OK I don't yet understand the full nature of what is called "Quantum Entanglement" beyond the following observation.
When a quantum system is separated into parts and these are moved apart then each part of the system remains in one big quantum uncertainty. This means that when only one part of the system is observed the whole system collapses in unity. Thus you have such extraordinary results as this. Two electrons in the same orbital must have opposite spin. If they are separated then when we discover the spin of one, we know instantly the spin of the other.
Einstein had the obvious thought that really their spin was determined at the start and the "wave collapse" didn't change anything. But ingenious experiments since (which are what I need to explore) demonstrate that the electrons really do remain undecided until after separation, and indeed the wave collapse does occur and the state of the entangled electron--even if millions of miles away--does occur instantly.
However I can't see reference to this idea.
While the entangled pair (EP) represent one quantum system so does the observer (O). When the EP interacts with the O they become one system.
Let us say the entangled system is electron 1 (e1) and electron 2 (e2). When O interacts with e1 the wave collapses and e1 say adopts state UP. O now knows that e2 is DOWN. But for O to confirm this O must interact with e2. So actually Einstein is not wrong since O cannot interact with e2 faster than the speed of light. And when O interacts with e2 they are "carrying information" in their own state from e1. So does interaction with e1 put O into a state such that when O interacts with e2 it sets the state of e2 DOWN.
We can say that after interaction with e1 then O enters a new state Oe1. And it is Oe1 that interacts with e2 and not O. It is impossible for O to interact with part of an entangled pair without interacting with the other half AT THE SAME TIME.
OK I phrased that oddly, but the point is that if the state of the Observer is changed by interaction with a measurement, then they are no longer able to interact with the other half in the same state, and carry the time of that first interaction with them.
I suppose, and this is pure space brained bull-shit, but is there some kind of relativism here so there is some kind of "frame of reference" that unifies observation of entanglement pairs. O enters that same frame of reference as e1 when they observe e1 and when they observe e2 they bring e2 into that frame of reference.
Now I don't know enough about the experiments to see if that works. The question tho is over the "time" of collapse. When we say e2 collapses at the "same time" as e1 is observed this is time measured from which perspective? And how do we know, since e2 must be measured to confirm what it is.
Just thinking aloud. So we have two scientists O1 and O2. We send O1 out to observe e1 and O2 out to observe e2. They get their results and come home. Up to this point they do not know what the other person will say. The suggestion here is that actually e1O1 is in a new quantum entangled state and e2O2 is also in a new quantum entangled state. It is when they meet that the collapse happens and e1O1e2O2 is the final state with UP/DOWN or DOWN/UP state.
Now the problem here is that O1 and O2 have a memory. Suppose O1 and O2 had to go in a space craft to observe e1 and e2 and then return home with their results. After they meet and e1O1e2O2 state is formed they will both have memories of that journey off to get the results and what they discovered.
So here is the key implication then: the memories they recall will be set at the moment of wave ncollapse also!
When we recall a memory its an active brain process in the present. Like loading up a video onto our phone. It is not in the Past but in the Present. If it was in the Past it would just be called the Present. The Past by definition is a context we give to present events that we understand represent something from the Past. So we have no idea whether the things we recall represent the Past or not. How could we tell. What we do is ask other people what they remember and if we agree the only way we could agree is if we were both present. I ask you what happened on my 21st birthday and if you recall what I recall more or less then we are happy it happened and we were both there. We look for consistency. And there are enough movies about memory implants to illustrate that the process is not flawless. Unlike the Present which cannot be faked, the Past is very fakeable.
So since O1 and O2 are the only people in this system they have only themselves to confirm what happened. When they meet if O1 writes down on the paper UP, and O2 writes down UP actually they are indeterminate until the papers are read. Then they collapse and say the result is O1 UP and O2 DOWN. When O2 tries to remember what happened their memory which was indeterminate will have been fixed at DOWN also.
So this isn't quite Copenhagen Interpretation. We aren't saying that both possibilities exist. We are saying that Systems have reference points, and are determinate relative to systems they are not-bound to, and indeterminate to systems that they are bound to. O2 flying home with a piece of paper saying UP and O1 flying home with a piece of paper also saying UP is impossible from the reference of the combined system. Pauli Exclusion principle (I think) says that spin cannot be the same. But the combined system hasn't collapsed yet, it is still indeterminate. A third observe waiting for the result doesn't know either result yet. When they meet the system collapses and miraculously O1 and O2 find that their papers indeed have opposite things written on them and their memories collapse to confirm this result.
I suppose this breaks the common view that consciousness passes through time, and memory confirms this. Actually consciousness exists just Now, and our memories are created in the present also.
A search for happiness in poverty. Happiness with personal loss, and a challenge to the wisdom of economic growth and environmental exploitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Done it: proof that Jewish thinking is limited. Spent most of the day avoiding triggering ChatGPT but it got there.
So previously I was accused of Anti-Semitism but done carefully ChatGPT will go there. The point in simple terms is that being a Jew binds y...
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...