entanglement

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

entanglement

Postby ossium70 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:40 am

Okay here is a good one to explore. does the information of a reacting entangled particle travel faster than the speed of light.

Quote:
Einstein and his colleagues were very uncomfortable when they heard about quantum entanglement and devised the EPR paradox to 'prove' that it couldn't be true (meaning that while you hadn't observed the particle yet it still has a state). It was proved in one line of algebra that this idea of "hidden" variables couldn't be true.

As I said above though, quantum entanglement still does not imply faster than light communication. You cannot affect which state the particle goes into, even though it doesn't 'decide' on its state until you observe it.

but the fact is that the observation of the one particle colapses the probablity of the other particles state, so if one is 2 then the other is 1 and vise versa effects both.

so no matter what you do to an entangles particle say its value is one just as a representation, its entangled particle no matter where in the universe it is its value cannot be 1 at the very instant that you observed the particle on the other end of the universe to be 1.

now i know u cant determine the out come of the first particle but as soon as its valuse is obsrved the other is opposite. so information is transmited faster than the speed of light but at random.

i cant think of ne other way to put this so try to wrap ur head around this.
ossium70
Mononian
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 5:47 am

Instant communication

Postby lobster » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:56 am

Entanglement, as you suggest, :) with a stream of entangled particles, gives us digital instant communication. It breaks the artificial barrier of time and light speed.

There may be some travel mechanism involving the theoretical higgs boson. A particle with both zero and infinite mass - thus not violating Einsteins theory of relativity.

http://www.zen45800.zen.co.uk/projex5/page3.htm

:)
Open Source Time Travel
Tmxxine
lobster
Mononian
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:54 am

Postby PWrong » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:35 pm

As far as I understand, it's pretty much as you describe it. When I read about it is was described the other way around. So if one particle is observed in state |1> then the other will also be |1>.
The communication is faster than light, but you can't actually send any information with it.

I can't remember the details, but this is the idea behind quantum teleportation (which is actually not instantaneous).
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby itzclay » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:35 am

Time does not actually exist. It is a perception of the brain used to understand the world around us. Our brain receives 24 images per second, and that is what our perception of time is based on. We also operate on certain frequencies, and frequencies that are outside that range are invisible to us. However, using math and logic, you can imagine them in the same way you can use flatland to understand the 4th and higher dimensions.

During extreme times, such as accidents people report that "time slows down". Well, for them and their perspective time does appear to slow down. The reason being the brain for a limited period of time(I would guess at the expense of extra energy) produces more than 24 images per second which distorts our normal perception and time appears to slow down. During this time, everyone else is still operating at 24 images and time seems the same for them. While you're brain is getting those extra images, you will also be able to see things which you normally wouldn't as your brain is receiving a new perspective.

Imagine if you were a boat on the ocean, and the waves came at a constant rate that never changed. Lets say a new peak of the wave every 5 seconds. Now, imagine if your brain only received 1 image in that 5 seconds. #1 Time would appear to go by very fast(5 seconds would be like 1/24th of a second to us), and #2 if you are on top of the wave, and they were constant you would see the exact same picture over and over. It would appear as though there were no waves at all. What tunes all humans to the same frequency is our DNA, as those particles have shown to act differently in the presence of DNA(collapses the wave function).

So then, on to entanglement. As all things are infinite, then as such so is any perception of time. Which means some things are most definetly happening faster than we can see, and faster than we can measure.

I was watching the move what the bleep do we know. And in it, it mentions someone who was performing brain surgery and did a test. While the skull was open, he did a local and woke the patent. He then pinched his hand and asked to tell him when he felt it. He then found where the brain produced the feeling to time the reactions. When he started, he expected that when he produced the effect in the brain, it would happen instantly, but when doing it on the hand, their would be a delay in the response from the hand to the brain. What he found was the exact opposite. That when produced in the brain, there was a delay as the response had to travel to the body part, and when applied to the body part it was instant. Which leads to the theory that the brain in fact had to go forward in time to give the instant touch feeling instantly.

All completely and logically possible with the realization that time is merely a perception based on our frequencies, and that somethings operate at higher and lower frequencies, some beyond points we can measure.

The only way we can see/understand other frequencies is with technology. For example infrared and ultraviolet light. While not visible to the naked eye, they were found by going beyond the spectrum, but predicted before hand due to math. Once a device was made that could read it, it was just a matter of putting the range onto frequencies we can see to represent it.

The universe described is not how the universe is at all. Rather, it is the description of it provided by our senses. So in order to get a better understanding, you need to understand the limits of our senses and apply logic to find direction beyond that. Once the path is visualized, it's only a matter of - time - before it becomes reality.
itzclay
Mononian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:23 am

Postby papernuke » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:07 pm

itzclay wrote:Time does not actually exist. It is a perception of the brain used to understand the world around us. Our brain receives 24 images per second, and that is what our perception of time is based on. We also operate on certain frequencies, and frequencies that are outside that range are invisible to us. However, using math and logic, you can imagine them in the same way you can use flatland to understand the 4th and higher dimensions.


if there were no time, then how would we be able to do anything? the universe would just be suspended. and not move.

and what do you mean our by brain can only receive 24 pics a second?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby Nick » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:18 pm

papernuke wrote:
itzclay wrote:Time does not actually exist. It is a perception of the brain used to understand the world around us. Our brain receives 24 images per second, and that is what our perception of time is based on. We also operate on certain frequencies, and frequencies that are outside that range are invisible to us. However, using math and logic, you can imagine them in the same way you can use flatland to understand the 4th and higher dimensions.


if there were no time, then how would we be able to do anything? the universe would just be suspended. and not move.

and what do you mean our by brain can only receive 24 pics a second?


The eye takes many pictures of your surroundings per second and sends them to your brain. Your brain can only understand about 24 of the pictures, depending on your awareness and (for lack of a better word) energy.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby papernuke » Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:02 am

we can only see 24 pictures per second?!? and one picture is indentified as a frame of light that enters your eye at a particular moment?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby itzclay » Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:22 am

Yes, We only see 24 frames per second, but there are actually many more frames possible per second. I actually learned this play video games.

Any gamer knows frames per seconds are extremely important. At first, I thought "I must see in greater than 24 fps", because I can tell a difference between my monitor pushing out 20 fps, and 60 fps. However, thats not true.

As the 24 frames per second you see are spread out evenly over that second, into 24 parts/pulses. So, why would I be able to recognize the difference between a monitor running at 30 fps, and one running at 80 fps?

Because a computer can put out 30 frames per second, but still not hit at the exact time as the the 24 frames you see per second. If the screen is blank during 1 of those 24 times per second, you see a flicker. So while we can only see in 24 fps, computer games need more than 24 fps as the frames it puts out every second aren't exactly in line with our eyes.

If a monitor was able to somehow sync up with your vision, you would never need more than 24 frames per second in a video game.

So, what keeps TV from flickering? Because the film is solid, not generated from a blank screen 24+ times per second. As such, the film and image itself is present during every possible frame.

Futhermore, these pictures per second we see determine our reality of time. If we were to get many more pictures per second then time would appear to "slow down" to us. As has been noted by people in car crashes. The event appears to happen in slow motion because your brain recognizes the danger and temporarly increases the images per second.
itzclay
Mononian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:23 am

Postby Keiji » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:10 pm

I've been seeing rather a lot of ignorant posts from you, itzclay. Read up on things.

So, what keeps TV from flickering? Because the film is solid, not generated from a blank screen 24+ times per second. As such, the film and image itself is present during every possible frame.


Stuff displayed on a computer screen is just as "solid" as stuff on a TV screen, as you like to call it. Both computer displays and television displays and both CRT and TFT are drawn in exactly the same way. The screen redraws a particular pixel, moves right, draws that pixel a fraction of a second later, repeat, and when it gets to the end of the line it waits a bit, goes to the next line and starts drawing again. When it gets to the bottom, it waits a bit, and goes back to the top. No matter what happens, only a single pixel is changing at any point in time.

The screen certainly does NOT start each frame completely black and then draw everything onto it in the order the program specifies (unless it was meant to happen, in which case it would be deliberately and noticeably slow). Software or hardware buffers do this "random-access" drawing, and send the pixel data in the correct order to the screen at the same time.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby papernuke » Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:47 am

But is quantum entanglement (or just entanglement) even possible? can information (of the entangled particles) really travel instantaneously? or is it just theorized?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby itzclay » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:42 pm

Hayate wrote:I've been seeing rather a lot of ignorant posts from you, itzclay. Read up on things.

So, what keeps TV from flickering? Because the film is solid, not generated from a blank screen 24+ times per second. As such, the film and image itself is present during every possible frame.


Stuff displayed on a computer screen is just as "solid" as stuff on a TV screen, as you like to call it. Both computer displays and television displays and both CRT and TFT are drawn in exactly the same way. The screen redraws a particular pixel, moves right, draws that pixel a fraction of a second later, repeat, and when it gets to the end of the line it waits a bit, goes to the next line and starts drawing again. When it gets to the bottom, it waits a bit, and goes back to the top. No matter what happens, only a single pixel is changing at any point in time.

The screen certainly does NOT start each frame completely black and then draw everything onto it in the order the program specifies (unless it was meant to happen, in which case it would be deliberately and noticeably slow). Software or hardware buffers do this "random-access" drawing, and send the pixel data in the correct order to the screen at the same time.


I was referring to gaming and lag, where even though you have more frames per second than the eye can physically see, you are still able to see moments of lag/freeze or a slight studder even when the frame rate is above 24 frames per second. Because the 24 frames you see per second happen over a specific intervals of time, and when changes in the picture don't change in that period of time, you get a flicker. It is a common thing noticed by many gamers.

If you want to nitpick about if it's a blank screen or the image or how the image is placed, be my guest. But you would be ignoring the main point. In the end, the monitor during gaming puts off a number of frames per second. If you get less than 24 frames per second the studder is easy to see, but it happens even when you get above 24 frames per second and I was describing in general what happened.

Where this is significant had nothing to do with the monitors itself. It has to do with the waves, which also share the same properties as a frames per second, or anything else which works in intervals and has a frequency, and how when things are sync'd. As if a wave had a frequency where it peaked 24 times per second over even intervals, and your vision was also in sync at that same frequency, you would always see that wave in the same place, like a single particle, rather than a wave.

But by all means, feel free to call me ignorant for not being perfect in my comparisons, if you weren't nitpicking maybe you would have seen the point I was trying to make overall. I thought this was a forum where people could discuss theories and ideas, I didn't realize there would be some admin coming along trying to grade the details and call people ignorant to feed his ego.

And again, time does not exist because the universe does not move. It is like a painting, where all things past and future have happened, on an infinite level. The only thing which moves is your conscious, and the number of frames per second you see is what gives the reality of time. It is your perception which is looking at a small portion of this already created universe that limits what you see. Similar to looking at small detail on a big picture. It is very hard for me to explain this.

It's like, take what you know to be as a linear time line. Now, rather than looking at them as being seperate times, think of them as existing all right now. Imagine if you could take on the perspective of being outside the earth. And you added everything on that time line as existing right now. The earth would look like a big long tube. That is a fraction of what the universe looks like. But, in your perseption you create time, where you take that bigger picture, and you break it into smaller parts, or milliseconds in time or whatever. Then just like a movie film, you view each section in even intervals.

How is it that the brain can slow down time during emergencies before the emergency even happens? Because it already knows it's going to happen, because the only time that really exists is now.

And of course, the question of free will. As I said above, that would only be a fraction of the actual universe. Because the universe is infinite, and everything that can happen is happening, and physics are all the same. But you just keep stacking other timelines together. So, as you make choices, you are jumping timelines, dimensions all the time. The only way free will can truly exist is in an infinite universe. As anything less and we are merely computer programs of action and reaction.

So you can mock and call me ignorant all you want. But when it comes to things like time travel, they will be making a model of the universe that is just like what I see.
itzclay
Mononian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:23 am

Postby Keiji » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:37 pm

I was referring to gaming and lag


If there is lag, the game just doesn't draw a frame there. No change in what's on the screen means the motion looks jerky, not that you see a blank frame.

Where this is significant had nothing to do with the monitors itself. It has to do with the waves, which also share the same properties as a frames per second, or anything else which works in intervals and has a frequency, and how when things are sync'd. As if a wave had a frequency where it peaked 24 times per second over even intervals, and your vision was also in sync at that same frequency, you would always see that wave in the same place, like a single particle, rather than a wave.


Yes, so if a CRT monitor refreshed at exactly 24 Hz, you'd see part of the screen blank at all times. This is why monitors refresh faster than that.

As for what you're saying about time, that belongs in the R&TT forum, not here.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby itzclay » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:53 am

Yes, they have to refresh faster than what they eyes can see, because even if it refreshes 24 times per second, it would have to be in sync and show those frames at exactly the same times. Thus, if it refreshed at 50 hz, if during 1 of the 24 frames you see per second was blank, you get a flicker effect.

This is the point I was making. Because if it is possible to do things faster than the eyes can see, then it is again your perception of the universe that makes it appear as so. If you could see 25 frames per second, you would then see more things, and time would appear to be slower for you because you have more frames per second.

Time is 100% relevant to entanglement. Considering what makes the effect most significant is that it happens instantly, a factor of time. If you don't have a good grasp of what time really is, then how can you understand entanglement? As entanglement in many ways breaks down the entire concept of time, space and the separations the 2 bring.

Everything is relevant to everything. Didn't really think that point would need to be argued here. And if you wish to break subjects into parts like a teacher would, then turn it into a lesson rather than a discussion. Sure, if I were to make a topic only on time, with time as it's focus then I would make a topic there. But to just ignore or put down related discussions in a theory discussion, is just plain silly.

I hope you get off your ego trip. Either way, have a nice day, cuz I think I've pretty much lost all interest in having discussions in this type of environment. Obviously you could have grasped the concept I was referring to, and rather than fine tune or clarify the concept in a way that was helpful, you decided to call me ignorant for it.
itzclay
Mononian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:23 am

Postby zero » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:09 am

The claim being made about the human eye having a specified "frame rate" sounds like it may have an interesting concept somewhere inside it, one that could conceivably be expanded on with a little more careful attention to detailed empirical evidence. After all, there has to be some sort of limit on how quickly we're able to process information, visual or otherwise. Isn't there?

On the other hand, i can also understand the natural skepticism with which extraordinary claims are properly greeted. This doesn't mean the person who doesn't quite believe you is being hostile. It just means you have more explaining to do before it becomes reasonable to expect something that sounds so outrageous will be accepted as an actual fact.

Personally, I don't think the idea of a frame rate is really applicable to the way biological eyes actually work, so a literal reading is bound to elicit disbelief.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Postby Keiji » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 am

itzclay wrote:But to just ignore or put down related discussions in a theory discussion, is just plain silly.


The forum index wrote:Theories
Theories involving the use of a fourth spatial dimension.


Try reading next time.

I've had enough of this nonsense by now, so locked.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England


Return to Where Should I Post This?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests