Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Closing the 'free will' loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell's theorem
Science Daily ^ | 20 Feb 2014 | MIT Team

Posted on 02/26/2014 9:08:05 AM PST by onedoug

Astronomers propose an experiment that may close the last major loophole of Bell's inequality -- a 50-year-old theorem that, if violated by experiments, would mean that our universe is based not on the textbook laws of classical physics, but on the less-tangible probabilities of quantum mechanics. Such a quantum view would allow for seemingly counterintuitive phenomena such as entanglement, in which the measurement of one particle instantly affects another, even if those entangled particles are at opposite ends of the universe. Among other things, entanglement -- a quantum feature Albert Einstein skeptically referred to as "spooky action at a distance" -- seems to suggest that entangled particles can affect each other instantly, faster than the speed of light.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: bellstheorem; electrogravitics; fasterthanlight; haltonarp; physics; science; setorrandom; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: edh; I want the USA back

Similar to how I try to explain it - the next step is to explain a photon and how it is similar to a quantum particle - we can prove it has mass and acts as a particle, but we can also prove that it is an energy wave and not a particle due to the way it acts.

Taking this to a quantum state we basically have the ability to focus in on one aspect or another of the particle - position or velocity/energy state, but only one at a time (though there have been some recent discussions on this). But once you determine the one, it means that you can’t determine the other without increased variation.

By that time people’s eye’s have glazed over and I’m getting excited and ordering my next drink - shortly thereafter if they haven’t managed to beg off to another subject they are looking for an excuse to leave ... it’s sad. ;)


21 posted on 02/26/2014 1:39:49 PM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

And this is why I get so mad at the politically driven pseudo-scientists. Just like with cops and every other profession that is lambasted (politicians, lawyers, engineers, quality folks, plumbers, electricians, gun salesmen) the bad ones make everyone doubt the honest ones so you can’t trust anyone unless you do your own work or know them personnaly. That leads to no one wanting to go into the field (no self-respecting person would...) which leaves it to the bad ones.

I just read an article yesterday about a huge number of gibberish science articles (supposedly peer reviewed) being discovered in supposedly respectable technical institutions such as IEEE.

Burns me up.


22 posted on 02/26/2014 1:44:56 PM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Thank you. It only seems logical. Either the observation is wrong or something is happening apart from our concepts of time and space. I think both things are possible but I have no idea which it is here. In any case speed is an irrelevant concept to this hypothesis. Instantaneous or simultaneous are just other ways of saying ‘now.’


23 posted on 02/26/2014 2:26:20 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

That’s an assumption.

For instance, let’s say that the information from one end of an entanglement gets across 14billion light years in 7 nanoseconds. And it gets across half the universe in 3 ns. We would perceive that as instantaneous and it would take a long time to prove the time-dependence.

Maybe they can affect each other instantly, or maybe they’re just really, superduper fast. If it were beyond our ability to measure at the time, the 2 scenarios would be identical.

The pot of gold behind entangled particles communicating across vast distances so quickly is, well, the ability to communicate across vast distances so quickly. It’s akin to comparing the USsnailMail to the telephone.


24 posted on 02/26/2014 3:19:58 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I'm not assuming that. The physicists have said that both particles act simultaneously and thus hypothesize from that that distance is not a factor.
25 posted on 02/26/2014 3:23:53 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

So, basically, you’re not assuming it, they are. ok.

Wouldn’t instantaneous communication or faster-than-light communication prove to be faster than slower-than-light communication?


26 posted on 02/26/2014 3:33:37 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I believe that is the premise of their theories and observations at this time, yes.

Of course it would be faster than anything that takes time to happen since there is no elapsed time in two actions that happen simultaneously. If in fact they are two separate actions.

27 posted on 02/26/2014 3:40:04 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; 6SJ7; AdmSmith; AFPhys; Arkinsaw; allmost; aristotleman; autumnraine; backwoods-engineer; ...
Thanks KoRn. A Halton Arp topic if ever there was one.


· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

28 posted on 02/26/2014 6:06:30 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Kevmo; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; spirited irish
Either the observation is wrong or something is happening apart from our concepts of time and space. I think both things are possible but I have no idea which it is here. In any case speed is an irrelevant concept to this hypothesis. Instantaneous or simultaneous are just other ways of saying ‘now.’

We think alike on these issues, TigersEye. I tend to favor the hypothesis that our concepts of time and space as presently constituted are inadequate. But it could be a measurement problem. I hope we'll find out which it is before too long!

And I so agree that "instantaneous or simultaneous are just other ways of saying 'now.'"

Thank you so much for further detailing your analysis!

29 posted on 02/26/2014 7:43:58 PM PST by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; TigersEye; Kevmo
I tend to favor the hypothesis that our concepts of time and space as presently constituted are inadequate.

I very strongly agree, dearest sister in Christ! I suspect the answer will be found in higher dimensional dynamics (Wesson et al.)
30 posted on 02/26/2014 7:49:18 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TigersEye; Kevmo; TXnMA
I suspect the answer will be found in higher dimensional dynamics (Wesson et al.)

Indeed — I find Wesson's work fascinating, and potentially ground-breaking.

Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of support!

31 posted on 02/26/2014 7:51:53 PM PST by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I tend to favor the hypothesis that our concepts of time and space as presently constituted are inadequate.

As for my own case; I couldn't agree more strongly! lol

I have been told by a friend, who I trust very much on such matters, that time is an illusion. But it is also said that all of this world's experiences are an illusion so I guess time would naturally be a part of that stew pot.

I get a tickle in my gut now and then that tells me it is true and I feel like I'm about to understand it. Then my intellect comes thundering back in and firmly reattaches itself to the "certainty" that all of this is quite real. I suspect that my understanding will remain inadequate for a while. :)

32 posted on 02/26/2014 8:07:05 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TBP
"Things like entanglement have been proven by experiments"

In addition, it gets proven all the time by divorce lawyers.

33 posted on 02/26/2014 11:55:24 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Then by all accounts... it is “faster”. Faster-than-light is faster than we can currently communicate. “Instantaneous” is much faster than that.

No doubt, when the telegraph first started operating in the 1840’s, it seemed “instantaneous” compared to the horse & buggy.


34 posted on 02/27/2014 12:43:01 AM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I’m not assuming that.
***I didn’t say you were. I said it was an assumption.


35 posted on 02/27/2014 12:47:28 AM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Sorry I didn’t ping you SC. I will in the future as I like to post science related items.

Thanks. All Good....


36 posted on 02/27/2014 6:09:33 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; spirited irish
I have been told by a friend, who I trust very much on such matters, that time is an illusion. But it is also said that all of this world's experiences are an illusion so I guess time would naturally be a part of that stew pot.... I get a tickle in my gut now and then that tells me it is true and I feel like I'm about to understand it. Then my intellect comes thundering back in and firmly reattaches itself to the "certainty" that all of this is quite real.

TigersEye, is your friend who told you "time is an illusion" a scientist, or a Buddhist? I have great difficulty reconciling the two.

One of the greatest physical scientists of the Twentieth Century — Erwin Schrödinger — clearly had a warm spot in his heart for Eastern philosophy — see his What Is Life? for details.

Without getting into theological details, Buddhism absolutely denies any "realist" position WRT the world in which we humans are implanted. Instead, it tells us that whatever we see through our eyes, whatever we gather about the world we live in through our own direct experience, is Maya, illusion. In sum: What we in the West think is real on the basis of observation and experience is a totally false picture of Reality. Ergo, the main business of Reality is to fool us.

But if this is the case, if everything about us is an "illusion," then what is the point of science? Under such a condition, it appears to me that scientific investigation would simply be an exercise in futility from the get-go.

Ultimately, time is a cosmological problem. Eastern philosophical traditions presuppose a Cosmos that has no beginning or purpose. It just "is what it is," meanwhile causing great suffering to human kind without any reason at all. So the best thing a person can do — and ultimately, Eastern philosophy tends to deny personhood altogether — is to escape from the "illusions" of natural Life and simply melt into the great undifferentiated sea of Brahmin....

In the West today, many people like the idea of an "eternal universe" — i.e., a universe that has no beginning and which has no purpose at all in the end. Indeed, the very ideas of beginning or end have zero implication for human existence in this world. The world is just is what it is, playing itself out over time "randomly," in terms of pure materiality and nothing else.

And you can't' find out a single thing about the world, because reason itself, indeed, even personality, are illusions, too.

Buddhism denies intellect; it ultimately denies personality; these are just other aspects of Maya, of illusion....

But you, TigersEye, already know better than that; for you wrote: "Then my intellect comes thundering back in and firmly reattaches itself to the 'certainty' that all of this is quite real."

Again, if Schödinger actually believed all this, how could he account for the fact that he is one of the greatest scientists of the Twentieth Century? Somehow, this situation just "does not 'compute'."

Must close for now. But would only like to add that I received a very great insight into the nature of the problem we are discussing here, from a very great poet. I refer to T. S. Eliot, who oh so truthfully remarked (IMHO) that

Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.

Man senses time as serial, linear, and irreversible, just on the basis of experience and "habit."

But God does not.

Ultimately, time is a cosmological problem.

Advice: Trust your intellect on such matters — and your common sense.

TigersEye, I find you a delightful correspondent. Thank you so very much for writing!

37 posted on 02/27/2014 5:37:01 PM PST by betty boop (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. —Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media
Beech?

Sweet Gum?

Pine?

Hercules Club Prickly Ash?

38 posted on 02/27/2014 6:11:05 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
That is an awful lot to reply to. My friend is a Buddhist. He is my teacher. However the idea that Buddhism teaches that this reality is entirely an illusion and has no existence isn't really correct. It's rather difficult to explain but its real meaning is that this reality has "no abiding existence." ie nothing is permanent.

That is easy to see if you consider how many cells in your body are dying, coming into existence and otherwise changing in every moment. So the 'you' that existed two minutes ago no longer exists. What you are in this moment is different than what you were before and what you will be.

Does that not hold true for everything in the universe? Isn't everything constantly changing? It is perhaps more accurate to say that this world is illusory than an illusion but that is picking nits. This world, Samsara as it is called, does exist but it is a phantom-like existence due to the impermanence I described and as opposed to what is called 'absolute reality' which is unchanging.

I used the word 'intellect' instead of 'ego' because I thought it would be better understood here where the Buddhist view of ego is not well known and is quite different than the Freudian-western definition of the word.

I disagree strongly that Buddhism denies intellect or sees the cosmos as purposeless. As to its purpose I expect most lamas would say that that is a question that is unanswered and that the Dharma is not intended to be a means to answer it. The goal of the Dharma being to directly experience the true nature of existence (as opposed to intellectually understanding it) they would probably say that it is irrelevant to say whether the universe has a purpose or not. Follow the path and see for yourself.

As for denying intellect, I don't know of any lama who is not interested in intellectual knowledge of the world around us as that type of knowledge has many practical advantages for alleviating the suffering of beings. We obviously aren't going to all escape the cycle of birth-death-and rebirth any time soon and an incalculable number of beings need whatever help can be given them. Intellectual knowledge of the Dharma itself is highly revered. However, intellectual knowledge of any kind is by far secondary in importance to the practices that lead to escape from that Samsaric cycle which is the supreme enlightenment.

There is certainly nothing random about Samsara either otherwise the concept of karma would be meaningless and false.

The Buddhists I know have the utmost regard for human accomplishments and endeavors. It is a staple of developing wisdom and compassion in the basic practice of Dharma to recognize the importance of knowledge passed down from one's parents and from the many generations of people who have come before us building a body of knowledge one step at a time that has progressed from starting a fire with a bow and drill to designing space shuttles and nuclear reactors.

39 posted on 02/27/2014 6:18:01 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your engaging and informative essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Great insights into Buddhism and I had no idea Schrödinger had a warm spot for it.

40 posted on 02/27/2014 6:50:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson