[ExI] heaves a long broken psi

[Jeff Davis]

On 1/23/10, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> # Very close but not .... Two entangled particles are in contact indeed. It
> is
> called  nonseparability. And, technically, they are called bi-particles.
> Even
> that seems wrong, before measurements it would be better to say bi-waves
> :-),
> and waves have loong tailss. So, for the bi-waves, there is no action at
> 'distance', and there is no passion at 'distance'. Possibly, for the
> bi-waves,
> there is no even 'distance'. Try to reduce - and not to extend - the number
> of
> dimensions. From 4d to 3d to 2d to 1d to 0d. Contact. There is no space, no
> time :-)

Scerir,

What a pleasure this is.  I've long admired the quality of your
physics savvy.  And I look forward to responding to your comment.
Problem is: how to disentangle the whimsy indicated by the two
smiley's, from the serious.  Anyway, here goes...

First, I loved the "there is no passion at [a] 'distance'."  I'm not
at all sure what that means, but I love it, and I'm gonna let it
simmer at length in my subconscious, cause "I need the eggs".
Whenever a techno-weenie, er,... technophile summons passion into the
techno-whoopie, well, I mean,...science fired by passion?  Yeah, baby,
I'm for that.  (It's the Italian thing, isn't it?  The 'passion'
connection....)

Okay, so now let me take a few deep breaths and calm down.
"Self-replicating machine systems, ...self-replicating machine
systems,...self-replicating machine systems,...etc.")(It's my mantra.
Takes me to my 'happy place'...)

Ok.  I'm all calm now.

You wrote:

>...So, for the bi-waves, there is no action at
> 'distance'... "

Uh,... well, yeah.  You start with, "...very close but no."  But I
don't see where we disagree, cause that's exactly what I was saying.
There is no action at a distance.  I must have communicated poorly.

Regarding wave-particle duality, ok, I've heard of that.  As I
understand it, all the sparkling bits in our universe can be described
using two equally valid formulations, the classical which gives us
particles, and the quantum which gives us waves.  And it was my
impression there is this idea that until observed/measured, any given
bit is somehow "indeterminate",  existing as both particle and wave,
and in all acceptable configurations at once, but only in some
probabilistic potentiality.  Part and parcel of quantum weirdness.
Past my hat size.  Makes my head hurt.

But here's the deal.  If you send two entangled photons off in
different directions -- the Aspect experiment? -- the experimental
apparatus already allows you to treat them as particles.  How else can
you send them off in different directions?  So the bi-wave is already
(or is it 'still'?) also a bi-particle.  And isn't this, in fact,
generally the case?  Can't I take any photon/photon wave (or massy
baryonic or leptonic particle) at any time and describe it with equal
validity using either the particle or wave protocol?  That is, can't I
put it in a box and describe it as a wave, open the box, look in, and
describe it as a particle, put my hands over my eyes, treat the room
as just a big box, and keeping my eyes closed, describe it as a wave
again.  Isn't the wave-particle duality a 24/7 thing?  Always on, so
to speak, ready at every instant for a "reset" to simultaneous wave
particle potentiality?

But I digress...  So you have these two photonic bits, produced by an
experimental apparatus that allows us to assert with some confidence
certain particle-associated parameters -- ie position and velocity in
3D space -- (which it seems (to me) we could cover our eyes and
reformulate into wave-associated parameters, cause physics takes no
time outs), and we say "That one's over there", pointing off in the
distance, "and the other one is over here", pointing to a photon trap
on the laboratory bench.  And now you are prepared to go to the photon
trap and slap the captured photon around a bit until it (and it's
'distant' accomplice) decohere/disentangle.  Alternatively -- in
recognition of the semantic challenges which confront us -- I could
say, "Disturb the "photon trap" until the single quantum waveform
which constitutes the "not-two" "not particles"collapses and spits out
the result:  two particles localized in 3D space, or two new,
no-longer-entangled quantum waveforms INSTANTANEOUSLY extending to the
furthest reaches of 3D space, and whose waveforms might very well be
mathematically superposed and seen yet again as a single waveform -- a
component in the greater single waveform which is the entire universe.

Damn!, there I go digressing again.

Okay, okay.  (Takes a deep breath and gets back to it.)  So you wrote:

> ...Possibly, for the bi-waves, there is no even 'distance'

Yes, yes, that was precisely my point, but you threw me off with that
"...very close, but no."

In our 4D realm everything that manifests bears the features of 4D's.
Can't escape that IN THIS REALM.  In fact, I'm inclined to posit that
particle-ness can't exist without spatial and temporal separation.
Classical physics is 4D spacetimey-ness.

So your bi-waves can't exist in this realm without bearing the marks
of and conforming to the rules of 4D spacetime.  Those marks are two
distinct photons at a known measurable distance, and with no
possibility of intimate instantaneous contact (I assert).  Ergo, in
our 4D spacetime,  instantaneous action across distance must be be
mediated by and in other dimensions.

I avoided using the term "in contact" above, because "in contact" is
'spatial'.  It implies 4D.  Whereas, in other dimensions, what can be
said of space and time?  Perhaps nothing.  We have space and time in
our 4D's, and are much pleased, but that shouldn't prejudice us.  No
reason to project what we know onto what we don't.  And hey, they're
OTHER dimensions, they should be different, not some boring rehash of
what's already been done.  (Okay, that's not really a 'logical'
argument, more like an aesthetic one.)

So if you want to assert that the bi-waves know no separation, know no
'distance', I'm ready to entertain that notion so long as it is
restricted to some extra-dimensional context where the "rules" of
existence may not need, may in fact exclude what we experience as
space and time.

Okay, I've embarrassed myself enough for one day.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                         Ray Charles