Two Diamonds talk to each other = Quantum Entanglement

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-world-diamonds.html

So what did or would they say to one another?

Diamond A "life is hard"

Diamond B "Yep."

1. Should we be concerned about this happening between parallel dimensions where the other dimension is stealing all our "new" ideas to use against us somehow?

2. Entanglement usually happens FTL so how can we measure these communications?

3. Is confusion part of the entanglement formulas or I mean Chaos theory? And do they even know how to apply Chaos theory to Entanglement?

4. What was I thinking?

 

I'm pretty sure the UK government knows a lot more about quantum entanglement than they are letting out. Maybe they are talking with aliens and performing perfect assassinations by putting two entangled people in a superposition of dead and alive, and observing the right one at the right time? Maybe the government has been replaced by puppets controlled through entanglement from the other dimension? Do you know that quantum entanglement can be used for making bombs?

 

No, they'd say: "Really? She's my best friend too!"

That's if they get along. You don't want to know what they say to each other if they're conflict diamonds.

There's no entanglement between parallel timelines. That's pretty much what makes them separate timelines in the first place -- the fact that they don't interact with each other. (Unless nonlinear quantum mechanics exists, but that's unlikely.)

Entanglement isn't something that "happens," it's a state that exists between two particles. It can allow one of the particles to react instantaneously to a change in state of the other particle regardless of distance. What was measured here was the change of state in the second diamond in response to the change of state in the first, which apparently were verified by finding correlations in the way the diamonds scattered light.

And entanglement isn't really communication, just correlation. It can't be used to send information faster than light. It can be part of a process of information transfer, but only in combination with a more conventional, lightspeed signal.

Ummm... Are you just making a pun on "tangle" or are you actually asking? I don't see how chaos theory would be specifically relevant here.

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

 

-Christopher

considering the time wave theory and applications there could be nonlininear quantums or tri-quantum differentials or even half quanta's or and such we are working with partial differentials meaning like the 2 and half derivative just like we work with half a dimension not one or two or three dimensions but two and a half dimensions so somehow instantaneous transfers between partial or half dimensions is partly possible ,, maybe.

 

^That's not a theory, that's just some crackpot on the Internet stringing words together.

 

You're, uh, you're not too familiar with think's posting history, are you? In fact, this is possibly his most coherent thread.

 

You mean much like any talk about parallel universes?

It's absolutely impossible to find any evidence that parallel universes don't interact with ours. They not interacting and they not existing are practically the same thing.

(By “evidence” I mean anything that doesn't involve the application of pretty wild inductive reasoning, Occam's razor and stuff bordering on crackpots stringing words together)

 

Hardly. There's a profound difference between something made up out of ignorance (or insanity) and something that arises logically from known theory but is simply untestable. Theories are supposed to make predictions beyond the evidence, after all. That's what they're for. True, only the testable predictions can be verified or falsified and thereby lead to new science, but that doesn't mean the currently untestable ones are insane. Particularly because they may eventually become testable if someone devises a way.

 

That's very true, parallel universes are far less crazy than the latest fringe theory somebody made up to troll the world. However, I think that at this point they still fail the Occam's razor pretty badly, and if they don't interact with ours they would continue to do so for a long long time, and details about them are even more elusive.

In particular, extrapolating them from quantum mechanics right now because they seemingly fit strikes me as overly optimistic at best, and drawing conclusions about them is like trying to win the lottery.

The existence of other universes might be something completely unrelated to anything we have observed in our universe.

By the way, the only good argument for them that I can think of is the role they can play in the explanation of our existence. If life is rare, or if a universe that supports life is unlikely, logic would imply that the possibility for parallel universes much different than ours is significant. But that's testable – not the actual universes, but there are ways to measure the abundance of life in the universe, to simulate the beginning of life and even simulate possible alternative universes.

 

Apropos 'universes extrapolated from quantum mechanics': the many-worlds-theory fails more than Occam's razor; it contradicts conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, entropy - in fact, you can name almost all fundamental principles of physics here.

And despite all this, it is widely accepted in the physics community.

 

I fail to see how it contradicts any of those as they are merely related to what happens inside our universe, or one of the other universes. The peculiar thing is that there will be some universes where these laws are violated, which is crazy... But we already know that this is possible, only extremely unlikely.

Can you provide an example as to how you think it contradicts them?

 

Well, first of all, what the Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics predicts are not actually separate universes, but different quantum states of the Schroedinger equation of our universe -- parallel timelines, essentially. Science fiction uses "universe" and "timeline" interchangeably, but they're two separate things. More on this below when I reply to Edit XYZ.

If we're talking about actual other universes in the sense that Brian Greene was talking about in the final episode of The Fabric of the Cosmos last week -- other physical realms existing beyond the limits of our universe, having different physical laws and being created at different times -- then yeah, they might be forever beyond the limits of what we can observe and thus would remain untestable. But if one of them formed close enough to ours, it could've left a fingerprint in the cosmic background radiation. So there could be observational data to support their existence.

That's because it doesn't violate any of those things. As I said, it's not actually the physical replication of the universe, merely its subdivision into multiple different quantum states. We know that a single subatomic particle can be in two or more states at once, but that doesn't mean it's more than one particle. It's kind of like overtones in a vibrating string -- there's only the one string, but it's making several different notes at the same time. (Don't take that too literally, because I'm not sure string theory can work as an explanation for this. It's just a metaphor.) But the question is, why is it that when we measure a particle that's in multiple states at once, only one of those states seems to register on our instruments or affect the larger universe we perceive? This is the famous Schroedinger's Cat paradox -- the radioactive atom is both decayed and undecayed at the same time, but the poison capsule it triggers can't be both triggered and untriggered at the same time, so the cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time. So why isn't it? How does the multiplicity of states on the particle level end up producing a single overall state on the macroscopic level?

The Everett interpretation -- more properly, the relative state formulation -- says that it's a matter of correlation. As other particles interact with our "hero" particle, they become correlated with one or the other of its states. If an experimental apparatus (whether a cat in a box or some more standard form of detector) measures only one of the particle's multiple states, that's because the states of the particles making up the apparatus have collectively become correlated with that state instead of the others. But those other states of the hero particle still exist, and they can have correlations too. The "Many Worlds" idea is that all the particles in the ensemble are in multiple states at once, but those states are sort of aligned with each other into a set of mutually exclusive correlations, which means that the overall macroscopic ensemble -- the measuring apparatus and the universe it occupies (or at least as much of the universe as it interacts with) -- is in multiple distinct states at once too. And because the particles in those states are correlated only with each other, the states are isolated from each other, non-interacting. And those are what we mean when we talk about parallel timelines. The particles making up the universe haven't been duplicated; the timelines are just different macrostates of the same single set of particles. One universe existing in a superposition of histories.

Also, a lot of physicists don't actually believe the "parallel histories" represent physically real universes. They see them as a mathematical abstraction. Others believe they are genuine alternate realities. Either way, though, there is significant experimental support for the Everett interpretation. It works as a theory explaining and predicting quantum phenomena, in particular for explaining how quantum multiplicity seems to resolve into a singular classical reality.

(Although I'm partial to a new variation on Everett called Quantum Darwinism, which has already gotten some experimental support. The idea is that as particles interact, the different states "reproduce" by creating correlations in other particles, and the states that are most stable "outcompete" the others and spread farther until they bring the whole system into correlation, while the other states don't spread as far and just fizzle out. So instead of a bunch of coequal parallel histories, you get one victorious history that represents what we see as reality and a bunch of potential histories that didn't end up actually "happening." However, it seems to me that this allows for the possibility of at least some alternate histories, since an evolutionary process can branch out into two or more "species." If two competing states happen to be equally stable, that could potentially produce parallel histories, although they would be far fewer than in the standard "Many Worlds" model.)

 

Hugh Everett III was certainly one of of a kind, or perhaps he was anything but that. In any case, he's no longer alive in our realised reality. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if quantum immortality might be possible. Does the universe - or multiverse - work that way? It might seem perverse and cruel but there is nothing to blame.

 

When I say another universe I mean any form of existence that is beyond what we can observe, whether it is here but beyond the observable universe (which would make it unobservable without FTL), or branching of our universe created by quantum mechanics, or alternative timelines created by time travel, or a computer simulation of a universe, or something completely unrelated to what we've seen. All of these are, from our point of view, the same thing – a different universe with possibly different physical laws where things go in another way that's independent from the ways go here. If you could enable travel between any two, regardless of how they were created, you'd double the size of the universe (if the physical laws are compatible, of course).

This interpretation of quantum mechanics is just one possibility for the existence of such, amidst many other.

I even think that we shouldn't apply the word “exist” in regards to parallel universes, because that's a term closely tied to our space-time and physical properties of something that's going on here. Technically, if a certain universe doesn't “exist” you can recreate it in a simulation, and it will start existing for a short period of time, but that's meaningless because different timelines would be unrelated... The only thing that makes a difference is whether we can observe them or not, because what makes something exist is the information, if we can't access that information it... doesn't.

 

No, that's not correct, because you're conflating several entirely separate ideas. A parallel timeline -- a coexisting quantum state of our universe -- could not possibly have different physical laws, because those laws were set in place at the beginning of the universe. Any alternate measurement history of the universe will be bound to follow the exact same laws of physics, because it's just as much a part of this universe as the measurement history we perceive. Only the events would be different. (That's why it's so misleading to use "timeline" and "universe" as interchangeable concepts.)

And fiction aside, physics tells us that time travel could not actually create a parallel timeline. If you go back in time, you're still correlated with the timeline you came from, and so by interacting with your past, you'll be correlating it with your own measurement history, and thereby guaranteeing that (at least from your viewpoint as an observer) it will conform to the same history you're aware of. Quantum mechanics won't let you observe any history except your own. Parallel timelines come about spontaneously through quantum correlations with different states, but a time traveller could never reach them (except through some form of nonlinear quantum mechanics, if such a thing existed).

 

Hence the word “possibly” before different.

What in our physical models tells you that you can't create a new timeline with time travel?

 

Uhh, did you just read the first sentence of my second paragraph? Because I did explain that immediately afterward. For a more detailed discussion of the quantum physics, see here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027

(That's the link to the abstract, but you can get the whole paper via the "Download" links at screen right.)

 

Well, that discusses only one possible model of time travel. So you say that under certain models used to model time travel you can't change the past or find yourself in a new timeline?

 

It's not "certain models," it's quantum mechanics itself, the very theory that the concept of parallel timelines comes from in the first place. Fiction has presented parallel timelines as a consequence of time travel, but of course, time travel is a fictional concept. In real physics, parallel timelines would be a spontaneous outgrowth of quantum correlations, and if time travel were possible -- which it probably isn't, of course -- quantum physics would constrain the time traveller to experiencing one's own measurement history.

 

I think of time travel differently because I have experienced this certain type of time travel.

Time travel can and does seem real when one has achieved a level of intoxication that will cause the effects of the illusion of reality to be manipulated into some past events one has experienced as an earlier time in said intoxicated individuals life.

Although I hate to quote the developer of the atomic model, it seems appropriate right now.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct." Niels Bohr

As this was said about non-linear field theory.

So, I will not have time until later, like three to four hours from now to consider the longer posts here but I will multi-quote and respond then..