What exactly is "spin"?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby PhysBang » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:23 am

Jakob wrote:Yes, there were intended for you... thanks for trying to answer. But... this is all extremely vague, not really anything of substance. Farsight may be lying, but so far I have to just take his critics at their words. They might be totally in the dark. Which is how it appears to me, because all I get is references to links and comments like 'there are many ways things happen. But I won't get into the mathematical details.' Vaguer than vague.

I hope you note that Farsight is also vague on mathematical details. He is someone that, in his own words, refuses to develop mathematical details.

The reason that my answers may be a bit vague is because Farsight is literally so wrong that he is not really talking about physics. When you ask a question about what alternatives to his theories could be, one can only point to the work that actual physicists do because Farsight refuses to actually produce specific predictions of his theory. If one criticizes Farsight on a particular point, he dodges the questions by discussing something else or by claiming that he means something else. He can't be pinned down because there is really no content to his theory.

I ask him about the rotation curves of galaxies because that is one specific prediction that he has made (perhaps the only one). He is saying that if one calculated the rotation curves of galaxies using general relativity, then there would be no need for the hypothesis of dark matter. Now he has never actually shown how to do this (and there are many papers that actually do this calculation and show that we still need to hypothesize dark matter). That Farsight refuses to support the one prediction he has ever made is a bad sign for his ability to produce a real physical theory.
Anyway, I was under the impression that it is the rotation of galaxies suggest a much greater mass that what is measured, that suggests dark matter. I always found this a bit of a stretch. I am open to the suggestion there is a more elegant solution.

The rotation curves of most galaxies suggests that the visible part of galaxies are surrounded by a much larger distribution of mass. So too does the way that light bends around galaxies. So too do the orbits of galaxies around each other. So too does the bending of light around groups of galaxies.

Looking at the way that galaxies form into clusters in general suggests that there is some sort of dark matter. So too does the behaviour of particles in the early universe.

These are all research projects with a lot of physicists and astronomers making careful observations and calculations. Almost all of these scientists use general relativity. Despite this, Farsight claims that if we used general relativity correctly, we would not have a need for dark matter. So Farsight is saying that all of these scientists are wrong, though he will not show anyone exactly how these scientists are wrong. Even on a message board with dozens of professional astronomers and astrophysicists, Farsight could not produce the relevant calculations.

Farsight does seem good at offering confident statements. Unfortunately, science is often not as confident as we would wish it to be. Additionally, Farsight never delivers on the evidence that his confidence suggests.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Anthem » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:42 am

PhysBang = correct.
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:28 pm

Farsights point is that Einsteins statement that space is not homogenous does away with the necessity of dark matter.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 pm

The argument for dark matter is curiously similar to the argument for God. There's a phenomenon we can't account for, so we posit an invisible entity to account for it. That entity is subsequently proven by measuring the phenomenon again, and concluding it is consistent with itself. I don't see any proof anywhere except that we're lacking knowledge about the relation between gravity and mass on a large scale. Given that on a very small scale, certain laws do no longer apply, shouldn't the possibility for a similar discontinuity on the other end of the scale at least be considered?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby PhysBang » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:05 pm

Jakob wrote:Farsights point is that Einsteins statement that space is not homogenous does away with the necessity of dark matter.

Yes, but what does that mean?

Einstein believed that space on the large-scale average was homogeneous. We know that because he endorsed a cosmological model in which this was the case both before and after he made the claim that Farsight quotes. So what did Einstein mean when he said that space is not homogeneous? Well, he meant pretty much what he said afterwards, which is that in order to explain gravity, we have to look to the distribution of matter in spacetime and use this to determine the geometry of spacetime. (And this is what every relativistic cosmological model does and what every astronomer who measures dark matter using relativistic means does also.)

But what does Farsight mean when he says that inhomogeneous space will do away with the need for dark matter? Nobody knows. I suspect not even Farsight knows. If we could see an actual calculation of how to calculate a galaxy rotation curve "the Farsight way" then we would have an idea of what he means. But unlike every scientific paper on dark matter, Farsight refuses to actually demonstrate the relationship between measurements of gravitational phenomena and dark matter.

Physics is more than the ability to state things confidently. Physics involves the ability to make claims about physical systems that we can either use in application or that we can support with observations that include measurements. Farsight has never made such a claim.
The argument for dark matter is curiously similar to the argument for God. There's a phenomenon we can't account for, so we posit an invisible entity to account for it. That entity is subsequently proven by measuring the phenomenon again, and concluding it is consistent with itself. I don't see any proof anywhere except that we're lacking knowledge about the relation between gravity and mass on a large scale. Given that on a very small scale, certain laws do no longer apply, shouldn't the possibility for a similar discontinuity on the other end of the scale at least be considered?

There is a difference between the argument for dark matter and the argument for god: measurement evidence and the properties of dark matter. While god can have any properties, dark matter cannot. And we can measure the properties of dark matter in many, many ways. And people do consider the possibility that a change in the way gravity works might change the need for dark matter. So far, these other projects have failed.

Note that Farsight claims that he is not trying to change gravitational theory. He seems to be saying that if people calculated correctly, then there would be no need for dark matter or an alternative to standard gravitational theory. Yet he refuses to demonstrate how to calculate correctly.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:04 pm

I will let Farsight counter these challenges if he feels the need to - dark matter isn't really the focus of this thread anyway - I think I'll just order his book and form my judgment based on that.

Didn't Einstein have had a position on Dark matter himself, by the way? And did he not propose this cosmological constant which now somehow comes back as dark energy, responsible for the expansion of the universe? I know it's not the same, but the theory of dark matter existed when he was still alive, didn't it?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby PhysBang » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:57 pm

Jakob wrote:I will let Farsight counter these challenges if he feels the need to - dark matter isn't really the focus of this thread anyway - I think I'll just order his book and form my judgment based on that.

If you are interested in physics, I would recommend that you start with more basic books on the subject.
Didn't Einstein have had a position on Dark matter himself, by the way? And did he not propose this cosmological constant which now somehow comes back as dark energy, responsible for the expansion of the universe? I know it's not the same, but the theory of dark matter existed when he was still alive, didn't it?

The problem that there might be a matter that cannot be seen was considered since at least the 1930s, but there was no evidence for a need for dark matter until after Einstein's death.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:30 am

Don't worry about me, PhysBang. Go chase Farsight, he must be somewhere spreading his false propaganda.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:43 am

And people do consider the possibility that a change in the way gravity works might change the need for dark matter. So far, these other projects have failed.

Or maybe you could point me to literature about this?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:06 am

PB - I'm pretty annoyed here - you act as if you've actually said or explained something, where in fact you've only accused Farsight of lying, and made some statements about unnamed models and sources when I asked you to show that he is. Look at what you said.
Einstein believed that space on the large-scale average was homogeneous.

Source?
We know that because he endorsed a cosmological model in which this was the case both before and after he made the claim that Farsight quotes.

Specification? Source?
So what did Einstein mean when he said that space is not homogeneous? Well, he meant pretty much what he said afterwards, which is that in order to explain gravity, we have to look to the distribution of matter in spacetime and use this to determine the geometry of spacetime.

Source?
(And this is what every relativistic cosmological model does and what every astronomer who measures dark matter using relativistic means does also.)

Aha
But what does Farsight mean when he says that inhomogeneous space will do away with the need for dark matter? Nobody knows. I suspect not even Farsight knows

It's very obvious what he means.
. If we could see an actual calculation of how to calculate a galaxy rotation curve "the Farsight way" then we would have an idea of what he means.

Of course we can't, because if space is not homogenous, we don't have any math to work with.
But unlike every scientific paper on dark matter, Farsight refuses to actually demonstrate the relationship between measurements of gravitational phenomena and dark matter.

That makes no sense at all, the relation between gravitational phenomena and dark matter is only the hypothesis that there is a relation.
Physics is more than the ability to state things confidently.

Very confidently stated!
Physics involves the ability to make claims about physical systems that we can either use in application or that we can support with observations that include measurements.

Very confidently stated! Never mind that you say nothing at all!
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Farsight » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:36 pm

Jakob: I find it very sad that some people dismiss and deny what Einstein actually said. They won't enter into a sincere discussion, they won't furnish evidence to back up their assertions, they do not hesitate to attempt to discredit, and they have a sneering arrogance that treats the public with utter contempt. There's an elitist aspect to all this, it's been hampering scientific progress, and it's got to stop.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby PhysBang » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:21 am

Jakob wrote:
Einstein believed that space on the large-scale average was homogeneous.

Source?

Relativity, by Albert Einstein

One could see also, for example, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... Model.html
Or wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
We know that because he endorsed a cosmological model in which this was the case both before and after he made the claim that Farsight quotes.

Specification? Source?

See above.
So what did Einstein mean when he said that space is not homogeneous? Well, he meant pretty much what he said afterwards, which is that in order to explain gravity, we have to look to the distribution of matter in spacetime and use this to determine the geometry of spacetime.

Source?

See everything ever written by Einstein after 1915, in which he actually explained the use of spacetime with very detailed mathematical physics.
But what does Farsight mean when he says that inhomogeneous space will do away with the need for dark matter? Nobody knows. I suspect not even Farsight knows

It's very obvious what he means.

Really? Could you use Farsight's idea to calculate the rotation curve of a galaxy? Even Farsight can't do this.
. If we could see an actual calculation of how to calculate a galaxy rotation curve "the Farsight way" then we would have an idea of what he means.

Of course we can't, because if space is not homogenous, we don't have any math to work with.

There are an infinite number of solutions to the Einstein Field equations that have an inhomogeneous distribution of matter and energy. Most applications of general relativity use an inhomogeneous distribution of matter and energy. These solutions use mathematics and they are what actually convinces physicists that general relativity is correct. Einstein did not succeed because he was good at prose.
But unlike every scientific paper on dark matter, Farsight refuses to actually demonstrate the relationship between measurements of gravitational phenomena and dark matter.

That makes no sense at all, the relation between gravitational phenomena and dark matter is only the hypothesis that there is a relation.

Yes, but that hypothesis is backed up by specific predictions and by measurements. Farsight has nothing of the sort.
Physics involves the ability to make claims about physical systems that we can either use in application or that we can support with observations that include measurements.

Very confidently stated! Never mind that you say nothing at all!

I am not the one telling you that everything in every physics textbook is wrong. Farsight is setting himself up as the saviour of physics. If you want to find out if he is correct, you should read some relevant physics texts. You will soon discover how wrong Farsight is and how I have been saying merely the obvious.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Farsight » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:27 pm

Better still, read what Einstein said. See viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171501 and follow the links. PhysBang dismisses Einstein.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:12 pm

PhysBang wrote:I am not the one telling you that everything in every physics textbook is wrong. Farsight is setting himself up as the saviour of physics. If you want to find out if he is correct, you should read some relevant physics texts. You will soon discover how wrong Farsight is and how I have been saying merely the obvious.

The assumption that when someone is "saying merely the obvious", we should expect truth to be revealed, is an exemplary example of the stupidity behind common sensical thinking.

Was Einstein ever "saying merely the obvious"? Of course not. There is nothing obvious about science, or about any insightful thought. The obvious is the meaningless and mindless shell of social consensus - Insight is what breaks through the obvious.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:07 pm

So, where do we stand on this, now?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:23 pm

There is nothing obvious about science, or about any insightful thought.


That's an interesting notion! I don't even know why the world isn't obvious, so I wont butt into your debate. Better if all debaters were up with the science, then surely the original topic could be discussed from a higher vantage point.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Jakob » Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:24 pm

Amorphos wrote:
There is nothing obvious about science, or about any insightful thought.


That's an interesting notion! I don't even know why the world isn't obvious, so I wont butt into your debate. Better if all debaters were up with the science, then surely the original topic could be discussed from a higher vantage point.

Farsight has a towering vantage point it seems to me.

The obviousness question: obviously scientific theorems are never obvious. It would not require brilliant men to produce them otherwise. It would just all be speaking for itself and the world would be fully understood by anyone who looked at it.
Not so.

And, obviously, 'scientific models' and 'the world' aren't equal notions.

We are in the world, of the world, it can not possibly be expected that the nature of the world is fully apperceptible to anyone except the most fully realized, rugged , happy and powerful expriencer of it.

Obviously. (;
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Amorphos » Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:22 pm

I see. To get a world which is a simple and easily explainable one ~ something akin to a child's view, reality would have to arrive at that somehow. Then you have to get from infinity to the finite, whatever versions of the world we have. I can't see any way to do that without involving abstracts in both form and pattern. Ergo you don't get an obvious world without metaphysical foundations. Somewhere in that is the connectivity by which things interact, then the abstract [like mind] connects with an impression of the derivative world. That impression is the experienced world of objects ~ the 'obvious' world.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:34 am

Farsight wrote:Better still, read what Einstein said. See phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171501 and follow the links. PhysBang dismisses Einstein.


Farsight your link doesn't work
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:23 pm

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:32 am

Farsight wrote:
Jakob wrote:Greetings Lord Farsight. Thanks for this long awaited response.
Ouch, Jacob. Please don't call me "Lord".

Why not?
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:54 pm

capslockf9 wrote:
Jakob wrote:
capslockf9 wrote:"By exploiting the quantum energy fluctuations in entangled particles, physicists may be able to inject energy in one particle, and extract it in another particle located light-years away." Re:: http://www.physorg.com/news184597481.html

How does one go about extracting energy from a particle light years away? Or does it only mean that this would in theory be possible because of entanglement?
What has changed in relation to what Anthem posted? Have there been successful expieriments?


entanglement and non-locality are a fact not a theory. Entanglement has worked for effecting the spin of a distant electrons and qubits are being sent and extracted -"Physicists have teleported quantum information between two atoms separated by a significant distance".."Now researchers at the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan have successfully teleported quantum information between two ytterbium ions separated by 1 m, reporting a 90% success rate"...RE: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37450

"China Shatters “Spooky Action at a Distance” Record, Preps for Quantum Internet"

Image

"In a landmark study, a team of Chinese scientists using an experimental satellite has tested quantum entanglement over unprecedented distances, beaming entangled pairs of photons to three ground stations across China—each separated by more than 1,200 kilometers. The test verifies a mysterious and long-held tenet of quantum theory, and firmly establishes China as the front-runner in a burgeoning “quantum space race” to create a secure, quantum-based global communications network—that is, a potentially unhackable “quantum internet” that would be of immense geopolitical importance. The findings were published Thursday in Science.

“China has taken the leadership in quantum communication,” says Nicolas Gisin, a physicist at the University of Geneva who was not involved in the study. “This demonstrates that global quantum communication is possible and will be achieved in the near future.”

The concept of quantum communications is considered the gold standard for security, in part because any compromising surveillance leaves its imprint on the transmission. Conventional encrypted messages require secret keys to decrypt, but those keys are vulnerable to eavesdropping as they are sent out into the ether. In quantum communications, however, these keys can be encoded in various quantum states of entangled photons—such as their polarization—and these states will be unavoidably altered if a message is intercepted by eavesdroppers. Ground-based quantum communications typically send entangled photon pairs via fiber-optic cables or open air. But collisions with ordinary atoms along the way disrupt the photons’ delicate quantum states, limiting transmission distances to a few hundred kilometers. Sophisticated devices called “quantum repeaters”—equipped with “quantum memory” modules—could in principle be daisy-chained together to receive, store and retransmit the quantum keys across longer distances, but this task is so complex and difficult that such systems remain largely theoretical.

“A quantum repeater has to receive photons from two different places, then store them in quantum memory, then interfere them directly with each other” before sending further signals along a network, says Paul Kwiat, a physicist at the University of Illinois in Urbana–Champaign who is unaffiliated with the Chinese team. “But in order to do all that, you have to know you’ve stored them without actually measuring them.” The situation, Kwiat says, is a bit like knowing what you have received in the mail without looking in your mailbox or opening the package inside. “You can shake the package—but that’s difficult to do if what you’re receiving is just photons. You want to make sure you’ve received them but you don’t want to absorb them. In principle it’s possible—no question—but it’s very hard to do.”

To form a globe-girdling secure quantum communications network, then, the only available solution is to beam quantum keys through the vacuum of space then distribute them across tens to hundreds of kilometers using ground-based nodes. Launched into low Earth orbit in 2016 and named after an ancient Chinese philosopher, the 600-kilogram “Micius” satellite is China’s premiere effort to do just that, and is only the first of a fleet the nation plans as part of its $100-million Quantum Experiments at Space Scale (QUESS) program.

Micius carries in its heart an assemblage of crystals and lasers that generates entangled photon pairs then splits and transmits them on separate beams to ground stations in its line-of-sight on Earth. For the latest test, the three receiving stations were located in the cities of Delingha and Ürümqi—both on the Tibetan Plateau—as well as in the city of Lijiang in China’s far southwest. At 1,203 kilometers, the geographical distance between Delingha and Lijiang is the record-setting stretch over which the entangled photon pairs were transmitted.

For now the system remains mostly a proof of concept, because the current reported data transmission rate between Micius and its receiving stations is too low to sustain practical quantum communications. Of the roughly six million entangled pairs that Micius’s crystalline core produced during each second of transmission, only about one pair per second reached the ground-based detectors after the beams weakened as they passed through Earth’s atmosphere and each receiving station’s light-gathering telescopes. Team leader Jian-Wei Pan—a physicist at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei who has pushed and planned for the experiment since 2003—compares the feat with detecting a single photon from a lone match struck by someone standing on the moon. Even so, he says, Micius’s transmission of entangled photon pairs is “a trillion times more efficient than using the best telecommunication fibers. … We have done something that was absolutely impossible without the satellite.” Within the next five years, Pan says, QUESS will launch more practical quantum communications satellites.

Although Pan and his team plan for Micius and its nascent network of sister satellites to eventually distribute quantum keys, their initial demonstration instead aimed to achieve a simpler task: proving Einstein wrong.

Einstein famously derided as “spooky action at a distance” one of the most bizarre elements of quantum theory—the way that measuring one member of an entangled pair of particles seems to instantaneously change the state of its counterpart, even if that counterpart particle is on the other side of the galaxy. This was abhorrent to Einstein, because it suggests information might be transmitted between the particles faster than light, breaking the universal speed limit set by his theory of special relativity. Instead, he and others posited, perhaps the entangled particles somehow shared “hidden variables” that are inaccessible to experiment but would determine the particles’ subsequent behavior when measured. In 1964 the physicist John Bell devised a way to test Einstein’s idea, calculating a limit that physicists could statistically measure for how much hidden variables could possibly correlate with the behavior of entangled particles. If experiments showed this limit to be exceeded, then Einstein’s idea of hidden variables would be incorrect.

Ever since the 1970s “Bell tests” by physicists across ever-larger swaths of spacetime have shown that Einstein was indeed mistaken, and that entangled particles do in fact surpass Bell’s strict limits. The most definitive test arguably occurred in the Netherlands in 2015, when a team at Delft University of Technology closed several potential “loopholes” that had plagued past experiments and offered slim-but-significant opportunities for the influence of hidden variables to slip through. That test, though, involved separating entangled particles by scarcely more than a kilometer. With Micius’s transmission of entangled photons between widely separated ground stations, Pan’s team has now performed a Bell test at distances a thousand times greater. Just as before, their results confirm that Einstein was wrong. The quantum realm remains a spooky place—although no one yet understands why.

“Of course, no one who accepts quantum mechanics could possibly doubt that entanglement can be created over that distance—or over any distance—but it’s still nice to see it made concrete,” says Scott Aaronson, a physicist at The University of Texas at Austin. “Nothing we knew suggested this goal was unachievable. The significance of this news is not that it was unexpected or that it overturns anything previously believed, but simply that it’s a satisfying culmination of years of hard work.”

That work largely began in the 1990s when Pan, leader of the Chinese team, was a graduate student in the lab of the physicist Anton Zeilinger at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. Zeilinger was Pan’s PhD adviser, and they collaborated closely to test and further develop ideas for quantum communication. Pan returned to China to start his own lab in 2001, and Zeilinger started one as well at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. For the next seven years they would compete fiercely to break records for transmitting entangled photon pairs across ever-wider gaps, and in ever-more extreme conditions, in ground-based experiments. All the while each man lobbied his respective nation’s space agency to green-light a satellite that could be used to test the technique from space. But Zeilinger’s proposals perished in a bureaucratic swamp at the European Space Agency whereas Pan’s were quickly embraced by the China National Space Administration. Ultimately, Zeilinger chose to collaborate again with his old pupil rather than compete against him; today the Austrian Academy of Sciences is a partner in QUESS, and the project has plans to use Micius to perform an intercontinental quantum key distribution experiment between ground stations in Vienna and Beijing.

“I am happy that the Micius works so well,” Zeilinger says. “But one has to realize that it is a missed opportunity for Europe and others, too.”

For years now, other researchers and institutions have been scrambling to catch up, pushing governments for more funding for further experiments on the ground and in space—and many of them see Micius’s success as the catalytic event they have been waiting for. “This is a major milestone, because if we are ever to have a quantum internet in the future, we will need to send entanglement over these sorts of long distances,” says Thomas Jennewein, a physicist at the University of Waterloo in Canada who was not involved with the study. “This research is groundbreaking for all of us in the community—everyone can point to it and say, ‘see, it does work!’”

Jennewein and his collaborators are pursuing a space-based approach from the ground up, partnering with the Canadian Space Agency to plan a smaller, simpler satellite that could launch as soon as five years from now to act as a “universal receiver” and redistribute entangled photons beamed up from ground stations. At the National University of Singapore, an international collaboration led by the physicist Alexander Ling has already launched cheap shoe box–size CubeSats to create, study and perhaps even transmit photon pairs that are “correlated”—a situation just shy of full entanglement. And in the U.S., Kwiat at the University of Illinois is using NASA funding to develop a device that could someday test quantum communications using “hyperentanglement” (the simultaneous entanglement of photon pairs in multiple ways) onboard the International Space Station.

Perhaps most significantly, a team led by Gerd Leuchs and Christoph Marquardt at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light in Germany is developing quantum communications protocols for commercially available laser systems already in space onboard the European Copernicus and SpaceDataHighway satellites. Using one of these systems, the team successfully encoded and sent simple quantum states to ground stations using photons beamed from a satellite in geostationary orbit, some 38,000 kilometers above Earth. This approach, Marquardt explains, does not rely on entanglement and is very different from that of QUESS—but it could, with minimal upgrades, nonetheless be used to distribute quantum keys for secure communications in as little as five years. Their results appear in Optica.

“Our purpose is really to find a shortcut into making things like quantum key distribution with satellites economically viable and employable, pretty fast and soon,” Marquardt says. “[Engineers] invested 20 years of hard work making these systems, so it’s easier to upgrade them than to design everything from scratch. … It is a very good advantage if you can rely on something that is already qualified in space, because space qualification is very complicated. It usually takes five to 10 years just to develop that.”

Marquardt and others suspect, however, that this field could be much further advanced than has been publicly acknowledged, with developments possibly hidden behind veils of official secrecy in the U.S. and elsewhere. It may be that the era of quantum communication is already upon us. “Some colleague of mine made the joke, ‘the silence of the U.S. is very loud,’” Marquardt says. “They had some very good groups concerning free-space satellites and quantum key distribution at Los Alamos [National Laboratory] and other places, and suddenly they stopped publishing. So we always say there are two reasons that they stopped publishing: either it didn’t work, or it worked really well!” "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -internet/
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:38 pm

Entanglement does NOT mean "instantaneous changing". In fact, if remote instantaneous changing actually happened, the use of entanglement for security would be pointless. And interference would equally alter the remote entangled photon thus the interference could not be detected.

This is just one of those mind-games wherein they falsely presume that existence is only what an observer believes that he sees - a magic show.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25297
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:45 pm

So are you saying those reports from China are false, or are being misread?
Before the Light

Image

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: What exactly is "spin"?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:56 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:So are you saying those reports from China are false, or are being misread?

"Misread" would be a more appropriate assessment. The ideas concerning entanglement have been contorted such that now reporters of events lie without realizing it.

The fallacy began by combining observational solipsism (aka quantum fantasy physics) with causality. Two entities are "parallel" in their behavior and situation. Causality demands that they remain parallel until something happens to one but not the other (aka "entangled"). Simply by that reasoning, an observer who sees one can guess what the other is doing regardless of any distance between them (aka "instantaneous information transfer"). But if the observer doesn't see either one, he has to guess and thus there is a probability involved. In quantum fantasy physics, all possibilities exist at the same time and only by observation can any one possibility become reality. Thus as an observer sees the state of one, the other is said to become real because its state is then known (aka "instantaneous action/causality at a distance").

What they are doing is proclaiming that the observation of one item caused the other item to become identical (or reversed, depending). But it is just a mind game. In the rational world, both entities were whatever they were regardless of any observations or assessments and the discovery of one doesn't alter what they other always was, but rather allows for a double discovery because they are known to be similar (or opposite).

It is a cheap thrill and magic trick for those in the dark.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25297
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users