Superposition, Quantum Entanglement, Time, Reality/Actuality....

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quantum Computing is not using 1's and 0's for processing data, the need for electrons and charge, but with photons entangled. Entangled means that a photon displaying an effect will be paralleled with any other entangled photons. Photons can undergo superposition being that they display in between absolutes 1 and 0 as .5 or .23 etc.

So essentially, because there are infinite numbers in between 0 and 1 an infinite amount of computations can take place, potentially; but how much time it takes being irrational. So irrational to assume that time would flow in this situation, or for that matter that time actually flows 100%, being that perhaps consciousness gives that illusion.

Perhaps time only flows in causality but there is no underlying actuality of it flowing at all. Rather it conducts itself in instances so as to allow infinite computations to occur in little to no time at all.

There is a proportionality between the gradients of cause to its effect and how much time will flow. If linear cause meaning the effect is paralleled such as in entanglement, then time will flow 100% and/or 0%.

Quantum is different from linear, exponential, quadratic, in that it is like a loop, but inversed upon itself so that no time passes at all during the actual input output between entangled particles. Thats the only way it would work, therefore the particles have to be photons, traveling at the speed of light in which relative to us no time would pass at all. The only time it would take for quantum computing would be the delay then, when matter to matter data carrying was going on for the brief time it would be.

What I want to know is why does superposition exist, which leads me to question if it isn't what scientists believe it to be. Opposites connote down to 'binaric' actuality, two sides to perception.

So as consciousness is perception, leading to reality as a false actuality, we view opposites to everything, but in actuality the two is actually one. Just instances, absolutes, allowing for numbers that aren't whole, thus superposition really doesn't exist, but is a product of relative effects.

A superposition value is an absolute in itself, but relative to other values it is between them; but the relative values are just as whole as the value in between. All you have to do is move the decimal place over. Decimals are products of relative values and would not exist otherwise.

For example, 1 and 2 are relative values and the superposition value is 1.3. All you have to do is move the decimal place over to make it 10, 13, and 20. The superposition disappears and is really just absolutes that values are coherent to one another.

And then the coherency can be manipulated to have causality enact absolute effects without distance causing any problems.

Superposition is a force that relies upon macro to micro experience, so one can't say quantum has no effect, it does.
For example, 1, 1.3, 2 is the perception viewing micro from macro experience. But micro to micro experience would be viewing absolutes construed upon each other; 10, 13, 20.

So yes, I'm going so far as to say that superposition is a force.

And to potential..... If infinite computations can be done in an amount of time then what time is that? The potential then becomes infinite. But how much time is passing by for you relative to how much time is going by for the "processoring".

Anybody got anything to add, other than my incoherency. :deflated::wheelchair:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,411 • Replies: 18

No top replies

@Holiday20310401,

... matter happens in discrete quanta (particle physics) ... energy happens in discrete quanta (quantum mechanics) ... why not time? ... that is, if entropy defines the arrow of time and entropy is the disordering of the universe and the disordering of the universe can only occur in terms of discrete quanta, doesn't that imply that (the arrow of) time can only happen in discrete quanta? ... and does the act of observing one particle of an entangled set result in an increase in entropy? ... and if so, does that mean that the (interesting) interactions of an entangled set cannot occur in zero time? (or does this qualify as "The only time it would take for quantum computing would be the delay then, when matter to matter data carrying was going on ..."

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

Hmm.... I think it would be a decrease in entropy if you look at its second definition. Lol, the ambiguity.

entropy - Definitions from Dictionary.com

But I suppose that entropy doesn't apply b/c is seems less like a thermodynamic system. However the randomness decreases and in relation to society there is a ot more order which would not mean decline.

In terms of the amount of energy available, when photons are entangled I doubt they share energy so there will be no potential energy, because all particles are acting paralleled to one another.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

... seems less like a thermodynamic system.

... what in this universe isn't a thermodynamic system Wink

... anyhoo, going with definition 1b, if a set of particles are entangled is that system of particles not more ordered than a set of particles that are not entangled? ... asked another way, does it not require energy to entangle particles? - and if so, is that energy lost as "heat" during the entanglement process or is it stored as potential energy within the entangled set? (or both?) ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Well I think that what you are saying here is contradicting assumptions you've stated earlier. Sorry.

You are right that order is increased if particles entangled. But energy is not lost as heat because entanglement , I doubt anyways, requires heat energy transfer. Entanglement is immaterialistic such that what follows would make sense to be a different form of energy.

Actually to be fair, I'll do a bit of research on the matter.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Well I think that what you are saying here is contradicting assumptions you've stated earlier. Sorry.

... I'll try to connect things better - if it requires energy to entangle particles (which I think it does), and if the energy required to entangle particles is stored in the entanglement as potential energy (which I think it might be), and the act of observing one particle of an entangled set disentangles the set (which I think I remember reading somewhere), thus reducing the order in the set of particles in question and releasing the potential energy of the entanglement (as heat?), can't we say that the act of observing one particle of an entangled set results in an increase in entropy? ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Yes, ofcourse. And yes it would require energy to entangle particles, by means of getting them in a state in which they can be entangled but it is a questions of what kind of potential energy do photons carry. I think anyways, I'm definitely no expert on any of this, just fun to speculate.

Your coherence is better than mine. I've realised its a miracle I understand my own posts.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

I realize that an electron is the same as another electron. But an apple is never the same. This is because the apple can be divided into distinct parts that are not put together the exact same way. And this is because the apple did not come to be the same way as any other apple. There are minor differences for each phenomenon of creating an apple, thus the parts to the apple will vary in formation, shape, and other characteristics.

So I can say that all electrons come to be the same way if they are absolutely congruent to each other. But what I don't understand is, does coordinates count? Two electrons are not in the same place at once. Does this prove that the universe is infinite and therefore making coordinates undefined. Matter does not give relative points when the true underlying relation between a piece of matter and the universe itself is matter and its dimension.

So what we must deal with is a particle with a dimension that can't be defined in order for the entanglement to be created between two particles that are able to essentially apply forces upon eachother from relative distances, directly.

An undefined dimension is simply not 3D, as far as I can picture it. So the particles that are used for quantum entanglement cannot be matter. This must be why they use photons because they aren't really matter. But I don't know :knight: about this stuff, so Surprised

I'm basically trying to say that dimension and pure states are important for such a process as entanglement.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

... if I remember correctly from a little bit of reading years back, when two electrons are entangled their "spin" is synchronized (in a quantum-probability kind of way) ... that is, you don't know what the spin of the electrons is - you just know that it's synchronized ... the trick to "spooky action at a distance" is that if you then put one of the entangled pair on one side of the universe and the other of the entangled pair on the other side of the universe and then observe the first electron you thus collapse the quantum wave associated with the entanglement and the second electron instantaneously takes on the observed spin of the first electron ... this action is "spooky" in at least two ways: 1) the information of what spin to assume is transmitted across the universe instantaneously (way faster than light), and 2) a human observer is required to collapse the quantum wave (if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one around to hear it, would it make a sound?) ... is "spin" a dimension? - I'm not sure, but I don't recall the invocation of any new dimensions in the description of electron entanglement (but that may just be my lousy memory!).

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Well this changes everything. I thought only photons were entangled. Oh well. Sure it wasn't photons you were reading about?

Usually, when two distant objects are to have potential on eachother by applying a force on one another, because they are distant relatively speaking, a force is indirectly applied to the other object. So other objects are going to be influenced slightly by the original force that are in the way, carrying the energy, I think anyways. lol, this is blind input from a grade 11 physics course.

In space you cannot push another person indirectly because there are no other objects in the way to carry the force(as energy). But you can contact the person and apply a force upon that person, also creating an opposite force. (So both people would be pushed away from eachother, not that it pertains to this).

And with entangled particles, they are indirectly having potential on one another. In your scenario if an electron is spinning the entangled electron will also spin the same way. Force indirectly applied but not influencing any other objects, so really, its directly applied. But still, directly applied seems only possible with objects in contact. It seems that a force can only be relayed by means of unbound energy, and has potential only to bound energy (matter). Entanglement seems like an exception though.

This is to sum things up to help me out if it seems redundant to you, sorry.

So what allows for direct flow of a force to be caused between spatially indirect objects?

A force is sent from the past, carried on through the present by means of energy. Force is a means of causality to appear intrinsic to the universe, and in construsion with time, dimension situates force. That is my feeling of the matter.

And what is force other than information then? It is the past being that it is information, so the nature of force is instant, when potentiating as the present, such force is carried as energy, so time affects it, and occurs as a duration?

And so, entangled particles are still relaying information, causing force upon each other but energy is the same within each other, so opposite reactions do not apply? Energy is not at all in motion, so time is not a variable.

Honestly, I have no clue.

I suppose that entanglement advocates for M theory in that one could assume a need for more dimensions for the entanglement process to occur inhibiting the normal causal flow of information as potential.

But I don't think that we need more dimensions. Perhaps information relaying is different when applying it to particles that are not bound energy. Bound energy requires a conversion to unbound energy to carry its own information, its own integers. Or at least, it requires unbound energy carried from bound to bound energy (particle to particle; of matter).

I think that my speculating is just too uninformed to be reasonable, so I'm sure you'd know more than me. I'll stop now.

3 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Well this changes everything. I thought only photons were entangled. Oh well. Sure it wasn't photons you were reading about?

... some Google material for ya: electron spin quantum entanglement - Google Search Wink

...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Ok, so I've read that until you measure the spin of an electron will you be able to get a measurement.

My Crazy Idea: Time is in instants in the quantum world because gravity is having less of an effect for cause (cause and effect are equally proportional to eachother) , thus time cannot flow. So randomness increases. That is why it would be hard to get a measurement.

I think that what is happening is that this randomness, is the same as linearity, the two particles behaving the same way. The randomness is the particles behaving in an undefined way.

I've got more, I just can't think today:brickwall::saddened:

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

An analogy might help. Think of a wave breaking on a beach. If you insert a sheet of glass vertically to split the wave then the information in each half wave is still the same. Now, if you arrange to put the waves out of phase the information, to some extent, becomes opposite. The thickness of the glass (the distance between the half waves) does not matter.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

You know how einstein thought up theory of relativity. And that theory works for gravity. Why can't that sort of fabric work for positive and negative charges, and electron move on that fabric.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... matter happens in discrete quanta (particle physics) ... energy happens in discrete quanta (quantum mechanics) ... why not time? ...

This is a good question.

I would say that time does not have to follow the trend of matter and energy and only come in quanta. Time is not an object in that it has no physical form. Time is a property of objects and not an object itself. Not having a physical means it can escape the quanta trend. Some have named the Planck Time as the quanta of time. The Planck Time is smallest measureable amount of time. Philosophically time intervals shorter than this can exist. The problem here is how can we scientifically accept this if we can not meausre these less than planck time intervals.

Back to pondering this :cool: thread

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

The "computer" we are talking about is the processor. The processor can process a certain number of calculations per second.
A quantum processor can simply perform the same calculations simultaneously within the same transistor.

Without going into the microelectronics of a quantum diode, the electron can exist in several different energy levels, and has a different frequency based on its energy level. For the purpose of a quantum computer I can't immagine that more than 3 or 4 energy levels would be used.
An extra energy level doubles the speed of the computer. So a computer with 2 energy levels is twice as fast, and a computer with 3 energy levels is 4 times as fast and a computer with 4 energy levels is 8times as fast 5 energy levels would be 16 times as fast.
speed is determined by calculations per second.

A light computer is a different entity all together. Of course a computer cannot opperate solely on light, it opperates based on electro-optics. And light can use many different wavelengths based on the quality of the electro-optic crystal. I worked for 6 months on growing electro-optical crystals. Last I checked, the electro-optic computer is still in the crystal development stage and will take a few years before a prototype processor is developed. But quantum diodes and quantum transistors already exist.

As I have stated in other threads, time is based on distance between objects. There is a minimal distance known as the plank-length. To get the plank-time increment you must just divide the plank length by the speed of light. This is the minimum time difference between two objects. Other than this time has no meaning.

0 Replies

@validity,

validity wrote:

This is a good question.

I would say that time does not have to follow the trend of matter and energy and only come in quanta. Time is not an object in that it has no physical form. Time is a property of objects and not an object itself. Not having a physical means it can escape the quanta trend. Some have named the Planck Time as the quanta of time. The Planck Time is smallest measureable amount of time. Philosophically time intervals shorter than this can exist. The problem here is how can we scientifically accept this if we can not meausre these less than planck time intervals.

How can time be a property of an object? What does it define about the object? It really has no force, and causality is about information direction not really about the 'time' you're talking about.

Lets say we have an indivisible object. Would time exist within that object, as a property? No, because there is no information, no change, time has no meaning. We must have two indivisible objects in order for time to exist. More information, more perception, more forces interacting.

And perhaps time's flow is proportional to the amount of objects there are within environment of perception.

Time, I don't think is a dimension in and of itself. It could be like squaring a force.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

How can time be a property of an object? What does it define about the object? It really has no force, and causality is about information direction not really about the 'time' you're talking about.

Lets say we have an indivisible object. Would time exist within that object, as a property? No, because there is no information, no change, time has no meaning. We must have two indivisible objects in order for time to exist. More information, more perception, more forces interacting.

And perhaps time's flow is proportional to the amount of objects there are within environment of perception.

Time, I don't think is a dimension in and of itself. It could be like squaring a force.

Firstly I posted "Time is a property of objects". The difference is that I think time is not a property of a single object. I think of time as meaningless if there is only one object, as how does any change occur. Note that by an object I mean a single object like an electron and not a single atom which consists of smaller parts.

Your paragraph on time and an indivisible object is on par with what I think of time.

Times apparent one directional flow at the macroscopic level is generally considered to not hold at the the microscopic level. Something happens to times flow when we move from the macro to the micro, and if you could describe this by the use proportionality to the amount of objects, it would be an interesting idea.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Someone might find this interesting
Quantum Weirdness

0 Replies

Superposition, Quantum Entanglement, Time, Reality/Actuality....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know