ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 54 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    Energy Science

    Energy21

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs

    KeelyNet

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.

    Panacea-BOCAF

    QVac_Eng

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    Alternative Energy News
    KeelyNet_News
    NextEnergyNews
    PESWiki/News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy2000
    Free_Energy
    Greenglow
    JLNLabs
    KeelyNet
    NuEnergy
    OverUnity
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Sweet-VTA
    Tapten
    Tomorrow-energy
    Vortex
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine
    radioioAmbient

    Discussion on entanglement in the Andrea Rossi blog
    Posted on Friday, September 12, 2014 @ 00:57:00 EDT by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Wladimir Guglinski / August 29th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
    • How does the quantum entanglement works?

      I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement.

      But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence:



    Quantum imaging with undetected photons
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html

    The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist.

    So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence.

    It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether.

    Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab:
    http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html

    The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
    But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus.

    Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory.

    According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory.

    In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction.
    However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle captures a new particle either, in orther that two twins photons A and B are formed.

    The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B?

    In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

    The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela.
    In another words:
    What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether?

    It’s an exciting chalenge.

    Dear Joe

    when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP.

    regards
    wlad


    Email sent by W. Guglisnki to Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos:

    • To: vcq@quantum.at
      Subject: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
      Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:13:07 -0300

      Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos

      I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).

      I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.

      The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments

      ============================================


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones. True physical reality is beyond space and time, therefore it is not constrained by space and time. And since by logic, conservation must always be upheld, a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner. And this happens immediately and independently of the distance between them because time and space are of no consequence as I mentioned.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in August 30th, 2014 at 9:53 PM

      Wladimir,

      1- =========================================
      There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones.
      =============================================

      COMMENT:
      I am not agree.

      Joe,
      I also believe in the power of the mind, because several experiments in the field of Biology already had proved it.

      However, the power of the mind has no influence in the results of experiments where the Laws of Physics prevail.

      You are assuming that Gabriela and her team were accompanying the experience all the time, and so the their minds were influencing the occurrence of the entanglement.

      But suppose that Gabriele repeats the experiment as follows:

      1- The team puts a video camera filming what happens in the detectors

      2- They go away, leaving the experiment to run without any mental influence

      Do you think that, in this case, will the entanglement do not occur?

      2- ===================================
      a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner.
      ======================================

      COMMENT

      I want just to discover how the entanglement occurs, and I think it is caused by the interaction between the two gravity fields of the twins photons A and B.

      That’s why I suppose that the relative angle between the detectors has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement, because the angle between the detectors changes the angle between the paths of two photons.

      Suppose Gabriele makes two experiments:

      a) the photon A and B have perpendicular paths.
      b) the photon A and B have parallel paths

      The interaction between the two gravity fields will be different in the situation a) and b). And we have to discover if such difference has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement

      regards
      wlad


    Reply by Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos:


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      Communication of information occurs by way of waves traveling in a field. And the concept of travel implies the concept of speed. And the concept of speed implies a lapse of time between two points in space. But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • silvio caggia

      @Joe
      @Wladimir Guglinski
      I have not well understood the experimental setup of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, can you correct me?
      She has a laser beam L that is splitted in two beams L1 and L2, L1 is then splitted by a non linear cristal NLC1 in two entangled beams L1a and L1b, while L2 is splitted by a non linear cristal NLC2 in two entangled beams L2a and L2b. L1b and L2b show an “output” (interference or not) according to the “input” that L1a and L2a interfere or are blocked by something put between them. Is this resume correct?
      You say that “output” at Lxb occurs istantaneously with “input” at Lxa, but this is due to the fact that the two arms of the experimental setup have the same lenght. What happens if Lxb arm is shorter than Lxa arm? The “output” will precede temporally the “input” realizing a sort of time-machine! :-)
      John Cramer tried this for many years without success, If Gabriela succeded the most interesting thing to inspect with this experiment is the real nature of Time.
      Regards


    • SECOND REPLY BY DR. GABRIELA BARRETO LEMOS

      From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
      Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
      Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:49:03 +0200
      To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

      Hello Mr Guglinski

      Thank you for your suggestion. I will discuss it with my co-workers when they all return from their holidays

      Best regards.
      Gabriela



    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in August 31st, 2014 at 9:24 PM

      Wladimir,

      But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.

      All the best,
      Joe
      ===========================================

      COMMENT
      Dear Joe,
      this is the INTERPRETATION of the quantum theorists for the entanglement, according to the principles of the Quantum Mechanics.
      To consider it as instantaneous is consequence of the Interpretation of Copenhagen.

      Actually we dont know if it really is instantaneous, because in the experiments the distance between the detectors is very short, and there is no way to verify if it occurs instanteneously, or not.

      A new experiment published by Nature in 31 July 2014 already had shown that it is wrong the Interpretation of Copenhagen:
      “To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.”
      http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat-die/


      I dont believe entanglement is intantaneous.

      I think the entanglement occurs via interaction between the gravity fields of the twins photons.

      As any theoretical controversy must be decided via experiments, this is the reason why in my oppinion more experiments must be performed, in order to help us to discover how entanglement occurs.

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Dear Silvio
      you are making confusion between INSTANTANEOUS and SIMULTANEOUS

      According to Quantum Mechanics, the entanglement is INSTANTANEOUS

      According to QM, you can put one detector here in the Earth, and the other in the Moon, but the image of the entanglement in the Moon will be produced simulteneously with the image produced in the Earth, because the entanglement is INSTANTENOUS (according to QM).

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      A second suggestion sent to DR. Gabriela Barreto Lemos:

      From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
      To: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
      Subject: RE: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
      Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:08:15 -0300

      Dear Dr. Grabriela

      I think it is of interest to compare the image produced by the entanglement in the following conditions:

      1) The two beams of photons go along two parallel lines

      2) The two beams of photons go along two orthogonal lines

      3) The two beams of photons go along two lines having 130º

      Other very much interesting experiment is the following:

      == The two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, but moving in CONTRARY DIRECTION.

      In the case the experiments get to detect a difference in the sharpness of the image produced by the entanglement in those different conditions of the direction of the two beams, this imply that the entanglement must be due to the interaction of some sort of field of the photons.

      When the photons are moving, their fields have interaction. But when the first photon hits the real image of the cat and therefore it is annihilated, the interaction between their fields is broken, and the second photon suffers a deviation in the direction of its trajectory (because the interaction was broken), and so the second photon does not arrive to the detector, because its trajectory changed its direction. As consequence, as the photon does not hit the detector, then a black image is formed in the detector.

      regards
      wlad


    • claudio

      Joe – Referring to space & time what does it mean “mental object”? How can you distinguish mental from NON mental? And which are the means (or evidences) you rely on to state this? Thanks. Claudio


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe,
      concerning the experiment made by Gabriela,
      I suspect the following:

      when the two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, and moving in CONTRARY direction, NO image due to the entanglement will be formed in the detector.

      I suppose it because when the interaction between the fields of the two photons is broken (because the first photon is annihilated when it hits the cat), the second photon will not deviate its trajectory (because the two photons were moving along the same line).
      As there is no deviation in the trajectory of the second photon, it will continue its motion and it hits the detector. And therefore the black image is not formed in the detector

      regards
      wlad


    • silvio caggia

      @Wladimir Gusglinski
      Sorry but I don’t understand your warning about istantaneous/simultaneous.
      If the two arms of the esperimental setup have the same lenght you have simultaneity, if the “output” arm is much longer than “input” arm, photons that make the picture arrive to detectors later than photons that hit the cat.
      What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
      Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
      Now we can check if the results of Transactional Interpretation predictions are positive or negative :-)


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:39 PM

      @Wladimir Gusglinski

      What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
      Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
      ============================================

      COMMENT
      Let’s call C the photon which hits the cat, and D the photon which hits the detector.

      The photon D hits the detector before the photon C hits the cat.
      Due to the collision with the detector, the photon D vanishes. As the entanglement is broken, the photon C deviates its trajectory (or is vanished), and so the photon C does not hit the cat.

      Therefore is not formed the real image of the cat, and it is not formed the image due to entanglemnt in the detector.

      regards
      wlad


    • Eric Ashworth

      Regards ideas pertaining to space and time. My understanding is that space represents a distance and time is a duration. Therefore, to bring both into a concept of actuality, surely a physical body is required to travel a distance over a duration of time. However, I do not believe in empty space because of the aether and its activity. Therefore, technically there may exist two contradictory states or two types of nature. One whereby space and time exist and one whereby space and time do not exist. Just a thought. Regards, Eric Ashworth.


    • Joe

      Silvio,

      Although I do not fully understand the technical aspects of the experiment, I agree with Wladimir that you are probably confusing the concept of instantaneity with that of simultaneity. The former seems magical. But the latter is mundane, which is why I doubt that we will get something as extraordinary as a time machine from it.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      In my last post, I gave you the temporal reason why fields can never explain QE. Now, let me give you the spatial reason. Two particles separated by space will always have various media between them in real world situations. Whatever field connections these two particles had initially with each other could never be maintained since they would be interacting with their local environments as well as with each other. And remember how QE is destroyed: by particles interacting with their environment (which includes acts of measurement). But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Joe

      Claudio,

      Albert Einstein once gave the example of the new versus the old paradigm of time and space. In the old paradigm, when you removed matter and energy from the Universe, time and space would be left behind. In the new paradigm, when you remove matter and energy from the Universe, time and space follow. The reason for this is that time and space are now considered an integral part of the physical Universe. The problem with this example is that it is illogical. And since logic undergirds science, this example is also unscientific. Therefore, the new paradigm can not be true.

      So how is it illogical?
      When all four species (matter, energy, time, space) are removed from the Universe, there must necessarily be left behind a Universe that acts as a receptacle from which these four species were removed. But this Universe must exist in time and space for it to exist at all in order to extricate the four species. But then we are left with two sets of time and space: one that can be removed, and one that can not be removed. This is contradictory. But Nature is not contradictory, else Nature would not exist.
      So one set of time and space must necessarily be false.

      So which is the false set of time and space?
      If the set that was removed is false, then the new paradigm is obviously false, and time and space are determined to be the mental objects that they have always been considered throughout most of human history.
      If the set that was removed is true, then no Universe could be left behind, which would render this example given by Einstein as logically impossible. And being so, the new paradigm that this example purports to illumine is likewise logically impossible. Consequently, time and space can not be physical objects. Therefore, they are mental ones.
      As we can see in either case, time and space are mental objects, not physical.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:39 PM

      @Wladimir Gusglinski

      What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
      Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
      ============================================

      COMMENT
      Let’s call C the photon which hits the cat, and D the photon which hits the detector.

      The photon D hits the detector before the photon C hits the cat.
      Due to the collision with the detector, the photon D vanishes. As the entanglement is broken, the photon C deviates its trajectory (or is vanished), and so the photon C does not hit the cat.

      Therefore is not formed the real image of the cat, and it is not formed the image due to entanglemnt in the detector.

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM

      Wladimir,

      But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
      All the best,
      Joe
      ===================================================

      Joe,
      such assumption is what the quantum theorists claim.

      But never any experiment had confirmed it.

      Now, if Gabriela decides to perform the experiments suggested by me, from the results we will be able to know if the entanglement is caused either by the interaction of fields or not.

      So, I prefer to wait the results of the experiments.

      In my last comment, I said to you:

      ====================================================
      Joe,
      concerning the experiment made by Gabriela,
      I suspect the following:

      when the two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, and moving in CONTRARY direction, NO image due to the entanglement will be formed in the detector.

      I suppose it because when the interaction between the fields of the two photons is broken (because the first photon is annihilated when it hits the cat), the second photon will not deviate its trajectory (because the two photons were moving along the same line).
      As there is no deviation in the trajectory of the second photon, it will continue its motion and it hits the detector. And therefore the black image is not formed in the detector
      ==============================================

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM FOR THE ENTANGLEMENT

      Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM

      Wladimir,

      But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
      ==========================================

      Dear Joe,
      I discovered that it is possible to have entanglement via interaction of fields for an indefinite amount of time, by considering my model of the photon.
      Let me explain it to you.

      In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism it is proposed the structure of field of the elementary particles, including the photon.
      The figure 2.5 ahead shows one gravity string of the gravity field of the particles. The body of the gravitons in those strings is crossed by a flux of magnetons with speed c of light:
      http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

      The magnetons are captured in the perimeter of the universe, and it means that the lenght of the gravity field of an elementary particle goes from its body until the limit of the universe. So, two photons in two opposite points of the extreme of the universe can interact via their gravity fields.

      The mechanism of the photon collapse due to entanglement
      Now let us see how one photon collapses when its twin photon is collapsed due to an collision with matter.

      According to the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, a photon is formed by particle and antiparticle moving in circular contrary direction about the line center of their helical trajectory.

      As the particle and the antiparticle have contrary electric charge, they would have to meet together, and the photon would have to collapse.

      However the photon does not collapse because repulsive gravitons avoid the particle and the antiparticle to meet together. So, the repulsive gravitons avoid the collapse of the photon.

      When two twin photons are formed (as for instance in the Gabriela Lemos experiment), they interact very easy via their gravity field, because as they are twin brother they resonate very easily.

      So, two twin photons brothers move in the aether having entanglement between their gravity field, which means that the stability of each of them depends on that entanglement.

      When one of the twin brothers collapses hitting some surface of matter, the entanglement is broken. So, because the resonance with his brother was broken, a disturbance occurs in the field of the repulsive gravitons responsible for the stability of the photon. Due to the disturbance, the particle an the antiparticle succeed to meet together, and the photon collapses.

      Joe,
      as we may realize, from such mechanism for the entanglement, the Quantum Ring Theory becomes compatible with Quantum Mechanics, from the consideration that the entanglement occurs via interaction of fields.

      regards
      wlad


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      You wrote,
      “So, two photons in two opposite points of the extreme of the universe can interact via their gravity fields.”

      And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.

      The bottom line is this: fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • silvio caggia

      @Wladimir Guglinsky
      Does the correlation between two entangled photons depend from the lenght of the two arms of the experimental setup?
      Does the correlation depend from the order in which you take measurements?
      Does entanglement “vanish” when first photon is measured?
      Why entangled photons should behave in asymmetric way respect to time?


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 4:33 PM

      Wladimir,

      And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.
      ==========================================

      For the gravitational field of each of the entangled photons to be affected there would be neeed a gravitational field of another photon in the same exact wavelenght of the two entangled photons.
      It’s an interaction by resonance.
      Actually we dont know how such resonance affects the field of repulsive gravitons within the body of the photon, responsible for its statility.

      Perhaps you may claim that it is hard to believe in such sort of entanglement mechanism.

      However in my oppinion it is harder to believe that entanglemnt occurs via phantasmagoric way, with no any physical cause.

      regards
      wlad

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 4:33 PM

      Wladimir,

      And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.
      ======================================

      Joe,
      consider also another fact:

      the two entangled photons move with the speed of the light.

      Therefore, in order to afect their gravitational field (in a say similar to the interaction which occurs between the two entangled photons), only the gravitational field of other photon can affect their entanglement (because other photon also moves with the speed of the light).

      The gravitational field of other elementary particles as protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. do not affect the entanglement, because protons and electrons do not move with the speed of light.

      But only a third photon with the exact wavelength of the two entangled photons would be able to affect their gravitational fields.

      regards
      wlad


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      1. Gravity works independently of
      i) any potential frequency that it might have;
      ii) the speed of the source (particle) of that gravitational field.

      (That is why the gravitational field of the Earth pulls everything down independently of its nature or motion.)

      Therefore, it is unacceptable to claim that QE within the framework of QRT works by
      i) resonance;
      ii) two (or more) particles sharing a common speed,
      respectively.

      2. Your concept of a cause for QE is wrong. The concept of cause and effect is a temporal (and spatial) one obviously. But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical. So QE lacking cause and effect (atemporality, aspatiality) demonstrates the physical nature of QE which is unadorned by time (and space). Schrodinger was right in considering the instantaneous phenomenon of QE the only true separator of quantum mechanics (QM) from classical mechanics (CM).

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      silvio caggia wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 7:15 PM

      @Wladimir Guglinsky
      Does the correlation between two entangled photons depend from the lenght of the two arms of the experimental setup?
      Does the correlation depend from the order in which you take measurements?
      Does entanglement “vanish” when first photon is measured?
      Why entangled photons should behave in asymmetric way respect to time?
      ====================================

      Silvio,
      entanglement is a link between two photons.

      There are two aspects:

      1) If one photon has collision with matter (and so it calllapses), the other collapses too. Accordding to Quantum Mechanics, it does not occur via physical causes, and it is instantaneous.

      2) If we take a measure of one photon, the other is affected (according to Quantum Mechanics)

      .

      Let us analyse the two aspects:

      1)
      Regarding the first aspect, I am not agree that the second photon collapses via phantasmagoric way, and instantaneously.
      There are not experiments comproving that it is instantaneous.

      Also, as enfphasized by Mr. Joe, according to Quantum Mechanics:
      fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment
      There is not experimental confirmation for such assumption

      .

      2)
      According to Quantum Mechanics, when you take a measure of the polarization of one of the photons, the second photon instantaneously takes the same polarity.

      In my book Quantum Ring Theory I show that such interpretation is wrong.

      The origin of the misunderstanding is because there is not, in Theoretical Physics, a physical model of the photon.

      Einstein and Dirac supposed be impossible to exist a physical model of the photon, because the photons have statistical behavior.

      However, in my model of the photon there is a distance “d” between the particle and the antiparticle. The statistical feature of the photon behavior is due to such distance “d”, because when the photon hits a polarizator, the angle of polarization depends on the distance “d”.
      So, when a photon is created, you cannot predict how it will be behave when is submitted to polarization.

      Therefore, when two twin photon brothers are criated as happens in Gabriela’s experiment, the quantum theorists believe that the two entangled photons have each one a random angle of polarization.
      But such assumption is wrong, because as they are twin brothers, the distance “d” in the two photons is the same.
      Therefore, if you take a measure in one of the photons, and the polarization gets 45º, when the other photon will be measured it will have also 45º, because their distance “d” is the same.

      But the quantum theorists suppposed that, when the two twin photons were created, one could hava a polarization for instance 60º, while the second had 30º. And when the first photon had been measured for 45º (and so its polarization changed from 60º to 45º), the second photon also changes its polarization, from 30º to 45º.

      This is not true. Because as you are using a polarizator 45º, the both photons will be polarized in the same way, because their distance “d” is the same.

      So,
      if you use a polarizator 30º, both the two photons will be polarized by 30º
      if you use a polarizator 45º, both them will be polarized by 45º
      if you use a polarizator 60º, both them will be polarized by 60º

      The two photons always exhibit the same angle of polarization because their distance “d” is the same, and not because the second photon is affected by the measurement of the first photon due to their entanglement, as believe the quantum theorists.

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Silvio,
      in another words:

      when Gabriela produces two twin brother photons in her experiment, she eliminates the statistical feature of the two photons. They have the same distance “d”, and so they will have the same behavior when somebody measures their polarization.

      This is waht the quantum theorists do not know.

      If you measure here in the Earth the polarization of the first photon and you get 60º, then if Joe goes to the Moon and he measures the polarization of the second photon he will get 60º too, because the two photons have the same distance “d”, and not because when you measuered the polarizaton of the first photon it had affected the polarization of the photon measured by Joe.

      That’s why Joe and the quantum theorists believe that “fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment”

      regards
      wlad


    • silvio caggia

      @Wladimir Guglinski
      I knew your model of photon and its interesting explanation of linear polarization and entanglement by a sort of “hidden variable” (the offset between the two particles that make the photon). What I don’t understand is how your model explains the way Gabriela obtained the cat’s photo without using cat’s side photons.
      By the way, how your model explains circular polarization?
      Regards



    Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 11:34 PM

    Wladimir,
    1) =======================================
    1. Gravity works independently of
    i) any potential frequency that it might have;
    ii) the speed of the source (particle) of that gravitational field.
    ===========================================

    COMMENT
    I am not speaking about gravity.
    I am refering to the gravitational field.

    The gravitational field in QRT is formed by strings of gravitons crossed by a flux of magnetons, as shown in the Fig. 2.5 of the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

    The resonance can be caused by the flux of magnetons

    .

    2) ==========================================
    (That is why the gravitational field of the Earth pulls everything down independently of its nature or motion.)
    =============================================

    This is concerning the gravitational attraction, due to the strings of gravitons.
    However the motion of a photon can have influence in the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons

    .

    3) ========================================
    Therefore, it is unacceptable to claim that QE within the framework of QRT works by
    i) resonance;
    ii) two (or more) particles sharing a common speed,
    respectively.
    ============================================

    Therefore, the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons of the gravitational field can work by resonance

    .

    4) =========================================
    2. Your concept of a cause for QE is wrong. The concept of cause and effect is a temporal (and spatial) one obviously.
    ============================================

    No.
    Actually Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because there is not a physical model of photon in the theory.

    There is a distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle of the photon, and the polarization depends on this distance “d” (a process of resonance between “d” and the atomic distance within the crystal used for polarization)

    A photon A and B can have the same wavelenght, but with different values of the distance “d”.
    So,
    when they are polarized, in spite of they have the same wavelength, however their polarization follow statistical laws.

    Unlike, two twin broter photons (as produced in Gabriela’s experiment) have the same distance “d”, and therefore whe you measure their polarization you get the same value.

    Therefore,
    considering two entangled twin photons, if you measure polarization of the first photon here in the Earth, and I measure the polarization of the second photon in the Moon, I will get the same value of polarization measured by you, because the two photons have the same distance “d”, and not because the photon measured by me in the Moon was affected by your measurement of the first photon in the Earth.

    Such misunderstanding of the Alain Aspect experiment is the reason why you and the quantum theorists believe that The concept of cause and effect is a temporal in QE.
    ======================================

    .

    5) =====================================
    But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical.
    ========================================

    There is not experimental evicende for such assumption, by considering physical phenomena ruled by the laws of Physics.

    Such assumption is consequence of the wrong interpretation of the Alain Aspect experiment
    =============================================

    .

    6) ==========================================
    So QE lacking cause and effect (atemporality, aspatiality) demonstrates the physical nature of QE which is unadorned by time (and space).
    =============================================

    There is NOT entanglement in the Alain Aspect experiment, as I already had explained.
    The reason why the two twin photons exhibit the same polarization is due to the same distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle in the both photons.

    The entanglement occurs only in the Gabriela Lemos

    .

    7) ====================================
    Schrodinger was right in considering the instantaneous phenomenon of QE the only true separator of quantum mechanics (QM) from classical mechanics (CM).
    =======================================

    As I said, there is no entanblement in the Alain Aspect experiment.
    The polarization of the second twin photon measured in the Moon is NOT affected by the measurement of the polarization of the first twin photon here in the Earth.

    So, the reason why in the Moon the measurement gets the same value is due to the property of the two twin photons: the have the same distance “d”.
    The phenomenon is NOT instantaneous, since there is not any phenomenon caused by the quantum entanglement between the two photons.

    We even dont know if the entanglement detected by Gabrela Lemos can be obtained by having the cat here in the Earth and the detector in the Moon.
    Perhaps her experiment works only in short distances.

    regards
    wlad


    • Joe

      Wladimir,

      1. You wrote,
      “Therefore, the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons of the gravitational field can work by resonance.”

      I have already explained how gravitational fields in the Universe are present everywhere, interacting with your potential gravitational strings and thereby destroying any possibility for the existence of QE within the framework of QRT. But now the same holds true for your potential magnetic fluxes whereby magnetic fields which are present everywhere in the Universe will interact with those potential magnetic fluxes and thereby destroy any possibility for the existence of QE within the framework of QRT.

      2. You wrote,
      “Actually, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because there is not a physical model of photon in the theory.”

      Even if your theory about the polarization of photons is correct, the reality is that ALL properties, not just polarization, are subject to QE.

      3. You wrote,
      “There is not experimental evidence for such assumption [...]”

      There can never be experimental evidence since time and space are nonphysical. In fact, by logic, the onus is on scientists to produce evidence for their new claim that time and space are physical objects – something that they have never done.

      All the best,
      Joe


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      silvio caggia wrote in September 3rd, 2014 at 3:23 PM

      @Wladimir Guglinski

      1) ========================================
      What I don’t understand is how your model explains the way Gabriela obtained the cat’s photo without using cat’s side photons.
      ===========================================

      Caling photon C that which hits the cat, and photon D that which hits the detector, I think in two possibilities:

      a) when the photon C hits the cat (and therefore it collapses), as the entanglement is broken the photon D becomes instable, and collapses, and it does not hit the detector.

      b) when the photon C hits the cat (and therefore it collapses), as the entanglement is broken there is a deviation in the trajectory of the photon D, and it does hit the detector.
      Such hypothesis can be tested, putting detectors along the trajectory of the photon D.

      2) ======================================
      By the way, how your model explains circular polarization?
      ========================================

      It can be explained by considering that when the photon is polarized, the particle ahead the photon’s motion has an increase in the radius R of the helical trajectory of that particle. So, in spite of the velocity of rotation stays the same, however the angular velocity W of the particle becomes lower than the angular velocity of the antiparticle.
      The electric field vector will take the form as shown in the figure:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in September 4th, 2014 at 3:45 AM

      There can never be experimental evidence since time and space are nonphysical. In fact, by logic, the onus is on scientists to produce evidence for their new claim that time and space are physical objects – something that they have never done.
      ===============================================

      That’s why I would love if Gabriela decides to perform the experiments suggested by me, in order to verify if , by changing the angles of interaction between the beams of photons, the sharpness of the entangled image in the detector is changed.

      If the sharpness changes, it implies that QE is interaction of fields

      regards
      wlad


    • silvio caggia

      @Vladimir Guglinski
      Sorry but I am a little confused from your answers… You say that Alain Aspect’s experiments require no kind of communication because the entangled properties of the two photons are “predefined” at photon emission and travel with the photons as hidden variables (i.e. Distance between particles)… But you say that Gabriela’s experiment requires a sort of communication when photon C is absorbed by the cat trasmitting something to photon D…
      Why do you give different explanations of the two experiments? Should not entanglement logic be universal?
      Anyway, you seem to accept that Gabriela’s experiment implies that D photon “is aware” of C photon destiny, and that this “awareness” cannot be explained with “hidden variables” but needs a kind of communication from C photon (when hits the cat) to D photon (when hits the detector) and you are looking for a phisical explanation.
      According to Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of QM the life of two entangled photons is a sort of “bank transaction” that is closed THRU the time of their travel till they are both absorbed, so C photon “destiny info” flows BACKWARD in time till the entanglement source and is disponible to D photon at ANY time of its life. In other words the two photons have got agreements with their FUTURE absorbers in order that all conservation laws will be respected. But one of the weirdest prediction of this theory is that the cat image is obtained even if D arm is shorter then C arm… In other words you should be able to see the cat photo BEFORE you put the cat! Now Gabriela can validate/falsify this teory very simply.


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 11:34 PM

      ———————————————
      But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical.
      ———————————————

      Dear Joe
      you did not answer my question:

      what happens if Gabriela puts a video so that to film the experiment, and no person will see it.

      Later she and her staff will see the video, so that to see if the entanglement image of the cat was formed in the detector.

      In this case there is not any “mental” object in the experiment

      What do you think happens?

      regards
      wlad


    • Wladimir Guglinski

      silvio caggia wrote in September 4th, 2014 at 4:08 PM

      @Vladimir Guglinski

      1) =================================
      Sorry but I am a little confused from your answers… You say that Alain Aspect’s experiments require no kind of communication because the entangled properties of the two photons are “predefined” at photon emission and travel with the photons as hidden variables (i.e. Distance between particles)… But you say that Gabriela’s experiment requires a sort of communication when photon C is absorbed by the cat trasmitting something to photon D…
      Why do you give different explanations of the two experiments? Should not entanglement logic be universal?
      ====================================

      Simple.
      Because Alain Aspect does not require entanglement when we consider the photon formed by particle and antiparticle, with the distance “d” between them equal in the case of twin brother photons.

      Unlike, there is no way to explain Gabriela’ experiment without to consider some sort of entanglement, which mechanism we need to discover.

      2) ====================================
      Anyway, you seem to accept that Gabriela’s experiment implies that D photon “is aware” of C photon destiny, and that this “awareness” cannot be explained with “hidden variables” but needs a kind of communication from C photon (when hits the cat) to D photon (when hits the detector) and you are looking for a phisical explanation.
      =======================================

      Yes,
      but photon D does not hit the detector (pay attention that the image in the detector is black, which means that photon D does not hit the detector).

      So, there are two possibilities:

      a) the trajectory of the photon D is deviated due to the collapese of the entanglement, and that’s why it does not hit the detector. (this hipothesis can be tested,putting detectors along the trajectory of the photon D.

      b) the photon D collapses, because ot


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 0
    Votes: 0

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Discussion on entanglement in the Andrea Rossi blog" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Comment not approved by Andrea Rossi in his Journal of Nuclear Physics (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Friday, November 28, 2014 @ 23:41:37 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Submitted by Anon to the main page: How science advances through mysterious ways

    A Brazilian proverb says:
    ”God writes right by crooked lines”

    Yes, God does it.

    Andrea Rossi is an engineer.  So, when he undertook the challenge of building a cold fusion reactor 20 years ago, he did not know that cold fusion is impossible by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics.
    If Rossi was a nuclear physicist, he would know that cold fusion is impossible, and so he would not try to get a cold fusion reactor.  Then he would never  invent his E-Cat.

    But Rossi did not know that cold fusion is impossible according to the Standard Model.  And so he started to work hard, and finally he did succeed in this enterprise:  his E-Cat works via cold fusion.

    Paradoxically, while now Rossi knows that cold fusion is possible, since his E-Cat produces cold fusion, however he uses to study Nuclear Physics two hours per day, in order to discover how cold fusion can work according to the Standard Model.  In another words, he wants to discover how it is possible to exist a phenomenon (cold fusion) by considering a theory from whose principles cold fusion is impossible to occur.

    But God not only writes right by crooked lines.  He also uses put the right persons in our lifes.
    In the case of Andrea Rossi, the right person put by God in the life of the inventor of the E-Cat was  Prof. Foccardi.

    While along de development of his cold fusion reactor all the physicists in general have used to claim that Rossi is a charlatan and his invention is a fraud, Prof. Foccardi was the only one had the scientific honesty so that to recognize the results of the Rossi’s experiments.  Because Foccardi was a honest scientist, loyal to the scientific method, and he did no allow to himself to neglect the strong evidences obtained from Rossi’s reactor, as the other scientists used to neglect them.

    But Prof. Foccardi was also loyal to the Standard Model, and so he was sure it is possible to explain cold fusion from the nuclear models of the Standard Model.  He used to say to Andrea Rossi that nuclear physicists claim that cold fusion is impossible because they do not know sufficiently the Standard Model.  And so he had transmited to Rossi the certainty that cold fusion can be explained via the Standard Model, and there is need only to discover how to do it.  And Andrea Rossi, loyal to the teacher, continues sure that it is possible to accomplish the Foccardi’s dream.

    Paradoxically again, we have to face the Foccardi’s dream from two contraditory viewpoints.

    1 -  From the first viewpoint, Foccardi was right.  The nuclear theorists are sure that cold fusion is impossible because they do not know sufficiently about the fundamental nature of the electric field, used in the Nuclear Physics.  Because along decades from their interpretation of the scattering experiments they concluded that nuclei have a spherical Coulomb barrier.  However the nuclei have actually non-spherical Coulomb barrier.  The non-spherical shape of the Coulomb barrier (for instance of the 2He4) is shown in the Figure 1.
    FIG. 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png
    But due to the chaotic rotation of the nuclei, the z-axis of the nuclei gyrates chaotically, and so in average the Coulomb barrier of the nuclei gets a spherical shape, as shown in the Figure 2 (for the 2He4):
    FIG. 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    The spherical shape of the Coulomb barrier shown in the Figure 2 was detected in the scattering experiments, and that’s why the nuclear theorists were sure that cold fusion is impossible, because a particle at low energy cannot cross that barrier.
    But in cold fusion reactors the nuclei are aligned by a magnetic field, and so their z-axis stops to gyrate chaotically.  By this way the Coloumb barrier gets a non-spherical shape, making possible cold fusion.
    So, from this viewpoint Prof. Foccardi was right.  From the Standard Model is possible to explain cold fusion, by adopting a new correct interpretation of the scattering experiments, and there is need only to accept the fact that the Coulomb barrier is non-spherical, but it acquires the spherical shape in ordinary conditions as those when scattering experiments are performed.
    So, by this way the Foccardi’s dream is achieved.

    .


    2-  From the second viewpoint,  Prof. Foccardi was wrong.  Because from the Standard Electromagnetic Physics, the electric field must be spherical.  And as the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed from the principles of the Standard Electromagnetism, then from this viewpoint the Standard Nuclear Theory is wrong.   There is need to improve the Standard Nuclear Physics by changing its concept of electric field adopted from the Standard Electromagnetism.

    .


    There is also other experimental fact which proves to be wrong the Standard Model of the Electromagnetism, from which was developed the famous Quantum Field Theory.   Because the even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons have magnetic moment zero, as measured by experiments, and this nuclear property of those nuclei is impossible, since the nuclei gyrate, and due to the rotation the protons their electric charge would have to induce a magnetic field.

    So, Quantum Field Theory must be improved, by changing the concept of electric field from which the theory was developed.   Only from this changing will be possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment, and also to explain how cold fusion is possible to occur.


    Now God is trying to put a second right person in Rossi's life.

    But Rossi does not want to accept it.  He is sure one right person is enough in his life:  Prof. Foccardi.

    Then we have to wait, so that to discover who is the most stubborn:  God or Andrea Rossi



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.