32 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. The people at Delft are charlatans who are totally ignorant of physics. The results of the experiment are in full accord with the predictions of quantum mechanics (as they must be), and the experiment merely replicates earlier experiments and has no new features. There is no spooky action at a distance because relativity forbids it. The correlations occur because the particles interacted previously and became entangled. All of this has been known to real physicists since 1920. The NYT is a cesspool of lies.
    Go over to Lubus Motl’s blog for the full diatribe against illiterate, incompetent dishonest “physicists.”

  2. The simplest answer for the ‘action at a distance’ is in some dimension that we cannot currently perceive, the objects are not ‘distant’ from each other, but close/connected. This may seem ludicrous to some, but think for a moment: if you went back to the year 1000 with a friend, and each of you had a walkietalkie, and you showed the wise men of the time that you were able to speak to someone in real time via electromagnetic waves, would it not have seemed just as improbable/impossible to them?
    Relativity is just over 110 years old; to think that we’ve answered all the questions it poses is the height of arrogance.

  3. Didn’t I read a long article on SDA just the other day about how the science reporting at the NYT was a complete, incompetent farce? I wouldn’t write off Einsteinian physics just yet.

  4. So the global warming propagandists could be possibly right if there is rise in temperature.
    The fault though is not in humans, it’s Venus.
    It’s hot hot hot out there and them there particles are working on getting us to sweat.
    Heh.

  5. You know what entanglement means at a practical level, right?
    Computer chips not limited in size by the lightspeed limit.
    Now before any of the excitable people start yelling that you can’t transmit information faster than light, I’m going to say only one thing in answer.
    Not yet.
    But if I remember correctly, there were a lot of people saying Mr. Marconi was a charlatan and a crank back in 1895.

  6. This is just yet another experimenting confirming quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Good thing. It is great having fast computers. The interesting work now is showing how spooky action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling are exploited by biological systems through the shapes of protein structures. Quantum computing is also fascinating, as is the way the quantum all-pathways-at-once weird behaviour is exploited in photosynthesis. Jim Al-Khalili has made several good presentations on the science and his book Life on the Edge is a good introduction. I like how certain robins exploit quantum entanglement to navigate during migration. The science of how this was discovered is quite fascinating.
    One can debate endlessly in the absence of evidence what accounts for quantum phenomenon, but there exist and are exploited by engineering.

  7. The topic of this article is way beyond my capacity to understand, but I do know one thing. The guy on the left in the pic is most definitely a descendant of Frankenstein.

  8. The topic of this article is way beyond my ability to understand, but I do know one thing. The guy on the right of the pic is most definitely a descendant of Frankenstein.

  9. Reminds me of the faster than light measurement that turned out to be a measurement error.

  10. An interesting area of physics and interesting results. But, as usual, the media headline presents the results as being fact. It’s not an indisputable fact until it can be replicated, reproduced and be able to accurately predict results (at least statistically given the chaotic world of subatomic particles). These final steps are important since scientists, like everyone else, can fool themselves and see what they want to see in the results and data while explaining away, ignoring or removing inconvenient data.
    Personally, I hope they are successful since it would attract funds and students to a potentially productive area of both theoretical and applied science.

  11. There’s a bit more to this than a speed of light demonstration.
    As early as 1997 experiments at the University of Geneva demonstrated the odd behavior of paired photons placed apart more or less confirming SOME of the ideas behind quantum physics.

  12. The finding that’s of great concern here is: “According to quantum mechanics, particles do not take on formal properties until they are measured or observed in some way.”
    That lends credence to the eternal question “If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no-one there to hear it, does it make any sound?”.
    But much more concerning, this could be proof positive of the corollary “If a man speaks in the forest, and there’s no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?”

  13. Rick, I was wondering if any one, besides me, would raise that point. And yes, that man speaking in the forest would still wrong, just ask any woman:-))
    Now all I have to do is wait for the “god did it” crowd that accused god of creating math when Kate posted the link to the origins of math article:-)))
    were is ET???
    LC Bennett, good post

  14. Rick, your last paragraph is a monstrous micro-aggression. You gonna be sorry, boy!

  15. From the link: “But since the 1970s, a series of precise experiments by physicists are increasingly erasing doubt — alternative explanations that are referred to as loopholes — that two previously entangled particles, even if separated by the width of the universe, could instantly interact.”
    Loopholes?? Surly this a spelling mistake. Shouldn’t these explanations emanate from “poop holes”?
    This is not science; this is mysticism.
    Off with their heads, I say.

  18. Please read e.g. Motls comment on this experiment. This is nothing new, just another experiment providing evidence for quantum mechanics.
    Science IS pretty much settled when it comes to quantum mechanics being the right (or at least the best) model we have for the physical world.
    Cheers,
    /Johan

  19. How many times has this finding been replicated by independent researchers? I will believe this more and more as the response to the above question rises higher and higher above zero.

  20. From Motls Blog:
    ‘No, there is no “spooky action”. The two measurements are correlated because of the contact of the two particles in the past, because of events in the intersection of the two particles’ past light cones, because of the “origin” that both particles share. The correlations do not arise from any action or any influence at the moment of the measurement. What is observed is correlation (between A and B) but correlation doesn’t imply a causation (A’s influence on B or B’s influence on A). Instead, the correlation is explained by the initial state of both particles, C, that has influenced the results of measurements of A as well as B.

  22. if this is the case, it is evidence of my theory regarding the big bang and lots of ‘etceteras’.
    I do not have a background in q physics or access to anyone who does. I do however see the 3 dimensional universe (bent and warped as it is by gravity) sitting, ummmm, ‘on top of’ the non-dimensionless, non-matter, non-time, non-everything realm that was before the big bang.
    kaboom, and everything whooshes outward, the ‘contact’ point between this new kid on the block creating dimension and space as it goes.
    nevertheless, there is a ‘remnant’ of this ‘contact’ which explains alllll kinds of strange and wonderful things, like q physics and the apparent instantaneous effects over distance. the reason is as a prior post refers to, is the ‘information’ is traveling via a route that takes it thru the dimensionlessness realm, ie which allows instataneous travel of the information because there is no distance that needs to be traversed.
    see? real easy to explain.
    p. s., the inspiration for this line of inquiry was the story of Christ showing up in the room behind the locked door where his traumatized disciples were hiding out after His crucifixion. I had to come up with an explanation and this is what came to me. tapping into a timeless, dimensionless, matterless, everythingless realm. which still exists !!!

  23. Again, from the link: “But since the 1970s, a series of precise experiments by physicists are increasingly erasing doubt — alternative explanations that are referred to as loopholes — that two previously entangled particles, even if separated by the width of the universe, could instantly interact.”
    In reading statements like this, one should keep in mind two principles which allow for a body of knowledge called “science.”
    First is the Law of Identity:
    Things are what they are – nothing more, nothing less. Things cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time. This means that things have a specific identity and because they have a specific identity, they can be known.
    Second is the Law of Conservation of Energy:
    1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed and
    2. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and that there is never any more or any less of it at any time.
    If any scientific statement violates either of these two laws or any of their corollaries then we are not dealing with science at all.

  24. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
    – J B S Haldane, geneticist and biologist

  25. I am no scientist, but I had a HUGE attraction to astronomy starting
    back in Jr. Hi. This led me to read all four of Asimov’s books on the
    subject of physics and watched all 52 episodes of The Mechanical
    Universe: And Beyond, by Dr. David Goodstein at Caltech. Do not
    ask me to explain the math, but I get most of it at an instinctual
    level.
    I believe that Newton and Einstein will still be relevant long after
    the current crop of theoretical physicists and string theory dorks are
    long forgotten. To me, many of these people are like the proponents
    of global warming theory, whoring themselves for research grants. There
    are too many people advancing outrageous theories and believe the only
    way to prove their claims are by destroying existing science, much as in
    the way collectivists are compelled to destroy existing institutions.
    Einstein failed to come up with the “Grand Unified Theory” that might
    be the answer to everything. And the single greatest quandary in the
    universe is action at a distance. It is the Holy Grail of physics.
    Einstein refined and added to the Newtonian view, he did not render
    it irrelevant. Those people attempting to make a quantum leap (Pun
    intended) ahead of Einstein, are in my opinion on a fools errand.
    Decades ago, I was watching a PBS segment on physics and watched a
    guy with a straight face say the grand unified theory added up
    given (I think it was) 11 dimensions and an even more ludicrous
    number of forces. My first reaction was “OK wise-ass, I see you’ve
    already arrived at the answer.” String theory I believe is even
    more absurd.
    If you look at Boyle, Newton, Einstein and others, their end result
    is a simple statement or short equation backed up by years of
    calculation and crates of chalk. The results were simple and
    elegant. If there is a God, I believe that he will have a wicked
    sense of humor like the math teachers who assign reams of complex
    calculations with the final answer being 2.
    The answer to the everything theory is only solvable if one can
    dissect how gravity works, the action at a distance problem.
    Pulling dimensions and forces out of ones ass is never going
    get us any closer to the answer!
    2760

  26. Maybe somebody here can answer this question….Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Fair enough. Now please tell me just how much energy is out there??? I’ve never seen a number for that!

  28. Problem sentence: “even if separated by the width of the universe, could instantly interact.”
    “Instantly”. What does this word mean? Does it mean “concurrently” or does it mean: consecutively”?
    If the writer means by “concurrently”, two causally related events occurring at the same time, regardless of distance between the events, then we are dealing in nonsense.
    If the writer means by “consecutively”,two causally related events following each other sequentially with no time interval, regardless of distance between the events, then we are also dealing in nonsense.
    If the writer means by “consecutively”,two causally related events following each other, with a time interval, regardless of distance, that contradicts the accepted limit of the speed of light, then we are dealing with a force heretofore unknown in physics.
    The author of the article provides no answer.

  29. The equations that give us the Planck mass, Planck time and so on can be rearranged so that Planck’s constant drops out of the equations. When we do that, we get
    M=t.c^3/G
    Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the universe, c is the speed of light, and t is the age of the universe. Substituting in known values we get
    M=(13.7×10^9×365.25x24x3600)(3×10^8)^3/(6.67×10^-11) ~ 10^53 kg.
    So that’s the total mass of the universe, or it would be if all the energy was converted to mass.

  30. The experiment worked with particles separated by only 1.3 kilometers and they want us to believe this means two particles separated by the width of the universe will react the same way?
    nope, I am not buying it.

  31. Right. Quantum mechanics is correct, Einstein is wrong. Get used to it, SDA and NYT. SDA should be ashamed for wasting our time on articles from the cranks at the NYT.

  32. Blackfox:
    Don’t let your incorrect preconceptions blind you to truth.
    “First is the Law of Identity:
    Things are what they are – nothing more, nothing less. Things cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time. This means that things have a specific identity and because they have a specific identity, they can be known.”
    Your homework assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to study references to Schrodinger’s Cat that are not from the TV show “Big Bang Theory”, and report back to us about things that are and are not at the same time.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation