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

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

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 ...

[Holiday20310401]

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

[Bracewell]

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.

[Holiday20310401]

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.

[validity]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... 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 thread

[Binyamin Tsadik]

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.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by validity

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.

[validity]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

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.

[nameless]

Someone might find this interesting
Quantum Weirdness