The Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[PdotdQ]

Here is my first post on it:

@PdotdQ

Entanglement clearly cannot be explained just by one particle being seen in the forward facing and backward facing holes of a wormhole. If so, how would you explain entanglement of non-identical particles?

The problem is self evident: if entanglement is what you say it is:

@gbrooks9

Entanglement is the English word for “1 particle existing in multiple spaces”.

Then you cannot entangle non-identical particles.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PdotdQ

Then you cannot entangle non-identical particles.

@PdotdQ

I have asked for a link to an article on this topic. You are the first person ive ever heard discussing this as a “thing”.

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

I have asked for a link to an article on this topic. You are the first person ive ever heard discussing this as a “thing”.

Hmm, let me put it straight. Your proposal that:

@gbrooks9

I believe this approach will eventually be replaced with the idea that a single particle (with unbroken constituents) can be better interpreted as existing in two places simultaneously in our first 4 dimensions because they have been given unifying coirdinates in a higher spatial realm as a SINGLE enyity.

Is not something that is considered seriously in physics. There is no article on its flaws because the flaw is apparent:

@PdotdQ

how do you then explain entanglement of non-identical particles?

And I am the first person you’ve ever heard discussing this problem exactly because this model of entangled particle being just one particle seen through different ends of a “contact” wormhole is not something that is seriously considered in physics. Indeed, most probably because it cannot explain the entanglement of non-identical particles.

In any case, I don’t think one needs an article on the topic. Unless I am misunderstanding your model, the problem is pretty clear: if entangled particles are just one particle seen through two faces of a “contact” wormhole, how can you explain the entanglement of say a proton and an electron? This throatless wormhole cannot turn a proton into an electron, so it does not matter which end of the wormhole you see this electron from, it cannot be a proton seen from one face of the wormhole and an electron in the other.

The model of entanglement=wormhole that IS seriously discussed in physics is called ER=EPR, as I mentioned in a previous post:

@PdotdQ

This is the ER=EPR conjecture. The wormhole in this theory is NOT what you call a “contact” wormhole (it has a “tunnel”).

But this is not your theory, because

1. ER=EPR is a statement about the entanglement of black holes not particles
2. ER=EPR wormholes are Einstein-Rosen (the ER part) bridges, which as I mentioned in the other post, have throats and are NOT “contact” black holes

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

Carumba!

@pdotdq

In the last 24 hours i have heard you twice assert that scientists have entangled mis-matched particles. I have never before heard this.

Is there an article you can point me to that describes this?

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

In the last 24 hours i have heard you twice assert that scientists have entangled mis-matched particles. I have never before heard this.

Is there an article you can point me to that describes this?

First of, entanglement happens all the time, one does not need scientists to specifically prepare it. For example, every time we make an observation, we entangle our measuring apparatus (and ourselves) with the system under study.

Here is just one example of entangled mis-matched particles: The hydrogen atom as an entangled electron-proton system - NASA/ADS

That’s right, literally every hydrogen atoms.

Indeed, the entanglement of identical particles are the ones that are considered to be special cases of entanglement! So much so that some people wrote articles on this subfield of entanglement: [1403.3178] Entanglement of Identical Particles, [1709.05520] Remarks on entanglement and identical particles

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PdotdQ

Here is just one example of entangled mis-matched particles: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AmJPh…66…881T

That’s right, literally every hydrogen atoms.

Aside from the fact i dont have Harvard permissions to tead anything more than the abstract… these are not mis-matched if Hydrogen atoms are being entangled with hydrogen atoms.

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

Aside from the fact i dont have Harvard permissions to tead anything more than the abstract… these are not mis-matched if Hydrogen atoms are being entangled with hydrogen atoms.

Click on the arxiv e-print link, that’s a preprint server where everything is free! Please read the abstract, these are not hydrogen-hydrogen entanglement, but that a hydrogen atom consists of an entangled electron-proton system.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PdotdQ

these are not hydrogen-hydrogen entanglement, but that a hydrogen atom consists of an entangled electron-proton system.

@PdotdQ

Yes… IDENTICAL electron-proton systems. This is not mis-matched entanglement.

It is matching system entanglements.

Look… you mentioned the opposite facings of a wormhole.

Now shorten the wormhole to one planck…

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

Yes… IDENTICAL electron-proton systems. This is not mis-matched entanglement.

It is matching system entanglements.

NO!!! It is entanglement of electron and proton. Electron and protons are not identical!

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PdotdQ

NO!!! It is entanglement of electron and proton. Electron and protons are not identical!

@PdotdQ
Is English your second language?

Of course electrons and protons are not identical.

But an electron/proton system IS potentially identical to another electron/proton system.

I clearly indicated the latter… not the former.

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

Of course electrons and protons are not identical.

Yes, I was exasperated which is why I emphasized this obvious thing. My apologies for losing my cool.

@gbrooks9

But an electron/proton system IS potentially identical to another electron/proton system.

I clearly indicated the latter… not the former.

Electron-proton system is identical to another electron-proton system. But the article I linked is not talking about that.

It is talking about how an electron and a proton can be entangled, with the example of such entanglement forming a hydrogen atom.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PdotdQ

It is talking about how an electron and a proton can be entangled, with the example of such entanglement forming a hydrogen atom.

Ahhhh… i will see if i can access the link you specify. I have an obligation to attend to…so give me several hours…

[PdotdQ]

@gbrooks9

Ahhhh… i will see if i can access the link you specify. I have an obligation to attend to…so give me several hours…

Here are a bunch of other experiments entangling different particles, in this case photon and electrons/atoms. You can find any of the manuscripts on arxiv, but their results are clear from their abstracts.

1. Observation of entanglement between a single trapped atom and a single photon | Nature
2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 030404 (2006) - Observation of Entanglement of a Single Photon with a Trapped Atom
3. Quantum-dot spin–photon entanglement via frequency downconversion to telecom wavelength | Nature
4. Observation of entanglement between a quantum dot spin and a single photon | Nature

If you’d rather read an article written for the lay audience, here is one such article:

A Quantum Dot First: Electron-Photon Entanglement

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

That lay audience link should be a big help!

[DaleCutler]

Interesting that this got bumped today with this discussion going on:

What Constitutes Supporting Evidence?

Continuing the discussion from Theory of Everything?: This is getting a little off topic so I’m creating a new thread for it.