PesWiki.com

Menu

PowerPedia:Demystifying the EPR Paradox

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:38 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

According to Aristotle, two bodies A and B aparted in the space can interact only if a medium in which they stay transmits the signal emitted from A to B (or from B to A). In Physics, it’s known as a local principle.

One of the achievements of Quantum Mechanics is that Aristotle principle is wrong. According to QM, two elementary particles (as an electron) A and B apparted in the space can interact instantaneously, and there is no need to exist any signal transmitted from A to B (or from B to A). So, no signal is transmitted, but if A changes its status, then instantaneously the particle B also changes its status.

In Physics, it’s known as a non-local principle.

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen proposed an imaginary experiment with the aim of verifying the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. It is today known as the EPR experiment, also known as EPR Paradox.

The physicist Alain Aspect made an experiment based on the idea of the EPR experiment, and supposedly the non-local principle was confirmed by his experiment.

Here we analyse the EPR paradox by considering the model of photon proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

QUESTION: WHAT WERE THE INITIAL HYPOTHESES OF THE EPR EXPERIMENT ?

These were as follows:

a) The foresights of Quantum Mechanics are righteous

b) No influence can propagate faster than light,

c) If, without disturbing a system in any way, we can foresee with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there is an element of physical reality that corresponds to this quantity.

QUESTION: IS NATURE NON-LOCAL ?

According to the EPR experiment, if the fundamental background of Quantum Mechanics is correct, that would have to imply the existence of non-local interactions in Nature. This means that two particles could interact instantaneously without a signal being transmitted from one to another. In another words, if Quantum Mechanics is correct, this implies that Nature works by non-local interactions.

QUESTION: CAN A THEORY BASED ON HIDDEN VARIABLES BE SUCCESSFUL ?

The physicist John Bell proposed a theorem, known as Bell’s inequality, according to which any theory that attempts to describe reality and which, by satisfying the hypotheses “a” and “c”, necessarily violates hypothesis “b”, must to be non-local. This theorem implies that theories based on hidden variables must be discarded.

Later Alain Aspect performed an experiment that supposedly confirmed Bell’s theorem. Aspect used photons and, according to the interpretation of the experiment, two photons had instantaneous interaction without having any signal transmitted between them.

However, observe hypothesis “a” “the foresights of Quantum Mechanics are righteous”

First of all, Quantum Mechanics is unable to explain cold fusion, since cold fusion is theoretically impossible, from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

Second, the Nobel Laureate Hans Dehmelt performed an experiment showing that the electron inhabits the space between two orbits in the electrosphere of atoms. So, Quantum Mechanics is wrong again.

Also, it is impossible to explain Don Borghi’s experiment by quantum mechanics

Finally, from the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics of wave-particle duality, it is impossible to eliminate de Broglie’s paradox, and so we realize that de Broglie’s interpretation cannot be correct.

As the de Broglie interpretation of wave-particle duality is fundamental to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics cannot be correct.

QUESTION: CAN WE TRUST BELL’S INEQUALITIES ?

Of course not we cannot consider Bell’s inequalities a trustworthy argument against a theory supported by hidden variables, since his considerations have a fundamental premise: “the foresights of Quantum Mechanics are righteous”

There are several experiments that prove that something is missing in Quantum Mechanics, as the Don Borghi experiment, Conte-Pieralice experiment, Dehmelt experiment, and Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment.

In general, the cold fusion experiments prove that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, because from the principles of QM the cold fusion occurrence is impossible.

So, we cannot trust Bell's inequalities because the premise “the foresights of Quantum Mechanics are righteous” is not filled.

QUESTION: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ASPECT EXPERIMENT WITH A HIDDEN VARIABLE THEORY ?

Quantum Ring Theory explains the Aspect experiment by considering the model of a photon composed of two corpuscles, a particle and its antiparticle, moving with a helical trajectory.

Let us start up by explaining what the polarization of a transverse wave is. We will use a string for the illustration.

Figure 35 shows a string whose left-hand end is moved in circles by the hand of somebody, so that to propagate of transverse waves in all directions. The right-hand end is attached to a cylinder.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-fig35.JPG

There is only one string. In order to explain the polarization of the wave propagation of the string, the figure 35 is shown in four different collors:

1- The red collor shows the component of the wave in the vertical.

2- The collors gray and blue shows the component in 450.

3- The yellow shows the component in the horizontal.

By placing a plate with a thin vertical slit in the path of the waves, the slit will filter out all waves except those propagating vertically. In this case, the wave on the string is said to be vertically polarized. Here, a mechanical polarizer, which was a plate with a thin vertical slit, was used.

In figure 36, if a second polarizer plate is inserted into the beam with its slit inclined at 450 to the vertical, the wave in the string disappears.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-fig36.JPG

Light is polarized when it crosses some translucent materials. If we use light and optical polarizers in the above experiment, it is observed that the light may, or may not, pass through the second polarizer. The probability that light polarized 90sup>0 by the first polarizer, also passes through the second polarizer is 50% that is, half of photons pass through the second polarizer and, in this way, they acquire a new polarization of 450. The other half does not pass through. This indicates random behavior.

QUESTION: WHY DID EINSTEIN AND DIRAC SUPPOSE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL MODEL OF A PHOTON ?

It was the random character of light that induced Einstein and Dirac to be convinced that it would be impossible for a theoretical physical model for the photon to exist. A photon with well defined physical structure, which therefore could be represented by a theoretical model, could not produce that statistical behavior.

QUESTION: HOW DID ALAIN ASPECT PERFORM HIS EXPERIMENT ?

An atom emits two photons A and B, as shown figure 37.

The two photons are twins. Photon A goes by one route and its twin brother goes by another for instance, photon A goes to a room where there is a laboratory but photon B goes to a different room where there is another laboratory. However, both travel by the same process first they pass through a 900 polarizer, and after that through a 450 polarizer.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-fig37.JPG

When they fall upon the 450 polarizer, the chance of each passing is 50%. In this case, any one of the following could occur:

a) photon A passes and photon B does not pass

b) photon B passes and photon A does not pass

c) both pass

d) neither passes

If all four outcomes are equally likely, it is easily seen that the chance of always achieving the result that either both pass or both do not pass is only 50%.

QUESTION: WHAT IS THE MYSTERY IN THE ASPECT EXPERIMENT ?

However, there is something mysterious happening here since, in Aspect’s experiments, the result was always the same only outcomes “c” and “d” were observed in which, when photon A passes, photon B passes also and, when A does not pass, B does not pass either. Situations “a” and “b” never occurred.

QUESTION: WHAT IS THE INTERPRETATION ?

The interpretation is that, when photon A is observed, it immediately transmits information to photon B saying: “Look, I passed, you have to pass as well” . According to quantum theory, photon B doesn’t even need to be observed at once. It can be travelling in the space for years but, at the instant somebody makes an observation, it should be verified that it coincides with that of photon A. It also does not depend upon the distance, the two photons can be apart by thousands of kilometers, and the information from A arrives at B instantaneously - at the same instant photon A is observed. It is called entanglement. Physicists hoped to apply it to developing a new technology for computers. The last news I read on the subject said that the researchers were disappointed to find that it will not be possible to produce computers by using the idea of entanglement. It seems that reality might not correspond to what physicists had hoped.

QUESTION: HOW TO INTERPRET THE ASPECT EXPERIMENT FROM THE PHOTON MODEL PROPOSED IN QRT ?

Let us see if we can keep the local action principle, which Einstein did not reject, by interpreting the EPR paradox and the Aspect experiment via the model of the photon proposed in QRT.

According to QRT the photon is composed of two corpuscles, a particle and its antiparticle, which move in a helical trajectory, rotating in contrary directions.

The polarization of the light depends upon the position of the two particles when they cross one another. In the left of figure 38 we see vertical polarization, in the central part of the figure we see horizontal polarization, and at right we see polarization of 450.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-fig38.JPG

When a photon is emitted, we don’t know what the position between the particle and the antiparticle is that is, we don’t know how the photon is polarized. Only after we make it to pass through a polarizer and it acquires the polarization of that polarizer do we know its polarization.

Each photon also has another characteristic: the distance between the particle and the antiparticle, as seen in the figure 39.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-fig39.JPG

In the photon Ph-1 at left the distance between them is a minimum. In the photon Ph-2 the distance is “a”, and in the photon Ph-3 the distance is “b”. As each corpuscle produces electromagnetic fields, the phase shift between the fields in a photon depends on that distance. Also, the polarization of a photon depends upon that distance between the corpuscles, because the polarization is a resonance phenomenon between that distance and the atomic planes of the crystal polarizer. If the distance between the two corpuscles does not resonate with the distance of the atomic planes, the photon will not cross the polarizer.

When the photon is divided in the Aspect experiment, the particle and the antiparticle are separated, each going in a different direction. However, at the instant when the particle breaks its partnership with the antiparticle, another antiparticle is created immediately and this new antiparticle replaces the old antiparticle exactly resulting in the same original features the photon had before its division in the Aspect experiment. The same happens to the antiparticle. At the instant it leaves its partnership with the particle, a new particle is created which replaces the old particle of photon. So, in this way the Aspect experiment creates two identical photons A and B, and obviously they will have the same behavior when they cross a polarizer.

QUESTION: IS THIS THE END OF THE MYSTERY ?

Yes.

Up to now even a child can understand the result of Aspect experiment because, since the two photons are twins, there is the same distance “d” between the particle and the antiparticle in each case and, since this distance is what decides whether or not the photon passes through the polarizer, it is clear that, if one passes, the other ones passes also and, if one does not pass, the other one does not passes either.

Hence, end of the mystery!

CONCLUSIONS

AGAIN: IS NATURE NON-LOCAL ?

Probably no.

Quantum Mechanics indeed is non-local, because it was established on the premise that the foresights of Quantum Mechanics are righteous.

Image:EPR-scriptTELESIO-LEGEND-1.JPG

Indeed, consider the following:

1- There are evidences that de Broglie’s interpretation for the duality wave-particle is wrong, because there are evidences that Nature actually uses the helical trajectory, and so the duality wave-particle is not a property of the matter. Actually the duality is a property of the helical trajectory.

2- The Alain Aspect experiment can be interpreted by a different way of that addopted by the quantum theorists, as shown herein.

3- We cannot consider Bell’s inequalities a trustworthy argument against a theory supported by hidden variables.

So, there is a big chance that Nature is not non-local.

And if she indeed is local, the experiments will show it in the upcomming years.

NEXT SCRIPT

PowerPedia:Zitterbewegung Hydrogen Atom of Quantum Ring Theory

Comments