Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
518 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 514 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,211 Year: 4,323/6,534 Month: 537/900 Week: 61/182 Day: 33/16 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coming to terms with retro-causaility
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 9 (364157)
11-16-2006 5:03 PM


Just thought I'd pass this along.....

One of the paradoxes of interest to Cramer is known as "entanglement." It's also known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, named for the three scientists who described its apparent absurdity as an argument against quantum theory.

Basically, the idea is that interacting, or entangled, subatomic particles such as two photons -- the fundamental units of light -- can affect each other no matter how far apart in time or space.

"If you do a measurement on one, it has an immediate effect on the other even if they are separated by light years across the universe," Cramer said. If one of the entangled photon's trajectory tilts up, the other one, no matter how distant, will tilt down to compensate.

....

Here's where it gets weird.

Because these two photons are entangled, the act of detecting the second as either a wave or a particle should simultaneously force the other photon to also change into either a wave or a particle. But that would have to happen to the first photon before it hits its detector -- which it will hit 50 microseconds before the second photon is detected.

That is what quantum mechanics predicts should happen. And if it does, signaling would have gone backward in time relative to the first photon.

"There's no obvious explanation why this won't work," Cramer said. But he didn't consider testing this experimentally, he said, until he proposed it in June at a meeting sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"I thought it would get shot down, but people got excited by it," Cramer said. "People tell me it can't work, but nobody seems to be able to explain why it won't."

If the UW experiment succeeds at demonstrating faster-than-light communication and reverse causation, the implications are enormous. Besides altering our concept of time, the signaling finding alone would almost certainly revolutionize communication technologies.

"A NASA engineer on Earth could put on goggles and steer a Mars rover in real time," said Cramer, offering one example.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html?source=mypi

Science is ever so slowly accepting the observations of quantum physics experiments that demonstrate retrocausality. Not sure if this particular experiment will show "signalling", but we already see entanglement is real and defies causality in the normal sense of that term, although some creative approaches get around this by saying all potentials exist or don't exist, depending on the approach, until observation and various other approaches.

The implications for the evo/creo debate should be self-evident.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 11-16-2006 11:36 PM randman has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 9 (364250)
11-16-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-16-2006 5:03 PM


Science is ever so slowly accepting the observations of quantum physics experiments that demonstrate retrocausality.

In part of the article that you didn't quote, I read
    "It probably won't work," he said again carefully, peering through his large glasses as if to determine his audience's mental capacity for digesting the information.
It seems that Cramer has not begun to accept retrocausality.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-16-2006 5:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 11-16-2006 11:53 PM nwr has seen this message

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 9 (364251)
11-16-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
11-16-2006 11:36 PM


nope
Just his way of being humble, and also to acknowledge the strange implications of quantum physics.....he clearly states in his own words that entanglement is action at a distance. Whether the experiment works, that fact is not debatable. He also states and the article states this is predicted by quantum physics, something the evos here have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and thus deny hard data, repeatedly demonstrated, in favor of wishful belief systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 11-16-2006 11:36 PM nwr has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 11-17-2006 2:54 AM randman has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3330 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 4 of 9 (364276)
11-17-2006 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
11-16-2006 11:53 PM


Re: nope
He also states and the article states this is predicted by quantum physics, something the evos here have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and thus deny hard data

I don't claim to properly understand the maths beind quantum mechanics but surely a prediction isn't 'hard data', the 'hard data' would be the result of the experiment, no?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 11-16-2006 11:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 1:22 PM Wounded King has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 9 (364376)
11-17-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Wounded King
11-17-2006 2:54 AM


Re: nope
The predictions are based on experiments. If you read the article closely, it mentions a more recent experiment, probably some I have posted about, but speaking past the specifics of whether non-locality or entanglement involves signalling or not, which part of this experiment concerns, there has been a mountain of experimental verification of these basic concepts and principles within quantum physics. This experiment won't change that.

Based on those experiments in the lab, conducted for well-nigh 80 years now, and regardless of the math, quantum physics predicted and predicts the phenomenon of entanglement as action at a distance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 11-17-2006 2:54 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2006 3:56 PM randman has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 9 (364388)
11-17-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
11-17-2006 1:22 PM


Re: nope
Huh, this has been my subject also...

This duality, entanglement, retro-causality, superposition etc. theory, generally, with some exception, follows our common knowledge when we talk about making decisions.

In common knowledge decisions are generally conceived as being free, meaning in the event a decision can turn out one way, or it can turn out another way.

The "Darwinist" conception of decision is mechanical, computational, it can't actually turn out one way or another, it can just turn out the one way given the parameters in the computation. For instance the optimization of reproductive or survival success in game theory. That is simply a computation with a single optimal result, but the Darwinists regard this calculation as choosing.

So now comes hard science of anticipation-theory that uses the concept of decision in a similar way we use it in common knowledge. There are potentials (like chances, possibilities), inhabiting the future, and then a decision is made on the potentials at the same time on the "starting"point, and at the "end"point (creating the instantaneous action at a distance effect), then one timewave goes from the endpoint, and another timewave goes from the startingpoint.

Or something like that....

In any case the point of the theory IMO is free decisions taking place, not just in people's minds, but in all kinds of places.

as discussed previously;
Review of Incursive, Hyperincursive and Anticipatory Systems -
Foundation of Anticipation in Electromagnetism
Daniel M. DUBOIS
http://www.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/AIP/AIP_517_DD_1.pdf

The above paper by an apparently bona-fide awardwinning scientist, has lots of readable parts at the end of it, talking about free will and other things.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 1:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 4:28 PM Syamsu has taken no action
 Message 8 by randman, posted 12-02-2006 6:15 PM Syamsu has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 9 (364392)
11-17-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
11-17-2006 3:56 PM


Re: nope
I'll take a closer look and respond a bit more later...the subject you are dealing with has wider parameters than just QM......is there a free, random choice or not, or what degree?

I will agree that Darwinism has some inherent contradictions, one asserting randomness and determinism at the same time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2006 3:56 PM Syamsu has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 9 (367506)
12-02-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
11-17-2006 3:56 PM


Re: nope
well, I hear ya, but free will is still freedom of choice, not the freedom to create the set of choices available necessarily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2006 3:56 PM Syamsu has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 9 (368112)
12-07-2006 12:31 AM


ingenious experiment
Cramer has devised an ingenious experiment it seems....no comments on retrocausality?

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022