What does it take to falsify materialism?

[David Bailey]

Well, yes it does. Lets try a thought experiment. Lets say I am visiting the Sirius nebula, and you are here on earth. Each of us have with us an entangled quantum particle. Using the particle as a kind of binary information system, lets say spinning left equals 0 while spinning right equals 1, we suddenly have the makings of a type of morse quantum telegraph computer type thingy (highly technical term, don't get caught up in the lingo ;)).
If we use it to communicate, then rather than the god knows how many years it would take utilising 'classical' information transfer like radio waves, we would be communicating instantaneously. By definition, faster than light - instant.
The entangled particles you see can be said to outside space and time, hence the term 'non local'. So in one sense, it is not faster than speed of light, as it has no speed at all. It is beyond speed.
So, I think you can see categorically, by definition of quantum entanglement being possible, faster than light communication is also something built into our universe, though it is non physical in the sense of being beyond space and time.

Sorry, Paul is right here - at least with standard QM. If people measured their entangled particles along just one axis - let's call it the Z axis - there really wouldn't be a paradox. I mean, it would be like you gave someone a glove and kept the other yourself, then checked which you had after you had gone your different ways.

The idea of entanglement is that you make a choice to measure the spin about the X or Z axes (I don't think you need the third possible choice). Now the point is that if you both choose Z (or X), your answers will always come out opposite, but if you choose X and the other guy chooses Z, there your result has not limited his possible outcomes. So somehow your choice (X or Z) has been transmitted to the other guy and constrained his measurement if but only if you chose the same axis as he did! However, notice that you can't transmit information this way, because the recipient can't tell if his measurement was constrained (because you both chose the same axes) until you both get together again and swap notes!

QM really is weird!

David

 

[steve001]

However, I want to be sure we all agree that faster than light communication can and does happen as part of the natural order of the quantum world. Agreed?

From all I've read on the subject no one would agree to this.

If this is certain, then I was completely unaware. By the way, I would like to confirm the entanglement thing. Do you have a link?

I found not so much a link, but a comment to this affect, that's why I'm not sure it's correct. I found it by keywords "quantum communication morse code fashion"

 

[soulatman]

From all I've read on the subject no one would agree to this.

Michio Kaku agrees with this! Is he wrong?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Michio Kaku agrees with this! Is he wrong?

It's not clear to me exactly what he's agreeing with.

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/03/19/against-kaku-ism/

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/06/23/the-physics-of-the-imbecile/

~~ Paul

 

[soulatman]

It's not clear to me exactly what he's agreeing with.

~~ Paul

That quantum information transfer is instantaneous, faster than light. He says as much in the video.
But, that we cannot use it.

Edit: just checked out those links rubbishing michio kaku. It seems anyone who says anything you lot don't like gets rubbished, rather than engaged in debate. I must say, it makes me feel sick.

I am beginning to see a tiresome trend unfolding. It feels like talking to a mormon somehow. In order to prove their ligitimacy, they have tons of documentation they can pull out, with precisely none of it worth a dime.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That quantum information transfer is instantaneous, faster than light. He says as much in the video.
But, that we cannot use it.

Then in what sense is it information?

Edit: just checked out those links rubbishing michio kaku. It seems anyone who says anything you lot don't like gets rubbished, rather than engaged in debate. I must say, it makes me feel sick.

It was not my intention to rubbish Kaku, but simply to point out that the subject is complex and there is disagreement among experts.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/03/18/what-the-god-particle-hath-wrought/

~~ Paul

 

[David Bailey]

From all I've read on the subject no one would agree to this.



I found not so much a link, but a comment to this affect, that's why I'm not sure it's correct. I found it by keywords "quantum communication morse code fashion"

I guess it depends what you mean by communication, and whether you assume that QM doesn't have any more wrinkles - after all, it is really best tested in systems with a handful of particles, and we have 10^20-something particles in us!

Do you want to call it communication if the only way to detect it is to keep records at both ends and then compare those records by meeting up or using some sort of conventional communication? As Paul says, it seems to be useless - unless there is more to QM than meets the eye.

David

 

[soulatman]

Then in what sense is it information?
~~ Paul

It is still information. Us not being able to utilise it to send our own personally crafted and selected information does not mean that information of some sort is not being shared between entangled particles. It is, and it must be, by definition. If manipulating the spin of one particle in our galaxy, instantaneously affects a particle in another galaxy, it can be said that there is a non local link between the two particles. Information about what is happening to one particle is reflected in what is happening to the other particle.
As I said, just because we can't use it to send the news headlines and weather forecast across the universe, doesn't mean it is ot information.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is still information. Us not being able to utilise it to send our own personally crafted and selected information does not mean that information of some sort is not being shared between entangled particles. It is, and it must be, by definition. If manipulating the spin of one particle in our galaxy, instantaneously affects a particle in another galaxy, it can be said that there is a non local link between the two particles. Information about what is happening to one particle is reflected in what is happening to the other particle.

Why does that require information exchange, as opposed to simple correlation?

As I said, just because we can't use it to send the news headlines and weather forecast across the universe, doesn't mean it is ot information.

I don't see why information transfer is required. If I hand you one of a pair of gloves and then look at mine, I don't to transfer any information to know which glove you have.

~~ Paul

 

[steve001]

Michio Kaku agrees with this! Is he wrong?

You should listen to this again. This time listen to what is said, not what you think is said.

 

[soulatman]

Why does that require information exchange, as opposed to simple correlation?


I don't see why information transfer is required. If I hand you one of a pair of gloves and then look at mine, I don't to transfer any information to know which glove you have.

~~ Paul

Paul, if you don't want to get it, then no one can help you. You have a world view which does not like the wierd things quantum mechanics throws up, and you especially have no room for psi phenomena, so you edit everything which comes your way.
Simple

 

[steve001]

I guess it depends what you mean by communication, and whether you assume that QM doesn't have any more wrinkles - after all, it is really best tested in systems with a handful of particles, and we have 10^20-something particles in us!

Defining communication [ information exchange] is unambiguous. It means one system understanding what another system is sending.

Do you want to call it communication if the only way to detect it is to keep records at both ends and then compare those records by meeting up or using some sort of conventional communication? As Paul says, it seems to be useless - unless there is more to QM than meets the eye.

David

(SSBjb3VsZCBzZW5kIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCBidXQgaWYgeW91IGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgaXQgZ2liYmVyaXNo).

(I could send information, but if you don't understand it gibberish).

 

[soulatman]

You should listen to this again. This time listen to what is said, not what you think is said.

Yes? Your point is? Michio Kaku simply confirms what I have been saying. Have a look at these key points below:

1.11-1.18 "now, Einstein said, this is ridiculous, because, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But this effect has been measured." ...
1.26-1.39 "you see the information travelling fro one electron to the other electron, faster than the speed of light, across the galaxy is, random information, it's not morse code".

I have already admitted that the information being transmitted is not useful to us, we cannot manipulate its random nature, and use it to send messages ... I get that, and concede that. But I have not said otherwise.
HOWEVER...
What is transmitted IS still INFORMATION (random or not), and it DOES travel FASTER THAN the speed of LIGHT.
Now, finally ... The quantum information transmitted between electrons seperated by a galaxy occurs instantaneously and faster than light. We just cannot use it for our own purposes. How can I be any clearer? And how can you not admit as much?

 

[steve001]

Yes? Your point is? Michio Kaku simply confirms what I have been saying. Have a look at these key points below:

1.11-1.18 "now, Einstein said, this is ridiculous, because, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But this effect has been measured." ...
1.26-1.39 "you see the information travelling fro one electron to the other electron, faster than the speed of light, across the galaxy is, random information, it's not morse code".

I have already admitted that the information being transmitted is not useful to us, we cannot manipulate its random nature, and use it to send messages ... I get that, and concede that. But I have not said otherwise.
HOWEVER...
What is transmitted IS still INFORMATION (random or not), and it DOES travel FASTER THAN the speed of LIGHT.
Now, finally ... The quantum information transmitted between electrons seperated by a galaxy occurs instantaneously and faster than light. We just cannot use it for our own purposes. How can I be any clearer? And how can you not admit as much?

Now you've made it clear.

 

[soulatman]

Now you've made it clear.

Is that it?

I feel I made it abundantly clear earlier. And I re issue my ealier request (which seems to have been ignored or avoided by everyone), that we now agree that faster than light information transfer is a valid and real phenomena in the quantum order.

Do we now agree?

 

[Michael Larkin]

Sheldrake is the perfect example of a scientist who ought to be spending every waking hour on experiments to demonstrate morphic resonance. Every second of his life. But instead, it appears as if he's bought into his own hypothesis so thoroughly that he's become uninterested in it. Call Sheldrake and tell him to "do his damnedest."

Not so. I contacted him last week about a potential source of data to test morphic resonance. He was very interested and is going to contact the people who have the data. Stop making things up.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Well, yes it does. Lets try a thought experiment. Lets say I am visiting the Sirius nebula, and you are here on earth. Each of us have with us an entangled quantum particle. Using the particle as a kind of binary information system, lets say spinning left equals 0 while spinning right equals 1, we suddenly have the makings of a type of morse quantum telegraph computer type thingy (highly technical term, don't get caught up in the lingo ;)).
If we use it to communicate, then rather than the god knows how many years it would take utilising 'classical' information transfer like radio waves, we would be communicating instantaneously. By definition, faster than light - instant.
The entangled particles you see can be said to outside space and time, hence the term 'non local'. So in one sense, it is not faster than speed of light, as it has no speed at all. It is beyond speed.
So, I think you can see categorically, by definition of quantum entanglement being possible, faster than light communication is also something built into our universe, though it is non physical in the sense of being beyond space and time.

soulatman, I think you're wrong about this. I'm no great shakes as a physicist, but I don't think you can transmit information through entanglement. I'm not sure why that is so, but my impression is that everyone agrees about this. Maybe it's because there's no way to control the binary sequence? Or to transmit it to a desired destination? Maybe someone with more expertise than I can explain it. That said, my understanding is that if at some point in the trajectory of one particle you determine its spin, instantaneously, the other will assume the opposite spin, however far they are apart. In a sense, they comprise a single complementary entity. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this point.

 

[Reece]

soulatman, I think you're wrong about this. I'm no great shakes as a physicist, but I don't think you can transmit information through entanglement. I'm not sure why that is so, but my impression is that everyone agrees about this. Maybe it's because there's no way to control the binary sequence? Or to transmit it to a desired destination? Maybe someone with more expertise than I can explain it. That said, my understanding is that if at some point in the trajectory of one particle you determine its spin, instantaneously, the other will assume the opposite spin, however far they are apart. In a sense, they comprise a single complementary entity. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this point.

I'm like you: I'm no expert with this . . . but what you said seems to confirm rather than refute what I (and apparently soulatman) thought: if one particle's spin is determined and that says which the other entangled particle's spin will be, then we say there was some form of "communication" of "information." In other words, long and short, something faster than the speed of light seems to be involved.

In fact, I've never even heard this argued about till this very thread.

Is it that the argument is that the spins are already determined? And that looking at this one - spinning left - means that the other will be spinning right (because it already was)? Or is it that when we observe this one's spin the other reacts accordingly, in which case there was "communication?"

 

[soulatman]

That said, my understanding is that if at some point in the trajectory of one particle you determine its spin, instantaneously, the other will assume the opposite spin, however far they are apart. In a sense, they comprise a single complementary entity. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this point.

Yes, I was thinking deeply about this very aspect. It does occur to me they behave a single unit, no matter how far apart we take their two halves in this universe. So, what this says to me, is that the term, "non-local" has been applied for that very reason.

It is as if in our space-time confined dimension, we can split quantum particles, and seperate them by millions of light years, and they will completely ignore this, as if they existed on or in another dimension where they are effectively still a unit which has not been split.

If this is the case, then speed is not part of the explanation, nor is information transfer across distance. In our dimension, we cannot explain this except with references to time and distance, which would mean the distances are vast, and the speeds of info transfer beyond calculation. Hence "faster than light". If what is happening is the particle is existing in a seperate dimension where it is still a unit, but is extending into our dimension and we are splitting it, well I can't make heads or tails of that, but could that be possible?

Regardless, appeals to the behaviour of quantum particles in this manner, whether we are talking about faster than light info transfer, or the power of observation to collapse the wave aspect and bring forth the particle aspect, remain in my opinion as tremendous difficulties for any materialist inerpretation of what on earth is going on. The wierdness is sufficiently great, that materialistic interpretations struggle where others are supported, both experimentally, and anecdotally.

Put simply, if we say that relativity does not apply to the quantum world, we are really saying material laws cannot account for the quantum world underlying the material world. The quantum world does not behave with any regard for material laws or limits, it behaves in a non material manner. And this really was my point from the start.

I find such a conclusion inescapable.

 

[chuck.drake]

soulatman, I think you're wrong about this. I'm no great shakes as a physicist, but I don't think you can transmit information through entanglement. I'm not sure why that is so, but my impression is that everyone agrees about this. Maybe it's because there's no way to control the binary sequence? Or to transmit it to a desired destination? Maybe someone with more expertise than I can explain it. That said, my understanding is that if at some point in the trajectory of one particle you determine its spin, instantaneously, the other will assume the opposite spin, however far they are apart. In a sense, they comprise a single complementary entity. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this point.

I have an infantile understanding, but how it was explained to me is that we have a pair of gloves that has become separated by distance. We don't know which is which, but as soon as we look at one glove and find out that it is the left glove, then we immediately know the other is the right glove. Maybe someone else has a better technical explanation.