Quantum entanglement seems to correlate instaneously with no energy transfer because it's simple energy poking through from a higher dimension yes? Imagine the higher dimensional waves moving in the pic related. the waves would intersect with the lower dimension and form multiple points of a similar kind that would appear connected over large distances with no information transfer
This seems like a perfect explanation to me.
And, by this logic, if entangled particles are higher dimension waves intersecting our dimension, every particle is a higher dimension intersecting our dimension
Whoa I can visualize 4d space now!
Thanks, Veeky Forums!
No problem man
I am pretty confident this idea can revolutionize physics
May be I'm wrong/dumb, but wouldn't that mean we are able to create energy in higher dimensions by entangling particles?
Aha, we think we are entangling particles, but of course this is just an illusion of free will. The higher dimension causes the particles in our dimension, we do not cause the waves in the higher dimension. Of course, when we create an experiment to create entangled particles, it was already predictable in the higher dimension that waves would intersect our dimension in the exact coordinates that the experiment was taking place
Theory doesn't sound very teasing, DESU... even the terms "higher dimensions" and "our dimensions" sound like your imagination separated them into "different worlds", which I assume wrong.
wouldn't you agree though, that in response to his question of creating energy in the "higher dimension", we would not be creating energy but it would be that the energy would have been there beforehand and it would simply have been an illusion that we were actually creating an entangled particle?
I prefer to not discuss the "illusion of free will" in questions of particle physics.
Furthermore,
Imagine the plane in pic related, here the second dimension is being interested by a bunch of "things" in the third dimension, and these things follow their own set of laws and are always consistent. if scientists in the second dimension could only measure the intersections, they would be able to distinguish patterns and tendencies, but because they could not see the bigger picture there would be no way for them to really know what the next action of any of those intersections would be, only that they had a tendency to do certain things. They would never be able to measure the vector in the missing plane of the higher dimension (which is the third dimension in this example) so the next action would be predictable only to a certain extent in certain circumstances.
There would always be some uncertainty.
Which I think works to explain the uncertainty principle.
>uncertainty principle
that is pretty understood. and there's no need for adding "missing vector components" in order to explain it.
I know that it quantum physics is basically all solved... But i think it's a really nice way to explain and it makes a lot of sense to me
Excuse me. This isn't right. There aren't hidden variables.
Read up on Bell's experiments.
Your weed-smoker theory needs more work.
What is the thing that would fail under my model?
It's completely unnecessary. Quantum entanglement is already explained by quantum mechanics. Saying that higher dimensions intersecting with our dimension bring about these phenomena is completely useless. You might as well say it's caused by invisible aliens made of poo who can travel instantaneously and have predictable behaviour. There's no extra information that this model gives you.
Occam's razor, m8.
You also really don't understand quantum entanglement.
A local hidden variable theory requires that distant events be independent. As you can see the diagrams in do not require that. The events can be correlated in the higher dimension.
Why can't variables in a high dimension manifest in timeless correlations in the lower dimension?
>Diagrams
What do the diagrams even mean in the OP? Have you any idea what entanglement is? It's not just gluing one electron to another, then pulling them apart and measuring spins.
There could be some higher dimension fiddling, but this would not be unpredictable. You can always make a theory and test its predictions to model the behaviour of higher dimensional objects. The problem is, this adds no new information to our current knowledge, so it's superfluous.
also: OP's theory, in opposite to other theories, lacks falsifiability, so, degrades to a belief system
Yes... entanglement is the correlation between two particles at a distance. That is if one particle is a certain way, the other particle will be a certain way, and if one particle is disturbed, the other particle will be similarly disturbed. Now, imagine my intersection theory and imagine the particles are intersections of a singular pattern in the higher dimension, like a wave but not a wave as we know it.
Not a wave as we know it because we can't imagine this wave in two or three dimensions as being analagous because logically it just would not work. A wave in three dimensions must propogate from somwhere in space and cannot be in all places at once. If I understand fourth dimensional space right a wave would have no problem being causally connected in a way which when intersected with our dimension it seem to make no sense in our dimension. but we would be able to predict things because of underlying laws that govern the waves in the higher dimension
Are you proposing that we can interact with this wave from the higher dimension?
>lacks falsifiability
until someone comes up with a test
Don't be facetious.
We can't interact with it, the way these waves act dictate everything that happens in our universe. It would be like asking if a character in a video game is controlling the movement of our fingers on the controllers.
I don't know if there would be a way to experiment on it... who knows, if a mathematical explanation of this idea is ever created... what it would predict
dude space and time are just side effects of quantum mechanics. Like dude.
How can we not interact with it if we can prepare these entangled states?
When we think we are preparing the entangled states and interacting with them (which we actually are) we aren't actually interacting with the waves.
Imagine two waves in a pond about to merge and interact. Our experiment, manifested in our universe as the complex system of atoms and molecules that is us and our machines, would be equivalent t the waves getting closer and closer to each other in the higher dimension. As the waves hit each other, we would "created" an entangled state. So it would have happened all along without requirement of any interaction from us into the higher dimension
So, you're saying that the universe is deterministic, and we have no choice over whether we make these entangled states or not?
...until someone shows the test actually proved nothing
Yes. Although we would have no way, I don't think, of determining what would happen in our universe because there is no way the measure the waves in the higher dimension other than just by observing the intersections, which themselves we can't determine exactly because although we can know the general patterns of waves we can;'t know exactly where they will be next because we are missing variables, like real characteristics of the waves in the higher dimension that cannot be measured because of course it is a higher dimension. For example You can't measure the amplitude of 2d wave on a 1d line.
Of course the actions of the higher dimension would lead to everything that happens in this one so there's no way we could make any difference
I think this is more like the "Selfish Gene" of physics than a mathematical theory
just a cool way of explaining but who knows maybe it leads to something
Of course you can measure the amplitude of a 2d wave on a 1d line. You seem to think that just because we can't observe the whole picture like we can a table or book, we can't build a theory of how it works. It's harder, yes - but we can. You can't 'see' inside atoms - but we can very accurately describe the insides of them, through bombardment and observation of resultant scattering.
If you want to understand things like this, you need to put the time in and learn the mathematics and theory behind this stuff.
>Of course you can measure the amplitude of a 2d wave on a 1d line
no......
in diagram one in my picture there would be no way to tell if it was a very high crest, or a very low crest in the wave. You could see that the red dots were moving as they intersected, but the height of the wave would not be able to be discerned from how fast the dots were moving...
but maybe that is a bad example
Ah, ok - you've misunderstood what a wave is. A 1D wave is one that travels in one dimension, but has amplitude - so it has to be displayed on a 2D graph. A 2D wave has to be displayed on a 3D graph, and a 3D wave has to be displayed on a 3D graph that changes over time.
You need to get these concepts right.
ah... good theory though?
It's a nice idea, but not useful.
A model is useful if it can make predictions that we can test. We can't derive predictions from saying "everything is controlled by some force that's intrinsically unknowable." That's philosophy, which has no place in physics.
Bump