Quantum Entanglement of Stars with Earth?!

[dad1]

Space doesn't seem to matter when it comes to entagled particles. Now could it be that stars are entagled with earth? If so, then time and space would not really matter, because with entaglement ...

for example.. "The now-familiar puzzle of what are called "non local" interactions develops from theoretical work by John Bell, of CERN, in the 1960s and experiments by Alain Aspect in Paris in the 1980s. Together, these show that a pair of photons ejected in opposite directions from an atom remain somehow entangled, as if they were one particle.Measuring the state of one of the photons instantaneously affects the state of the other one, wherever it may be. Now, it seems that even atoms which have never come into contact (from the perspective of classical Newtonian physics) are entangled in a similar way."
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

If this were the case, then one would not need great time!


Since it is admitted science doesn't understand why quantum entaglement works (by folks like Richard Feynman) we should not have tried to apply classical understandings and physics of time and space as we know it to creation.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Quantum entanglement is an exciting area of study. If we can harness it, we're looking at instant information transmission anywhere in the universe.

With that being said, however, most of the work so far is theoretical, and can't be applied to any current understanding of physics outside of hypothesis. It could a long way towards helping understand "the beginning" once we understand the effect more. But as it stands right now, it's too early to try and use the findings to help either side of the Creation/Evolution debate.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[dad1]

Quantum entanglement is an exciting area of study. If we can harness it, we're looking at instant information transmission anywhere in the universe.

With that being said, however, most of the work so far is theoretical, and can't be applied to any current understanding of physics outside of hypothesis. It could a long way towards helping understand "the beginning" once we understand the effect more. But as it stands right now, it's too early to try and use the findings to help either side of the Creation/Evolution debate.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Not really. If we know that time and the speed of light and space can be relegated to insignificance, the possibilities for a young universe grow exponentially.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Not really. If we know that time and the speed of light and space can be relegated to insignificance, the possibilities for a young universe grow exponentially.

On the other hand (to play the devil's advocate) it means that the universe could be much, much older than previously thought, only there was no life form intelligent enough to observe it.

Quantum entanglement, again, is a very interesting area of study. It is not in my area of expertise (as I'm focusing more on classical physics with the possibility of moving into astrophysics), but I've done some reading up on it.

Most of the findings of quantum entanglement sound very "sci-fi". For example, from your link:

The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrdinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it ... One of the difficulties with any such description in ordinary language is how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned.

Quantum entanglement very simply stated says that two particles that are entangled will maintain the same net energy that they had when they became entangled. In other words, if two particles were spinning counter to each other at the same speed (forming a net spin of zero), and one particle is made to counter its own spin then the other will as well, in order to maintain the same net state of being.

This happens simultaneously, as far as we as observers are concerned. But the mathematics behind it say that one wave from this particle is traveling with us in time, while the other is traveling backwards. This means that the it takes the same amount of negative time to communicate with the other particle as it does positive time, causing a net of zero time, or instantaneous communication.

This also (in a roundabout manner) allows for particles to become non-existent when they are not being observed. In other words, to take quantum entanglement to a conclusion, one could state that the light from the stars did not exist until it came within range to be seen by man. With this logic, the light from the stars would still travel millions of light years, but the particles closest to us were instantaneously created (either by God or by observation by man) and did not exist until we noticed them.

This actually helps to validate my opinion, which is the "Apparent Age" theory. That God created the earth a relatively short time ago, but made it to appear millions, if not billions of years old. The light from the stars (millions of light years away) would have appeared close to enough to be seen the instant that Adam was created.

I'm going to go ahead and stop here. But, the same information can also be used by evolutionists as evidence that they've been right all along. It's all about the interpretation of the data.

 

[dad1]

On the other hand (to play the devil's advocate) it means that the universe could be much, much older than previously thought, only there was no life form intelligent enough to observe it.

Pure speculation. My concern is whether science has anything it actually knows that is contrary to the bible. If it all boils down to belief and speculation, then one can believe whatever one wants...and the bible is top of the heap in that dept.

Quantum entanglement, again, is a very interesting area of study. It is not in my area of expertise (as I'm focusing more on classical physics with the possibility of moving into astrophysics), but I've done some reading up on it.

Most of the findings of quantum entanglement sound very "sci-fi". For example, from your link:

Quantum entanglement very simply stated says that two particles that are entangled will maintain the same net energy that they had when they became entangled. In other words, if two particles were spinning counter to each other at the same speed (forming a net spin of zero), and one particle is made to counter its own spin then the other will as well, in order to maintain the same net state of being.

Sounds about right.

But at the same time they do this above and beyond normal intuition and classical rules.

This happens simultaneously, as far as we as observers are concerned. But the mathematics behind it say that one wave from this particle is traveling with us in time, while the other is traveling backwards.

Well, that has a lot of possible implications for the universe, and photons in far space! If space and time are out the window in the usual way we think of them as applies to light and things in deep space, then forget billions of years!

This means that the it takes the same amount of negative time to communicate with the other particle as it does positive time, causing a net of zero time, or instantaneous communication.

In other words they are not bound by time.

This also (in a roundabout manner) allows for particles to become non-existent when they are not being observed. In other words, to take quantum entanglement to a conclusion, one could state that the light from the stars did not exist until it came within range to be seen by man.

Well, it was created TO BE SEEN BY MAN! So a connection exists. But even here, we should be careful about the concept of range. Range involves...space and time!

With this logic, the light from the stars would still travel millions of light years, but the particles closest to us were instantaneously created (either by God or by observation by man) and did not exist until we noticed them.

The actual reasons that observation affects how particles behave may have to do with things science never even thought of yet..like free choice...flexibility of particles to do what we pray for, or God tells them to do..etc etc. They have to be flexible.

This actually helps to validate my opinion, which is the "Apparent Age" theory. That God created the earth a relatively short time ago, but made it to appear millions, if not billions of years old. The light from the stars (millions of light years away) would have appeared close to enough to be seen the instant that Adam was created.

Interesting.

I'm going to go ahead and stop here. But, the same information can also be used by evolutionists as evidence that they've been right all along. It's all about the interpretation of the data.

Not exactly. They can speculate in an ungodly way, but that is worthless. The more important and powerful applications of quantum potential realities rest squarely in the camp of those that have not tried to limit explanations of the universe to standard physics without God!

 

[dad1]

On the other hand (to play the devil's advocate) it means that the universe could be much, much older than previously thought, only there was no life form intelligent enough to observe it.

Pure speculation. My concern is whether science has anything it actually knows that is contrary to the bible. If it all boils down to belief and speculation, then one can believe whatever one wants...and the bible is top of the heap in that dept.

Quantum entanglement, again, is a very interesting area of study. It is not in my area of expertise (as I'm focusing more on classical physics with the possibility of moving into astrophysics), but I've done some reading up on it.

Most of the findings of quantum entanglement sound very "sci-fi". For example, from your link:

Quantum entanglement very simply stated says that two particles that are entangled will maintain the same net energy that they had when they became entangled. In other words, if two particles were spinning counter to each other at the same speed (forming a net spin of zero), and one particle is made to counter its own spin then the other will as well, in order to maintain the same net state of being.

Sounds about right.

But at the same time they do this above and beyond normal intuition and classical rules.

This happens simultaneously, as far as we as observers are concerned. But the mathematics behind it say that one wave from this particle is traveling with us in time, while the other is traveling backwards.

Well, that has a lot of possible implications for the universe, and photons in far space! If space and time are out the window in the usual way we think of them as applies to light and things in deep space, then forget billions of years!

This means that the it takes the same amount of negative time to communicate with the other particle as it does positive time, causing a net of zero time, or instantaneous communication.

In other words they are not bound by time.

This also (in a roundabout manner) allows for particles to become non-existent when they are not being observed. In other words, to take quantum entanglement to a conclusion, one could state that the light from the stars did not exist until it came within range to be seen by man.

Well, it was created TO BE SEEN BY MAN! So a connection exists. But even here, we should be careful about the concept of range. Range involves...space and time!

With this logic, the light from the stars would still travel millions of light years, but the particles closest to us were instantaneously created (either by God or by observation by man) and did not exist until we noticed them.

The actual reasons that observation affects how particles behave may have to do with things science never even thought of yet..like free choice...flexibility of particles to do what we pray for, or God tells them to do..etc etc. They have to be flexible.

This actually helps to validate my opinion, which is the "Apparent Age" theory. That God created the earth a relatively short time ago, but made it to appear millions, if not billions of years old. The light from the stars (millions of light years away) would have appeared close to enough to be seen the instant that Adam was created.

Interesting.

I'm going to go ahead and stop here. But, the same information can also be used by evolutionists as evidence that they've been right all along. It's all about the interpretation of the data.

Not exactly. They can speculate in an ungodly way, but that is worthless. The more important and powerful applications of quantum potential realities rest squarely in the camp of those that have not tried to limit explanations of the universe to standard physics without God!