EPR Paradox-II

Home

EPR Paradox-II 23rd July 2016

Previous Blogs: EPR Paradox‐ I De Broglie Equation Duality in j‐space A Paradox

For the structures A and B as shown in the diagram, the quantum entanglement condition can be defined by the following wave-function1:

The Observers Nutshell‐2015 Chiral Symmetry Sigma‐z and I Spin Matrices Rationale behind Irrational Numbers

"We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy." ‐ Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Above relationship represents two structures A and B which are not independent of each other. If the structure A is measured as in state |0〉 then the structure B is simultaneously measured as in state |0〉. Similar argument holds for the state |1〉. The important point is to note that Locality condition holds for the structures A, B and the entangled state, i.e. the communication between the structures A and B is restricted to the speed of light. Which in turn means that the structures A and B and the entangled state, belong to the same measurement space. Please note that the Locality condition is implicit in VT-symmetry which defines the origin in measurement space. The maximum measurement capacity possible is v/c ~1. The measurement themselves are being performed by the macroscopic observer ObsM with capacity v/c > 1 applies, that means in (t, x, y, z) metric Lorentz Invariance does not hold neither does the locality condition. While the calculation of the value of the fine-structure constant seems to indicate that we are in q = 3 state in information space and therefore higher information states, q = (1, 2), are possible. The locality condition does not allow the existence of these higher information states.

We will later argue that the stochastic nature of QM, is due to the fact that we are trying to estimate the mean of a real-valued variable based on a sample size (n), which is much smaller than the actual spectrum (N → ∞) of the variable. We will try to understand it geometrically. It is also important to resolve this perceived conflict between Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both of them are powerful methodologies who at best approximate the physical reality for the macroscopic observer in Λ∞-plane. Both of these theories represent limitations of the observer's capacity, and therefore they should correlate to the definition of origin in j-space i.e. VT-symmetry.

Non-locality vs. Local Hidden Variables? Non-locality! ___________________ 1Note that we have used the inner-product symbol

instead of the scalar product. The reason being that we wanted to highlight the fact that we can perform addition and hence multiplication only for stable distributions in j-space. Therefore |0〉 and |1〉 states must be represented by one of the stable distributions. The addition of probability distributions is not a standard arithmetic operation. 2 Being completely still or moving with infinite velocity are equivalent to stating that the observer has infinite capacity to measure the source. But then we will not be in j-space to begin with. 3 If that was the case then the macroscopic observer Obs will not be able to measure the structures A and B simultaneously. M

Best viewed with Internet Explorer

Information on www.ijspace.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.