quantum

1. what would the world look like if waves were only waves (not particles) and particles only particles (not waves)?
the truth is that the whole defniition of wave and particle is in itself an inaccurate description of a phenomenon/entity. we must will ourselves to a new conception which encorporates both and explains the discrepancy. it will be an einsteinian deductive approach that will always catapult us further, becuase it is imagination, not fact that reaches into possibility. we can only measure that which was are able to measure, which is that which we can undersatnd. we can not measure the sum of our imaginations.

2. if there is a collapse which can show us where the particle is, whereas before, it was only a statistical possibility, then how do we know that what we see when we force it to collapse, is nothing more than the collapsed possibility, rather than the thing itself? i was thinking this and i heard that they had shown a particle taht was in two places at the same time. there is an energy, it is most likely to be somewhere. so it will be there, it has to be there. so when we "find" it, have we actually found it? or merely confirmed that it was there? (which we already knew). meaning, if could be represented somewhere, where it actually is not.

3. quantum tunneling, shows the importance of wave/particle so-called "duality". in that without quantum tunneling, there would be no fusion from the sun. yet, it should not really be allowed. so, it is not a particle that acts as a wave at times, it is at all times, both, and fully capable as both,

4. i have had a vision in my mind that ti is not the paticle, or atom that exists through space/time. there is a rippe and as it so-called "moves" a series of micro-possibilities come into/out of existence so it appears to be an entity, when in fact it is not. the space where the possibility is manifested has an energy density of virtual zero, as a virtual particle, and this is the dark matter of our universe, in that there is no "space" that exist without this possibility and ability to manifest even infinite denisites in space/time.


The EPR Paradox:

1. Create a pair of identical particles (call them A and B) in such a way that their spins in the up/down direction point in opposite directions. This physical state is represented as A↑ B↓ + A↓ B↑, where the spin-arrows ↑ and ↓ are used to denote the direction of spin. Because the particles are identical, both ways of assigning spin to the particles (i.e. A↑ B↓ and A↓ B↑) are equally valid, and both possibilities actually and simultaneously occur in practice, so the real physical situation is correctly represented as the sum A↑ B↓ + A↓ B↑, rather than only one or other of the pieces A↑ B↓ and A↓ B↑.
Pull the particles apart until they are separated by an enormous distance, but make sure that you don't mess up their spin directions whilst separating them. You could represent this physical state as A↑ ••• B↓ + A↓ ••• B↑, where the ••• indicate the physical separation between A and B.
2. Introduce two observers U and V who are tasked with observing A and observing B, respectively. The real physical situation is now represented as U (A↑ ••• B↓ + A↓ ••• B↑) V, where I have placed U at the left and V at the right to indicate where they are located (i.e. near to A and near to B, respectively).
3. The two observers U and V now observe A and B to see what their spins are. The word "observe" here means that an observer interacts with a particle, in such a way that the state of their brain becomes correlated with the state of the particle (this will become clearer below). There are two possible outcomes of this experiment. The brains of U and V become correlated with A↑ ••• B↓ to create the state U↑ A↑ ••• B↓ V↓, or become correlated with A↓ ••• B↑ to create the state U↓ A↓ ••• B↑ V↑ (a spin-arrow ↑ or ↓ written next to U or V means that the observer's brain has observed the corresponding spin). The real physical situation is the sum of these two, which is U↑ A↑ ••• B↓ V↓ + U↓ A↓ ••• B↑ V↑.
4. The net effect of the observation above is to transform the state from U (A↑ ••• B↓ + A↓ ••• B↑) V to U↑ A↑ ••• B↓ V↓ + U↓ A↓ ••• B↑ V↑. The process that leads to this transformation is defined in detail by the dynamical equations of QM. Any other conjectured transformation must bring in assumptions from outside the dynamical equations of QM.
These results show that either (U observes A↑ and V observes B↓) or (U observes A↓ and V observes B↑), which means that what U observes and what V observes are deterministically associated with each other. Even though the particles are separated by an enormous distance when they are observed, they nevertheless produce observations in which A↑ is associated with B↓, and A↓ is associated with B↑.
5. This is the bit that Einstein said was "spooky action at a distance" because he maintained a distinction between the particles being observed, and the observers themselves. He would not accept that the observers were also a part of the whole QM state, so he never accepted that U↑ A↑ ••• B↓ V↓ + U↓ A↓ ••• B↑ V↑ described a real physical situation. His view was (in a QM style of notation) that the real physical situation was described by (U↑ A↑ or U↓ A↓) and (B↑ V↑ or B↓ V↓), where (X or Y) allows only one of X or Y to occur (this is actually an exclusive-or), and (X and Y) requires that both of X and Y occur. This prescription (i.e. figmant of Einstein's imagination, if you want) is an example of a conjecture that is brought in from outside QM, as described in step 5 above.
6. Thus Einstein thought that the outcome of observing A was a random result that was either A↑ or A↓, and similarly the outcome of observing B was an independent random result that was either B↑ or B↓. He therefore thought that there was no reason why the results for A and B should be correlated with each other, provided that A and B were so far apart that there was no possibility of some other means of communication between them that might cause the results of the observations to be correlated.