Spooky Action at a Distance

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

firstly, i think that's a great title for a theory! even though it has a more formal name, most people have no idea that they are the same thing, when simply hearing the names

nevertheless.... on with the post:

Spooky action at a distance - EPR

One of the most vivid illustrations of the interactions of the mind of the observer with a quantum system is given by EPR - the 'Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox', or 'Spooky action at a distance' as it is sometimes known. The experimental evidence seems to show that the observer's mind goes to its object unobstructedly and instantaneously, for example through ten kilometres of intervening Geneva city-scape (walls, buildings, railway stations, the lot!) at speeds exceeding that of light.

Nor does the effect diminish with distance. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the 'spooky action' can affect a particle instantaneously whether it is a metre away from the observer or halfway across the universe.

The observation of 'spooky action' relies on the concept of entanglement. It is possible to obtain pairs of fundamental particles where it is known that their properties will always cancel one another out, even when those properties have not been defined. These pairs are said to be 'entangled' . However the entanglement is conceptual rather than physical and the particles are free to move far apart.

Consider an experiment where we create an entangled pair of magnetic particles. Their polar alignments will always be opposite. We allow them to move far apart. We then place a Stern-Gerlach magnet in the path of one of the particles and observe what happens when it passes through. If it is defected upwards then, according to the 'spooky action' hypothesis, its distant partner would be deflected downwards by a similar magnet. By making the nearby observation we have instantaneously defined the properties of the distant particle.

Note that this is not the same thing as saying 'The near particle was always up but we didn't know until we decided to observe it. So the distant particle must always have been down even though we didn't know at the the time.'

The reason the statement above is incompatible with quantum theory is that we could have equally well decided to align the Stern-Gerlach magnet on a left/right axis instead of up/down. In which case we would have fixed the near particle as, say, left-deflected and the distant particle would instantaneously be known to be right-deflected.

For many years both theoretical and technical difficulties stood in the way of determining whether 'spooky action' does indeed take place. However as a result of the theoretical work of John Bell and the ingenious experimental designs of Alain Aspect strong evidence was obtained that the effect occurred over distances of a few metres. The act of making a decision of what attributes of one member of an entangled pair were to be observed immediately determined what could be observed of the other member.

Since then 'spooky action' has been demonstrated over increasing distances. The current record is 10 km obtained by Nicolas Gisin and his team at the University of Geneva [BUCHANAN 1997]. Starting from near Geneva railway station they sent entangled photons along optical fibres through the city to destinations separated by 10km. They showed that observing the state of one member of the pair instantaneously determined the state of the other.

check out this link for the experiment and more information:
http://home.btclick.com/scimah/Quantumphenomena.htm

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for the thread - we will definitely have to concetrate this section now onto the topics of how science and philosophy may or may not modify spiritual beliefs with regards to ascertaining our place within the universe - and how we perceive that experience.

 

[bob x]

Spooky spells at a distance

There is no scientific justification, but the EPR effect has always reminded me of "sympathetic magic" such as sticking a pin in a voodoo doll. The voodoo doll has to be made with something like a hair-clipping or fingernail paring from the actual person: because there is a past history of "entanglement" between the clipping and the person, what is done to the one should have some effect on the other, or so the theory goes.

 

[Vajradhara]

spooking posting at a pc

Namaste bob x,

i think that's a very good way of seeing it.

what really makes it spooky is that the quata or information passes from one object to the other faster than the speed of light!

classical thought would tell us that, as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass will increase (E=MC^2) ergo, if an object we're able to reach the speed of light, it's mass would be infinite!

i am eagerly awaiting the results of the new sets of experiments to see what they show...

 

[Kaldayen]

These pairs are said to be 'entangled' . However the entanglement is conceptual rather than physical and the particles are free to move far apart.

Hmkay... I'm not a scientist at all

Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess a physical entanglement would be like 2 linked atoms (i.e. CO or O2)... ?

But... what would a "conceptual entanglement" be?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Vajradhara -

There was a 2-part TV programme (Channel 4) called 'Soul Searching' - I'm assuming you did not see it (not sure of you're UK based).

It examined scientific attitudes towards the soul (ie does it exist) and spent some time looking at Quantum Theory.

There was a wonderful moment when a boffin was explaining that a Quantum Computer they have in Oxford is n-times quicker than conventional computers because when they programme a problem an infinite number of computers in an infinite number of Oxfords are involved in the calculation (ie parallel universes) - I must admit, having read Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy, that I laughed aloud.

Another pointed out that whilst certain quantum effects can be obserrved microcosmically - an electron existing in two places simultaneously - the same rules do not operate at the macrocosmic level.

The general view was something 'fundamental' is missing from Quantum theory and one suggestion was the answer might lie in consciousness.

They didn't find the soul, either.

Interestingly, the computer boffin said although the computer solves problems, and that nanotechnology works on the same principle as binary maths (ie 1 or 0 - something or nothing) they cannot trace how it does it.

Later a maths guru was explaining that he and others who 'break through' into new ground do not do so following a logical path, and that logically a problem either contains its answer (ie a solution but nothing new, like 2+2), or it does not, in which case if it does not then no amount of working with the problem will find it. Rather it's a result of inspiration or illumination, a 'leap in the dark'.

Interesting and thought-provoking stuff.

 

[bob x]

what really makes it spooky is that the quata or information passes from one object to the other faster than the speed of light!

It seems to be better not to think of the information "passing" from one object to the other at all. Distinct from the space-time is a kind of "historical space" where objects are tied to one another based on shared history (which does refer to the space-time) without regard to the spatial distribution at particular times. That is, if two things were in contact at one time, they are "next to each other" in the historical space, at all times.

 

[iBrian]

Hmkay... I'm not a scientist at all

Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess a physical entanglement would be like 2 linked atoms (i.e. CO or O2)... ?

But... what would a "conceptual entanglement" be?

Entanglement is essentially related to paired quantum states in sub-atomic particles - which is very different from the covalent bonding you referencing in terms of atomic nuclei themselves.

In simple terms, energetically bonded atoms must be in relatively close physical proximity to one another. Sub-atomic particles with paired quantum states (for example, 2 "s" orbital electrons), on the other hand, do not actually need to be physically close to exert any effect. The conundrum is thus that a change of state in one electron would immediately effect the state of the other electron - even if both particles were at opposite ends of the universe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though - my quantum physics is a little rusty these days.

 

[bob x]

The conundrum is thus that a change of state in one electron would immediately effect the state of the other electron - even if both particles were at opposite ends of the universe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though - my quantum physics is a little rusty these days.

No, that's all correct. And it does not make any sense to think of a "messenger" particle carrying the signal from one to the other, not just because the "messenger" would often have to travel from A to B faster than light (a serious problem because there would then be some frames of reference in which B came first and the message went the other way, or travelled back in time, or whatever), but also because there isn't such a possibility as "intercepting" the messenger along the way and changing the message. You really shouldn't think of a message going from A to B at all; in some sense A and B are "still in the same place" even though that is not true in space.

 

[Kaldayen]

Ok thanks Brian I think I understand the main parts of your explanation but I definatly have some reading to do concerning quantum physic before I can grasp anything more heheh

Kal

 

[Vajradhara]

It seems to be better not to think of the information "passing" from one object to the other at all. Distinct from the space-time is a kind of "historical space" where objects are tied to one another based on shared history (which does refer to the space-time) without regard to the spatial distribution at particular times. That is, if two things were in contact at one time, they are "next to each other" in the historical space, at all times.

Namaste bob x,

however the information does, indeed, pass from one particle to the next via a mechanism that we cannot explain and at speeds greater than that of light.

it's quite possible that both of the entangled particles are also present in imaginary time, however, i've never seen imaginary time used in the manner in which you are using it here, if you would expound on this i'd appreciate it.

a good argument has been made that it's the perceiving consciousness that is the method by which one of the quantum particles has it's properties determined.. and that at the moment that this happens, the other particle has take the other properties.. all quite automatically and all quite instantly.

there may be a point in the future where we determine the mechanism by which this occurs.. with the application of Moore's Law (a bit out of place though) i think that there is a very good chance that we'll have a general working theory within my lifetime.

 

[iBrian]

There was an article in last week's New Scientist covering this issue - made interesting reading. Apparently, there is quite a debate on how fast information may or may not be able to travel - not least because Einstein was never directly addressed the matter, information theory not being so particular an issue then as now.

So can information travel faster than light? That's an important discussion of what's going on in the world of physics at the moment.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Brian,

perhaps...

all possibilities are present within the Quantum probibility and rather than information passing from one to the other, as one set of probibilities becomes extant on an object, it's entangled partner expresses the opposite set of probibilities as part of it's inherent nature.

it's really quite fascinating to my mind.. and i think that the implications are significant.

 

[bob x]

however the information does, indeed, pass from one particle to the next

The problem is that you cannot say it travels from A to B if A and B are separated by more space (in light-seconds) than time (in seconds). Whenever that is the case, there are frames of reference in which B comes before A.

a good argument has been made that it's the perceiving consciousness that is the method by which one of the quantum particles has it's properties determined.. and that at the moment that this happens, the other particle has take the other properties.. all quite automatically and all quite instantly.

This is not a good argument. The consciousness that perceives A cannot be a cause of what happens to B from the frame of reference that says B happened first, and vice versa.

i think that there is a very good chance that we'll have a general working theory within my lifetime.

I would hope so, but the theorists in the 1920's were hoping so too.

 

[Vajradhara]

The problem is that you cannot say it travels from A to B if A and B are separated by more space (in light-seconds) than time (in seconds). Whenever that is the case, there are frames of reference in which B comes before A.

Namaste bob x,

you can say it.. however it's not accurate. we don't have another means of expressing the information we are trying to convey, as such, we use phrases like "information passes" and so forth even though we don't understand how that happens yet.

This is not a good argument. The consciousness that perceives A cannot be a cause of what happens to B from the frame of reference that says B happened first, and vice versa.

this is a good argument though. what casues the wave form to collapse? i think that a very solid argument can be made that it's the perceiving consciousness that causes the wave form to collapse. i may be approaching the issue a bit differently though. in our tradition we do not have a "first cause" as such, things are Interdepently Co-arising in our view of things.

 

[littlemissattitude]

This is an interesting idea, although I'm sure I don't grasp all the details since I am a physics illiterate. Not proud of that, but it's the truth.

What this brings to my mind are reports of twins who feel each other's pain - literally. There have been reports of twins such that when one twin is injured or falls ill, the other twin - sometimes very far away - feels the pain of the other's injury or illness at the exact instant that the pain occurs in the ill or injured twin. Of course, this is purely anecdotal evidence and may not have anything to do with the physical phenomenon being discussed in this thread. However it does suggest, on a macro level, some sort of long-distance, instantaneous reaction in individuals whose lives are entangled in a special way.

 

[WHKeith]

Thanks, littlemissattitude! It DOES have quite a lot to do with it, especially if we try to understand consciousness as a quantum phenomenon. A few years ago--1994, I believe--some wonderfully evocative experiments were carried out at the University of Mexico. Two test subjects spent time relaxing with one another for about twenty minutes. They then went to separate faraday chambers. (A faraday chamber is a room completely shielded against all electromagnetic radiation. It ensures that there can be no signal, in a conventional sense, from one subject to the other.)

Both were wired to electroencephalographs. One was shown a series of flashing lights. In, I believe it was one out of four trials, the EEG of the OTHER test subject peaked in exactly the same way at exactly the same time, as though HE had seen the flashing light as well.

Experiments have demonstrated that the brain wave patterns of separate individuals tend to synchronize when they spend time together, talking, meditating, engaging in ritual, or staring into one another's eyes. This was the reason for the twenty minutes of together time . . . to allow the subjects to synchronize.

Studies in remote viewing have been carried out with one of the subjects--the receiver--on board a miniature submarine at a depth of 170 meters, while the other subject--transmitter--was some 150 kilometers away. The tests were successful, despite the fact that that depth of water more than adequately shields against even extremely low-frequency EM waves (ELF).

Current theory is evolving toward the idea that there is a kind of substrate or foundation to reality, defined by the continual emergence and disappearance of virtual particles at the quantum level. This substrate, called "the Field" by Lynn McTaggart in her excellent work, "The Field," becomes the background upon which all quantum effects are played out--including even memory, consciousness, and such bizarre effects as shared thoughts.

To use a time-honored metaphor drawn from science fiction, the Field could be viewed as a kind of subspace or hyperspace, a "place" outside of space and time, and one, therefore, for which our notions of distance have no meaning. Nonlocal quantum effects can be seen occuring within the Field and instantly accessible EVERYWHERE in the physical universe, as though there were no distance between them at all. There is no propogation of data "through" space. Instead, the data exists as holographically encoded wave interference patterns "past" space, and is instantly shared everywhere.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

brain and senses and speechj

Spooky subject. But we still have to work out the mechanics on the basis of our brain and our senses.

All the discussions here and the discussants have a reference to the human brain and senses: smell, hearing, sight, touch, taste, and the internal sense of one's own awareness of one’s internal operations, like the pain that is gnawing in one’s back as from what we call backache, or similar discomfort like eye weariness from too much reading.

Without the external senses and the faculty of speech we cannot realistically and to a good degree of reliability communicate what is in our internal awareness of our physiological or mental or spiritual processes.

Take for example, the experience by mystics and between mystics of what is called mystical ecstasy, without their brain and external senses and their faculty of speech, they cannot convey any information among themselves, not so much as between two mystics – and they right from the start must employ their senses, the external ones, to be aware of each other’s presence.

My point is this: the spooky subject can be investigated no end and discussed no end, but at the end of the day, we must still be in touch with our brain, our external senses, and our internal sense of self-awareness, and also very important the use of our speech or communication potentials.

The work to be done is to relate in a practical manner all the spooky theories and experiments and laboratory equipment to our brain, external senses, and the internal awareness, and our communication potentials, mapping exactly how these latter do or can or might play in spooky activities of whatever particles be out there in us.

Susma Rio Sep