That the relevant experimental results are rigorous is not in question here, but the explanations imagined by physicists since the first person wondered about the Moon worry me! I do not care whether Albert Einstein or Neils Bohr was right on the EPR issue: physics is about correcting limitations of magnificent efforts in the past. I just want to understand the nature of Nature better than I do now. My questions are efforts to explore; they are not challenges.
To me, entanglement in non-locality means “here and there go we” and the verbiage that treats separated aspects of one self is misleading. That is, “we” is one self (persona), so the phrase is actually “here and there go I.” (“My skin is not my surface.” lfh.) The aspects of “we” are “form on ground,” the rest frame of the electromagnetic field, at least until they are instantiated by interaction. How does that “ground” read its lines in this drama.
That neither of the “separate particles” that are separating becomes its true self until it becomes defined by an interaction is measured. How do their waveforms separate so they may be considered “unreal” individuals instead of two “unreal” ripples on a common wave. When does the second particle become “real?” Setting aside a hidden variable like a pilot wave, how far in advance of the pairs do their waveforms extend, and how broadly? How is entanglement effected in nature as an actual phenomenon?
An internal communication sufficient to effect the entanglement result appears to be unknown. My observations and questions are just more verbiage without that communication. However, were Paul Dirac’s “sea of negative” energy valid, or were the ideas in the cosmology of inflation valid, then the communication could be effected by “the ground,” that sea of negative energy with “backward in time” antiparticles or ~instantaneous negative gravity activity. It’s a thought. . . .
The problem is: “it is measured that . . .” and “it is not known that . . .” and here we are again! Of course these questions cannot be answered – yet. If you give it a shot, your effort will be appreciated and undoubtedly interesting!
Leonard Hall In order to visualise two entangled electrons we first have to be able to visualise electrons.
In the Spacetime Wave theory I start from the nature of light as a wave in the medium of space. Then given that light is emitted when an electron changes energy level an electron must be a looped wave in the medium of space.
If you follow the introductory video here:
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics
https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I
you will see that waves in the medium of space can become very spread out (see dual slit experiment)
So an entangled system of electrons does indeed have a wave connection between the two electrons until a measurement is taken and the wave connection is cut but the measurement of the first particle affects the outcome of the measurement of the second particle as the wave collapses.
The effect cannot be instantaneous ( non-local) because it is action over a distance. However, it could be faster than the speed of a light wave as we are talking about the collapse of a wave which is a different physical process.
This is how I visualise entanglement and it is consistent with experiments.
Richard
Howdy Richard Lewis,
What a delight! Your reply is an effort to address my actual question with a contribution to an answer. Unusual! The parallels to conceptions of nature as we have discovered them are very strong, and although we are individuals, were an individual involved who saw past our differences to the sense of nature we share that person might "see the light." I have watched your movie, and were you to look deeper into my contributions here, I believe you would find a similar delight. Sydney Ernest Grimm has expressed wonder about how awareness seems to proceed in parallels in different minds, and ours is a case in point.
Minor notes: The Hubble speculation based on red-shift of starlight may not be valid, and the Big Bang theory is in trouble since new observations and conclusions have become available. Also, the response to the field of gravitation in your presentation is not clear to me, i.e. why? And on the double slit experiment, a photon is alternately a particle and a wave, so it is the particle state that is absorbed by a photographic film, not a "gathering" of the wave energy. The "wavicle" of that mystifying era was bad press, since a photon is alternately kinetic and potential energy and instruments measure one or the other. The photon was actually a corpuscle at the point of detection by the film. Well, it's a thought.
Your "looped wave" image is interesting and perusal of my Wave-in-a-Well ideas may be worth while. Until a-Ha! we are just setting the stage for a mind to experience it.
Your observations that: "So an entangled system of electrons does indeed have a wave connection" and "The effect cannot be instantaneous ( non-local) because it is action over a distance." still need explanation. Supper call, but I expect we shall return.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall Hi Leonard. I don’t think in terms of wave / particle duality as everything is a wave. You are right to say that the wave energy of the photon is “gathered in” by the orbital electron. The wave energy of the photon wave quantum has to go somewhere when it reaches the screen. The electron only has a certain number of possible stable states. The wave which is the electron is at the speed of light in the medium.
Conservation of energy requires that only one electron of the silver atoms in the detector screen can absorb the photon.
This paper might help you to reinforce your visualisation of the electron in the hydrogen bond.
Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)
Richard
Leonard Hall Yes. The Big Bang theory is really in trouble and should have been thrown out a long time ago. However, I do think that the expansion of space is a true phenomenon and affects the red shift of distant galaxies. It’s just that people have neglected to take into account the velocity of galaxies through space as well as the expansion of space.
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy
https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc
Richard
This subject is related to a paper I'm now writing. (So, no reference, yet.)
However, I note that our detectors (instruments and body) respond only to particles. Thus, light must be particles. But this leaves Young's experiment with a need to explain with particles. The STOE does this with a toy computer simulation and the design of an interference experiment that rejects wave explanations. The ``Transparent mask experiment''.
Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light
Optics and photonics journal vol. 9, No. 6 jun 2019
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056
https://doi.org/10.4236/opj.2019.96008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI
The STOE suggests particles cause waves in a medium (the `plenum' which is like an ether). The waves direct the particles (photons, like Newton's corpuscles). The particles are detected by our eyes and instruments. But we have no instrument to directly detect the ether / plenum waves. So, some have thought about designing an experiment to demonstrate (indirectly) the reality of the ether (J. R. Croca, et al. ``Proposed experiment to clarify the real nature of the quantum wave'')
My paper suggests the transparent mask experiment does demonstrate the reality of the plenum which must have the Newtonian property of much faster than light wave speed. This faster than light speed provides the ``non-local'' effects.
Howdy Richard Lewis and John Hodge,
It's a real feast of possibilities, isn't it?
On cosmology I like my conception of condensation of a primal content of the universe to matter with gravitational fields in the volume depleted by that condensation. A summary version of that concept is in 3:13 AM 26 March 2022. In that view the universe is not expanding but wavelengths are decreasing after condensation so distant sources look redder.
As for the wave - particle - corpuscle issue I see oscillation between kinetic and potential energy states as the phenomenon behind our experience of the wave-particle duality. For me, whether the kinetic or potential energy character triggers a detector indicates particle or wave. The universe is ripples on fields.
This feast of possibilities raises the question of where one "places their life" and I choose to focus on the entanglement observation for now. I was interested in it decades ago when looking into the Bell Inequality and in his book: J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. The opinions of David Bohm, Basil Hiley: The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory also have been of interest for some time and I'm not convinced by what I think yet. (Poster at Hospital Thrift Store: Don't believe everything you think.)
So, in any of our views, how is entanglement effected so that non-locality is an actual phenomenon? I appreciate the "faster than light" possibilities of a "wave connection" and a "plenum" each of you have supplied and they remind me of another comment that "instantaneous" is effected by one-dimensional vectors in the electromagnetic field, so I have food for thought. My own implied answer is that communication is "instantaneous" within what I labeled "we," the separating energy waveform of the pair of virtual particles that will become real on detection. Unfortunately, there is no proof in that answer, and I remain curious.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
Just a quick note for the discussion:
Round 2: What if “we” in my discussion introduction is not a pair of virtual particles, but the phenomena of propagation of a spherical wave of the particle annihilation energy from which they are produced? Then the non-local affect of entanglement would be to collapse the spherical wave into two “real” complementary particles by detection. The spherical waveform would be definite at the two ends of its “life,” its production by annihilation of particles and its condensation as different real particles.
The details of the distribution of energy in the ripples on a field of that spherical wave and the four particles are quite specific but the energy is obviously “flexible” to form different particles. The transformation of the propagating spherical wave to appear as mass with details would be how entanglement in non-local phenomena is effected. The communication required would be in the spherical wave which contains the information required for the two products. If this were a superimposed spherical wave pair so they were in contact through the entire expansion, the problem becomes one of a rate of condensation of the superimposed energy spheres separating to the resulting particles.
The communication of entanglement would not be between the resulting particles but in the wave of energy that is factored during condensation. The issue is not a rapid communication but a rapid energy conversion along the spherical surface of an expanding wave of energy. Unfortunately, while it is a different process, it is not easier to explain.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
And Round 3: It’s better than the above! Collapse of a wave to a detector is an old problem so that is not a complication here. AND if there is a pair of superimposed energy waves propagating from a collision with complementary character, then the one that matches the detector setting would be the one detected, and of course the rest of the story follows as it must. Hmmm, interesting. The first detection selects the one of the superimposed spherical waves like resonance responds to only a portion of the environment forcing.
Sorry about the delay and the number of posts. I'm just slow and these things are happening as I write. I can't tell when I'm done and stop too soon.
Happy Trails, Len
attention of Leonard Hall and others:
you might be interested in a short, concept, paper I have posted on researchgate, "Absurdities and Alternatives", which touches on this subject. I have also posted a lot of experiments on research gate that provide empirical, verifiable results contradictory to the Bohr concepts of nonlocality and remote entanglement.
Howdy Folks,
Clearly I need to study entanglement more deeply, since my 30-year-old impression that particle-antiparticle annihilation was involved in general is not borne out by further reading. However, I do prefer to pursue understanding rather than declare it all in error, as was attempted in the 30's with "One hundred authors against Einstein." To get larger by building, instead of by denying surrounding issues, is my preference.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
I have reviewed several recent articles and propose to close this discussion with a better view of entanglement and non-locality. A great array of topics under entanglement have come into play, including the analogue of a flock of birds for multi-particle entanglement. I have found entanglement and non-locality described and used extensively, but I have not found it explained. Interesting. So, how is entanglement in non-local events effected?
A few quotes with comments are offered.
Wikipedia: "An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents, . . ." and ". . . a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously" . . .. That the state of the entire system collapses instantaneously is no harder to explain than that it was entangled at great distances, as if it were aware of its whole "self." As noted, I found no explanation of either. And from Caltech: "Before the particles are measured, each will be in a state of superposition, or both "spin up" and "spin down" at the same time."
These quotations lead me to think that the wave function of an entangled system of particles does not collapse to just one eigenstate from a full basis of eigenstates as it would without entanglement, but that the wave function collapses upon measurement to one eigenstate for each constituent. The one whole entangled system becomes a set of particles at the first detection event. For me, this is a very clear image of the "oneness" or "integrity" of the entangled system, its non-local character and its disentanglement event. In the case of a subatomic particle that decays into an entangled pair of other particles, my previous image of superimposed spheres of propagating energy may be a valid, and the current post does not cover as well the observation: both "spin up" and "spin down" at the same time. Is it possible that other entangled systems have similarly superimposed local constituents as the nature of their entanglement, sharing their wavefunction like Siamese twins? Then upon detection one of the entangled states would become real and trigger reality of the second like a successful surgical separation of the twins.
My current thoughts on a possible nature of entanglement, so as not to go away empty:
What is entanglement? That is the real question! I propose that entanglement is due to an entanglement particle that uses the combined eigenbasis of the separate particles and thereby entangles them. It would be a non-linear interaction particle in resonance with internal details of both of the entangled particles to maintain their combined state. Entanglement would include continual internal communication in that entanglement particle up to detection. At detection of one particle, what the particles were like then, including the effect of first particle detection on second particle detection would be a final message. The disentangled particles would remain in their “final” disentangled state. No transmission after detection would occur.
What is an entanglement particle? The entanglement particle must support internal communication to support the measurement results that are already confirmed, and given modern views this would be a waveform on a field. Internal communication would not be by photon transmission, but it could be tension response in a “long string.” If one quantum of energy*interval is involved in the “long string” possibility, then the enhanced energy of the tension in the string due to separation would require a shorter interval of oscillation and communication would be faster, almost like a classic case of a stretched string. It would be a one Quantum entanglement particle with a Planck’s Constant value of action.
Summary: The idea that a particle is created during, and as, the entanglement and that particle endures separation while maintaining internal communication is a short version of the nature of entanglement in this view.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall Hi Leonard. I quite like your description. I tend to think of the connection as part of a looped wave in the medium of space. I think of an elastic band being stretched and stretched until on measurement the elastic band is cut and the wave energy springs back to the separated particles. This process places constraints on the possible outcomes of the second particle to be measured.
One of the features of the looped wave that is the electron is that the total energy of the wave is given by E=hf so is independent of the number of wavelengths in the loop. So a free electron can add or remove wavelengths freely without any change in energy. So the looped wave can become very extended in space. It takes an external intervention such as a measurement to cut the connection.
Richard
Howdy Richard,
How pleasant. Ahhh, it fits nicely. Actually, a looped wave with an internal pressure state that could be affected by stretching was an alternate view in keeping with my Wave-in-a-Well model. See especially the treatment of inertia there. Thank you for the additional focus.
Each of our views opens possibilities for someone to imagine a world view "away from" the Special Relativity restriction and into internal communication. We may have enabled change of focus from external messaging to internal communication - it's not a telegram, it's a current events report "in" the entangled particle.
Next? How. insight. To watch a movie in one's mind that illustrates entanglement as a natural process. The nature of Nature appreciated.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall Yes, it all depends on the idea of electrons and photons being spread out in space yet found to be at a particular point when detected. So it is the detector which is drawing together and absorbing the wave. These waves have the property that they retain their integrity (total energy) even though spread out in space.
I was thinking about the progress of a photon coming from the sun. How spread out would that be when it arrives on Earth? Is it metres or kilometres? It would be hard to measure because you only find out where it could be when you measure it. And then it is located at the point of measurement. We need really large telescope dishes because then we have a chance of focusing the spread out wave to a detection point.
So given that waves can be spread out like this and still retain their integrity, it gives some credence to the idea that it is a wave connection in entanglement.
Richarf
Howdy Richard,
When I was seeking a photon that would ring true for me, its lossless propagation was an important constraint on my model. How can it retain its quantum of action all the way from Arcturus if it has only the wave character that spreads out? My thoughts required a collection phase and led to alternate kinetic and potential energy states that propagate along as alternating particle and wave phases (field changes and fields). This is quite a different case from an expanding "pure energy sphere" after a particle collision annihilation event. To catch a photon by focusing its wave to a particle detector is an image I like.
Your comment on the number of wavelengths in a looped wave featured strongly in my Wave-in-a-Well effort to address inertia. The wave of many wavelengths in a loop could reinforce itself as well as occupy a sphere-like surface or volume. I see the reinforced loop as "self-referencing" that requires it to shorten when moved as a whole to prevent loss for a given wave speed in the loop. The shape change with acceleration and deceleration represents work that appears as inertial mass in the model.
For a looped wave form of a proposed "entanglement particle" instead of a "long string," the work involved in changing the loop shape as the entangled system spreads out could replace tension to enable communication within the particle. Or, either tension in the loop or additional wavelengths of the loop wave could matter as in your elastic band image - we need an a-Ha! moment here.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall You might like this picture of the bound electron where the path of the wave is analogous to the track of a particle.
Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)
So I don’t think of a photon from a distant star as being spread out over a spherical shell. Instead I see a photon as having a direction and maintaining a limited spatial range but spread out over some distance in metres. I think of the wave as like a string which is open (photon) or closed (electron) but still just a wave in the medium of space at speed c.
Why does it retain its integrity rather than spreading out and dissipating like a wave on the surface of water? This must be a property of the medium of space.
What I am saying is that the quantisation of light is not a properly of light it is a property of the electron. Light is emitted when an electron changes energy levels and the paper above includes a description of the energy level constraints.
Once a photon is released from a source it must travel at speed c in the medium and the joined wavelengths can’t split but the number of wavelengths in the wave quantum can increase or decrease without change in total energy although the energy in each wavelength changes.
When a photon is absorbed I can visualise the process of absorption more easily if the wave is one dimensional so that an absorbing electron ”reels in” the photon wave.
I hope you like the picture of the hydrogen bond. I do feel pleased that the Spacetime Wave theory allows you to visualise the atom.
Richard
Howdy Richard,
My spherical wave comment was a "not like" observation, so we agree on the directed photon of limited "width."
From another Q&A we have my conclusion: "If the tessellated spaces noted in this exchange are restricted to a minimum volume because the CMBR is tessellated, then we could posit that the value of Planck’s Constant expresses that value of the discrete elements of the tessellated electromagnetic field. Were that the case, and were such discrete elements the actors in this drama, the nature of action in Nature would be the transformation of one such discrete element from participation in the excited atom to propagation as a photon. Waveforms in their oscillation between kinetic and potential energy forms refract, diffract, interfere, scatter, etc. quite regularly, why not here." So it seems to me our underlying thoughts here are similar when you write: "Why does it retain its integrity rather than spreading out and dissipating like a wave on the surface of water? This must be a property of the medium of space. // What I am saying is that the quantisation of light is not a properly of light it is a property of the electron. Light is emitted when an electron changes energy levels and the paper above includes a description of the energy level constraints."
I have watched your presentation and read your preprint and find both interesting. "This picture of the cause of electric charge then gives us the understanding that the underlying cause of the electric charge of the electron or proton is a net compression or expansion of space. One can think of the electrostatic force as being delivered by space curvature of the medium of space in a similar way to the gravitational force is being delivered by spacetime curvature." In my model I posited charge as due to source and sink objects in the field which was modeled with a fluid character. The inclusion of magnetic force to accompany the electric force in the hydrogen bond is interesting as well. Given the modern sense of an "electron cloud" it seems unlikely that the magnetic dipoles would be stable enough to be valid. The classic argument that the sum of electrical attraction and repulsion is attractive because of the electron-proton offsets holds up for me, but the whole treatment of the hydrogen atoms and their covalent bonds is quite imaginative with impressive calculations.
My personal preference for the image of emission and absorption of photons by atoms is as a difference frequency between two shells which leaves an excited atom or excites a receiving atom with the electron adjusting to its new shell energy in the process.
As I noted in another Q&A discussion on the constancy of the speed of light, to confirm one another's views in depth would be career decisions, a bit late because the gray beard is real. Theories in physics, in all human thought it turns out, are transient and their replacement is assured. My hope is that exchanges here will enrich the knowledge of someone who will comprehend the next temporary confidence about Nature much better than I have done. Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall Hi Len. I just wanted to pick up on one point that I think is really significant in these models. You mentioned the idea of a source and sink in the field.
It is the word “field” that is the concern. There has been a tendency to talk about fields as real physical entities which are fundamental in nature. The standard model does this a lot.
This is an important point so I am going to give it some time. Since around 1920 there has been a tendency to think of light as an excitation of the electromagnetic field and therefore give the electromagnetic field a real physical existence. You could describe it as a quantum field rather than a classical field.
Now you can see why in the opening slide of the unification of physics video I talk about the LIGO experiment. The observation results of a distant neutron star merger show that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves travel at exactly the same speed even over expanding space.
This must mean that electromagnetic waves are waves in the medium of space not waves in the electromagnetic field.
This point is crucial but it means that the only fundamental thing is the medium of space and all fields are classical meaning that they have an underlying cause.
Richard
Howdy Richard,
"This must mean that electromagnetic waves are waves in the medium of space not waves in the electromagnetic field." Unless the medium of space is the electromagnetic field. Consider a recent post content:
"Nowadays we use the concept of quantum fields (QFT). The general concept is that phenomenological reality is created by the universal quantum fields. Expressed with the statement: “There are no particles, there are only fields”. (see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf)" [But, of course, there must be “ripples” on the fields that remind us of particles. lfh]
"In 2022 Jeremy Darling confirmed that the CMBR – actually the electromagnetic field – is a rest frame (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08)."
"The existence of the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space is confirmed too (https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21024)." ["In this period only the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field were responsible for all the action in the universe. Action in the quality of electromagnetic amplitudes. The latter are not identical with electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves are a type of electromagnetic amplitudes related to the existence of matter."]
I like: "The content of the electromagnetic field rest frame of the universe is quanta of energy*interval in a state of granular unrest as a Dirac Fluid of Planck Granule Waveforms filling the universe. The measure of each quantum is given by Planck’s Constant. The nature of Nature is to arrange and exchange these Planck Granule Waveforms as the ongoing process of becoming the universe during now.
"Notes: Something like molecular unrest is in mind as “granular unrest” in the fluid. “Dirac Fluid” affirms his contribution, but it is not his “sea of negative energy.” Waveforms, but “Planck Granule” for the measure and affirmation of his contribution. “Granule” because they are individuals, persona with integrity, ripples on a field. The quantum exchanges of the waveforms which are the Universe are the process of becoming in now." But then, I wrote it so it must be right, sigh.
And especially: "Photons do not exist separately themselves, they are ripples in the field of matter energy as it moves from one excited atom to another."
Graybeard notwithstanding, I'm too young to settle on any theory as the last word, even my own. La Place did not need a divine hypothesis in his Celestial Mechanics but got pretty good results with the available theories then. The same issues will be around in 2323. Communication is difficult; confidence outranks right opinion in general; "volumes in meaning space" are seldom identical in human minds and must be communicated with tokens loaded with multiple meanings: exploration and discussion are "beneficial" activities in our current state of ignorance.
I realized while waking that I had been thinking of the Van der Waals Force in my comment about your hydrogen bond ideas. Also, my images when reading and reflecting on the subject were of larger atoms and the shared valence shell concept. I am still concerned about electron orbits that are able to induce reliable magnetic dipoles that produce the attraction in the hydrogen bond, but I shall take another look at it soon.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
This note is a clarified view of evolving thoughts that have been developing for decades. It is offered in the hope that someone will see beyond it, or within it:
Emission: A photon may be emitted by an orbiting electron oscillating between orbits in an excited atom. It has circular polarization because of the orbiting of the electron in the emission process. The fluctuating electric displacement current of the oscillation between the two atom orbits produces a fluctuating electric displacement current for the photon. The photon emission timing is determined by the condition that the electron’s fluctuating electric displacement current has the geometry of a polarized photon electric displacement current in the medium, or non-medium, of propagation and it emerges as a photon, the result of the two states of the wave. "The shoe fits" during that moment and "the photon wears it!"
Propagation: Intuition demands that Maxwell's displacement current be given top billing.* The vacuum permittivity is primary with the magnetic permeability secondary. The electric field wave is built up by the electric displacement current directed forward from the electric field maximum to produce the new maximum of the field as the wave propagates. (On the full surface of the transverse field, or as a core motion is a new concern. lfh) Electric displacement current is the kinetic energy phase with electric field as the potential energy phase, plus magnetic consequences of course. It is how the field envelope moves! A photon propagates without loss because the potential energy field phase does not interact with the environment and it continues to propagate because of the Inertia of Energy in the kinetic phase, like Newton's First Law!!
* “. . . The displacement current term is now seen as a crucial addition that completed Maxwell's equations and is necessary to explain many phenomena, most particularly the existence of electromagnetic waves.” Wikipedia
Tunnelling: Tunnelling may occur by kinetic energy transfer in a channel that is produced by a barrier potential while it blocks potential energy transfer as too weak. One must be careful of the image of the long waves of a choppy wave surface tunnelling under a strip of ice to reach open water beyond, but it may be a good illustration. "Like that" may apply, with "how" a different physical mechanism.
Non-locality: Now, is internal communication in the entanglement particle accomplished by channeling the kinetic energy phase of signals to produce “instantaneous” affects? Is that part of the nonlinear interaction in the entanglement particle that comes from including the basis of the separate particles as a combined basis. Actually, it's no longer a Schrödinger equation case then and differences ought not to be a surprise. In the kinetic energy phase of my photon concept, if the displacement current is constrained to a channel it might become stiff and transmit like a re-bar under a sledge hammer blow. Does the nature of the entanglement particle include such channeling of electric displacement with resulting tunnelling and “instantaneous” internal communication? “- it's not a telegram, it's a current events report "in" the entangled particle.” Possibly, if the nature of that particle reduced or shed the bother of electric and magnetic transverse field generation because they were the potential energy phase of the wave. Actually, this would be like changing the permeability and permittivity of its transmission media and thereby changing internal signal velocities.
Well, as the fellow notes on occasion, it’s just a thought, but it also provides a cleanup view of the discussion on “How is entanglement in non-local events effected?” that I choose to include.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall Hi Len. As regards emission, I don’t quite see it that way. I don’t think of the photon being emitted as a result of oscillation between energy levels.
Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)
I think of the looped wave of the electron moving from one energy level to another and the larger the radius of the orbital shell the greater the energy.
So if an electron wave moves from energy level 1 to level 2, the frequency changes from f1 to f2 with f2 > f1. Then if the electron wave drops back down to level 1 the energy change is hf2 - hf1 and the energy of the emitted photon must be equal to h(f2-f1).
Here we see a looped wave in the medium of space ( electron ) emitting a non-looped wave in the medium of space ( photon ). From this you can see why light is quantised because the electron energy levels occur in discrete steps.
Richard
Howdy Richard,
Several of these Q&A exchanges have been very valuable for me because they have led to a number of new mind movies in which I get to watch natural processes as they occur. Whether they are correct is another matter and whether others benefit is unknown, but I would love to have read my description half-a-century ago.
In my view we have agreed on the event with variations in wording and details. For me, the process of oscillation that emits a photon is how the electron moves between energy level 1 and level 2. Absorption would be a replay in reverse. That it is a looped wave does not interfere with orbital energy, and my description is of a looped wave transition in an atom that becomes a non-looped wave during emission. This was the first time I have seen this possibility for photon emission with this much detail and the movie is quite clear.
On The Hydrogen Bond I understand better your explanation of the bond as a balance between electrostatic repulsion and magnetic dipole attraction. The image of the electron "clouds" being repelled beyond the protons is a possible arrangement, and that they become rings in the bonded state rings true if they are held there by the magnetic dipole attraction. That concept certainly answers my concern about stability. How they got that close has many potential answers. The valence shell bond also requires explanation as to how it happens. Whether either "beautiful theory" survives Benjamin Franklin's "brutal gang of facts" is always a problem. It is clearly an imaginative attempt to explain, which is all too rare in science in my experience.
I think that unifying approaches to knowledge are very valuable and the century long present surge in such efforts with mixed results is a good for some. There also have been cases where the effort reminds one of a cartoon character filling a suitcase casually because the scissors takes care of the overflow. I'm afraid I'm not ready to read the hundreds of pages I have been offered along that line instead of pursuing my curiosity about time, action, entanglement, etc. TOEs, or an STOE, or your Unification paper have less appeal for me. The pursuit of knowledge has many paths available, and a path is formed by walking on it. Happy Trails, Len
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Waves