Is there lower limit to the size of our universe. In other words, how many times can the universe and its mass components be divided up into smaller and smaller chunks until it can divided no farther.

The answer would most likely be found in the two dormant theories, Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity which are used by cosmologists and particle physics to define its evolution.

For example, Einstein’s theories say very little about its origins but it does say a lot about how its components interact to create its observable structures and while doing so tells a lot about how they interact to define the lower limit of its size.

While on the other hand, a few Quantum Mechanical Theories define its evolution and the lower limit to its size in terms of an infinitesimally small point in space-time. However, it is unable to providing any details about how its components, after its beginnings interact to create the universe, we can observe around us.

For example, one theory called the Big Bang, which is based on the mathematics of Quantum Theory defines its beginnings and the lower limit to its size in terms of the expansion of a point in space-time called a quantum fluctuation while defining its evolution not in terms of how its component interact but in terms of points in space-time that represent positions of all of the particles it contains at the time they are observed.

This technique of using a one-dimensional point to represent a particle or an objects position is similar to how NASA defines the orbits of planet and its space probes.

For example, they do not use physical size or the volume of a planet to calculate position and interactions with its orbiting components, instead they use a one-dimensional point at its center called the center of gravity to represent those interactions.

Similarly, quantum mechanics does not need to use physical size of a particle to define its position because similar to how NASA can use a point at the center of an object to represent it, it can use a point in space-time that is in the center of a particle to represent its position. In other words, the fact that Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic environment of particles in terms of one-dimensional points does not mean that they do not have size.

As was mentioned, earlier Quantum Mechanics assumes the universe began as quantum fluctuation which is a mathematically defined as point in space-time. In other words, it assumes the size of the universe could be, at its beginning smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

*However, Einstein theories tell us a completely different story of its beginning. *

**For example, it tells us that matter can only compacted so much before the forces of gravity and time stop it from going any further. **

This is true even though in 1915, Karl Schwarzschild proposed based on Einstein theories the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would collapse to form a black hole whose which is a region where time stops and neither light nor particles can escape from it. However, many assumed that the collapse continues until is compacted into * a one-dimensional point or singularity in space-time*.

*One can understand why those that believed that came to the wrong conclusion by analyzing how those forces interact to create a black hole as was done in the previous article "Time is a force more powerful than those of a black hole" published on Aug 31, 2019 *

Briefly

"In Kip S. Thorne book " Black Holes and Time Warps ", he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity. On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter. They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect. "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly. However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface. The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped with respect to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

**Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction. **

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and Therefore, continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

(However, some have suggested that a singularity would form in a black hole if the collapse of a star was not symmetrical with respect to its center. In other words, if one portion of its surface moved at a higher velocity that another towards its center it could not be consider an inertial reference frame because it would be pushed or pulled due to the differential gravity force cause be its uneven collapse. But the laws governing time dilation in Einstein’s theory tell us that time would move slower for those sections of the surface that are moving faster allowing the slower ones to catch up. This tells us that every point on the surface of star will be at the event horizon at the exact same time and therefore its center will not experience any pushing or pulling at the time of its formation and therefore could be considered an inertial reference frame.)

*The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference. *

**Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for all observers who are at the center of the clasping mass the contraction cannot continue from their perspectives. **

Yet, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reaches the critical circumference. Therefore, an observer on the surface of that star will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stopped with respect to all reference frames that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a star’s surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.

**Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference with respect to the external environment of an observer who riding on its surface the contraction cannot continue because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped. **

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces the collapse of matter must stop at the critical circumference.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

**In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity or a one-dimensional point as many physicists believe because it causes time to freeze at its critical circumference with respect to all observers. Therefore, a universe whose evolution is governed by his theories must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is greater than the one defined by Schwarzschild radius because if it were smaller matter could not move through that boundary in space time and it could not evolve any further." **

**However. the same principle must be applied to the size of the universe at its beginning. In other words, if time stops at the Schwarzschild radius any object or component of a universe smaller than that could not move through it and evolve to form the structures we observed today. **

*Additionally, ***Schwarzschild radius a***lso ***defines the lower limit to size of all subatomic particles because it defines where time would stop at their surface. Therefore, if they were smaller or even equal to that radius they could not interact with the other particles because time would stop as they approached each other and interaction with other particles would never happen.**

*I***n other words, in a universe governed by Einstein’s theories the ****lower limit to the size of both the universe and the particles it contains is defined by ****Schwarzschild radius.**

Yet this would seem to contract the quantum mechanical description of a particle as being represented as point in space-time without an extended volume.

* HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE CASE *because, as was mentioned earlier the point in space-time that quantum mechanics defines as the position of a particle could be interpreted as the center of

*of its duality similar to how NASA uses the point at the center of mass of an extended object to determine its position in space-time as was shown in the article published on Jan. 1, 2020 "Particles as standing waves in space-time"*

**wave component**Yet, it is possible that someone with better mathematical skills than me may be able to unify the Quantum universe with Einstein’s by mathematically describing a environment in which the point description of a particle defines the energy center of its * wave component of its wave particle duality * while showing how that point interacts with their environment based on those properties similar to how NASA uses the center of the energy or gravitational components of planets to how they interact with other each other.

Latter Jeff

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The arrow of time, is the name reason given to the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time by British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in the macroscopic universe. Its direction, according to Eddington, is determined by studying the spatial organization of atoms, molecules, and bodies, and might be drawn upon a four-dimensional relativistic map of the world.

However physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly time-symmetric: if the direction of time were to reverse, the theoretical statements that describe them would remain true. Yet as was just mentioned at the macroscopic level it appears that this is not the case.

The question as to why things appear to different on the microscopic level is an unanswered question.

Many explain the observed temporal asymmetry at the macroscopic level, the reason we see time as having a forward direction, ultimately comes down to thermodynamics, the science of heat and its relation with mechanical energy or work, and more specifically to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That laws uses the states that the entropy of a system either remains the same or increases in every process. This phenomenon is due to the extraordinarily small probability of a decrease or that a system will return to its original configuration, based on the extraordinarily larger number of microstates in systems with greater entropy. In other Entropy *can *decrease or a system can return to its original configuration, but for any macroscopic system, this outcome is so unlikely that it will never be observed in the future.

*However, entropy can decrease somewhere, provided it increases somewhere else by at least as much. The entropy of a system decreases only when it interacts with some other system whose entropy increases in the process. *

**Yet, it is difficult to apply that definition to a quantum environment ***because SchrÃ¶dinger wave equation that quantum mechanics uses to determine the position component of a particle when observed does so in terms of a probability distribution over the entire universe. Therefore, to define an arrow of time for a quantum system in terms of entropy one must show there is a physical connection between the macroscopic space-time environments we live in and a particles position in that probability field when it is observed. *

Unfortunately, we define the spatial components of entropy in our macroscopic universe in terms of the space-time concepts defined by Einstein. Therefore, to define the arrow of time in the probabilistic world associated quantum mechanics in terms of entropy we must show how it is physically connected to the spatial properties of the macroscopic universe defined by him.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between the both the relativistic and physical properties of a space-time universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.

*Doing so allow will one to physically connect the probabilities associated with SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave equation to the Thermodynamic laws that governor the entropy in our macroscopic universe. *

For example, the article â€œ Why is energy/mass quantized? â€ Oct 4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantum mechanical wave/particle properties of matter in terms of an energy wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension by extrapolating our understanding of a resonant structure created by a wave in a three-dimensional environment.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a three-dimensional 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 occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an electromagnetic 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 "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.

*In our three-dimensional environment the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. *

*Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy quantum mechanical associates with the particle properties of matter. *

Yet one can also define its boundary conditions of its resonate structure in the terms of our perceptions of a three-dimensional environment.

For example, in our three-dimensional world, 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 â€œupâ€ or â€œdownâ€ with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

It is the confinement of the â€œupwardâ€ and â€œdownwardâ€ oscillations of an energy with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by an observation is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article â€œWhy is energy/mass quantized? " Oct 4, 2007**. **

*This shows ***the reason Quantum Mechanics can define matter in terms of a particle/wave duality and why it only presents its particle or position properties when it is observed is because its wave component is only confined to three-dimensional space when an observation is made.**

*However, as mentioned earlier it also provides a way to physical connect the probabilistic environment defined by SchrÃ¶dinger wave equation to the physicality of Einstein’s relativistic universe. *

The physics of wave mechanics tell us that due to the continuous properties of the wave component associated with a quantum system it would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example, the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly, if the assumption outlined above, that quantum properties of matter are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space is correct those oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

**(Some may question the fact that the energy wave associated with particle would be simultaneously distributed over the entire universe. However, the relativistic properties of space-time tell us the distance perceived by objects or particles in relative motion is dependent on their velocity which become zero at the speed of light. Therefore, from the perspective of an energy wave moving at the speed of light, the distance between all points in the universe along its velocity vector is zero. In other words, because its electromagnetic wave component of a particle is moving at the speed of light as all electromagnetic0 energy must is it would be distributed or simultaneous exists at every point in the universe along its velocity vector. There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories.) **

As mentioned earlier the article â€œ Why is energy/mass quantized? â€ shown a wave/particle duality of matter can be understood in terms of a resonant structure formed wave energy on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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 particle would most probably be observed 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. *

**This demonstrates that one can interconnect probabilities associated with ***SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave equation*** to the physicality of the Einstein’s Relativistic universe. **

As was mentioned earlier the arrow of time is defined in classical system in terms of entropy or the level of randomness (or disorder) of a system and the Second law of thermodynamics which states that there is an the extraordinarily small probability that a system will return to its original configuration, based on the extraordinarily larger number of microstates in systems with greater entropy even though its.

**Additionally, the above discussion also shows one can use the same definition for the arrow of time in a quantum universe as the one used in a macroscopic one ***because the position of a particle in a quantum can only be determine with respect to other particles in probability field **Schrodinger’s equation***. Therefore, due to ***the fact that there are infinite number of possibilities in the probabilistic universe of quantum mechanics there an extraordinarily small chance of that universe retuning to is original configuration when an observation is made in the future. *

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics quantum, that of quantum entanglement and the classical one of separation.

Entanglement occurs when two particles are linked together no matter their separation from one another. Quantum mechanics assumes even though these entangled particles are not physically connected, they still are able to share information with each other instantaneously seemingly breaking one of the most hard-and-fast rules of classical physics and Einstein theories: that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Even though it may be hard for some to accept the instantaneous sharing of information over what appears to be long distances has been proven time and time again over the years.

For example, when researchers create two entangled particles, separate them and independently measure their properties, they find that the outcome of one measurement influences the observed properties of the other particle.

This was made possible in 1964, when John Bell showed there is a theoretical limit beyond which correlations can only be explained by quantum entanglement, not classical physics.

*However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why particles are entangled in terms of the physical properties of space-time even though he was so upset to what he called this “spooky action at a distance.” that in 1935 he along with Podolsky Rosen proposed the following thought experiment which came to be called the EPR Paradox.*

In 1935, Einstein co-authored a paper with Podolskyâ€“Rosen highlighted a problem that they felt showed that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature. This thought experiment came to be called the EPR Paradox. 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 SchrÃ¶dinger 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.

As was mentioned earlier, 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.

Since then there have been many experiments using the properties of paired of photons and other particles that verify without any doubt that two photons and others particles that are spatially separated can be entangled.

In quantum mechanics it is assumed that the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of entangled particles instantly affects the other no matter how far they are apart.

However, Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity gives us a classical explanation in terms his theory for the entanglement of two particles.

For example, with regards to the polarized photons mentioned earlier that Allen Aspect used to verify the quantum mechanical interpretation of entanglement his theory tells us that because photons must always be moving at the speed of light they can never be separated with respect to an external observer no matter how far apart he or she perceives them to be.

This is because he tells that that there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance. Therefore, one must not only view the separation of a photon with respect to an observer who was external to them but must also look at that separation from a photonâ€™s perspective.

However, his theory tells the distance between the two photons A and B would be defined by their relative speed with respect to an observer.

Specifically, he told us that it would be defined by

Yet, this tell us that the separation between two photons moving at the speed of light from their perspective would be zero no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in a laboratory because according to the concepts of relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.

Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled with all other paired photons no matter how far apart or “spacelike” separated they may appear to be to ALL observers.

**In other words, the inequities in the measurements made on ALL REPEAT ALL pairs of photons should be violated in a world containing the physical reality of Einstein’s theories because they will influence each other no matter how far they may be separated when viewed from a reference frame other than a photon’s, such as a laboratory. **

Up until now we only have addressed the entanglement of photons that are moving at the speed of light. However, the same the relativistic properties of motion can be applied to explain the entanglement of other particles that are not moving at that speed.

This is because quantum mechanics defines the composition of matter in terms of its wave particle duality. More specifically, as was shown in the previously article “Quantum mechanics in a nutshellâ€¦Donâ€™t look: waves. Look: particles“ Dec. 1, 2015 it assumes that before an observation is made matter is propagated though space in terms of its wave properties and only after being observed does it present its particle properties.

In other words, in Quantum Mechanics matter has an extended volume while moving through space which is directly related to the wavelength associated with its particle properties.

**This means the wavelengths of two particles in motion will overlap and be entangled if the separation between the end points of an observation as measured from their perspective is less that the wavelength of those particles.**

However, as mentioned earlier Einstein tells us that we must use this theory to derive the separation of two moving particles from their perspective and not from the prospective of observers in a laboratory.

Therefore, even though particles may appear to be separated from the view point of a laboratory observer they may not be separated from the view point of the particles that are moving with respect to those observers because of an overlap of their wave properties..

*In other words, one does not have to break one of the most hard-and-fast rules of classical physics and Einstein theories: that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light because one can use his classical theories to explain how and why particles that appear to be separated can communicate instantaneously.*

* The illusion is not that entanglement of two spatial separated particles from the perspective of the observers *in Allen Aspect experiment mentioned earlier

**does not exist. The illusion is that entanglement is not the result of the quantum mechanical properties of matter but instead is the result of the**

**physical reality of Einstein’s**

**Theory of Relativity because it tells us that the separation of particles**

*must be measured from their perspective and not from the perspective of an observer in a laboratory.*Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

A Quantum Singularity is a misnomer because it owes it existence to classical one created by a black hole not to its quantum mechanical properties.

Even so many physicists assume it is the key to unifying Quantum mechanics with Einstein’s General and Special Theories of Relativity because they believe the gravitational collapse of matter in a black hole, predicted by his theories also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of a singularity, which by definition is infinitely small and quantum mechanical in nature. Therefore, due to the fact that they are caused by gravitational forces a theory of quantum gravity would be required to define its formation.

Its existence is based on a mathematical interpretation of General Theory of Relativity which tells us that when star starts to collapse after burning up its nuclear fuel and forms a black hole the gravitational forces of its mass become large enough to cause matter to collapse to zero volume or one that is governed by quantum mechanics.

However, even though there is observational evidence for the existence of black holes there never will be any for a singularity because according to the General Theory of Relativity nothing, including light can escape form one.

For example NASA’s Hubblesite tells us that "Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy NGC 4258, the giant elliptical galaxy M87, and several others. Scientists verified its existence by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system."

However, as mentioned earlier we will never be able to observe a singularity because they only exist inside black hole. Therefore to determine their reality we must rely solely on the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity regarding their formation.

*Yet, as mentioned earlier there are some who say the mathematics used to predict the existence of a black hole also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of singularities. In other words by verifying the existence of black holes though mathematics means that they have also verified the existence of singularities.*

*However this would only be true if the mathematics used to predict both a black hole and its singularity conform to the conceptual arguments associated with Einstein General Theory of Relativity because its existence is based solely on that mathematics of that theory and not on observations, as is the case of black holes. *

In other words the fact that we can observe a black hole tells us the mathematics used to predict its existence has a valid basis in ideas of General Relativity.

*However the same cannot be said about the existence of a singularity because the conceptual arguments found in that theory tells us that we cannot extrapolate the mathematics associated with it to the formation of a black hole.*

To understand why we must look at how it describes both the collapse of a star to a black hole and then what happens to its mass after its formation.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not. Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.

In 1915 Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity. He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase. At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time. Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

This critical circumference is called the **event horizon** because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.

Yet many physicists, as mentioned earlier believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this is not true.

In Kip S. Thorne book "Black Holes and Time Warps", he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity. On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter. They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect. "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly. However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface. The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star from the reference frames of all observers as Einstein tells we must because they are all equivalence.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier those forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, as was mentioned earlier Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference. Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference.

**There are some who claim that irregularities in the velocity of contractions in the mass forming the black hole would allow it continue to collapse beyond its event horizon. However Einstein’s theories tells us that time would move slower for the faster moving mass components than the slower ones thereby allowing the them to catch up with their faster moving onew so they will be moving at the same speed when they reach the event horizon. **

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces. Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations that many physicists used to predict the existence of singularities because, as has just been shown the mathematical predications made by it regarding their existence is contradictory to conceptual framework of his theories.

As was mentioned earlier many physicists think the key to unifying Quantum mechanics with Einstein’s General and Special Theories of Relativity is the singularity that some of the mathematical models say exists in black holes. However, as was show above their existence is not supported by his theories.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function, initially in a superposition of several states appears to reduce to one due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an observation.

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics involves understanding how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs. The inability to directly observe such a collapse has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.

Quantum mechanics assumes it evolves deterministically according to the SchrÃ¶dinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, when observed it is always found in a definite state. Its future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made. In other words, the measurement “did something” to the system that is not obviously a consequence of SchrÃ¶dinger evolution. The measurement problem is describing what that “something” is, and how a superposition of many possible values becomes a single measured value.

To express matters differently, (paraphrasing Steven Weinberg) SchrÃ¶dinger wave equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality.

*However, *** Einstein unknowing may have able to define what happens to the wave function when observed by extrapolating the rules of classical mechanics to the physical properties of the space-time environment he defined.**

One of the reasons he may have been unaware of this possibility is because superposition involves the spatial properties of position where as he chose define the universe in terms of time or the properties of four-dimensional space-time. In other words, understanding the physical connection between the spatial properties of position and the time properties of Einstein space-time universe is extremely difficult for the same reasons as one would find it difficult to define a physical connection between apples and oranges.

However, Einstein gave us a way around this when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of mass and energy in a space-time universe because that provided a method of converting a unit of time in space-time environment to unit of space in one made up of four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

**This would allow one to describe what happens to the ****linear superposition of different states** **when an observation is made and why it becomes a single measured value. **

**Additionally, it would also allow one to understand the validity of quantum mechanics assumption that particles can be defined in terms of waves, how they can be superimposed or simultaneously be in multiple positions before being observed and why their interaction with the external world must be describe in terms of probabilities.**

For example, the article, “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can use the Einstein’s theories to explain and understand the physicality of the wave properties of particles by extrapolating the rules of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to an energy wave moving on â€œsurfaceâ€ of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. It also explains why all energy must be quantized or exists in these discrete resonant systems when observed.

Briefly 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 occur in an energy wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an energy 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 “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension 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 four spatial dimensions.

As was shown in that article the ossifications of these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the wave properties quantum mechanical particles.

However, one can also explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€™s resonant structure are defined.

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.

It is the confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which allows the resonate structure the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed was responsible for a particle to exist. \

In other words the reason it becomes a single measured value when observed is because when the energy wave moving through space either space-time or four spatial dimensions is confined by an observation to three-dimensional space the interference between waves reflected back and forth by that confinement sets a resonant standing wave in space which is called a particle.

*In other words, Einstein give us a classical validation of *the quantum mechanical assumption that particles can be thought of as waves because it shows they are made up of resonate structures formed by energy wave and why when someone observes its wave component it always appears as a particle.

**Additionally, one of the most advantageous results of viewing the relativistic properties of Einstein’s theories in terms of their spatial instead of its time components is that gives us the answer to one of the most perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics; that of how and why a particle can simultaneously exists anywhere in the universe before being observed.**

This is because it tells the length of an object relative to another is affected by its relative velocity and that there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure that length. Therefore, one must not only view the distance traversed by the wave with respect to an observer who was external to it but one must also view the distance between observers from the waveâ€™s perspective. Yet it also tells us that the length of everything including the universe from an object or wave moving at the speed of light is zero as can be seen from his formal on the right for length contraction.

Therefore, from the perspective of the energy wave the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed was responsible for a particle which is moving at the speed of light with respect to all observers the distance or length between all observers no matter where they are in the universe is zero with respect to that wave. Therefore, it exists at every point in between.

This gives us an explanation in terms of the four spatial dimensional equivalent of Einstein space-time universe for the * VALIDITY* of quantum mechanics assumption that a photon’s wave packet simultaneously exists everywhere in in the universe before being observed. In other words, it only “decides” where it wants to be in space when it is prevented from moving at the speed of light relative to an observer by an observation.

However, viewing Einstein theories from the perceptive of their spatial instead of their time components also allows one to derive the classical reason why one must use probabilities to determine a particles position will be before being observed.

The fact that one can, as was show in the article mentioned earlier â€œ__Why is energy/mass quantized?__â€ derive the particle properties of an energy wave as the result of a resonant structure formed on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension also allows one to understand how a particle “decides” where is want to be in terms of our classical understanding of the world around us.

For example, the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly, if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories and the theoretical model that the quantum properties of a particle are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a “surface” of three-dimensional space, those oscillations as was shown above would be distributed over the entire “surface” three-dimensional space with respect to all observers while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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 particle 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.

**This shows how one can make intuitive “sense” of Quantum Superposition and why the wave packet of a particle decides what and where it wants to be when observed by extrapolating the rules of a classical mechanics to the spatial equivalent of Einstein’s theories. **

**In other words it solves the the measurement problem because it provides an understanding what happens to the wave function when it interacts with the external world by describing what and how the superposition of many possible values becomes a single measured value when an observation is made. **

It should be remembered Einstein genius allows us to view his theory in either four-dimensional space-time or its equivalent in only four *spatial* dimensions. As was shown above changing one’s perspective on his theory from time to its spatial equivalent allows one to form an intuitive understanding of quantum Superposition based on our experiences in a three-dimensional world.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

There can be no doubt the probabilistic interpretation of SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave function predicts with amazing precision the results of every experiment involving the quantum world that has ever been devised to test it.

However, defining our world in this manner presents a problem because that equation defines all its possible configurations that it can have before one makes an observation. In quantum mechanical jargon when an "observation" is made the wave function which initially is in a superposition of all possible eigenstates collapses and appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world.

But the question then become what happened to all of the other possibilities. Because according to quantum mechanical interpretation of the wave equation they are just a real as the one which we observe.

Many physicists have attempted to provide an explanation as what happens to these other possibilities because quantum mechanics would not be valid without them.

One of the most bazaar, in my option is the many-worlds interpretation because it that asserts the objective reality of the wave function and denies the actuality of its collapse. Briefly it implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe") and that when an observation is made. In layman’s terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large; perhaps infinite number of parallel universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.

However, we may be able to find a much simpler and less bazaar explanation of what actually happens to the wave function when an observation is made if we interrupt it terms of the physicality which can associated it with instead of its abstract mathematical properties. One

thing that I am pretty sure we can all agree on is that an energy associated with transverse wave define by it consist of alternating spatial displacements that extend outward from is source.

We also know that Einstein define gravitational energy in terms a positive curvature or distortion in the geometry of a universe consisting of space-time however, if we are to be consistent with Einstein definition of gravity, we must define traverse properties of the wave function in terms of the physicality of a transverse wave in the geometry of the universe. Yet one can only define the transverse properties of a wave with respect to the spatial not time properties of our universe. Therefore, to integrate it with Einstein’s theories one must be able to derive the energy associated with it in terms of the spatial properties of a transverse wave in the geometry of our universe.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between the both the relativistic and physical properties of a space-time universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.

**However doing so would allow one to derive the probabilistic interpretation of SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave equation and quantum properties of a particle in terms of the laws of classical wave mechanics.**

**For example, the article â€œ**__Why is energy/mass quantized?__â€ Oct 4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantization of a wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension by extrapolating our understanding of a resonant structure and perception of a wave in a three-dimensional environment.

**Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a three-dimensional 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 occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.**

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an electromagnetic 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 "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.

**In our three-dimensional environment the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.**

* Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical properties of a photon or an electromagnetic fiel*d.

**Yet one can also define its boundary conditions of its resonate structure in the terms of our perceptions of a three-dimensional environment.**

**For example, in our three-dimensional world, 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 â€œupâ€ or â€œdownâ€ with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the â€œupwardâ€ and â€œdownwardâ€ oscillations of an energy wave with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by an observation is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article â€œWhy is energy/mass quantized?" Oct 4, 2007.

**Additionally, one of the most advantageous results of viewing the relativistic properties of Einstein’s theories in terms of their spatial instead of their time components is that it allows for the integration of one of most perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics; that of how and why a particles position when observed is based on probabilities.**

**The physics of wave mechanics tell us that due to their continuous properties the energy waves the article " Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.**

**For example, the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations. **

**Similarly, if the assumption that quantum properties of energy are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space is correct those oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.**

**(Some may question the fact that the energy wave associated with particle would be simultaneously distributed over the entire universe. However, the relativistic properties of space time tell us the distance perceived by objects or particles in relative motion is dependent on their velocity which become zero at the speed of light. Therefore, from the perspective of an energy wave moving at the speed of light, the distance between all points in the universe along its velocity vector is zero. In other words, because its energy is moving at the speed of light it would distributed or simultaneous exists at every point in the universe along its velocity vector. There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories.)**

**As mentioned earlier the article â€œ Why is energy/mass quantized?â€ shown a quantum particle 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 the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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 particle 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.

**In quantum mechanical jargon when an "observation" is made of the energy represented by the wave function which as mentioned earlier would be distributed throughout the entire universe collapses and is reduce to the*** single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world.*

**This shows how one can physically connect the probabilities associated quantum mechanics to our observable environment by redefining them in terms of the relativistic properties of Einstein’s space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.**

In other words by changing our interoperation of SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave function from a mathematical one to the physicality of a transverse wave in either four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time will allow us to ingrate the world of quantum mechanics into the space-time-universe defined by Einstein because as was shown above its probabilistic mathematical interpretation can be predicted by using them.

It should be remembered that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to create physical images of an unseen "reality" in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

What gives Quantum computers their power is the fact they use the qubit that exists in superposition which allows it to encode information in four states instead of two states as standard computers do. Because a quantum computer can contain these multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than today’s most powerful semiconductor driven supercomputers.

However, another property of quantum mechanics that makes them possible is known as entanglement because to make a practical quantum computer, scientists have to devise ways of making measurements indirectly to preserve the integrity of the qubit. One way of doing this is to use quantum entangled superpositioned bits resulting in each one having four values.

Entanglement is important because it allows one to remotely view the properties of the individual components of the qubit. For example, it you apply an outside force to two atoms, it can cause them to become entangled, and the second atom can take on the properties of the first atom. So, if left alone, an atom will spin in all directions. However, the instant it is disturbed it chooses one spin, or one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will choose an opposite spin, or value. This allows scientists to know the value of the state of an individual components of in a qubit by observing its entangled companion without actually looking at or disturbing the qubit

**The fact that entanglement exists has been experimental proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, one must be careful not to make hasty assumptions as to why because knowing more about the physical properties of the operating environment of a device can greatly streamline the design process of everything from transistors in modern computers to the Qubit in a quantum computer.**

In 1935, Einstein co-authored a paper with Podolskyâ€“Rosen which came to be called the EPR Paradox. Its intent was to show that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature. 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 SchrÃ¶dinger 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.

Many would prefer to assume the separability defined by Newtonian physics does not exist instead of the reality of our particle world because without that "reality" Einstein and many others believe science would have little meaning.

However, measurements Allen Aspect made on polarized photons that showed that Bells inequity was violated appeared to verify the concepts of quantum mechanics assumes the act of measuring the state of a pair of entangled particles instantly affects the other no matter how far they are apart. In other words, the Newtonian concept separability does not apply to quantum environment.

However, one must be careful not to extrapolate the unique properties of a photon like the fact that they are the only particle that moves at the speed of light to other particles that make up the qubit.

We believe Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were aware of this special property of a photon because they specified in the description of their experiment "two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles)â€ not just a photons because they knew that Special Relativity gives us a reasons why they would entangled which were different from those given by quantum mechanics.

Einstein told us that the observe distance between the measurement of end points of objects or particles in relative motion would be shorter in direct relationship to their speed from the perspective of those objects or particles.

In other words, the faster particles are moving relative to the observers the shorter the distance between the end points of those observations will be from their perspective. At the speed of light he tells us the distance between the end points of any and all measurements will be zero from the perspective of any particle moving at the speed of light.

However, he also told us that due to the relativistic properties space and time there is no special reference frame by which one can measure distance. Therefore, one would be justified in measuring the distance between the end points of the observation from the perspective of the photons as well as from the laboratory environment where they are being observed by humans.

Yet as was just mentioned he also tells us since photons are moving at the speed of light the distance between the end point of the measurements made between all human observers in the universe no matter where they are must be is zero. However, because all of the confirmation entanglement involves the properties of photons, we must look at the world from their perspective and not form those of human observers.

In other words, Einstein specified "two free particles" not just photons because he knew the reason they would be entangled is because the distance between the end points of all measurements made by humans from perspective of all photons would be zero therefore they would be entangled.

As was mentioned earlier the fact that entanglement exists has been experimental proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with respect to a photon. However, as is show above Einstein Theory of Relativity provides an alternating explanation as to why with ** respect to photons,** which is just a valid as the one provided by quantum mechanics. Since it is one of the foundational concepts of quantum computing knowing which one of them is is responsible will give engineers a better understanding its strengths and limitations and will hopefully allow them to design systems that will take better advantage of them.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

Superposition, in the quantum world means that on a quantum scale, particles can be thought of as waves that can exist in different states or positions at the same time. Like all waves they can overlapping or be superimposed on each other and because it assumes that particles are waves, they can also exist in a superimposed state. However, this means a particle can be in two places at once and in the quantum world only "decides" where it is and its "what" to be when it is observed. This doesnâ€™t make intuitive sense but itâ€™s one of the weird realities of quantum physics.

Many fell it is the only way to explain the experimental observations that support the superposition and wave particle duality is the non-classical non-intuitive one given by quantum mechanics.

** However, Einstein unknowing may have able to define the classical "reality" of Superposition by extrapolating the rules of classical mechanics to the physical properties of space-time environment he defined**.

One of the reasons he may have been unaware of this possibility is because superposition involves the spatial properties of position where as he chose define the universe in terms of time or the properties of four-dimensional space-time. In other words, understanding the physical connection between the spatial properties of position and the time properties of Einstein space-time universe is extremely difficult for the same reasons as one would find it difficult to define a physical connection between apples and oranges.

However, Einstein gave us a way around this when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of mass and energy in a space-time universe because that provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy in space-time to unit of space one can associate with four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This would allow one to understand the ** validity** of quantum mechanics assumption that particles can be defined in terms of waves and how they can be superimposed or simultaneously be in multiple positions before being observed.

For example, the article, "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can use the Einstein’s theories to explain and understand the physicality of the wave properties of particles by extrapolating the rules of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter energy wave moving on â€œsurfaceâ€ of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. It also explains why all energy must be quantized or exists in these discrete resonant systems when observed.

Briefly 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 occur in a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter energy 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 "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension 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 four spatial dimensions.

As was shown in that article these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the particle properties of matter.

However, one can also explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€™s resonant structure are defined.

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.

It is the confinement of the "upward" and "downward" oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which allows the resonate structure the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed was responsible for a particle to exist.

In other words the when the matter energy wave is confined by an observation to three-dimensional space the interference between waves reflected back and forth by that confinement sets a resonant standing wave in space which is called a particle.

In other words, Einstein give us a classical ** validation** of the quantum mechanical assumption that particles can be thought of as waves because it shows they are made up of resonate structure formed matter energy wave and why when someone observes its wave component it always appears as a particle.

*Additionally, one of the most advantageous results of viewing the relativistic properties of Einstein’s theories in terms of their spatial instead of its time components is that gives us an answer to one of the most perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics; that of how and why a particle can simultaneously exists anywhere in the universe before being observed*

This is because it tells the length of an object relative to another is effected by its relative velocity and that there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure that length. Therefore, one must not only view the distance traversed by the wave with respect to an observer who was external to it but one must also view the distance between observers from the waveâ€™s perspective. Yet it also tells us that the length of everything including the universe from an object or wave moving at the speed of light is zero as can be seen from his formal on the right for length contraction.

Therefore, from the perspective of the energy wave the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" showed was responsible for a particle which is moving at the speed of light with respect to all observers the distance or length between all observers no matter far they may be from their perspective is zero with respect to that wave. Therefore, its energy exists at every point in between them.

This gives us an explanation in terms of physical properties of Einsteinâ€™s space-time universe for the VALIDITY of quantum mechanics assumption that a photon and its wave packet can simultaneously exists everywhere in in the universe before being observed. In other words, it only "decides" where it wants to be in space when it is prevented from moving at the speed of light relative to an observer by an observation.

However, viewing Einstein theories from the perceptive of their spatial instead of their time components also allows one to derive the classical reason why one must use probabilities to determine a particles position before being observed.

The fact that one can, as was show in the article mentioned earlier â€œ__Why is energy/mass quantized?__â€ derive the particle properties of an energy wave as the result of a resonant structure formed on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension also tells how a particle "decides" where it wants to be when observed in terms of our classical understanding of the world around us.

Similarly, if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories and the classical mechanism in the article â€œ__Why is energy/mass quantized?__â€ which define a particle as result of resonant system created by vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space, those oscillations as was shown above would be distributed over the entire "surface" three-dimensional space with respect to all observers while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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 particle 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.

This shows how one can make intuitive "sense" of Quantum Superposition and why the wave packet of a particle decides what and where it wants to be when observed by extrapolating the rules of a classical mechanics to the spatial equivalent of Einstein’s theories.

*It should be remembered Einstein genius allows us to view his theory in either four-dimensional space-time or its equivalent in only four *spatial* dimensions. As was shown above changing one’s perspective on his theory from time to its spatial equivalent allows one to form an intuitive understanding of quantum Superposition based on our experiences in a three-dimensional world.*

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it is one of the more famous quotes attributed to Einstein when confronting the Quantum mechanical assumption that objects do not exist is space and time until they are observed.

Quantum mechanics assumes that one cannot define the position of particle in terms of where is has been but only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with its wave function. This is in stark contrast to the Classical "Newtonian" assumption that one can assign precise values of future events based on the knowledge of their past.

For example in a quantum system SchrÃ¶dinger wave equation plays the role of the classical Newtonian laws in that it predicts the future position or momentum of a particle in terms of a probability distribution by assuming that it simultaneously exists everywhere in three-dimensional space before it is observed.

This accentuates the fundamental difference between quantum and classical mechanics because the latter tells that a particle and the moon do not exist in specific position until observed where as Classical mechanics tell us that it does.

**However, Einstein unknowing may have provided a way to define the classical "reality" of quantum probabilities by extrapolating the laws of a classical mechanics to the physical properties of the space-time environment he defined.**

One of the reasons he may have been unaware of this possibility is because the probability function of quantum mechanics address the spatial properties of position whereas he * chose* to define the universe in terms of the time properties of four dimensional space-time. In other words understanding the physical connection between the spatial properties of quantum mechanics and the time properties of Einstein space-time universe is extremely difficult for the same reasons as one would find it difficult to define a physical connection between apples and oranges.

Yet, he gave us the solution to this problem when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of particle in a space-time universe because that provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space one can associate with position in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

However, as was just mentioned this change in perspective allows one to define a physical connection between Einstein theories and the probability functions of quantum mechanics in terms of their common spatial properties.

For example in the article â€œWhy is energy/mass quantized?â€ Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can derive why the energy associated with the probability wave of quantum mechanics appears as a particle when observed by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a energy wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly 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 occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an energy 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 "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with quantum mechanical systems.

Yet one can also define the boundary conditions responsible for a creating a particle in the terms of our perceptions of a three-dimensional environment.

For example in our three-dimensional world, 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 â€œupâ€ or â€œdownâ€ with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the â€œupwardâ€ and â€œdownwardâ€ oscillations of an electromagnetic wave with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with the resonant system the article "__Why is energy/mass quantized?__" Oct. 4, 2007 associates with a particle.

This give us explanation of why, in a quantum system the intervention of an observer forces it to "choose" a state or how it "knows" when someone is observing it because if a particle is free to move it will display its wave characteristics while in every case, observing it requires one to confine its energy to the specific volume associated with the observing equipment. Therefore it will always display its particle "reality" when someone looks or observes it.

**However one of the most advantageous results of viewing the relativistic properties of Einstein’s theories in terms of their spatial instead of their time components is that it allow for the integration of one of most perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics; that of how and why a particle’s position when observed is based on probabilities and how it can exist ****simultaneously exists everywhere****.**

The physics of wave mechanics tell us, due to the continuous properties the energy waves the article "__Why is energy/mass quantized?__" Oct. 4, 2007 associated with a quantum system it would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly if the assumption that wave function of quantum mechanics represents vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space, as was mentioned earlier is correct these oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

As was also mentioned earlier the article â€œ__Why is energy/mass quantized?__â€ showed a quantum particle is a result of a resonant structure formed on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Similarly the resonant structure that article associated with a particle 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.

In other words the position in space and time of a single particle could only be defined in terms of the probabilities associated with quantum mechanics.

*Additionally Einstein theory also gives us the answer as to why a particle simultaneously exists everywhere in three-dimensional space. *

That theory tell us all energy waves such as that the article "__Why is energy/mass quantized?__" Oct. 4, 2007 defined as being responsible for a particle travel at the speed of light.

However it also tells the length of an object relative to another is effected by its relative velocity and that that there is no preferred reference frames by which one can measure that length. Therefore one * must* not only view the distance traversed by the wave with respect to an observer who was external to it but one must also view distances from the wave’s perspective.

Yet he also tells us that the length of everything including the universe from an object or wave moving at the speed of light is zero as can be seen from his formal on the right for length contraction.

Therefore from the perspective of the energy wave the article "__Why is energy/mass quantized?__" (mentioned earlier) was showed responsible for a particle, the distance or length between the end point of the entire universe is zero.

In other words from the perspective of the energy wave responsible for a particle the physical length of the universe is zero, therefore it exists at every point in it. In other words Einstein theory tells it **must** simultaneously everywhere when observed by an observer who is not moving at the speed of light. This gives us an explanation in terms of physical properties of Einstein’s space-time universe for the validity of quantum mechanics assumption that a particle simultaneously exists everywhere in three-dimensional space before being observed. In other words it only "decides" where it wants to be in space when it is prevented from moving at the speed of light relative to an observer by an observation.

There can be no other interpretation if one accepts his Theory of Relativity.

**Finally one can definitively answer Einstein’s question "I****s the moon there even if I am not looking at it" in terms of his Theory of Relativity**

As was shown earlier a individual particle would most probably be found were the magnitude of the vibrations associated with it’s wave packet is the greatest. Therefore the position of the mass components of all objects that consist of multiple particles such as the moon would be the point in space where the energy of their individual wave packets overlap which would result that point having a larger energy concentration than the sounding space.

However he did not define the location of a mass, such as the moon in terms of it’s quantized properties but in terms of how energy is concentrated at the apex of a curvature in the continuous properties space-time.

This tells us the moon is there when we are not looking because the overlapping of its individual energy wave components causes their energy to be concentrated in a specific volume of three-dimensional space and not because of the probability it’s individual particle components will be at that specific spot in space.

**This shows that one can define why the quantum probability function gives us an accurate description of nature and why the moon is their when no is looking by extrapolating the laws of a classical mechanics to the physical properties of the space-time environment ***defined by Einstein. *

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

Ebook 10.50 | The Reality Ebook $31.75 |

Quantum entanglement is the name given to quantum mechanical assumption that all particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances.

The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.Â Â

Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interacts physically. For example a laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal can cause individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons even when they are separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more.

In other words when observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance.

The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it “spooky action at a distance.” and in 1935 he along with Podolsky Rosen proposed the following thought experiment which came to be called the EPR Paradox.

Its intent was to show that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature. 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 SchrÃ¶dinger 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 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.

In other words the measurements made by Allen Aspect made on the polarized photon verified that Bells inequity was violated by finding a correlation 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 photons must be entangled or physical connected even though they were in different local realities

Many took this as verification of quantum mechanics assumption that all particles are entangle no matter how far apart they are.

*However Einstein, Podolsky, andÂ Rosen specified in the description of their experiment “two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles)â€ not just a photons because they knewÂ that Special Relativity gives a reason why they would entangled which were different from those give by quantum mechanics. *

As was mentioned earlier 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. However Einstein Special Theory of Relativity tell us that because photons must always be moving at the speed of light they can never be separated with respect to an external observer no matter how far apart he or she perceives them to be.

That theory tells that that there is no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance. Therefore one can not only view the distance covered by a photon with respect to an observer who was external to them but must also look at that distance from a photonâ€™s perspective.

However Einstein tells us that a photon traveling at the speed of light does not experience the passage of distance relative to an observer because as is shown by putting its velocity in his equation for length contraction along its velocity vector the physical distance between them becomes zero.

Therefore one cannot use photons to verify that Bell’s inequity is violated because even though they appear to be at different points when measured by an observer who is not moving at the speed of light they are not because according to Einstein the distance between those points from the perspective of all photons is always zero and therefore they must always be entangled.

**This suggests the reason Bells inequity is and MUST be violated for all photons is because Einstein tells us the length contraction associated with the fact that they are they are moving at the speed of light means they are physically entangled or connected at the time of measurement no matter how far apart they appear to be to an observer.Â However this is not the reason defined by quantum mechanics. **

**In other words the “hidden variable” that Einstein was so sure existed that would allow Quantum Mechanics to be complete theory of nature at least for photon is his Special Theory of Relativity.Â However Quantum Entanglement may exist for particles other than photon but as we have just seen it cannot be verified by using them as test subjects. **

Later Jeff

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

Ebook$10.50 |
Â Ebook $31.75 |