5 ms·
From wikipedia: > Consequently, the only way that hidden variables could explain the predictions of quantum physics is if they are "nonlocal", which is to say
by kloch 4y ago
From wikipedia:
> Consequently, the only way that hidden variables could explain the predictions of quantum physics is if they are "nonlocal", which is to say that somehow the two particles were able to interact instantaneously no matter how widely the two particles are separated.
It's true that with our current theories, instantaneous action at a distance does not seem possible. Yet quantum experiments (wave function collapse over large distances) consistently suggest this might be possible at macro (non-quantum) scales. I think our knowledge is incomplete on this topic.
Gravity is another area where I don't think non-local effects have been fully ruled out. Gravitational waves (energy emitted/thrown off by certain mass/momentum configurations) have been proven to travel at or near the speed of light, but the propagation speed of the first order gravitational effects an open question. This is an area I would love to see more experimentation done. To simultaneously measure the gravitational and optical positions of the Moon or Sun for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
- hprotagonist 4y agoif you have instantaneous action, you no longer have causality. squaring that circle seems, uh, fraught.
- feet 4y agoUnless they're acting on each other through another euclidian dimension that we can't currently perceive in our three dimensional perspective
- thfuran 4y agoHow could there be a higher dimensional, shorter path between the points?
- akomtu 4y agoWolfram speculated on this idea: if spacetime is a graph, it may approximate the 3+1 topology on average, but in some places two distant nodes can be connected by a direct link. I'd speculate further that such isolated links may be enough to entangle low-level quantum properties of two particles, but not enough to be a tunnel even for a single photon.
- feet 4y agoWhy does the path have to be shorter?
- thfuran 4y agoHow would it be relevant if it's not?
- feet 4y agoIs the assumption that a signal needs to travel and that the speed of light is the limiting factor? My thought was that they're interacting in some other fashion, such that they are physically connected to each other. If that were the case, it would be instantaneous
- thfuran 4y agoInteraction via a hidden physical connection would only be instantaneous if that connection were zero length and only apparently faster than the speed of light when the connection is shorter than the shortest apparent path between the two points.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoDepends on the frame of reference. From the viewpoint of an electron, the moment it is emitted from an antenna as a photon and the moment it is absorbed in another antenna as an electron are the same moment i.e. the photon travels zero distance in zero time. Somehow our communications equipment still maintains causality.
- fsh 4y agoAntennas do not emit or absorb electrons at all. Radio waves propagate at most at the speed of light.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoWhat? I never claimed that. Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation just like visible light. Radio amplifiers pump electrons into the antenna, which transmits them as photons, and the receiving antenna absorbs them, turning them into electrons, the flow of which then becomes the audible radio signal which gets (demodulated and) amplified by the receiver. The photons do not travel any distance and they do so in zero time. This can be mathematically proven. See e.g. https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.amp https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.amp - the relevant parts: ”The closer you get to light speed, the less time you experience and the shorter a distance you experience. You may recall that these numbers begin to approach zero. According to relativity, mass can never move through the Universe at light speed. Mass will increase to infinity, and the amount of energy required to move it any faster will also be infinite. But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time. Photons can take hundreds of thousands of years to travel from the core of the Sun until they reach the surface and fly off into space. And yet, that final journey, that could take it billions of light years across space, was no different from jumping from atom to atom.”
- raattgift 4y agoUnder your conception, how does RADAR work? Consider bouncing a RADAR signal off two objects at different distances (1 m, 10 m; or the Moon and Venus [1] when the two are very close to each other in the early evening or early morning sky). Do the RADAR reflections return instantly, or at the same time, or at different times, according to the wristwatch of the RADAR operator, or the RADAR apparatus's computer clock? How does that work with your comment, "the photons do not travel any distance and they do so in zero time. This can be mathematically proven."? Can we agree that each of the RADAR and the two RADAR-reflecting objects definitely occupy different points in space? - -- RADAR images (taken at e.g. Arecibo, here on Earth) of Venus, the Moon, and several other solar system bodies <https://www.naic.edu/~pradar/radarpage.html#venus https://www.naic.edu/~pradar/radarpage.html#venus>
- zmgsabst 4y agoSure you do — but space no longer looks like the 3+1D hologram we see. Also, doesn’t entanglement already punch that hole? …in which case, assuming non-locality is the minimal assumption.
- russdill 4y agoUnless the action can only have effects that do not effect causality and can only be "observed" once there is a casual connection.