QED includes all the complex mathematics to cover
multidimensional quanta. Eg an electron oscillates/jitterbugs
(Zitterbewegung Interpretation) within 12 dimensions. Four of the
dimensions represent the world of real (non-complex numbers)
measurement outcomes. And the electron is a point particle in that
subset of 4D. To achieve a point particle status a particle must be
elementary and travel at speed c, but not necessarily at c linearly
(though linearity is not a given in QED) in the 4D of our real
measurements. The electron is rotating at speed c in its other 8
dimensions. That means an electron has a spacetime of its own (what I
call a spacetime bag, or just a bag). And that bag never loses its
contents, which is my definition of a quantum.
An electron has a field according to QM, but I claim that field is the
presence of the electron sub-particles in that 4D distributed beyond
the place where the electron wavefunction collapses on a
measurement.
I do not know how far that field extends, but the field is detectable
and so is a knowable. Perhaps to a very large distance with
diminishing wiggles with distance. (Also, small fields have smaller
sub-fields, and so on.)
If another particle was present with its own field (say another
electron), the two fields would affect one another to repel some of
the sub-electrons only. As all quanta of particles and fields have
their own bags (as they are travelling at c in some way in their 12D
structures) there is never any possibility of direct contact between
anything in the universe, only contact via field effects. Hence
there is no aether.
As there is no central core particle to an electron, ie as it is a bag
of sub-electrons, the jiggling and wiggling of the fields is a
wiggling an jiggling of the structure of the electrons. Ie an
interaction of sub-electrons. Such jiggling cannot produce a
repulsion if the 4D was all the electrons had, but the electrons have
more than just 4D.
Action at a distance is a spooky and incorrect side-effect of QM
eschewing sub-division of quanta whilst at the same time allowing
abstract mathematical space to be used in QM complex mathematics.
Instead imagine the sub-electrons interacting locally to one another.
The sub-electrons in the local region are pushed away from one
another. Looking at this as two distributions of the two sets of sub-
electrons across 3D space, over time. The two distributions become
skewed, with some of the sub-electrons pushed (say) nearer to the
centre of the distribution of sub-electrons. The central tendencies
of the two electrons will have moved away from each other. But it is
not spooky action at a distance of an indivisible electron. It is
local interaction of two dispersed bodies with a structure.
The re-arranged dispersions of the sub-electrons will show itself on a
measurement of the whole electron. In the sub-quanta idea, wave
function collapse is accompanied by the emission of an electron to
indicate the presence of the whole electron. But measurement turns
out to be more than just measurement. The photon always collapses the
field of the electron, that changes the spin state of the electron,
and that causes a new field for the new spin state. Hence the photon
does not simply 'measure' the spin of the electron in the two-slit
experiment. It collapses the field and creates a new field. The new
field never passes through the slit and hence there is no spookiness.
The photon collapses the electrical field by turning all the sub-
electrons into a BEC . A BEC is all sub-electrons in the same quantum
state. That means they are acting as an indivisible whole for an
instant. The photon is then released, with reduced energy, as it has
done its job of giving the the electron enough internal energy to
spark the BEC and change the electron spin state. The electron in its
new spin state instantly forms a new field and the BEC stage is
passed. It is fleeting. All this requires thinking of an electron
with an internal structure capable of forming a BEC.
I have been looking at sub-quanta implication, in a thread on
sci.physics.foundations, and I think that I have removed all the
spookiness in QM.
I think that people will look back and wonder why it took so long to
get rid of the spookiness and the failure to allow a sub-divided
quantum. It really is the only reason for the apparent spookiness.
It also parallels in physics the problem that complex i number had in
mathematics. Its name 'imaginary' and the implication that in some
way complex i was not a genuine number.
The same has happened in QM. QM is full of complex calculations. All
fine and useful. It is only their interpretation as unreal which is
hindering progress in interpretation of the results . QM is fine, the
interpreatations are at fault. Abstract mathematical spaces of QM are
real spaces in our universe. The wiggles in the other 8D of an
electron cause its field effects in our 4D. How can different
particles have different field effects if there is no underlying
structure in those 8D.
I am not really trying to undermine QM, merely to get it to accept
that it has implicit assumptions about multidimensionality embedded in
its complex algebra, which give rise to the fields. The full story
needs to be accepted. Quanta have sub-structures. Quanta have real
multidimensional form. And it is only the hangover from complex i
being somehow imaginary that stops a proper definition of a quantum,
and make the world seem spooky when it isn't.
It also perhaps runs against the grain, for many, to accept that not
only is complex maths a useful tool to somehow get the right results
by a conjuring trick, it is also a useful tool to describe reality.
Reality is more than the 4D space of non-complex measurements. Let the
electron have its rich internal structure acknowledged.
wrote:
interpretation of QM/QED. I hope that is OK given notice that I not
trying to claim that I am using standard QM.
I believe that QM/QED includes all the complex mathematics to cover
multidimensional quanta. Eg an electron oscillates/jitterbugs
(Zitterbewegung Interpretation) within 12 dimensions. Four of the
dimensions represent the world of real (non-complex numbers)
measurement outcomes. And the electron is a point particle in that
subset of 4D. To achieve a point particle status a particle must be
elementary and travel at speed c, but not necessarily at c linearly
(though linearity is not a given in QED) in the 4D of our real
measurements. The electron is rotating at speed c in its other 8
dimensions. That means an electron has a spacetime of its own (what I
call a spacetime bag, or just a bag). And that bag never loses its
contents, which is my definition of a quantum.
An electron has a field according to QM, but I claim that field is the
presence of the electron sub-particles in that 4D distributed beyond
the place where the electron wavefunction collapses on a
measurement.
I do not know how far that field extends, but the field is detectable
and so is a knowable. Perhaps to a very large distance with
diminishing wiggles with distance. (Also, small fields have smaller
sub-fields, and so on.)
If another particle was present with its own field (say another
electron), the two fields would affect one another to repel some of
the sub-electrons only. As all quanta of particles and fields have
their own bags (as they are travelling at c in some way in their 12D
structures) there is never any possibility of direct contact between
anything in the universe, only contact via field effects. Hence
there is no aether.
As there is no central core particle to an electron, ie as it is a bag
of sub-electrons, the jiggling and wiggling of the fields is a
wiggling an jiggling of the structure of the electrons. Ie an
interaction of sub-electrons. Such jiggling cannot produce a
repulsion if the 4D was all the electrons had, but the electrons have
more than just 4D.
Action at a distance is a spooky and incorrect side-effect of QM
eschewing sub-division of quanta whilst at the same time allowing
abstract mathematical space to be used in QM complex mathematics.
Instead imagine the sub-electrons interacting locally to one another.
The sub-electrons in the local region are pushed away from one
another. Looking at this as two distributions of the two sets of sub-
electrons across 3D space, over time. The two distributions become
skewed, with some of the sub-electrons pushed (say) nearer to the
centre of the distribution of sub-electrons. The central tendencies
of the two electrons will have moved away from each other. But it is
not spooky action at a distance of an indivisible electron. It is
local interaction of two dispersed bodies with a structure.
The re-arranged dispersions of the sub-electrons will show itself on a
measurement of the whole electron. In the sub-quanta idea, wave
function collapse is accompanied by the emission of an electron to
indicate the presence of the whole electron. But measurement turns
out to be more than just measurement. The photon always collapses the
field of the electron, that changes the spin state of the electron,
and that causes a new field for the new spin state. Hence the photon
does not simply 'measure' the spin of the electron in the two-slit
experiment. It collapses the field and creates a new field. The new
field never passes through the slit and hence there is no spookiness.
The photon collapses the electrical field by turning all the sub-
electrons into a BEC . A BEC is all sub-electrons in the same quantum
state. That means they are acting as an indivisible whole for an
instant. The photon is then released, with reduced energy, as it has
done its job of giving the the electron enough internal energy to
spark the BEC and change the electron spin state. The electron in its
new spin state instantly forms a new field and the BEC stage is
passed. It is fleeting. All this requires thinking of an electron
with an internal structure capable of forming a BEC.
I have been looking at sub-quanta implication, in a thread on
sci.physics.foundations, and I think that I have removed all the
spookiness in QM.
I think that people will look back and wonder why it took so long to
get rid of the spookiness and the failure to allow a sub-divided
quantum. It really is the only reason for the apparent spookiness.
It also parallels in physics the problem that complex i number had in
mathematics. Its name 'imaginary' and the implication that in some
way complex i was not a genuine number.
The same has happened in QM. QM is full of complex calculations. All
fine and useful. It is only their interpretation as unreal which is
hindering progress in interpretation of the results . QM is fine, the
interpreatations are at fault. Abstract mathematical spaces of QM are
real spaces in our universe. The wiggles in the other 8D of an
electron cause its field effects in our 4D. How can different
particles have different field effects if there is no underlying
structure in those 8D.
I am not really trying to undermine QM, merely to get it to accept
that it has implicit assumptions about multidimensionality embedded in
its complex algebra, which give rise to the fields. The full story
needs to be accepted. Quanta have sub-structures. Quanta have real
multidimensional form. And it is only the hangover from complex i
being somehow imaginary that stops a proper definition of a quantum,
and make the world seem spooky when it isn't.
It also perhaps runs against the grain, for many, to accept that not
only is complex maths a useful tool to somehow get the right results
by a conjuring trick, it is also a useful tool to describe reality.
Reality is more than the 4D space of non-complex measurements. Let the
electron have its rich internal structure acknowledged.
Thomas Smid
Nov 20, 2011, 9:23:17 PM11/20/11
to
> There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
> (A) direct contact
> (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
There is no such thing as 'direct contact'. Even two macroscopic
> (A) direct contact
> (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
bodies 'in contact' interact via 'action-at-a-distance' (namely the
Coulomb force).
Fundamental forces have to be of the 'action-at-a-distance' type by
definition.Otherwise you would be conceptually inconsistent.
Thomas
Rock Brentwood
Nov 23, 2011, 6:02:28 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 10:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
> > (A) direct contact
> > (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> > The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
>
> There is no such thing as 'direct contact'.
By "direct contact", of course, we mean any kind of cobordism. This
> On Nov 18, 10:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
> > (A) direct contact
> > (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> > The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
>
> There is no such thing as 'direct contact'.
can either mean processes of the form in which 3 or more worldline
segments intersect in a common space-time point (not really a
cobordism, since a branch is not a 1-D manifold technically, but still
the same concept) or in which 3 or more branes split off in a common
region. An example of this is the way vertices are treated in string
theory or loop quantum gravity.
It's actually the other way around: there is no such thing as action
at a distance (at least, not when we're in the Relativistic setting),
but only direct contact. This restriction is couched in 2 No Go
theorems: the Leutwyler Theorem in the classical domain (i.e. the non-
existence of many-body dynamics with non-zero interaction potentials)
and the Haag Theorem in the quantum domain (i.e., the non-existence of
many-body state spaces with non-trivial interactions).
This, of course, puts the spotlight on the peculiar nature of Form B
of Newton's Third Law in non-relativistic theory.
So, partly for this reason, all interactions are modelled in quantum
field theory, via a retreat to perturbation theory, by vertices; in
other words: by ONLY direct contact, nothing else.
We see this actually occur, for instance, in bubble chambers by the
emergence of 3 or more particle tracks out of a common point. You may
want to argue that there's something deeper (and as-yet unseen) going
on in the region out of which the 3+ tracks emerge, but good luck
finding a consistent formalism for it ... as of yet, there is no
consistent comprehensive *non-perturbative* account of interacting
fields in 4+ spacetime dimensions.
The restriction against interaction in relativity arises from the fact
that there is no Newton's Third Law (of form B) in relativistic
theory, since the "simultaneous" in "simultaneous action at a
distance" no longer has invariant meaning. Therefore, Relativity
forbids the existence of direct interactions at a distance across
space; with the inconsistency thus leading to the 2 no go theorems,
the Leutwyler and Haag theorems.
The actual conditions used in the theorem (the Leutwyler theorem, at
least) are: (a) a system of bodies, (b) angular momenta are additive,
(c) momenta are additive, (d) energy is additive modulo a potential
energy term, (e) an auxiliary condition on the mass moment (e.g. a
"worldline condition"). The resulting conclusion that follows is that
the potential energy must be 0.
Again, this underscores the peculiar nature of Newton's Third Law.
> Even two macroscopic bodies 'in contact' interact via
> 'action-at-a-distance' (namely the Coulomb force).
> Fundamental forces have to be of the 'action-at-a-distance' type by
Again, by the above account (in the relativistic setting) it's the
other way around: fundamental forces must NOT be action-at-a-distance,
or that would be both conceptually *and* mathematically inconsistent.
In the non-relativistic setting, on the other hand, it's not actually
a dichotomy at all, despite my characterization of it as one. An
action-at-a-distance contact between the wiggle of body A and the
woggle of a remotely situated body B can equally well be cast as the
direct contact of both bodies A and B with an intermediary C, where C
belongs to the (still-unnamed) massless symplectic representation of
the Galilei group.
So, when smearing this out in time, a continuously acting force can be
equally regarded as a stream of C's in time (a kind of C "fluid",
except that "density" means temporal-density or "number of C's per
unit time", rather than spatial density).
The characteristic properties of this class (which I have elsewhere
coined the name "synchron" for) are (a) zero mass (i.e. zero central
charge), (b) non-zero momentum (i.e. spatially inhomogeneous but not
totally so; in fact the little group includes one degree of spatial
translation symmetry), (c) temporally inhomogeneous (unlike ordinary
particle representations), (d) the time t and kinetic energy H are
canonically conjugate variables (at the quantum level, this leads to a
time-energy uncertainty relation), (e) the square momentum P^2 is an
invariant (i.e. a square impulse), (f) the existence of a zero-energy
frame of reference (but not unique). In other words: it's the class
corresponding to non-zero transfers of impulse across space at an
instant, at a specific time.
Classically, we just called this representation a "line of force", but
prior to the early to mid 20th century, it wouldn't have been clearly
understood that it could have well-defined properties, since the
concept of the centrally extended Galilei group had not yet been fully
in place, much less the treatment of Lie groups as in the setting of
Poisson and symplectic geometries (that didn't fully emerge until the
1960's with Berezin being one of the early figures).
So the original question can be equivalently rephrased: can synchrons
be used to transmit information?
Thomas Smid
Nov 29, 2011, 3:38:46 PM11/29/11
to
On Nov 23, 11:02 pm, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
wrote:
occupy the same point in space. This is conceptually inconsistent and
physically impossible (as the potential term would become infinite).
It is quite obvious that quantum field theory has been motivated by
the ancient (and inconsistent) view that forces can only be
transmitted by direct contact (i.e, paradoxically, microscopic forces
are explained by macroscopic forces). As you may know, even Newton was
still influenced by this ancient view that direct contact is required
to explain force actions. Unfortunately, he apparently didn't quite
understand the significance of his own theory.
Thomas
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 10:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
> > > (A) direct contact
> > > (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> > > The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
>
> > There is no such thing as 'direct contact'.
>
> > On Nov 18, 10:54 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > There are two forms of Newton's Third Law:
> > > (A) direct contact
> > > (B) action/reaction-at-a-distance
> > > The topic of the article pertains to form (B).
>
> > There is no such thing as 'direct contact'.
> It's actually the other way around: there is no such thing as action
> at a distance (at least, not when we're in the Relativistic setting),
> but only direct contact. This restriction is couched in 2 No Go
> theorems: the Leutwyler Theorem in the classical domain (i.e. the non-
> existence of many-body dynamics with non-zero interaction potentials)
> and the Haag Theorem in the quantum domain (i.e., the non-existence of
> many-body state spaces with non-trivial interactions).
>
> This, of course, puts the spotlight on the peculiar nature of Form B
> of Newton's Third Law in non-relativistic theory.
>
> So, partly for this reason, all interactions are modelled in quantum
> field theory, via a retreat to perturbation theory, by vertices; in
> other words: by ONLY direct contact, nothing else.
'Direct contact' between two particles would mean that they have to
> at a distance (at least, not when we're in the Relativistic setting),
> but only direct contact. This restriction is couched in 2 No Go
> theorems: the Leutwyler Theorem in the classical domain (i.e. the non-
> existence of many-body dynamics with non-zero interaction potentials)
> and the Haag Theorem in the quantum domain (i.e., the non-existence of
> many-body state spaces with non-trivial interactions).
>
> This, of course, puts the spotlight on the peculiar nature of Form B
> of Newton's Third Law in non-relativistic theory.
>
> So, partly for this reason, all interactions are modelled in quantum
> field theory, via a retreat to perturbation theory, by vertices; in
> other words: by ONLY direct contact, nothing else.
occupy the same point in space. This is conceptually inconsistent and
physically impossible (as the potential term would become infinite).
It is quite obvious that quantum field theory has been motivated by
the ancient (and inconsistent) view that forces can only be
transmitted by direct contact (i.e, paradoxically, microscopic forces
are explained by macroscopic forces). As you may know, even Newton was
still influenced by this ancient view that direct contact is required
to explain force actions. Unfortunately, he apparently didn't quite
understand the significance of his own theory.
Thomas
Anon E. Mouse
Jan 17, 2012, 3:58:42 PM1/17/12
to
On Nov 23 2011, 7:02 pm, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com>
wrote:
returning to the original question of "Action at a distance vs
Entanglement" I would first say that the historical evidence strongly
indicates that Newton was deeply aware of the criticism of this
theories and his personal decision stated as, "I form no hypothesis."
supports this assertion on my part and I feel his statement represents
the conservative scientific point of view appropriate for that time
period.
With the advent of relativity a hypothesis that the effect of mass
attraction was mediated by a curvature or other deformation of space-
time became plausible and based on mountains of supporting data it is
now a VERY likely hypothesis.
By this means the "occult" or inexplicable and unexplained "force" of
gravitation became explicable in terms of a deformation of space and
time.
In a highly similar manner Maxwell was and is capable of explaining
electromagnetic effects, once considered mystical, in terms of
magnetic force arising due to a deformation of the electric field, and
vis versa.
Taking the preceding statements as a very brief characterization of
classical physics the question of simultaneity is first raised up by
Lorentz and then well addressed by Einstein.
Both views show that the degree of non-simultaneousness is limited by
consideration of relative velocity. For common planetary orbits the
velocities are relatively low compared to the speed of light and the
Newtonian precession of the Mars orbit is equal to the Eisensteinian
precession to within parts per billion - approximately 38 arc seconds
per century.
In the context of quantum theory where relative velocities are much
more nearly the speed of light relativistic effects become dominant
and our ability to observe effects internal to the atom are severely
limited as is our ability to model these effects by classical methods.
Additionally, classical forces if they are taken to be smooth and
uniform in their action over all given distances appear insufficient
to account for the observed data.
Given these facts a conceptual framework that parses the domains
described in these theories in any convenient manner adopting such
constraints as seem reasonable makes sense.
However, to then expend these statistical models and rigid frames back
into the classical realm makes little sense to me. Classical models as
given or as modified by relativity work better for solving classical
problems and they seem a lot less occult to most observers now than
they did a century or two ago.
In this context entanglement which is a supposition about the possible
past interaction of particle-waves seems an independent question
relating only to particle physics and not a general question to be
addressed by classical physics.
In terms of the classic basis for entanglement recent weak measure
experiments strongly indicate that the both photons and particle beams
pass either one slit or the other and not either nor both.
Therefor it is now reasonable to suppose that entanglement indicated
by the observed interference pattern is mediated by a previously
unidentified interactions between the passing particle waves of the
beam and the more nearly stationary particle waves of the slits.
AAG
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"The restriction against interaction in relativity arises from the
fact that there is no Newton's Third Law (of form B) in relativistic
theory, since the "simultaneous" in "simultaneous action at a
distance" no longer has invariant meaning. Therefore, Relativity
forbids the existence of direct interactions at a distance across
space; with the inconsistency thus leading to the 2 no go theorems,
the Leutwyler and Haag theorems."
This discussion has become quite wide ranging and a little diffuse,
>
"The restriction against interaction in relativity arises from the
fact that there is no Newton's Third Law (of form B) in relativistic
theory, since the "simultaneous" in "simultaneous action at a
distance" no longer has invariant meaning. Therefore, Relativity
forbids the existence of direct interactions at a distance across
space; with the inconsistency thus leading to the 2 no go theorems,
the Leutwyler and Haag theorems."
returning to the original question of "Action at a distance vs
Entanglement" I would first say that the historical evidence strongly
indicates that Newton was deeply aware of the criticism of this
theories and his personal decision stated as, "I form no hypothesis."
supports this assertion on my part and I feel his statement represents
the conservative scientific point of view appropriate for that time
period.
With the advent of relativity a hypothesis that the effect of mass
attraction was mediated by a curvature or other deformation of space-
time became plausible and based on mountains of supporting data it is
now a VERY likely hypothesis.
By this means the "occult" or inexplicable and unexplained "force" of
gravitation became explicable in terms of a deformation of space and
time.
In a highly similar manner Maxwell was and is capable of explaining
electromagnetic effects, once considered mystical, in terms of
magnetic force arising due to a deformation of the electric field, and
vis versa.
Taking the preceding statements as a very brief characterization of
classical physics the question of simultaneity is first raised up by
Lorentz and then well addressed by Einstein.
Both views show that the degree of non-simultaneousness is limited by
consideration of relative velocity. For common planetary orbits the
velocities are relatively low compared to the speed of light and the
Newtonian precession of the Mars orbit is equal to the Eisensteinian
precession to within parts per billion - approximately 38 arc seconds
per century.
In the context of quantum theory where relative velocities are much
more nearly the speed of light relativistic effects become dominant
and our ability to observe effects internal to the atom are severely
limited as is our ability to model these effects by classical methods.
Additionally, classical forces if they are taken to be smooth and
uniform in their action over all given distances appear insufficient
to account for the observed data.
Given these facts a conceptual framework that parses the domains
described in these theories in any convenient manner adopting such
constraints as seem reasonable makes sense.
However, to then expend these statistical models and rigid frames back
into the classical realm makes little sense to me. Classical models as
given or as modified by relativity work better for solving classical
problems and they seem a lot less occult to most observers now than
they did a century or two ago.
In this context entanglement which is a supposition about the possible
past interaction of particle-waves seems an independent question
relating only to particle physics and not a general question to be
addressed by classical physics.
In terms of the classic basis for entanglement recent weak measure
experiments strongly indicate that the both photons and particle beams
pass either one slit or the other and not either nor both.
Therefor it is now reasonable to suppose that entanglement indicated
by the observed interference pattern is mediated by a previously
unidentified interactions between the passing particle waves of the
beam and the more nearly stationary particle waves of the slits.
AAG
0 new messages