Is it just me or is "Entanglement" stupid?

[Woodsman]

I was reading up on the concept, wondering, "How do you create entangled particles?"

-Making the assumption that modern science actually had something in hand, that Quantum Entanglement was a real thing. -That because it was being talked about so much, had penetrated the depths of pop culture, that big companies were investing heavily in Quantum This and Quantum That, that "Entanglement" was not just some delusional math fantasy.

Now I'm not so sure...

Here's the metaphor I've invented to explain the so-called phenomena to myself:

Say I have two coins. One is a US Penny, the other is a Canadian Penny. They both feel the same.

Without looking at them, you and I each take one of the pennies in our fists. We don't know which one we have.

We walk away from each other and lock ourselves in separate rooms. We have no communication.

I look at my penny, see that it is the Canadian coin, and WHOOOO. I know that your penny must be the American one! They were "entangled". Information about your penny moved faster than the speed of light! Spooooky Action at a Distance!

Is Entanglement really that mundane?

Am I correct in thinking that this whole Quantum Science thing is really just a sort of collective fever dream being experienced by the entirety of the scientific community?

Am I missing something?

 

[ark]

Essentially correct, except:

With quantum particles when you look at it, it may happen that it is neither Canadian nor US. You may find the denarius of Marcus Aurelius which you did not expect at all.

 

[MusicMan]

How is it then, that the Cassiopaeans can communicate with Laura from Cassiopaea, or Leo, or wherever they say they are, in "real time", or 'instantaneously'.

And yet, they say that they are Laura "in the future".

And yet, the light from every star we can see has originated at some "time in the past", according to the scientist /astronomers.

Is the universe toroidal in form, so that future, present, and past all co-exist simultaneously?

If you take a photon of light, at any instant it will appear to be a particle.
If you then add "time" it will appear to be a wave. Or a spiral.
Persistence of vision gives our brains the impression of movement. (multiple photons)

Maybe we need to think 'instantaneous' for everything.

 

[Laura]

How is it then, that the Cassiopaeans can communicate with Laura from Cassiopaea, or Leo, or wherever they say they are, in "real time", or 'instantaneously'.

And yet, they say that they are Laura "in the future".

And yet, the light from every star we can see has originated at some "time in the past", according to the scientist /astronomers.

Is the universe toroidal in form, so that future, present, and past all co-exist simultaneously?

If you take a photon of light, at any instant it will appear to be a particle.
If you then add "time" it will appear to be a wave. Or a spiral.
Persistence of vision gives our brains the impression of movement. (multiple photons)

Maybe we need to think 'instantaneous' for everything.

Q: (SV) But, if there is no time? (J) It is our perception
of it. (L) It is all happening simultaneously. We are
having all of these lifetimes at once. (SV) Is there a
way that we can connect ourselves with all our other
selves?

A: Picture it this way: we will access some of your memory
banks and give you another reference which, interestingly
enough, fits very closely with the perpendicular reality
wheel that we described earlier. You know what a slide
projector looks like? To give you some feeling of what
this expanded nature of reality really is, picture
yourself watching a big slide presentation with a big
slide wheel on the projector. At any given point along
the way you are watching one particular slide. But, all
the rest of the slides are present on the wheel, are they
not? And, of course, this fits in with the perpendicular
reality, which fits in with the circles within circles and
cycles within cycles, which also fits in the Grand Cycle,
which also fits in with what we have told you before: All
there is is lessons. That's all there is and we ask that
you enjoy them as you are watching the slide presentation...

Q: (J) In that analogy, the light that shines through the
slide, as it projects it upon the screen, is our
perception.

A: And, if you look back at the center of the projector, you
see the origin and essence of all creation itself, which,
is level seven where you are in union with the One.

 

[MusicMan]

It is highly strange, from from my miserable 3D viewpoint.
And yet, when I look back I see that somehow I have ended up between Ark and Laura.
I guess we're all entangled, as it were.

 

[zak]

How is it then, that the Cassiopaeans can communicate with Laura from Cassiopaea, or Leo, or wherever they say they are, in "real time", or 'instantaneously'.

And yet, they say that they are Laura "in the future".

And yet, the light from every star we can see has originated at some "time in the past", according to the scientist /astronomers.

Is the universe toroidal in form, so that future, present, and past all co-exist simultaneously?

If you take a photon of light, at any instant it will appear to be a particle.
If you then add "time" it will appear to be a wave. Or a spiral.
Persistence of vision gives our brains the impression of movement. (multiple photons)

Maybe we need to think 'instantaneous' for everything.

Q: (SV) But, if there is no time? (J) It is our perception
of it. (L) It is all happening simultaneously. We are
having all of these lifetimes at once. (SV) Is there a
way that we can connect ourselves with all our other
selves?

A: Picture it this way: we will access some of your memory
banks and give you another reference which, interestingly
enough, fits very closely with the perpendicular reality
wheel that we described earlier. You know what a slide
projector looks like? To give you some feeling of what
this expanded nature of reality really is, picture
yourself watching a big slide presentation with a big
slide wheel on the projector. At any given point along
the way you are watching one particular slide. But, all
the rest of the slides are present on the wheel, are they
not? And, of course, this fits in with the perpendicular
reality, which fits in with the circles within circles and
cycles within cycles, which also fits in the Grand Cycle,
which also fits in with what we have told you before: All
there is is lessons. That's all there is and we ask that
you enjoy them as you are watching the slide presentation...

Q: (J) In that analogy, the light that shines through the
slide, as it projects it upon the screen, is our
perception.

A: And, if you look back at the center of the projector, you
see the origin and essence of all creation itself, which,
is level seven where you are in union with the One.

"We are you in the future" 3.

" This is what "they" declare : that "they" - The Cassiopaeans - 6th density Unified Thought Form Beings of Light - are us in the future. What a bizarre concept. Or is it?

Is that possible? Can such a statement find a place in accepted theories? Or it is in an evident contradiction with everything that we - that is, physicists - know about Nature and its laws?

Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether existence in a pure state of consciousness is possible, is travelling in time possible, even if only in theory? Is sending and receiving information from the future or sending information into the past allowed by our present theories of relativity and quantum mechanics? If information can be sent, does this also imply that physical matter can be "sent," via some sort of TransDimensional Remolecularization? And if so what are the laws, what are the restrictions? What are the means?"
The following here:
quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/pm1.htm#bell90

 

[Archaea]

My understanding of entanglement is that instead of having one coin each, the two people have two coins each but they can only look at one of them at any given time. Not only that, but when they look at one of the coins, the other coin gets put into a superposition, where it is both a US penny and a Canadian penny at the same time.

So if person A looks at their first coin and sees a US penny then person B's first coin must be a Canadian penny. If person A then stops looking at their first coin and looks at their second coin and sees a Canadian penny then person B's second coin must be a US penny. But now the first coin is in a superposition, so if person A stops looking at the second coin and looks at the first coin again there's a chance it will now be a Canadian penny and so person B's first coin must now be a US penny.

This means that if person A could somehow determine what type of penny the first coin decoheres into then they could send messages to person B.

Here's a good lecture from MIT opencourseware which explains weird quantum stuff pretty well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc&index=1&list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPr

This is just the first lecture and there's no mathematics in it, there's plenty in the following lectures though so don't worry. ;)

 

[Deleted member 9511]

This is a good thread to introduce a thought-experiment. I've played with this for years and it helps me to understand the possibility of Laura-in-the-future communicating with Laura, here and now.

Imagine that everything exists all the time. Include in this imagined scenario that everything includes not only physical objects, but also abstract objects and concepts, emotional states....everything that one might consider as "other than me" objects. Those objects can and must include me-in-the-future and me-in-the-past, same for all versions of you, past and present, and every other being, sentient or otherwise. Imagine that this everything-all-the-time can't move at all. After all, how could it? If it moved from here to there, or if any part of it moved from here to there within the "space" of everything-all-the-time, then the movement in time would blow the whole thought-experiment apart. It's just an experiment, so no big deal anyway. OK.

What do you notice about this everything-all-the-time? I'll tell you what I notice. It can't move. At all. It's so pregnant with itself that there is nowhere to go, and it's jammed so tight that nothing within it can move at all. It's a cosmic sardine can wrapped around itself. And, yet, somehow, there is this experience of movement in time. Something moves, though nothing can.

So far, the only explanation I can muster is tied into the whole context-content conundrum (I've posted some of my musings on this conundrum in other threads). Context moves. Content does not. Or, rather, the movement is the apparent change in perspective that comes from moving attention between context and content. The everything-all-the-time, in this thought experiment, is layered and nested and superimposed and you get the picture. Movement is simply the imaginary grouping of various content into sets opposed to other sets. A play has a context, the setting, that includes the items on the stage and the social awareness of the audience, but those items of context are content within the larger world. It's just a matter of perspective which sets are seen and which are not, what represents context and how content is included in that context.

If you've followed with this thought-experiment, you can imagine the Laura-in-the-future laying in the sardine-can of everything-all-the-time right along side Laura-here-and-now. It's just a matter of perspective. As for the perspective of Laura-in-the-future, again, that is the context within which Laura-here-and-now is nested. So, not so much is Laura-here-and-now laying in the sardine-can side-by-side with Laura-in-the-future. Rather, they are not there individually at all, but are only imagined to be there because of the mingling of context and content that, I suggest, is an inherent property of consciousness. Perspective can move around in the sardine-can, but the contents of the can cannot. The context is moving, the content is not. However, they are one and the same, of course depending upon perspective. Cs, as Laura-in-the-future, can simply be seen as wider context than Laura-here-and-now, who is content for Laura-in-the-future, and who, in turn, though from a narrower perspective, also sees the Cs as content within the Laura-here-and-now perspective.

With respect to entanglement, it seems to me that the context-content conundrum explains it nicely.

 

[John G]

My understanding of entanglement is that instead of having one coin each, the two people have two coins each but they can only look at one of them at any given time. Not only that, but when they look at one of the coins, the other coin gets put into a superposition, where it is both a US penny and a Canadian penny at the same time.

So if person A looks at their first coin and sees a US penny then person B's first coin must be a Canadian penny. If person A then stops looking at their first coin and looks at their second coin and sees a Canadian penny then person B's second coin must be a US penny. But now the first coin is in a superposition, so if person A stops looking at the second coin and looks at the first coin again there's a chance it will now be a Canadian penny and so person B's first coin must now be a US penny.

It gets to be semantics a bit but you could also say that both people go to the same state and that state only has two coins so if person A has one of the coins then person B has the other coin. Ark's addition could be that consciousness or something could cause a quantum jump to another state that somehow has three coins.

 

[mkrnhr]

It's tricky to conceptualize quantum phenomena via classical analogies. However, one can imagine that there is something, and that this something manifests as two "veiled" coins. You don't know what kind of coins they are until you look at one of them. But they are not really coins, it's your observation that "froze" them into one kind or another coin. Before the measurement "unveiling of which coin it is", not only there were many possibilities (one doesn't know before looking into it, it could be anything) which is a superposition of states, but the fact that the coins are separated in space is an illusion because the two coins are one something at some other level (non-locality). I don't know if this mental image can help.

 

[Nević Nenad]

@ge0m0

Great analogy there. But could your 'movement' be named 'consciousness and awareness' of the beholder, which helps things to manifest from the 'everything-all-the-time' (or 'none-never' if there is no consciousness and awareness to help them manifest)?



What determines which coin will show up?

Essentially correct, except:

With quantum particles when you look at it, it may happen that it is neither Canadian nor US. You may find the denarius of Marcus Aurelius which you did not expect at all.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=ge0m0]
Imagine that everything exists all the time. Include in this imagined scenario that everything includes not only physical objects, but also abstract objects and concepts, emotional states....everything that one might consider as "other than me" objects. Those objects can and must include me-in-the-future and me-in-the-past, same for all versions of you, past and present, and every other being, sentient or otherwise. Imagine that this everything-all-the-time can't move at all. After all, how could it? If it moved from here to there, or if any part of it moved from here to there within the "space" of everything-all-the-time, then the movement in time would blow the whole thought-experiment apart.
[/quote]

Per my current understanding, there are different qualities of existence and time.

The space-time world of physical objects, matter-energy interactions etc is associated with the usual linear time progressing only in one direction.

Then there is the non space-time existence of potential or possibilities. This world of possibilities is associated with a different "time". In the 4th Way context, JG Bennett called the time associated with the world of possibilities "eternity". Words start failing us here since to describe this world in terms of language necessarily invokes terms which really are applicable to the space-time world descriptions. Quantum objects have a foot in the world of possibilities - hence quantum theory throws up all sorts of paradoxes.

The world of space-time is born out of the world of possibilities. It is formed out of the actualization of some of the possibilities. Actualization means certain matter-energy transactions which brings about what we experience as the fabric of space-time.

What then determines which possibilities get actualized in space-time? Quantum theory uses the Born rule to compute the outcome of a measurement. In the transactional interpretation of quantum theory (TIQM), space-time actualization or measurement is the result of a transaction. The transaction involves emitter(s) sending out offer waves and absorber(s) responding with response waves. Offer waves do not belong to space-time - they are possibilities. Only when there are absorbers responding with the appropriate response waves, the transaction is actualized in space-time.

A coarse analogy would be a bidding process on e-bay. An offer goes out followed by responses and only when there is a match, a transaction is actualized and a real movement of goods take place.

At a more abstract level, what gets actualized in space-time world from the world of possibilities involves "will". This belongs to a different world from the other two and has a different time associated with it. Ultimately, will actualizes certain possibilities into space-time reality.

Coming back to entanglement, there is an analogy provided by Ruth Kastner in her book "Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles". She creates a virtual game scenario in which there are two players controlling two avatars inside the game. The players are Jonathan and Maria respectively controlling their avatars Jon and Mia . The avatars will need to accomplish a task within the game environment and for that their equipments need to be in sync - or correlated. Two detectors J and M respectively in the game environment observe the equipments that Jon and Mia are carrying.

If the task is to "start a fire", Jon and Mia need to carry matches and fuel. If the task is to fight, then Jon and Mia need to carry bow and arrows.

Now the detectors need to be programmed to observe either combat equipment or fire starting equipment - but not both together. When the game starts, the avatars Jon and Mia run towards their respective detectors without knowing what their detectors are set to observe (which sets the task). They only have an "agreement" that their equipments will be in sync. Now when the avatars approach the detectors and see that combat equipment is needed, one has the bows and the other the arrows.

This perfect coordination cannot be explained within the gaming environment which runs at a particular speed set by the software. This entanglement between Jon and Mia's equipments can make sense only through the "out-of-game-environment" interactions between their human controllers Jonathan and Maria. From the context of the game environment, entanglement is a "non-local" phenomenon or "spooky action at a distance". The human users Jonathan and Maria are outside the game environment and are not subject to the limitations of the software though they too have limitations as far as their own domain is concerned (like quantum objects are subjected to certain conservation and other laws).

If we consider the game environment as the space-time world, Jon, Mia, and the detectors J and M belong to the space-time world whereas Jonathan and Maria are denizens of the world of possibilities and the world of will. Jon and Mia's correlated equipments in the game environment would then be a space-time actualization of the transaction between Jonathan and Maria outside of the game environment.

 

[Ðekel]

This is a good thread to introduce a thought-experiment. I've played with this for years and it helps me to understand the possibility of Laura-in-the-future communicating with Laura, here and now.

Imagine that everything exists all the time. Include in this imagined scenario that everything includes not only physical objects, but also abstract objects and concepts, emotional states....everything that one might consider as "other than me" objects. Those objects can and must include me-in-the-future and me-in-the-past, same for all versions of you, past and present, and every other being, sentient or otherwise. Imagine that this everything-all-the-time can't move at all. After all, how could it? If it moved from here to there, or if any part of it moved from here to there within the "space" of everything-all-the-time, then the movement in time would blow the whole thought-experiment apart. It's just an experiment, so no big deal anyway. OK.

What do you notice about this everything-all-the-time? I'll tell you what I notice. It can't move. At all. It's so pregnant with itself that there is nowhere to go, and it's jammed so tight that nothing within it can move at all. It's a cosmic sardine can wrapped around itself. And, yet, somehow, there is this experience of movement in time. Something moves, though nothing can.

So far, the only explanation I can muster is tied into the whole context-content conundrum (I've posted some of my musings on this conundrum in other threads). Context moves. Content does not. Or, rather, the movement is the apparent change in perspective that comes from moving attention between context and content. The everything-all-the-time, in this thought experiment, is layered and nested and superimposed and you get the picture. Movement is simply the imaginary grouping of various content into sets opposed to other sets. A play has a context, the setting, that includes the items on the stage and the social awareness of the audience, but those items of context are content within the larger world. It's just a matter of perspective which sets are seen and which are not, what represents context and how content is included in that context.

If you've followed with this thought-experiment, you can imagine the Laura-in-the-future laying in the sardine-can of everything-all-the-time right along side Laura-here-and-now. It's just a matter of perspective. As for the perspective of Laura-in-the-future, again, that is the context within which Laura-here-and-now is nested. So, not so much is Laura-here-and-now laying in the sardine-can side-by-side with Laura-in-the-future. Rather, they are not there individually at all, but are only imagined to be there because of the mingling of context and content that, I suggest, is an inherent property of consciousness. Perspective can move around in the sardine-can, but the contents of the can cannot. The context is moving, the content is not. However, they are one and the same, of course depending upon perspective. Cs, as Laura-in-the-future, can simply be seen as wider context than Laura-here-and-now, who is content for Laura-in-the-future, and who, in turn, though from a narrower perspective, also sees the Cs as content within the Laura-here-and-now perspective.

With respect to entanglement, it seems to me that the context-content conundrum explains it nicely.

This is a great post imo.

Potential exists as infinitely packed and unmovable. Filled to the brim.
Consciousness selects groupings or movements within potential.

It explains nicely why awareness is so important, because when you are aware of more information within the field of potential, your options for selection grow exponentially. Each understanding adds endless more options for configurations to take place within the field.

Perhaps this, then, could also explain how 3d humans might evolve to select from "time" and not just from space.
Which could be done "technologically" or using natural technology, i.e. our natural faculties.
It's possible that the thing we call "technology" is only an excuse for consciousness to allow itself to select from a larger array of groupings within the field of potential.. If person A doesn't believe they can reach a certain city by foot, they can use a car.. etc'.

obyvatel, I find your game analogy to be very useful.

 

[Deleted member 9511]

This is a great post imo.

Potential exists as infinitely packed and unmovable. Filled to the brim.
Consciousness selects groupings or movements within potential.

It explains nicely why awareness is so important, because when you are aware of more information within the field of potential, your options for selection grow exponentially. Each understanding adds endless more options for configurations to take place within the field.

Perhaps this, then, could also explain how 3d humans might evolve to select from "time" and not just from space.
Which could be done "technologically" or using natural technology, i.e. our natural faculties.
It's possible that the thing we call "technology" is only an excuse for consciousness to allow itself to select from a larger array of groupings within the field of potential.. If person A doesn't believe they can reach a certain city by foot, they can use a car.. etc'.

obyvatel, I find your game analogy to be very useful.

Thanks, transientP, and I also like the game analogy that obyvatel gave us.

Consciousness selects groupings or movements within potential.

That is how I imagine perspective as "the Witness" operates as life-force within consciousness. The creative impulse of consciousness gives it life with the appearance of movement. The operation of so-called "will" would not be involved in engaging the various contents of everything-all-the-time, but would simply be selection of another perspective, and that context would naturally come with all it's content already pre-packaged for that perspective. The life-force, the thing that gives the eternal and unmovable life, is the requirement that consciousness inhabit all perspectives, and because we know from our direct experience that perspectives change, that means the life-force is the movement within consciousness from one perspective to another, bringing along with it and actualizing the appropriate quantum realities in the process. Thus, consciousness is dynamic even though it can also be described as unchanging in the sense that what is eternal doesn't change, and I imagine that eternal dynamism, movement that goes nowhere, shows up in our world at the quantum level as wave-particle duality and propagates into the macro world as vibration.

This dynamism is what I believe David Bohm was indicating in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" when he suggested that noun-oriented language conditions us to think in isolated and static ways, while language that is more verb-oriented conditions us to notice the dynamism that is inherent in consciousness. Using the popular Sanskrit term "satchitananda" which means being-consciousness-bliss, dynamism is the bliss, the vibration of each part in tune with the whole. Being as existence itself, has awareness of that existence and is thus consciousness, and self-reflexing (I think that term comes from the book "The Experience of No-Self" by Carmelite nun, Bernadette Peters) or bending back on itself and uniting content and context, is the bliss. In the phrase "content-context", bliss would be the hyphen and represents that dynamism.

I also enjoy expanding this thought-experiment to include the popular Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which I see bliss is the Holy Spirit that moves from Father to Son, who themselves seem to be archetypes that represent context-content well, as the Son transcends and includes its narrower perspective into the broader perspective of the Father, which contains itself through the perspective of the Son. For me throughout the years I have always identified more with the Holy Spirit than with the other aspects of the Trinity

And, to add another layer to this thought-experiment, imagine that all perspectives contain themselves. The seer and the seen, of course, have to be congruous in some sense, as one and the same, so each perspective must have it's respective parts all neatly and completely fit into that context. In this view, transcendence is the process of moving outside the context of that perspective and broadening to get a view of that perspective. That's the essence of the dictum offered by Ken Wilber to "transcend and include."

Always more to share then time allows. Haven't practiced the art of entanglement, which by the way, I suspect highly advanced yogis do practices that involve just such an art.

 

[ark]

What determines which coin will show up?

To some extent it depends on what are your expectations. But only to some extent. Otherwise no one knows. Therefore one says "chance" and "probabilities".