Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe

Im not sure if your familiar with the Holographic Universe theory - I've banged on about it a couple of times.

It is fascinating, whatever your opinion - heres a good easy read version of it:
http://www.rense.com/general69/holoff.htm

Its credibility rests very much on the work of Alain Aspect -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
I wonder if anyone knows about these "Bell test experiments" and could explain it to me a little bit - the wikipedia article meant tothing to me.

The bit from rense.com above simply says that;
"Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart."

I'd like to know about this a bit more - how could they tell they where "communicating"? What kind of communicaton are we talking about?
Any info on it would be of interest - also any thoughts about the holographic universe would be fun too.

I'd say everything in Michael Talbot's article makes sense except these bits:

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram...

and

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm...

So I'd say while there is what could be called a holographic universe there's no holographic paradigm.

Hence in the light of our present scientific understanding of the world, a more reasonable idea is that a real universe existed and evolved for billions of years before any organism evolved that could percieve it in any way. And then the nature of perception evolved with the evolution of many and various species in response to a real physical environment.

Alain Aspect's experiment has been called something like 'the most significant in science, period.' While I'd say it certainly was the most significant in physics, period, in any case.

One of the compications in any such experiment that meaures the 'violation of Bell inequality' is that what is measured is a statistical correlation between the behaviour of two separate sets of objects.

But the fact that Aspect's is now just one amongst many similar experiments that have measured this correlated connection between quantum obects is strong empirical support for Bohm's ides of any interconnected universe.

So you can point out that no properties can be described of the forces to explain how matter in any form is organised out of its subatomic parts.

Whereas the Pauli exclusion principle, which describes the organisation of electrons around the atomic nucleus, requires that there there should be correlations of behaviour between these subatomic components.

Also, you can argue that it is the wave property of electrons that prevents electrons from falling into the nucleus. And Bohmian mechanics describes how this wave can be understood as producing non-local at-a-distance effects in producing quntum interference and diffraction. That is, effects like that measured by Aspect and others between quantum objects entangled in composite states.

Then you can reasonably think that all the natural organisation of matter in the Cosmos, including that of human beings and other organisms, is the reault of a single interconnecting and non-locally acting cause.

Thanks for your informed reply - to help me get into this could you answer these two simple questions:
how could they tell they where "communicating"? What kind of communicaton are we talking about?

You mention the wave property of electrons producing non-local at-a-distance effects - could you elaborate a little on that for me please?

Bare in mind Im a layman and know little about physics!

...I'd like to talk more about this, but I need to understand this point first...thanks

niksativa said:

Thanks for your informed reply - to help me get into this could you answer these two simple questions:
how could they tell they where "communicating"? What kind of communicaton are we talking about?

You mention the wave property of electrons producing non-local at-a-distance effects - could you elaborate a little on that for me please?

Bare in mind Im a layman and know little about physics!

...I'd like to talk more about this, but I need to understand this point first...thanks

Click to expand...

Actually when considering the correlation effects of quantum entanglement between quantum objects, at least, you need not describe these in terms of 'communication' at all and I think this term is rather misleading.

My own interpretaion is that a cause needs to act in addition to the forces so as to conserve a certain relationship of behaviour between the entangled components. So in the Aspect type experiment what is measured is the relationship between a beam of vertically polarised photons that, via a polarising filtre, are seperated from a beam of horizontally polarised photons.

Vertical polarisation occurs when the waves of most photons in a beam can be described as tending to oscillate up and down, while horizonally polarized photons tend move from side to side. And basically what can be measured in the experiment is how, when in an entangled state, the vertically opposed relationship of the photons between the separate beams is retained and despite the rotation of the angle of polarisation that results ftom the rotation of one polariser acting on just one of the beams.

So if you are thinking in terms fo communication then you can suppose that, somehow, one beam of photons has 'come to know' at a distance the new angle of polarization of the other beam and adjusted its own angle accordingly.

This effect can be measured without any variation at any distance between beams as a measurably significant statistical correlation and in two experiments the beam separation was to more than 10 kilometres apart.

Also, there have been experiments that have measured the effect in the spin direction of protons. While one signicant feature of the Aspect experiment was that, for the first time, the effect could be measured to occur at faster than the speed of light.


As for the description in Bohmian mechanics of what occurs to quantum objects before a barred quntum wave interference pattern is detected in a Young's type double slit experiment,
Bohm found that this could be understood in terms of each quantum object continually travelling with definite trajectories both as a particle and a wave that is extended laterally around the particle.

Whereas in orthodox physics quantum objects are described as either particles or waves depending upon the experimental set-up and are not described as possesing definite trajectories.

So in Bohm's picture a single particle could become part of an interference pattern in a Youngs double slit experiment by passing through one or other of the slits in a screen while at the same time its wave passed through both slits. And then the non-local action at a distance occurs when, after it has passed through the screen slits. the wave deflects the particle to produce interference. (On this site see under the heading 'The Two-Slits Experiment' for a diagram of the overall many particle effect.)

PS if you want to know more detsils about quantum theory, and Bohmian mechanics and Aspect type experiments especially, without needing to know too much mathematics or technical jargon, I would recommend Jim Baggott's book Beyond Measure (2004) Oxford University Press.

thanks for the tip -I've just read some reviews and i might give it a go. It says it considers the philosphical implications and thats how I like my science!

Im trying my best to keep up - I get the feeling that this topic is particularly profound and the implications have yet to trickle down into public knowledge - or my knowledge for that matter, hence this thread!

I think I understand better a little better what is happening between protons but I am curious how this works in day to day life. Are all protons in all objects continuosly interacting/interfering with each other? Do you see what Im asking? I hope so, because Im at a loss how to ask it clearer. Let me try:

From my understangin of photons they are present wherever there is an electromagnetic filed, right? So if I have an electromagentic field do the protons off me 'come to know at a distance' what ever is happening electormagneticaly at a far off point?
And according to the experiment this point can be infinitely far away?
And the protons react faster than the speed of light?

Is that correct? Help me MW, I'd love to know...thanks!

[edit} Sorry I've edited out the previus message because I've deleted the blog that was linked in it.

A new blog link will be forthcoming forthwith. So watch this space!

[edit2] So here's my latest updated edition

excellent stuff MW

"Finally, we found theoretical and observable reasons to consider that a non-locally acting cause could contribute energy continually to the output of stars in addition to fusion energy. For we considered that a cause that was powerful enough to produce the Big Bang and helped to form stars should contribute a certain amount of stellar energy that would be constant for the universe as whole."

Fascinating idea...the whole solar section was very interesting - black holes as heat sinks etc.

(Have you ever come across Grandpierre? He's a solar physicist who postulates that Stars are living organisms, in as much that they self regulate. Not necessarily connected, but thought Id mention it.)

"So, while the cause would just act so as to conserve the physical form of atoms and molecules, a species form conserving cause could act so as to ensure that living organisms reproduce themselves so that their species survives. Hence in evolutionary terms this would explain why the first living things developed a reproductive capacity, since it is difficult to explain otherwise why primitive single cell organisms should reproduce."

Wow!

MW - when does quantum entaglement occur? Other than in tests, is there a simple statement that can be made as to when it happens and between what (in nature...)?

Er... the article fields around some arm-waving about quantum mechanics and a description of holography to justify the author's (unspecified) ideas about telepathy and what seems to happen when you're tripping.

Far out, man.

But not a lot to do with quantum mechanics: the whole point of which is that the equations that describe and predict what goes on at very small scales bear no resemblance to our common-sense descriptions of what goes on at our scale.

Aha! Laptop...I've been expecting you!

Whats your take on quantum entanglement?

niksativa said:

Whats your take on quantum entanglement?

Click to expand...

Trying to explain it in terms of commonsense macro-world perceptions - or even to make any connection with them - is a waste of time.

And it doesn't raise half the philosophical problems that people suggest when they try.

For example, it cannot be used to send a message faster than light. Here there is a macro-world equivalent. You take a red card and a blue card; put them in opaque envelopes; shuffle the pack; and post them to two friends. When friend A opens the envelope and finds a red card, they "instantly" know that friend B has a red card. No mystery.

That sounds like wishful simplification to me - time will tell.

in the meantime expirements are underway to send data in this fashion, with results i'll leave you to discern:
http://www.physorg.com/news63037231.html
and this is relevant:
http://p2pnet.net/story/2927

laptop said:

Er... the article fields around some arm-waving about quantum mechanics and a description of holography to justify the author's (unspecified) ideas about telepathy and what seems to happen when you're tripping.

Far out, man.

But not a lot to do with quantum mechanics: the whole point of which is that the equations that describe and predict what goes on at very small scales bear no resemblance to our common-sense descriptions of what goes on at our scale.

Click to expand...

Complete and and utter dog's poo as usual, laptop

Nowhere but nowhere have I mentioned anything about telepathy on the blog or anywhere else.

You are merely trolling me unless you can find and give quotes from me here.

Well what goes on on the smallest scale would be differrent wouldn't it? since your talking about the behaviour of the smallest objects. But then you can also talk about the things that living organisms have in common with atoms and molecule like their all being composed in a certain way of the same kinds of smallest parts.

And also that no known details of any of the forces can be described to explain how matter in any form- whether living or non-living - can be or remain organised out of these subatomic parts.

Stop trolling or piss off please.

Why would Merlin Wood think I was talking to or about him?

Has he read the article (from the oh-so-reliable) rense.com to which I was referring? Apparently not. Just latching on to any thread to promote his Theory.

merlin wood said:

Complete and and utter dog's poo as usual, laptop

Nowhere but nowhere have I mentioned anything about telepathy on the blog or anywhere else.

You are merely trolling me unless you can find and give quotes from me here.

Well what goes on on the smallest scale would be differrent wouldn't it? since your talking about the behaviour of the smallest objects. But then you can also talk about the things that living organisms have in common with atoms and molecule like their all being composed in a certain way of the same kinds of smallest parts.

And also that no known details of any of the forces can be described to explain how matter in any form- whether living or non-living - can be or remain organised out of these subatomic parts.

Stop trolling or piss off please.

Click to expand...

Seconded: And for further examples laptop dogpoo, and specifically why he is wrong above, take a look at the thread entitled - Wave particle duality? Magic? - in the philosophy section.

In fact, the large scale is made out of the small scale and cannot be understood without reference to the small scale, and light, which is the main subject matter of quantum physicists experiments is quite obviously a large scale phenomenon.

Ah, there you are. Another Believer, dismissing as dogpoo an informed description because, er, it doesn't support your beliefs.

Go ahead, believe in magic. See if I care.

I don't care if you believe in vibrational vortices either - but I'd recommend not letting a psychiatrist hear you doing that.

But to invoke QM to support your Belief is fundamentally dishonest.

Your assertions about what's "made of" what come down to no more than the magical "as above, so below". 'Tain't so.

No it isn't, and you don't know shit man.

There is no way round the fact that the evidence is that the universe is one great big thing, intimately connected in every part, which is so astounding that calling it magical is totally appropriate.

Are you not aware that Einstein denied the truth of quantum physicists findings because he thought it would make the universe too weird, and because they implied "telepathy."

You are as full of shit as you were on the thread I cited earlier, and if you don't know it, you must be fucking stupid.

laptop said:

Why would Merlin Wood think I was talking to or about him?

Has he read the article (from the oh-so-reliable) rense.com to which I was referring? Apparently not. Just latching on to any thread to promote his Theory.

Click to expand...

It's because you've talk a lot of dog's poo about what I've said in the past, laptop.

And the Aspect type experiments and the holographic universe idea is highly relevant to my own hypothesis/theory anyway.

While most physicists who write popular books about quantum physics, at least, tend to bang on about the exceptional nature of the quantum evidence while being blind to its universal significance.

merlin w - go back and read the Talbot and shut up, ffs. You still haven't grasped that I was replying to the original poster. I've tried to read your outpourings and it's clear that you're impervious to argument about your beliefs.

It's just necessary to point out for the sake of other readers that your attempt to invoke QM is dishonest. It's much like the snake-oil salesmen (and all those I've come across are men) with their "tachyonised water" and shit.

Among the many things that Zword clearly hasn't grasped the implications of are the finite speed of light - the universe is not one big thing because most of it doesn't know about the rest of it.

Both of you - if you're so much wiser than the quantum mechanicists - do some. Learn the maths.

Who knows, you could end up a well-known nutter like Jack Sarfatti, who just got a paper into the arXive (though last time I looked it was on revision 20 and he was starting to wibble about how the maths wasn't the point after all, it was the poetic truth of the thing).

Laptop, laptop, I was wrong to get so annoyed with you. You are fundamentally, just well out of your intellectual depth.
What on earth has the fact that the speed of light is finite got to do with any of this?

Having said that, it took me about nine years between when a physicist telling me about wave-particle duality, and about bell's theorem and when I grasped its full significance. So it's easy to be blind, I suppose.

Impervious to argument about his beliefs? Are you sure you're talking about Merlin Wood.?

One of the funniest things about the thread I cited earlier was that while you were busy saying that how things behave at the small scale is of no relevance to how they behave at the large scale, - as if skin looked at through a microscope wasn't *real* skin because it looked different, - a new thread appeared in the technology section, and kept being bumped... from the forum index, it read.."laptop won't acknowledge..."
which was another funny coincidence.

ZWord said:

You are fundamentally, just well out of your intellectual depth.

Click to expand...

Errr....

ZWord said:

What on earth has the fact that the speed of light is finite got to do with any of this?

Click to expand...

Well, if you believe that that's proof that information can't travel faster than light, then I think you've totally missed the point of the experiments cited.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

Do you still think that light is a small-scale phenomenon?

No, you go first. That way it may be possible to build up to the confusion behind your question in easy stages.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

Laptop, you're an idiot. Or a cunningly disguised deliberately obtuse clever guy who knows he's talking shit.

I'm not going to sit here and have an argument with you on your terms, I was thoroughly polite to you on the thread on the same subject that I started, and you repaid me with total intellectual dishonesty, and utter bullshit, eventually denying even that two things considered from different points of view, remain the same thing. #When I pointed out that the small scale and the human viewpoint were still viewpoints of the same thing, you said, -what are the same thing? AT which point I concluded that there was no point in talking to you as you were clearly being deliberately obtuse. Now I wonder if I was mistaken, and that actually I was talking to an idiot.

You answer my question first. What does the fact that light has a finite speed have to do with any of subject matter of this thread or the one in theory and philosophy?

Or if you won't answer that one, answer this one, - are you an idiot, or are you just deliberately intellectually dishonest, in order to play a role?

I asked my question first, so nyer.

And I indicated why it needs to be anwered before we can move on. The answer is central to the discussion you're attempting to raise.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?