Should we have given Einstein credit for being the first to predict the existence of the Higgs field?

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle whose discovery was announced at CERN on 4 July 2012. The discovery has been called "monumental" because it appears to confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which is pivotal to the Standard Model and other theories within particle physics.  It would explain why some fundamental particles have mass when the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless, and why the weak force have a much shorter range than the electromagnetic force. The discovery of a Higgs boson should allow physicists to finally validate the last untested area of the Standard Model’s approach to fundamental particles and forces, guide other theories and discoveries in particle physics, and potentially lead to developments in "new" physics.

Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind

Many believe the mechanism responsible for it was first proposed in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson while the relativistic model was developed in 1964 by three independent groups: by Robert Brout and François Englert; by Peter Higgs; and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.

However Albert Einstein in an address given on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden stated very clearly that according to the Theory of Relativity space must have the physical properties of what is now called the Higgs field, although he preferred to call it Aether.

He said in summation

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Granted Einstein did not specifically call it a scalar field, which is how modern scientists describe the Higgs field however he did say that it could not be tracked through time and that motion may not be applied which is another way of saying the same thing.

One way of understanding how Einstein may have developed or defined the physical properties of Aether or the Higgs field, as it is now called would be to review his General Theory of Relativity and try to understand how he would have connected it to the physical properties he associated with gravity.

Einstein realized that one can understand how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four dimensional space-time manifold. This allowed him to conceptually understand gravity in terms of a physical image based on our three-dimension world.

However he was unable to tell us what mass is, he was only able tell us how it interacts with space-time.

As Steven Weinberg said "Mass tells space-time how to curve while space-time tells mass how to move". 

This is similar to Newton in that he was able to mathematically define how mass gravitational interacts with other masses but was unable to understand or define a physical mechanism that could account for that interaction.

In other words the mathematics developed by Newton was only able to quantitatively predict gravitational forces while Einstein gave us the ability to conceptually understand why "one body may act upon another at a distance" by physically connecting it to the reality of what we can see and touch.

Einstein was often quoted as saying "If a new theory (such as that associated with the Higgs boson) was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."

In other words for us to fully understand the theoretical significance of the Higgs Field and why it is responsible for mass one should be able to describe how it interacts with its environment in terms of a physical image based on what we can see and touch in our three-dimensional world much as Einstein was able describe how space and time interacted with each other to cause gravity.

However Einstein’s and modern scientist’s inability to define or derive the casualty of mass in terms of a physical image can be traced to the fact that they chose to define the universe in terms of energy instead of mass.

Einstein told us that a curvature in space-time is responsible for gravitational energy and because of the equivalence been energy and mass defined by his equation E=mc^2 one must also assume that it is responsible for mass.

However the Higgs Field or what Einstein called Aether is associated with mass and not energy.  Therefore to understand what it is made up of one must convert or transpose Einstein’s space-time universe which defines field properties of energy in terms of geometry of space-time to one that defines mass of in terms of its field properties.

He gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe and the dynamic balance between mass and energy in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because it allows one to redefine a unit of of time he associated with energy in his space-time universe to unit of space we believe he would have associated with mass in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

However the fact that he defined the geometric relationship between energy and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light means that one can also quantitatively and qualitatively define a one to one correspondence between the field properties of energy in a space-time universe and those of mass in four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including thermo and that associated with mass can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as of defining them in terms of a displacement in a space-time environment.

However changing ones perspective on the geometric structure of the universe form one of space-time to four *spatial* dimensions, as was just shown to be possible gives one the ability to define the physical mechanism by which the Higgs Field or the field properties of four *spatial* dimension creates mass and why it is quantized in the fundamental particles of the Standard Model in terms of a physical image formed by our three-dimensional environment.

For example one can form a physical image of why mass is quantized, as was done in the article "

Why is energy/mass quantized? " Oct. 4, 2007" by extrapolating the image of a wave and its resonant properties in three dimension environment to one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.  This would be analogous to how Einstein, as mentioned earlier was able to explain gravity by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move in a three-dimension space to one consisting of four dimensional space-time.

(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of the wave properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).

Briefly that article showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet in one consisting of four.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension at a frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us that resonant systems can only take on the discrete or quantized energies associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of their fundamental frequency

Therefore, these resonant systems in a four *spatial* dimensions would define mass and its quantum mechanical properties in terms of the field properties of four space dimension because of the fact that the volumes of space containing them would have a higher concentration of energy and therefore their mass would be relative greater than the neighboring volumes.

However, one can also use the field properties of four *spatial* dimension to define the physical boundary of the mass component of a particle in terms "physical image simple enough for a child to understand".

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words the confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.

This suggest that the Higgs field is made up of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions and that the magnitude of a mass would be dependent on its geometrical configuration.

If true one should be able to use those field concepts to explain why the mass of corresponding particle types across the three fundamental families of particles in the Standard Model listed in the table below grows larger in each successive family.

Family 1 Family 2 Family 3
Particle Mass Particle Mass Particle Mass
Electron .00054 Muon .11 Tau 1.9
Electron
Neutrino
< 10^-8 Muon
Neutrino
< .0003 Tau
Neutrino
< .033
Up Quark .0047 Charm Quark 1.6 Top Quark 189
Down Quark .0074 Strange Quark .16 Bottom Quark 5.2

As mentioned earlier the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed that one can derive a particle’s mass in terms of the energy contained within a resonant structure created by a matter wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while the article “Defining energy" showed that one can derive the energy or temperature of an environment in terms a displacement in that "surface" with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore using the concepts developed in those articles the total mass of a particle would be defined by the sum of the energies associated with its resonant structure and its displacement in the "surface" of three-dimensional space associated with the energy of the environment it is occupying.

Yet Classical Mechanics tells us there will be specific points in space where the matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle can interact with the energy content or temperature of its environment to form a resonant system.

Therefore, the mass of each family member would not only be dependent on the energy associated with the resonant system that defined their quantum mechanical properties in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” but also on temperature or energy of the environment they are occupying.

Thus suggest the reason “The corresponding particle types across the three families have identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family." is because of an interaction between the resonant properties defined in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” and the mass content of the environment they are occupying.

This means the particles in the first family would be found in relativity low energy environments, are relatively stable, and for the most part can be observed in nature.  However, the particles in the second and third families would be for the most part unstable and can be observed only in high-energy environments of particle accelerators because a lower energy state is available to them.  The exception is the Muon in the second family, which is only observed in the high-energy environment of cosmic radiation.

The relative masses of the fundamental particles increases in each successive family because the higher-energy environments where they occupy would result in the corresponding particles in each successive family to be formed with a greater relative "separation" in the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore, the corresponding particles in the second family will have a greater mass than the particles in the first family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension of the three-dimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the "separation" associated with the first family.

Similarly, the corresponding particles in the third family will have a greater mass than those in the second family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, of the three-dimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the spatial "separation" associated with the second family.

Additionally the corresponding particle types across the three families have "identical properties" because as shown in the article "The geometry of quarks" Mar. 15, 2009 they are related to the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with the axis of three-dimensional space.  Therefore, each corresponding particle across the three families will have similar properties because the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with respect to the axis of three-dimensional space is the same for the corresponding particles in all of the families.

This explains why "The corresponding particle types across the three families having identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family” in terms of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

Additional it shows how one can use the field properties of space to define and understand the physicality of the Higgs Field and how it causes mass in terms of a physical image based on the reality of what we can see and touch in our three-dimensional environment similar to how Einstein was able to define how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four dimensional space-time manifold.

In other words as the article “Defining energy" showed the fact that one can derive all forms of energy including that associated with temperature and mass in terms of an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of space as we believe Einstein had done allows one to understand the why the Higgs field is the casualty of mass in terms of the observable reality most associate with our three dimensional environment.

In other words if one assumes as we believe Einstein did that energy/mass is created by an asymmetrical displacement in the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension one can conceptually understand how it interacts with space to create the inertial properties associated with mass and the Higgs field in terms of the physical image formed by water in a dam.

This is because the potential energy of water is defined by its displacement with respect to the bottom of a dam. 

Therefore according to the above theoretical model, one could define the physicality of the Higgs field in terms of the potential energy or mass created by an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Additionally it gives one the ability to derive the energy and therefore the mass of the Higgs bosom and where it should be located in an environment consisting of four *spatial* dimension in terms of the physical image of water in a dam because as mentioned earlier it is solely dependent on the height of the dam while that of the Higgs Boson would be dependent on magnitude of the spatial separation of the three-dimension space manifold it is occupying with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Another way of defining the physicality of Einstein’s Aether or the Higgs field is that it is responsible for breaking the physical symmetry of space thereby allowing one to defining the mass of each individual fermion in the Standard Model in terms of an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension.

This shows how it is possible to understand the reality of the Higgs Field in terms of a physical image by reformatting (as was done in the article “Reformulating space-time” Oct 1, 2013) Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to view the reality of the Higgs Field in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension because he defined the geometry of space-time in choose  terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014


 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 4 — 2013


 
Paperback
$13.29
E-book
$7.99

Anthology of
The Imagineer’s Chronicles
Vol. 1 thru 4

   
Ebook
$10.50

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 3 — 2012

 
Paperback
$10.96
Ebook
$6.55

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 2 — 2011
 
Paperback
$8.32
Ebook
$6.57

 

The Reality
of the Fourth
Spatial
Dimension
 
Paperback
$9.77
Ebook

$6.24

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
2007 thru 2010
 
Paperback
$14.97
Ebook
$7.82

 
     
 

Quantum entanglement is defined "as a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical. For example any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must also act on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances."

Einstein referred to this as "spooky action at a distance" because it assumed that objects or particle can interact instantaneously, regardless of distance separating them which according to his perception of reality this was not possible.

To demonstrate this he co-authored a paper with Podolsky–Rosen which came to be called the EPR Paradox whose intent was to show that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature because it does not agree with his perception of reality.  The first thing to notice is that Einstein was not trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics in any way.  In fact, he was well aware of its power to predict the outcomes of various experiments.  What he was trying to show was that there must be a "hidden variable" that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature

The argument begins by assuming that there are two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles), whose wave functions are known.  Then, if A and B interact for a short period of time, one can determine the wave function which results after this interaction via the Schrödinger equation or some other Quantum Mechanical equation of state.  Now, let us assume that A and B move far apart, so far apart that they can no longer interact in any fashion.  In other words, A and B have moved outside of each other’s light cones and therefore are spacelike separated.

With this situation in mind, Einstein asked the question: what happens if one makes a measurement on system A?  Say, for example, one measures the momentum value for it.  Then, using the conservation of momentum and our knowledge of the system before the interaction, one can infer the momentum of system B.  Thus, by making a momentum measurement of A, one can also measure the momentum of B.  Recall now that A and B are spacelike separated, and thus they cannot communicate in any way.  This separation means that B must have had the inferred value of momentum not only in the instant after one makes a measurement at A, but also in the few moments before the measurement was made.  If, on the other hand, it were the case that the measurement at A had somehow caused B to enter into a particular momentum state, then there would need to be a way for A to signal B and tell it that a measurement took place.  However, the two systems cannot communicate in any way!

If one examines the wave function at the moment just before the measurement at A is made, one finds that there is no certainty as to the momentum of B because the combined system is in a superposition of multiple momentum eigenstates of A and B.  So, even though system B must be in a definite state before the measurement at A takes place, the wave function description of this system cannot tell us what that momentum is!  Therefore, since system B has a definite momentum and since Quantum Mechanics cannot predict this momentum, Quantum Mechanics must be incomplete.

In response to Einstein’s argument about incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics, John Bell derived a mathematical formula that quantified what you would get if you made measurements of the superposition of the multiple momentum eigenstates of two particles.  If local realism was correct, the correlation between measurements made on one of the pair and those made on its partner could not exceed a certain amount, because of each particle’s limited influence.

In other words he showed there must exist inequities in the measurements made on pairs of particles that cannot be violated in any world that included both their physical reality and their separability because of the limited influence they can have on each other when they are "spacelike" separated.

When Bell published his theorem in1964 the technology to verify or reject it did not exist.  However in the early 1980s, Allen Aspect performed an experiment with polarized photons that showed that the inequities it contained were violated.

This meant that science has to accept that either the reality of our physical world or the concept of separability does not exist.

But this may not be the case for two reasons.  The first is based on the core principals of Einstein’s theories while the second involves the physical properties of the wave function that quantum mechanics used to define the probability of a particle’s state.

However understanding why is only possible if one redefines Einstein’s four dimensional space-time universe to one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.

(The reason will become obvious later.)

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space identical to those of our three-dimensional space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einstein’s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravitational energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and that of constant motion can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/images/gravity_warping_space.jpg

One of the more common ways to visualize how gravity can be cause by a curvature in space-time is by comparing its effects to the effects a curved surface of a rubber diaphragm has on a marble.  The marble follows a circular pattern around the deformity in the surface of the diaphragm.  Similarly planets revolve around the sun because they follow a curved path in the deformed "surface" of space-time.

The same example can be used to visualize how a curvature in a "surface" of three dimensional space can be responsible for gravitational accelerations however in this case it would caused by a deformation in that "surface" with respect to a fourth *spatial* instead of a time dimension.

As was mentioned earlier one of the advantage to redefining Einstein space-time concepts in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time is that it not only allows one to understand gravitational energy but also the energy of constant relative motion in terms of the geometric properties of space.

Briefly the article “Defining energy?" showed one can define constant momentum or the energy of relative motion in terms of a constant displacement of a "flat surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One way of visualizing would be to use the earlier example of the rubber diaphragm.  However instead of its "surface" being curved it would be flat with respect to its soundings and the energy associated with its relative motion would be defined by its separation with respect to a four *spatial* dimension form the "surface" with which it’s velocity is being measured from.

In other words one can define the energy of an object or particle in constant relative motion in terms of a displacement a "flat surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a time or four *spatial* dimension because as was shown above they would be equivalent .

However Einstein’s Theory of Relativity tells us the length of an object or particle contracts; approaching zero as it nears the speed of light.  Additionally he told us that at the speed of light it becomes zero when observed from all other reference frames because at that speed its length in the direction of motion becomes zero. 

But his theory also tells us from the perspective of the photon moving at the speed of light, the physical distance or space between observers and their observations must also be zero because from the photons perspective the observers are moving at the velocity of light with respect to them.

In other words according to the core principals of Einstein Theory of Relativity two entangle photons will interact instantaneously, regardless of the distance separating them from the perspective of external observers measuring their properties because from a photon perspective the distance between those measurements is zero.

There can be no other interpretation if one accepts the validity of Einstein theories.

However as mentioned earlier one can also understand the "reality" behind quantum entanglement by deriving the probability functions quantum mechanics associates with Schrödinger wave equation in terms of Einstein theories when they are redefined, as was done earlier in terms of four "spatial* dimensions.

http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/images/wave_equation.png

This is because it is possible, as was done in the article “The *reality* of quantum probabilities” Mar 31, 2011 to define the physicality of the probability function quantum mechanics associates the wave function of a particle as being the result of a matter wave moving on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Very briefly that article showed that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance to a matter wave in a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass moving on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of a continuous form of energy/mass when he theorized all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.)

It showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet in one consisting of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass and four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in it.

These resonant systems are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties energy/mass.

However assuming energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension also allows one to define the physicality of the probability distribution associated with the wave function of individual particles by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

As was shown earlier redefining Einstein space-time in terms of four *spatial* dimension tells us that the energy of a photon moving at the speed of light is distributed throughout the universe in a two-dimensional plane that is perpendicular to its velocity vector therefore as the article “The *reality* of quantum probabilities” Mar 31, 2011 showed the probability’s associated with a quantum particle’s wave function would be distributed throughout the entire two-dimensional "surface’ of the three-dimensional space manifold it is occupying with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The effect of this would be analogous to what happens when one vibrates a rod on a continuous rubber diaphragm.  The oscillations caused by the vibrations would be felt over its entire surface while their magnitudes would be greatest at the point of contact and decreases as one move away from it.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the physical oscillations in the surface of three-dimensional space that associated with the wave function must exist everywhere in three-dimensional space.  This also means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment.

As mentioned earlier the article “The *reality* of quantum probabilities” Mar 31, 2011 showed a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet Classical Wave Mechanics tells us that resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly a quantum system would most probably be found were the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

However this means each individual particle in a quantum system has its own wave and probably function and therefore the total probability of a quantum system being in a given configuration when observed would be equal to the sum of the individual probability functions of each particle in that system.

As mentioned earlier Allen Aspect verified that Bell inequities were violated by the quantum mechanical measurements made on pairs of polarized photons that were space like separated or in different local realities.

Yet, as just mentioned the wave or probability function of a quantum system is a summation of the probably function of all of the particles it contains.  Therefore, two particles which originated in the same quantum system and were moving in opposite directions would have identical wave or probability functions even if they were not physically connect.

The measurements Allen Aspect made on the polarized photon verified that Bells inequity was violated because a correlation was found between the probabilities of each particle being in a given configuration based on the concepts of quantum mechanics.  When this correlation was found many assumed that somehow they must be entangled or physical connected even though they were in different local realities.  In other words the Newtonian concept separability does not apply to quantum environment. 

However, this may not be true.

According to quantum mechanics act of measuring the state of a pair of entangled photons instantly affects the other no matter how far they are apart.  Yet if it is true as mentioned earlier that each entangled particle has an identical wave or probably function as it moves through space the measurement of the state of one particle would be reflected in the measurement of the other.  This is  because the probability of them being in a specific state would be determined at the point of origin or where they were entangled and that common probably would be “carried” by each particle until a measurement was made. Therefore when making a measurement on one particle in a close system containing two entangled particles the rules of quantum mechanics tell us that the inequities found in Bell’s Theorem should be violated not because they are physically connected in space but because they are connected through their common probability function.

In other words the reason why Bell’s inequity is violated in a quantum system is not because the particles are physically entangled or connected in space at the time of measurement but because their individual wave or probability functions were "entangled" or identical at the time of their separation and remained that way until a measurement was made on them.

But to say the correlation of the quantum characteristics of two particles are identical because they are entangle or are physically connected is like saying the correlation between the color characteristics of the hair of identical twins is because they have been physically connect throughout their entire life.

This shows that Quantum Mechanics is a "complete theory of nature" contrary to what Einstein believed because based on the core principals of relativity one can define a mechanism responsible for the correlation of the quantum characteristics of particles that exist in non-local environments by extrapolating the "reality" of a environment governed by the physical laws laid down by him or the rules governing quantum mechanics.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014


 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 4 — 2013


 
Paperback
$13.29
E-book
$7.99

Anthology of
The Imagineer’s Chronicles
Vol. 1 thru 4

   
Ebook
$10.50

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 3 — 2012

 
Paperback
$10.96
Ebook
$6.55

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 2 — 2011
 
Paperback
$8.32
Ebook
$6.57

 

The Reality
of the Fourth
Spatial
Dimension
 
Paperback
$9.77
Ebook

$6.24

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
2007 thru 2010
 
Paperback
$14.97
Ebook
$7.82

 
     
 

« Previous Articles    
The Imagineer's Chronicles is based on WordPress platform, RSS tech , RSS comments design by Gx3.