Why *not* quantum discord instead of entanglement (Vedral's information based program)? It seems strange to me that Vedral in an article here a few months ago bet on the survival of quantum entanglement as a physical principle, IIRC.

As with classical ether a hundred years ago, physicists seem reluctant to give up quantum entanglement because of what they think they know about it, and particularly -- the necessity for it. Stripped of all pretense to objective knowledge, however, entanglement remains a placeholder for what we don't understand about about local realism.

It isn't quite true, as the article claims, that Einstein was troubled " ... because the outcome of different measurements should be random and unconnected." Einstein objected to probabilistic measurement altogether; the claim that "all physics is local" bounds the measurement domain definitely. Relativistic correlations, therefore, are co-dependent on boundary conditions, as contrasted to putatively entangled particles where nonlocality is assumed to be a physical fact.

It remains to be seen that quantum discord is compatible with relativity. Quantum entanglement is not.

Tom

Peter,

Reagrding the : multiplicity of states simultaneously:

Think matter to its spatial eqivalency here [as it travels at rate %"c" of course (www.CIGTheory.com) so it can atain its spatial eqivalency]. The "multiplicity of states simultaneously" may be viwed according to that "new space" resultant from the traveling mass.

Regarding "The mere act of measurement forces the system to choose a single state of being":

The act of measurement relies on the fact that the "object being measured" remains still, at or near classical rates of travel near zero %"c". This forces the spacial manifested equivalency (when traveling at greater rates) to a single point particle again, one that can be measured. This is the true and real collapse, the decoherence of the "probability" (i.e. actual new space, not a probability) to the measurable point particle.

FROM WIKI:

In quantum information theory, quantum discord is a measure of nonclassical correlations between two subsystems of a quantum system. It includes correlations that are due to quantum physical effects but do not necessarily involve quantum entanglement.

The notion of quantum discord was introduced by Harold Ollivier and Wojciech H. Zurek[1][2] and, independently by L. Henderson and Vlatko Vedral.[3] Olliver and Zurek referred to it also as a measure of quantumness of correlations.[2] From the work of these two research groups it follows that quantum correlations can be present in certain mixed separable states;[4] In other words, separability alone does not imply the absence of quantum effects. The notion of quantum discord thus goes beyond the distinction which had been made earlier between entangled versus separable (non-entangled) quantum states.

END WIKI

So, the discord may be viewed from a CIG Theory perspective accordingly.

Space happens.

While watching the movie Star Trek last night, it occurred to me that the new space offered up in CIG Theory, retains information of the original particle however in its spatial form. That retention of information is what allows the particle to re-emerge when it slows down and decoheres (collapses) back into the original particle, or at least as original as it can be (i.e. a bit here or there may have been dopped along the way). So, CIG Theory is now expanded to suggest that the spatial eqivalency of matter retains the original information; this I believe is highly desireable.

Peter, I still owe you a revised explanation of Lipp's Law of Proportionality (weeks become months become years).

I know nothing of quantum computing, I can barely get by using my fingers to count, often getting confused with how to interpret the information between them.

Can someone write a paper on CIG Theory and take up the cause in a serious and well defined re-interpretation. And how about my balloon question?

And, And....

I want my equation! Rate x Time does not equal Distance in an expanding Universe. It only gets us from A to B while B is now C!

CIG Theory

THX for putting up with me

Doug

Isn't it strange that quantum mechanics (nature) has proven to be ethereal and ghostly after all? Only when we look by taking a measurement does nature act classically, with particles. The Higgs field itself is this mysterious ubiquitous field that is justified by the scarcely detected Higgs boson. So it is with ghosts, haunts and spirits that visit upon the young and naive, but seem to vanish (collapse?) when we learn to think classically and logically. Since nature acts this way, spiritism and spiritualism are justified by nature and quantum mechanics.

Hey, it's not my fault that the quantum hydrogen atom has a ghostly (see through) appearance.

  • [deleted]

Peter (I hope you'll show up sooner or later)(and I think you know my theory - maybe better than I do):

FROM WIKI regarding quantum tunneling:

Quantum tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount.

Hence, the probability of a given particle's existence on the opposite side of an intervening barrier is non-zero, and such particles will appear--with no indication of physically transiting the barrier--on the 'other' (a semantically difficult word in this instance) side with a frequency proportional to this probability.

END WIKI PARTIAL EXTRACT

The following per my own question of a post long ago as concerns: Why the space does not escape the balloon but does escape the wire with current (thereby creating the external electric field). This "electric field" I termed a form of the Dark Matters and is new Space in accordance with CIG: My response:

The space within the expanded balloon is massively Darker matter (since the particles are not traveling that terriby fast, though fast enough to offer up new space) as opposed to the electric field escaping from and surrounding a wire with a current going through it (since the rate of travel is great) which manifests into a much darker dark matter (but perhaps not quite Dark Energy). The electric field has been created as new space (i.e. traveling massive particles and CIG Theory). Apparently it appears that the matter cannot cross the boundary nor can certain (relatively slow traveling forms of matter) manifested forms of dark matter. The Dark Energy can (pure space) and fast traveling particles become spatially non-matter enough to cross the barrier.

This too is my explanation of quantum tunneling & CIG Thoery is again expanded to explain quantum tunneling (as best I know it).

The particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount because it travels fast and becomes space. As space, it crosses the boundary rather readily. It can reappear on the other side. It re-emerges as the particle again once it slows to more classical rates of travel. CIG Theory at work.

www.CIGTheory.com

And, how does this tie into the article one may ask?

Somehow it does because entanglement, quantum discord, and tunneling are all fun topics. CIG does not consider spooky action at a distance & I don't know the math of Bell Theorum to disprove it. Qantum discord.

Please keep post. Quantum discord, yes.

Could the quantum tunnelng experts consider CIG Theory as part of their explanation of the phenomenom.

I'll try Heisenberg & CIG next.

THX again Quantum discord This is a quantum discord comment.

Doug

doug, "Peter (I hope you'll show up sooner or later)" Was that a call in cyber space I heard? Good to hear from you.

Essay posted, I hope this ones a winner! Yes I agree ALL possibilities are non zero. No time now but will get back to you, and look forward to your essay.

P

  • [deleted]

Peter,

You decohered!

doug,

Yes, I've found the problem with Nature is "Physics". I then seem to be in a different existence, as here the problem with physics is considered as "Nature".

When a coherent entity (perhaps psi or a photon) is 'measured' it means it's met or 'interacted with' another coherent entity (i.e. lens particle) which has a channel to a processor to analyse the change so caused.

Now why is that mechanism not considered the case in "Physics" in this existence? What is it that's so wrong with the analysis? I suppose there is an easy answer. The fact that the processor uses the wrong datum propagation frame for the signal in the channel (;the 'approach' frame!!?) shows a processor upgrade is overdue. The 'comprehension issue' will probably then also be fixed. Do you have any idea how to do the upgrades? I thought my essay may help, but it's been trolled with 1's and 2's. A measure of the intellect of the processors to prove my point I suggest.

I also agree; "Rate x Time does not equal Distance in an expanding Universe. It only gets us from A to B while B is now C!" It's a moving target. Redshift derivation algorithms are pretty complex but also use the wrong assumptions so also need a processor upgrade.

I also also agree that motion propagates more 'space' in the frame of the motion. Edwin's essay says the same in different words.

If you manage to focus on and follow my essay, and tell me why it's so invisible to most, then I'll have aanother go at CIG for you. Have you entered one yet? If not a short one focussed on just the key salient points would be fine. Make it consistent with Edwin's and mine and you can't go wrong!

Was any of that coherent?

peter

  • [deleted]

Peter,

Yes - most all of of it.

I shall find your essay & Edwin's & read this weekend. They must be there somewhere. I shall then attempt a response, hopefully this weekend.

As an added bonus, I'm going to add the MTS interplay with time equivalency of high gravitational fields and acceleration (elevator) [will hopefully make sense later]

THX

doug

5 days later
  • [deleted]

Peter,

I read with interest your essay and Edwin's, though both I would like to re-read. The terminology needs to be learned at times, since I've no formal training. But It from bit I inquire bit from what?

Offtrack a little here:

MTS (Cig Equation and where T is forward /reverse vector time). And, coming from relativity, where time slows at or near light speed and its elevator experiment equivalence, black hole gravitational fields (at or near).

So, what I'm seeing is that time slows since in its forward vector (high speed) manifestation, it is used up (i.e. there is no faster rate and any given piece of matter cannot travel any more [it has all turned to space]) So, in effect time slows (none left).

Similarly, reverse vector time (black hole & the M side of the equation), mass (or its equivalent space) cannot go slower, it has stopped and all reverse vector time has been used up. It is again all matter (space to matter).

So, within the MTS equation, viewing T: on the M side it is used up, on the S side it is used up (pure matter, pure space at the extremes). This represents the physical reality of the relativity equivalence of why one views the symetrical aspect of Einstein's equivalency of gravity to acceleration. Its all there in the MTS equation.

The above is why the equivalency exists as a reality.

www.CIGTheory.com

This is a quantum discord article. Please keep.

THX

doug

doug,

Thanks, the sensational advance the essay describes does again seem to be largely invisible to speed reading!, so I hope it emerges and hit's you on your second read.

Your description above isn't quite as I recall the old Coney Island. Has it been rebuilt or upgraded since the hurricane? They're turning 'Dreamland' (Margate) into a 'heritage theme park'. Not sure it'll work, but it does give me a long term plan for 20th century physics!

I'm really not yet convinced by your argument on time as it's not overtly observer dependent. if it was it would work fine. i.e. If a clock recedes from you at 0.99c you's see the time signals it emits arriving at a very slow rate. Similarly if you receded from the stationary clock at the same speed. Everything to do with the signals is relative. All movers and shakers will see a different "APPARENT" rate of time.

The key is to remember that no clock gives a damn about how fast anyone else is moving ANYWHERE, it always ticks at the same rate. But once it emits it's signals it really doesn't care about the evidence. The evidence (light signals) can be tampered with by the moving media at will, that tampering DOES NOT CHANGE 'TIME'! (either at the clock that emitted them OR at your rest frame).

I thought you'd kinda got that last year, as you don't need to adjust much, but I must admit it does slip away if you don't rehearse it as it's nothing like the farce currently playing.

Are you submitting an essay? I hope you do, even a short one. I'm looking forward to an update.

Best wishes.

Peter

a month later
2 months later

Bob,

I've just re-read this excellent piece (or strictly 'read' it) and realised 'Discord' has close links to my IQbit essay subject; The non-linear change giving the QM prediction linked by information held between 'entangled' particles. Entanglement would then be reduced to a short range (tractor beams, tomography etc effect, with discord always there doing it's stuff, but at long range it's shown that it's mainly discord implementing the correlation, so apparent spookyness.

I describe the solution geometrically in terms of particles WITH 'structure', essentially toroidal, giving OAM on a common axis. The interaction with another toroid with angle representing detector setting is then non-linear. The 'local' quantum correlation von Neumann proposed then proves to be correct. The 'discrete field' model I describe puts the whole picture together, with the potential for many more degrees of freedom than a Qbit. The model is powerfully predictive, predicting an orbital asymmetry in time corrected event comparisons, which I then found in Aspects (discarded) data.

I hope you're still keeping tabs on this blog (poorly supported as I think poorly understood) as I think a clear description of discord emerges with wider implications (discussed but elsewhere). I'm in no position to explore the quantum aspects as I'm rather buried in the others but think I can offer some useful insights.

Peter

The essay is at No 2 here; The Intelligent Bit 2013.

2 months later
  • [deleted]

MUCH-HYPED TRENDY "QUANTUM-COMPUTING" IS ALIVE AND WELL AND IN ANN AI HAS BEEN FOR SOME 34 YEARS NOW!!!

EDWARD SIEGEL(1980)WITH CHARLES ROSEN(RIP)CEO OF MACHINE-INTELLIGENCE(ATHERTON, CA)AND CALTECH CONSULTANT RICHARD FEYNMAN(RIP)AND VESKO MARINOV AND ADOLPH SMITH OF EXXON ENTERPRISES/A.I. AND H.P.'S IRWIN WUNDERMAN(RIP)[THE INVENTOR OF THE CALCULATOR]

(1) EUREKA: TRIVIALLY NOTICED THAT IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS(ANN) ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGNCE(A.I.) THE BY-ROTE ON-NODE SWITCHING SIGMOID-FUNCTION 1/[1 e^(E/T)] IS A FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS(FDQS)

1/[1 e^(E/T)]= 1/[ 1 e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) 1] WHICH MEANS THAT THE PAULI-EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AND HUND'D-RULE SPIN-PAIRING DOMINATE FORCING THE ANN AUTOMATICALLY INTO NON-OPTIMAL LOCAL-MINIMA, REQUIRING SPACE TIME COSTLY-COMPUTING "BOLTZMANN-MACHINE" "SIMULATED-ANNEALING", BUT ALSO THAT QUANTUM-TUNNELING IS POSSIBLE.

(2) "SHAZAM": BY QUANTUM-STATISTICS TRANSMUTATION/MORPHISM TO BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS(BEQS)

1/[1 e^(E/T)]= 1/[ 1 e^(E/T)]= 1/[ e^(E/T) 1] ---> 1/[ e^(E/T) - 1]

ADMITTING BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION(BEC) SIEGEL WAS ABLE TO OPTIMIZE OPTIMIZATION-PROBLEMS OPTIMALLY(OOPO)VIA A BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION (BEC)-"MACHINE"Attachment #1: FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_Bose.pdfAttachment #2: FULL_PAPER_on_A-N-N_BOSE-EINSTEIN_CONDENSATION__Barabasi_so_called_Complex-Networks_BEC1.doc

8 months later

Dear all,

Suppose, [math]a,b \in R^2[/math].

Then, [math]a^{T} = \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \delta(\phi-\phi_a)(\sin(\phi),\cos(\phi))[/math].

Hence, [math] a^{T}.b=\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_1 \delta(\phi_1-\phi_a)\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_2 \delta(\phi_2-\phi_b)\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2)[/math].

Now, [math]\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2)=sin(\frac{\pi}{2} \phi_1-\phi_2)[/math].

Hence, [math]\cos(\phi_1-\phi_2)=2\sin(\psi)\cos(\psi)[/math] and so, we may define

[math]A(\phi_1,\phi_2)=\alpha(\psi)\sin(\psi)[/math] and [math]B(\phi_1,\phi_2)=\frac{2}{\alpha(\psi)}\cos(\psi)[/math] with

[math]\psi=\frac{\pi}{4} \frac{1}{2}(\phi_1-\phi_2)[/math]

It can be demonstrated that there are [math]{\alpha \in [1,2]}[/math] such that [math]|A|\leq 1[/math] and [math]|B|\leq 1[/math].

Hence, a Bell form,

[math] a^{T}.b=\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_1 \delta(\phi_1-\phi_a)\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi_2 \delta(\phi_2-\phi_b)A(\phi_1,\phi_2)B(\phi_1,\phi_2)[/math] has been found.

So LHV are not impossible when we consider that the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities.

Cheers

Han Geurdes

    Han,

    "the setting parameters are averages of the probability densities." Or indeed the converse. I've agreed in my recent essay (see in 'Contests');

    Do Bob and Alice have a future? which describes a way of deriving QM's predictions and nonlocality geometrically.

    Good to see you here but your equations don't appear, and this has long been dead. Perhaps better to re-post on "Why Quantum..."

    I'd also be glad for you to take a look at and comment on my 2 page summary paper. Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

    Have you any recent papers? Anything published?

    Very Best wishes

    Peter

    Write a Reply...