A Little Test

Janus-
I would ask them "Is it true that the people of Lieburg eat people who ask them more than one question?" then I will determine quickly whether I am in truthsville or lieburg.
If I am in Truthsville they will answer "yes, that is true." if I am in lieburg they will deny this as being true because they cannot tell the truth but only lie consistently.

<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 29 October 2000).>
 
Janus,


Thank you for your reply.
First, by measuring entangled particles does NOT destroy their entangled state and I'll tell you why. I'm sure you're aware of the Pauli Exclusion principle from chemistry and about various conservation laws. The reason the particles must stay entangled is that they came from the same source and cannot occupy the same state to conserve the quantity of spin. Before they were created the total spin for the system is zero. The reason that the second particle always has equal and opposite spin is to conserve this quantity. If for any reason you force one particle into an "up" state and the other was to be "up" as well, we have just broken major conservation laws of physics as well as the exclusion principle. It's like saying two electrons within an s suborbital can spin in the same direction. It doesn't happen. They cannot exist in the same state at any time. To answer your second objection, it would depend on multiple factors. We don't know what the inside of the hole looks like as far as its field lines and also haven't taken into acount trajectory or velocity of the probe or whether the star inside the hole (yes, a black hole is still a star) is spinning or not. Much of this will affect the entire system as well as the size of the hole. If you take the massive galactic black hole at the center of the Milky Way the distance between field lines is so large that you could travel a long distance beyond the event horizon and the strongest gravity you would experience near the event horizon would be akin to free fall in earth's gravity. This has been theorized as the best hope of someone trying to make it through a black hole (provided this is possible). Quantum mechanics and the laws of physics open the door around the same laws that seem to forbid all of this. It's weird how this works. The same thing happened when physicists met in Australia to discuss teleportation. The original law that seemed to forbid it is finally what made it possible by the end of their session: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Please let me know if this answers your objections.
The particles stay entangled no matter how far you separate them. PArticle accelerators have already shown they stay entangled after separating them a distance of 26 miles. This was done the beginning of last year in Europe and was published in several science magazines and reviews. Sincerely,
Victor S.
 
Dear Janus,
I beg to differ, amy finite value may be considered one on account that all finite values have the same number of points that make up there quantity. Georg Cantor provided a mathematical proof of this by proving graphically that every point on a straight line coresponds to a point on a curve. Secondly , I would like to mention that I also thought that all points up to 180 degrees intersected the tangents until a few days ago when I reexamined my theory to find that the other half of the circle also intersects the tangent. Here is why: if one were to allow to parallel lines to span to infinity and allow each of the parallel lines to represent the 180 degree margin of a circle then one will notice that each of the parallel lines intersect the tangent according to the model that we have above yet the parallel line furthest from our point of view will intersect the parallel line at all angles greater then 180 degrees and will intersect the tangent of our infinite circle at an infinite distance to our left and right as the angles between both parallel lines as measured from the furthest parallel lines decreases to zero at an infinite distance. The distance between the parallel lines is only significant to verify that all parallel lines merge into a single straight line at infinite. This is the wierd infinity thing you were refering to. I must add that you have quite a talent for comprehending such abstract information and that I am impressed with you ability to pick up and analyse this material so quickly and with such high accuracy. I would like it very much when I get my experimentation off the ground to invite you work with me on this. Your knowlege of physics is no doubt far greater then my own and it is not just learned knowlege. You also appear to posses the ability to analyse and theorize as did Professor Einstien and Mr Tesla.
Also can you clarify the reason why all finite values are not one. I must mention that in Cantors theory above that the straight line was never supposed to reach zero. I beg to differ on this interpritation on account that the distance to actual infinity is a finite distance. Motion accurs in finite increments within a finite space-time. Finite by definition can not span to infinity and infinity cannot by definition have a place where it does not exist. If it were that finite were to span to infinity there would be no finite but finite would be infinity and finite and the conscept of finite would be unthinkable and uncomprehendable. Secondly if infinite did not exist where finite exists then infinite would not be infinite but would be finite for it would be have a border and an edge which is the finite universe. But since infinity is the border of the finite universe and the finite universe is bounded by finite distance and since infinity exists within the finite universe as well;therefore the finite universe has two layers the first is the space-time continuum which is finite and has a finite density and thickness, second is the infinite fabric of infinite space which lies within and beneath and above finite space. To study how these two mediums interact will solve all the mysteries about the universe that have been conjured over the last 2000 years of written history. It will also shed light on the highly misunderstood conscept of the undefined division of a quantity one or greater into zero. The misunderstanding lies in that one considers that anything can be proven with the zero law and that one interprits this to mean that all mathematical laws must be toppled for this to a valified. This is untrue for the defined zero division
does not devalify the mathematical laws but defines there range and there border. Further more beyond the border the laws of math are still the same. It is just that mathematical correlations between the two domains cannot interact instantely or at all by nature except by traversing through the conduit zero which is symbolized in math as the = sign. You see math itself has a form of expance as does the universe. The fabric of the universe is composed of space-time while the universe of math is composed of numbers. There is ever velocity in the math where movement of mathematical masses may interact and to travel past the velocity of mathematical light is to pass from the positive number line of x, y, z, t, axis to the -x, -y, -z, -t axis. I donnot mean to imply that there is actually a mathematical universe but the reason that math takes this form is that math is the measurement of actual events, space time, temperature and existance.....!n. Finite must be origanally formed from infinite for infinity had to always exist if it is infinite. And infinity has to exist for if something did not always exist then the laws of thermal dynamics would be vialated and so would the bible such that nothing can be added and nothing taken away... for science... energy may not be created nor destroyed but only changed. In order for energy to exist without the existance of infinity energy which is something must have to have been created from nothing and the second law of thermal dynamics would be inpossible on acount that the event of creation would cause a perpetual repeatition to accur within the universe such that the universe would increase exponetially from a source of nothing. And all laws in the universe created would follow after exactly opposite laws that are stated in thermal dynamics. Such a universe would allow that no action can accur without destroying energy and no energy can change without being destroyed. With the distruction of all mass as a result of any input with out the emision of energy would allow that no velocity would be possible. And there would be no energy mass equivelance for this is a direct result that energy cannot be destroyed but only changed. Time could not exist for it is the measure of change. Since everything is created from infinity and not non-existance we have the current laws of the universe.
If non-existance is to exist at all along with existance then any actions or mass created out of non existance would be destroyed into no existance by the progress of time itself with would be mediated to the realm of non existance through the contianment of non existance which must exist to seperate non existance from existance. mediations of energy produced by the perptuum of time will be mediated through this barrier into non existance destroying any mass created within the non-existance giving birth to the scientific law that something cannot be created from nothing. What do you think? does this sound logical? Is it logical?

inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Dear Janus,
I forgot to address the time factor to your reply. Although the probe would appear frozen on the event horizon (this is due to the light given off by the probe rending its image being trapped there), the matter probe would still continue inside the event horizon which is what is sending us its information. Remember that gravity behaves exactly like velocity in relativity. Einstein described the spatial contraction as an "optical illusion". As we approach the speed of light space appears to get shorter and shorter and would eventually approach a point at the speed of light. It doesn't mean that the universe is actually shrinking (think of how that would affect us back on earth). The same occurs at the event horizon. It's an optical illusion generated by the event horizon. It would seem to the probe that we all sped up.

Pamela, good answer! For another answer that would work watch the movie LABYRINTH.
 
Dear Victor and/or everyone. If it would take an infinite amount of energy two electrons to exist in the same energy state and any two electrons sharing the same energy state would have to be both up or both down and would have to have the same spin that is a unified spin am I right. Or wouldn't the spins have to add up to equill twice the spin of a normal electron so that two entangled electrons that have a spin of 0 degree and 180 degree 1/2 spin or up and down if that is what this means. Would become a single particle with a spin of 1 at either 180 or 0 degrees depending on which of the particle-waves becomes the modulating particle and which becomes the carrier particle-wave. assuming that this accurs. Or would the third accur if any that new particle would assume a stationary spin with a polarization half way between the 180 and 0 degree polarizations at 90 degrees on acount of the counteraction of equal spins. It would seem to me that the particles mass spin and polarization are all united. If this is so then to combine any of the particles to the same space or to to cause any of the entangles particles to have same polarity such as up or down would be as to compress the electrons to subinfinity and would be to cause the new mass to have an infinite density. By the way I must ask am I right in my interpritation of relating the terms 'up' and 'down' to polarity or am I misunderstanding what you mean for lack of education. Please correct me if I am wrong so that I may learn for I value your input more then money. Thanks.


Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Victor - thanks, this is turning out to be a good discussion.

I still think that your idea of entangled particles is different from mine. Picture this: you have two electrons emitted from a source such that one must be 'up' and the other 'down'. You don't know which yet; since you haven't measured them, bothe particles are in a 50/50 'limbo' spin state. But they're entangled: their states are dependant on one another. So you send one some distance away - like you said, the distance really doesn't matter. The interdependance of the spin states lies in the fact that spin is conservative. So, if not acted on by an outside influence, the two spins must add to zero. If you measure the state of one electron, logically the other must be the opposite. However, this carries no information along with it. When you measure the state of electron A, let's say up, you know that B must be down. But how can you use this to convey information? If you force A into a state, then you break the correlation between A and B by introducing an outside source of spin, which ruins the entanglement. Note that without outside influence A has an exactly 50% chance of being in either state, uncontrollably. Since you can't influence the state you get without ruining the entanglement, there's no way to transmit information instantaneously using entangled particle pairs.

And, doesn't time stop at the event horizon of a black hole? I can't remember, it's been a while since I did the calculations.

rgrunt: I guess if you look at numbers as pure mathematical abstractions that 1 could be any finite value. But, looking at it from a realist's point of view, one is the only number which, when multiplied by any other number, yields exactly that other number. This is the definition I was thinking of.

Do you have a proof handy of the idea that parallel straight lines meet at infinity? I would tend to think that they stay separated (in Euclidean space) - after all, if they're separated by a distance d(x), then d(x) is constant, and lim(x-]inf) d(x) = d , thus they stay distance d apart. I'm curious as to other ways of looking at this.

Hey, if you want any help from me on your project, just ask. I must warn you, though, I'm really strapped for time right now. School's a b****, and the only reason I even have time to write here is because my time table shifted.

pamela: What question can you ask if the Truthtellers still tell only the truth, but the liers are replaced with the Prevaricators, who can either completely lie or completely tell the truth, at their discretion?
 
Dear Janus,
thankyou for your help the project will take a couple of years to perfect, but that is an open offer. I will probably be working on many projects in the future. If I succeed in this model that will open doors to bigger projects. If I have a say I would gladly offer you a job at that time so long as those over me wouldn't mind. But thats far in the future. While I am working for myself you are welcome to work with me when you can.
 
Ok Janus..hehehe :) So now I need to know if Iam in Truthsville or Prevaricatorsberg?


"pamela: What question can you ask if the Truthtellers still tell only the truth, but the liers are replaced with the Prevaricators, who can either completely lie or completely tell the truth, at their discretion?"

Id be in my blue time traveler jump suit and I would ask:
"quickly now..simply answering my question with one yes or no....Is it true I am wearing blue here in Truthsville?"

If I was in truthsville they would simply say "yes."
If I was in Prevaricatorsberg and seeing how they had to either COMPLETELY lie or COMPLETELY tell the truth... with this question they would be totally confused!!!!!
They would stare at me and stammer around with "ummm....y....n...n...y...augh!!!..."
and I would know the truth!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :) :) :) :)
 
Dear Janus,
Here is a graphical proof. Imagine that you have two parallel lines labeled x1 and x2 spanning to infinity to the left and to the right. Let there be a third single line labeled y1 intersect parallel lines x1 and x2 at a 90 degree angle. If one allows line y1 to pivot to the right or left (for simplicity sake let us say right) then the angle of intersection of both parallel lines x1 and x2 will decrease. Furthermore the rectangular shape will have formed into the shape of a parallelagram. Now let the intersecting angle be 45 degrees. If were to pivot the line y1 an additional 22.5 degrees the angle of y1 to both parallel lines x1 and x2 will decrease to 22.5 degrees. Now if one were to pivot the line y1 another 22.5 degrees to the right the angle between y1; x1 and x2 would diminish to zero. since the simultaneous angular decrease of line y1 at x1 and x2 intersection is what determines that the lines are parallel and since that angle decreases to zero so that the area between the two parallel lines are constricted to a singularity parallel lines no longer parallel at infinite but a single straight line. Furthermore, if one were to measure the angle of the distance between both intersections at a pivoting point is outside of parallel lines x2 the angle between both intersections on lines x1 and x2 would diminsh to zero at an infinte distance. Which confirms our notion that all lines within an infinite radius must intersect at the first infinite tangent and that if viewing these intersections from the tangent to the right or left on the infinite circle that there will be added to the intersection of lines x1 and x2 an infinite distance so that the distance between intersection x1 and x2 on the parallelagram is infinitely long verticly and appears as an infinitely small point . However(and I am repeating myself here for in order to rephrase what I am saying incase what I sayed above is not understood.) If viewing this intesection form any point of view within the infinite circle and or out the distance between these intersections appear to be infinitely long horizontally and still appears to be an infinitely small point. Thus to bridge past this universe is to create a torque and twist of space equal to 90 degrees so that the equality of any distance is 90 degrees so left will be up and up will be right and back willbe back I think but I will have to recheck this one.

What do you think? Edwin Gary Schasteen
 
Dear Janus (and Edwin):

Answering Edwin's hypothesis on spin will also help in explaining why the issue of introducing spin is really not an issue. First, values for spin are very restrictive in the quantum realm. For instance, an electron can have only two values for spin irregardless of it's in the first or third energy level, whether it's in an s or p suborbital or if its magnetic number is 0 or 1. It'll either be 1/2 or -1/2. For the sake of any who don't know what these values represent and what we mean by "up" and "down". The sign refers to whether it's spinning clockwise or counterclockwise. There are two numbers extremely important in quantum mechanics: h (Planck's constant from his formula: E = hv) and H (= h/2<pi>). The values are the fraction of H describing its angular momentum. By the way, all particles called fermions (which include protons, neutrons, and electrons) can have only odd fractional spin (1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, etc.). Integer spin (0, 1, 2, etc.) is reserved solely for bosons (force carrying particles like photons, gluons, W+, W-, Z, and gravitons). All particles are very restricted. Still, we WANT to introduce outside spin to the first particle of the entangled pair. How else are you going to change its state? The beauty of it is that irregardless of the final state of the first particle, the second particle's state must add to it to equal zero. That change is the important one and the second particle's change is caused internally, not externally. You also might want to take into consideration how your hard disk in your computer stores information. Why doesn't the act of reading it change the information stored within it? This example does apply because information is stored using magnetic fields and a second magnetic field is coming in contact with the first, so why doesn't it destroy the information like a magnet would destroy the magnetism of the magnetic strip on the back of your ATM card? (A problem I recently ran into) Inquiring minds want to know...
 
In response to question #3...it is an unfair question. There is no such thing as a perfect mirror, therefore, there is no question 3. There is no answer and that would mean that every other question thereafter cannot exist. Continuity has been broken in your line of questioning, voiding question #4 which is now question #3, so on, and so on.

By the way, you are very versed on this topic, have you figured out the secret to time travel?

ciao, a presto.

[email protected]
 
Dear User8,
"by the way, you are very versed on this topic have you figured out the secret to time travel?" to which of us on this forum was your question asked to, please specify.

thanks,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
:) I like! Continuity has been broken! Not(3), therefore Not(3+1),...,Not(3+n) . Pseudo-mathematical induction is great, isn't it?

At any rate, I know at least one way to time travel. If you get knocked on the head really hard, and go into a coma for a few years, you'll wake up in the future. The only thing is, your body'll be so much older. :)

Pamela: excellent! I would never have thought of that. I'll post any more logical problems like that that I can think up. They're so fun!

rgrunt: what can I say but "neat"? that's (to me) a new way of looking at the definition of 'parallel'. But what I don't see is the decreasing of the angle between the intersection points. What is the third point that you are basing this angle on? All angles are defined by three points.

Victor: Okay, up or down, 1/2 or -1/2 , it doesn't make any difference. The point is, two distinct, separate, and unique states which the particle can posess. So I guess now I'll call the two states (+) and (-) (for brevity's sake.)

Here's a blow-by-blow of your proposal, as I understand it:
1) create an entangled pair of particles A and B
2) separate them
(NB: both particles are in a 50/50 superposition of state (+) and state (-))
3) somehow force particle A to become (+)
4) measure B - the fact that it's (-) conveys one bit of information.

OK. So the problem comes in step 3 - how do you force A to become (+) ? The success of the entire idea hinges on this, and I think it can't be done. Can you propose a possible method to do this? I think I can prove that any method you come up with will break the entanglement.

As for the bank macine, the answer is that it *does* destroy your bank card's information, albeit much more slowly than a permanent magnet. The act of reading data from a bank card just uses extremely weak fields so the signal degeneration is low. Same for hard discs - the read mechanism is designed to be nondestructive. All this doesn't apply to the entanglement question, because there is only one mechanism at work, and it's fundamentally destructive.
 
Dear Janus,

Please answer two questions for me and I'll see what I can do about answering your questions:

1) On what physical laws do you base your assumption that entanglement will be broken by the introduction of an outside force on one particle? (This is what would be required since a change in angular momentum can be brought about by introduction of an outside electromagnetic field on one particle)

2) If entanglement is destroyed by introducing an outside force on one particle (and remember that even just reading such a state does require such introduction), how did the physicists at CERN deduce that the particles were still entangled after a separation of 26 miles when such measurement would destroy what they were measuring?

Sincerely,

------------------
Victor Sciortino
 
1) My reasoning goes more like this (feel free to challenge it): There is *no* way to force A into either state. The only thing one can do is measure the state of A, which has a 50/50 chance of being either state - one then has no control, and can't send information. My challenge to you is to come up with a way to make sure that A comes up (+) without a) first measuring it, which is uncontrollable, and/or b) involving the forcing apparatus in the entanglement so that its state is also not known. I don't mean that applying a force will break the entanglement... Well, give me an example of how you'd do it and I'll show you. It'll be easier that way. You must have a rough idea, or your device wouldn't work anyway.

2) The physicists as CERN had two entangled particles far away from each other. They measured A to be, say, (+). Someone else measured B, and when they all got together they found that, invariably, the two measurements were (+) and (-). But, they had no control over the state they measured of A, and thus no information was conveyed faster than light - if A and B had never met up, each of their measurements, taken individually, looks just like normal - 50% odds of either state.

NB: I never said that applying a force to the particle would break the entanglement; rather, the only way to break the entanglement would be by measuring the state of either A or B. And yes, the measurement does break the entanglement - in a way, it destroys what we're trying to measure. But that doesn't affect anything.
 
Oh, and an aside on the perfect-mirror-photon-boxes; one photon-box is attracted to a massive object. OK, gravity bends space. But wait: here's the weird part: Two isolated photon-boxes will also attract each other gravitationally! But, there's no mass in the system whatsoever! What's going on? Something's not quite right about Newtonian gravitation...
 
Janus,
sorry for the delay in replying to our question. To answer your question about decreasing angles of the intersecting points I must state the following. The area seperating a the two parallel lines appears to merge into a single staight line at an infinite distance or at the first trtansfinite tangent of the infinite circle. I must state that the area does not cease to exist but is compressed to a relative singularity. This leads me to redefine the term infinity as the intersection of any two lines, planes or spaces through the same point in space. This means that a distance is irrelevant in space and that true measurements must be made as relative values defined by quantity and angle. A parallel line is an iscosoles triangle with it's vertex at an infinite distance. The only difference between a triangle with it's vertex at a finite distance and a triangle with it's vertex at an infinite distance is that if one were to divide the quantity of the infinite triangle an infinite number of times the result would be a triangle with the quantity one for infinity is an infinite number of ones. A finite triangle divided an infinite number of times is zero for there are an infinite number of zero's in the number one. There is no difference between the infinite triangle and the finite triangle on account that there is no difference between the number zero and the number one. This is because all fractions of a quantity become defined as 1/1 at an infinitely small point or singularity. Since zero is now defined as an infinite number of ones and finite is defined as an infinite number of fractions adding up to one and since infinity is also defined as an infinite number of ones there is therefore no difference between zero and infinity and one and the quantity infinity constricted to the area one.


sincerely,
Edwin G. Schasteen please write back and tell me what you think.
 
I forgot to mention the last part.
This also means that there is no difference between a quantity infinity confined to the area one and one confined to the area zero since one confined to an area zero produces and infinite number of ones from the infinite number of fractions adding up to one. An infinite number of ones confined to the space of one creates and infinite number of infinites out confined to the area one. This may make infinity appear in the large confinied to one more dence then one confined to zero on account that as an infinite number of ones is confined to a quatity of absolute one all the individual ones composing the infinite field of expance will be compressed to one such that each individual one in the infinite field obtains a size zero at the instant that infinity obtains size one. Thus you will have an infinite number of infinites in the field compressed to a size one giving the field a density infinite. On the other hand a quantity one compressed to zero will have an infinite number of fractions compressed to a point of semmetry at which the fractional values will have a density of infinite confined to an area zero. Does this mean that the finite quatity confined to a size zero is less than an infinite quantity confined to a finite quatity? Maybe so; however the other possibility is that a finite quantity confined to a size zero produces an infinite number of ones each of which has a density of infinity. And an infinite source confined to the quantity one has an infinite number of ones each of whose density is also infinite therby making the infinite quantity contained to a space of one equal in quantity of substance to the finite quantity contained to a space of zero thereby making the density of substance in zero equal in density to substance contained in one. considering that there are the same number of points in an infinite quantity as there is in a finite quantity it may be ascertained that the size zero and the size one are equal in area three dimensionally and therefor must be set assymetrical in their relation to time such that the quantity is precisely one instant short of quantity one and that quantity one be confined to either a positive or negative value on either side of zerosuch that positive side is a negative time value and confined to the state of superluminosity and the negative side is a positive time value and contained to a state of subluminosity. I speak here in terms of static velocity which is defined as inward acceleration toward a centermass and quantity of kenetic energy added to a mass toward it's centermass and resulting in the cancelation of work done making the object's center mass stationary with respect to outside bodies. An infinite kenetic quantity of acceleration given to the external surface of a three dimensional object symmetrically over the entire suface of the body from a flat surface at right angles to the center mass and with an applied force toward the centermass in a period of one second will create an acceleration with in the mass and a crushing of the mass to an area of zero and result in a mass with an infinite density and equal to infinity with all angles from the surface of the mass to the center of the mass to every point and line and space in the universe connected at the same point such that the mass is omnipresent both with respects to time and space in the past, present, and future.

Anyone have a qritique? I love suggestions and correction. They make me grow so please hook me up with some knowlege. Everyone please have a nice day.

sincerely,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
ok, rgrunt, it gets really hard to follow your run-on sentences, but I'll try to comment:

It seems to me that you are delving into the realm of mathematical abstraction, which may or may not have any relation to the actual, physical universe. For instance, a mathematical volume with a certain "density" has no opposition to being compressed. In the real world, one cannot infinitely compress something, for it would take infinite energy. Other forces come into play which limit the effectiveness of that particular mathematical model.

I also caution you on your mathematical manipulations - saying that two parallel lines meet at infinity is not the same as saying that the area between them is somehow compressed. For one, the lines never actually meet in real space - the infinite meeting point is in the realm of Cantorian transfinites, which is not in any way connected to the real physical universe, or real mathematical space. For another, the area between the two lines can be defined as an integral, with a constant width between the lines. The evaluated integral equals infinity, the expected value, never resorting to 'compression' of any sort. I caution you to look at more than one aspect of your ideas before drawing such large conclusions about the nature of our universe.
 
Dear Janus,

1) These particles were measured at CERN because, otherwise, how would they know their states?

2) Physicists also evidently believe that this does NOT break the entanglement through current laws of physics, otherwise what would be the point in even measuring the states since this act would break the entanglement.

3) When it was MEASURED, the entanglement still existed.

4) You contradict yourself: how can states not be altered, yet entanglement can be broken? Doesn't that involve a change in at least one particle's state?

5) The apparatus utilizes electromagnetic fields oriented in such a way that the rotational vectors result in a net vector equal to and opposite the original's.

I still don't understand which laws of physics you base your conclusions on. You say you BELIEVE that entanglement is broken, but on what do you base your beliefs?

I will gladly answer any further objections you have and thank you for your input.

Sincerely,


------------------
Victor Sciortino
 
Back
Top