Quanta Disentangled

Francisco writes:

After discovering your blog I've read everything you have posted and am quite in agreement with your 10 assumptions of science.

I would like to ask how you would explain the phenomenon of quantum entanglement through neomechanics. Do you have any hypothesis on it?

With regards,
Francisco Aguilar 

Thanks for the great question Francisco. I must admit that I have not studied quantum entanglement in much detail. It is quite complicated, but let me hit the highlights from the neomechanical viewpoint. If you are really in agreement with "The Ten Assumptions of Science," then you must understand that quantum mechanics (QM) remains mired in disagreements about causality and uncertainty.

Above all, the mainstream refuses to assume infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) even though particle accelerators and telescopes continually provide support for that assumption. As you know, along with infinity, we assume causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). This means that any two particles (microcosms), whether “entangled” or not, are bathed in a macrocosm containing an infinite sea of infinitely smaller and smaller particles. Many in the mainstream believe, like Einstein (mostly), that space, instead, is completely empty.

Wikipedia states that:

“Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photonselectronsmolecules as large as buckyballs,[1][2] and even small diamonds[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as  position,[5] momentumspinpolarization, etc.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, their shared state is indefinite until measured.[6]Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.[8]

Paradoxes such as wave-particle duality and the EPR Paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935) are a result of aether denial. I like to explain wave-particle duality this way: A ship enshrouded in fog at sea makes waves, but cannot be seen. It would be silly to assume that the ship itself was a wave. Without the aether, the QM folks have no other choice.

Here is a good description of The EPR Paradox from Wikipedia (2012):

“The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B, [which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[9]According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, the exact momentum of particle B can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ... [particle] B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum. ... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."

EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.[10]

EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics: Quantum theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment purports to show that they must all have determinate values. The EPR paper says: "We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."[11]

The EPR paper ends by saying:

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.”

Note that Einstein’s beef is that the wave function is not a “complete description.” Nevertheless, like the classical mechanists, he believed that one is possible, maybe by taking into account “intrinsic” properties of the particle. Remember that only believers in finity demand “complete” anything. Of course, the QM folks resorted to probability (a measure of what is known and what is not known) to avoid what was staring them in the face: that causality is infinite. The infinite universe provides plenty of supermicrocosms to provide at least a modest connection between any two particles per the Tenth Assumption of Science (interconnection [All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion].


Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., 1935, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? ( http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1 ): Physical Review, v. 47, no. 10, p. 777-780.


No comments: