Peace Is A Fool, And Einstein Is Forever Wise

I’d just written another poetry, and this one is rather gloomy.  I hope whoever reads this won’t mind.

  • Peace could have been the only king in town,
  • but humankind decided chaos should be the alternative,
  • therefore we created swords to kill,
  • therefore we devised tortures to interrogate,
  • therefore we had heroes and villains.
  • Peace could have been the only voice in town,
  • but humankind detested a boring, quiet town,
  • therefore we started small wars to liven up the town,
  • therefore we propagandized to divide brother among brother,
  • therefore we stroke the beast of hatreds.
  • It was fine that peace was challenged by chaos,
  • as men only had stick and stones,
  • whence men got their sharp metal swords,
  • then peace thought that this was hell on earth,
  • men died in droves just so peace would lose the day.
  • Peace lost the grasp of earthly control,
  • and thought that things could not be worse,
  • how wrong could peace have been,
  • as that thought was completely put to shame by devious men,
  • they had abandoned their sharp metal swords for nuclear bombs.
  • Whence men got their sharp metal swords,
  • they did not hesitate to wage war with sharp pointed blades,
  • now they got their nuclear bombs,
  • peace would be naive to think that men would think otherwise,
  • peace would be naive to think men would be logical.
  • Among men there were few wise ones,
  • among wise ones there was Albert Einstein,
  • but he could no longer walk among the livings,
  • nonetheless, he was the father of nuclear bombs,
  • yet he had warned men might go from nuclear to stick and stones.
  • Only the fools would doubt the wise men’s words,
  • therefore I would not doubt Einstein’s sticks and stones prediction,
  • and so you should not too,
  • but peace would be peace,
  • continually be naive for thinking that chaos could be contained in a nuclear age.
  • Whence peace got too comfortable,
  • it was when wars broke out,
  • chaos ran amuck,
  • men died in droves,
  • just so peace would remember how evil chaos was.
  • Fools with name such as Hitler came upon the scene,
  • just to show how wrong peace could be,
  • and yet peace would never learn,
  • continually, naively, went about without a care,
  • to think that chaos was only a conspirator.
  • If chaos was only merely a conspirator,
  • peace would forever be the only king of the town,
  • nonetheless, chaos had proven that peace was merely a fool,
  • to believe the lies chaos spew,
  • it was on you peace, and so chaos ruled.
  • Einstein’s words might be buried among the ruins,
  • but whence men got only sticks and stones,
  • it would be too late to turn back time,
  • for time would not have any patience, ever,
  • time would not wait on peace to rein in chaos.
  • Peace is a fool,
  • and Einstein is forever wise!
Advertisements

Quantum Entanglement Might Not Exist?

English: Illustration of the EPR paradox.

English: Illustration of the EPR paradox. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m nowhere near sufficient in QM (Quantum Mechanics) knowledge to dabble with the topic of quantum entanglement.  Nonetheless, I’ve found this topic to be very intriguing.  So, what is quantum entanglement anyway?  If I’m not wrong and had understood what I’d read correctly on quantum entanglement, to put in a way in which a layman can understand, quantum entanglement is a term which coins the phenomenon of two particles that physically interacted first but then separated on purpose (by design in whatever fashion) so one could test the correlative behaviors of one particle would exert on the other or vice versa while the two particles were separated by a mind boggling distance.  I think that was a run-on sentence, but anyhow…  Anyhow, quantum entanglement is acceptable to some quantum mechanics folks, because they had other theories and tests to prove that quantum entanglement is possible.  So, let us argue that the folks who believe quantum entanglement is possible might be wrong.  If quantum entanglement is possible, then how is it possible since Einstein’s special relativity theory (as other said) describes nothing can travel faster than light?  Quantum entanglement seems to violate this very rule.

When someone witnesses quantum entanglement somehow, the consensus is that some hidden mechanics had allowed the passing of information from one particle to another at the speed that is seemingly to be instantaneous.  With this speed, it appears not even light can travel this fast.  Then the same quantum mechanics folks all agree among themselves that so far they believe no classical information can be transferred back and forth by quantum entanglement phenomenon, therefore the classical modes of traveling in relation to the idea of nothing can travel faster than light still holds true.  For whatever to get to point B from point A or whatever information to get pass to point B from point A, a mode of travel or passing information has to occur.  Probably through the no faster than light rule proposed by Einstein’s special relativity theory which has quantum mechanics folks agree that quantum entanglement phenomenon cannot allow classical modes of traveling.  Also, in reality no classical mean of delivering information has been done with quantum entanglement, therefore these quantum mechanics folks still take the rule of no faster than light speed to be correct.

By now you probably would already confuse what is classical this and that right?  At first I was like what on earth is this classical this and that too.  Nonetheless, it’s just a term which describes the reality that humans perceive.  So here is an example of what I mean by classical this and that.  Let say classical mode of traveling is how a car would move normally on a street, and it’s still classical even though the car might move at the speed of light as long we humans can perceive the elements that allow the car to behave in such a way.  For quantum entanglement, we humans cannot perceive what specific mode of traveling or passing of information which quantum entanglement has used to allow the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to interact with each other.  OK, so I digress.

What interesting though is that some quantum mechanics folks think quantum entanglement exists, but they might have to contend with the EPR paradox.  According to Wikipedia, EPR paradox is the paper that proposed Quantum Mechanics is incomplete since quantum entanglement cannot be explained thoroughly, and this paper was the joint efforts of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen.  If I’m not wrong, EPR paradox disagrees with how people perceive quantum entanglement is that classical modes of traveling must be accounted for, because the otherwise would prove to be rather imaginative.  For some reason, I find this sort of analysis makes more sense than otherwise.  Then again, what do I know since my knowledge on Quantum Mechanics is near zero.

I suspected that quantum entanglement might have been just how EPR paradox had suspected.  Of course, I don’t even know enough about EPR paradox proposal to know that my own quantum entanglement suspicion is actually correlated with EPR paradox’s quantum entanglement suspicion.  Quantum entanglement suspicion?  I meant this in a way that quantum entanglement might not actually occur!

The YouTube video right after this paragraph explains a theory known as Bell’s Inequality which disproves EPR paradox conclusion on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement.  Basically, as I dug furthermore into EPR paradox, it seemed that Einstein and his fellows believed and proposed that besides the classical modes of traveling (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light unless there is something that is…), in order for quantum entanglement to be true, there must be hidden variables that inherited by the particles.  Perhaps EPR paradox argues that without the explanation of hidden variables, it is impossible for the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to have the ability to know about each other intentions and to correlate the behaviors, and on top of that to do so within the luxury of ignoring the classical distance limitation (i.e., distance doesn’t matter).  Nonetheless, as I had mentioned earlier, the video right after this paragraph disproves the idea of there would be hidden variables.

Of course, before I state anything further, I wish to state that this is what I think and have come to term with my understanding of quantum entanglement and I have no expertise at all in regarding to this topic, therefore what I state next will only be of my own belief and not have any value to anyone unless someone thinks in the same manner in regarding to quantum entanglement as I do.  In my opinion, perhaps Einstein and his fellows who proposed EPR paradox are half correct.  I also believe the video above this paragraph does make sense, therefore I think Bell’s Inequality might have been right about disproving EPR paradox’s hidden variables suggestion.  So, why am I think Einstein and his fellows who orchestrated the EPR paradox paper are half correct?  In my opinion, it’s because I think Einstein and his fellows might have  a point that two particles of the same (i.e., that we know how the two particles would behave if indeed one has the influence over the other or vice versa) cannot know each other intentions or even communicate with each other at such great distances without resorting to classical modes of traveling or passing (i.e., passing information).  Instead of believing there is quantum entanglement, I like to think that it’s all about probability.

When I speak of probability, I meant that perhaps the measurements of the results of the behaviors of any two particles might occur within the probability, and this probability allows the capability of any two particles to behave according to their maximum potential (i.e., their inherited possible behaviors).  So, in this way, if Alice is measuring particle number 1 and thinking that Bob will see particle number 2 to behave as how she would think it would have in this particular scenario/experiment, then Alice assumes that there is a quantum entanglement going on between the two particles (i.e., that meant to be of the same).  Nonetheless, I think Alice would be wrong on assuming like that since I believe that particle number 2 might have the probability to behave in a way that Alice assumes it would be.  Confusing?  Don’t be, because I might be completely wrong anyway.  With my limited knowledge, if there is any, on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement, I cannot be too sure that I know what I’m talking about.  Still, with what I understood so far on this particular topic (i.e., quantum entanglement), even if I’m wrong, nothing has yet changed my mind about why I think quantum entanglement might just be only an imagination.  Come to think of it, imagination does exist, because we imagine it in our mind.  Nonetheless, some imagination might become something real, others just stay as the figments of imagination.

Sources:

Should We Dare To Question Einstein On The Possibility Of He Is Wrong About Nothing Can Travel Faster Than Light?

English: Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel ...

English: Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics photograph. Français : Albert Einstein, photographie officielle du Prix Nobel de Physique 1921. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Who are we to question Einstein on the accuracy of his relativity theory right?  We shouldn’t, but we should!  OK, that doesn’t make sense at all.  I know right?  What I meant was that thanks to Einstein, we have been using his e = mc^2 theory to form so many modern marvels.  Some marvels though should never have existed such as nuclear weapon for obvious reasons.  Then comes the part where I said we should question Einstein e=mc^2 theory even though the majority of us will never be able to achieve what Einstein had achieved.  Why should we question his theory?  Well, imagine what if Einstein is wrong about nothing can travel faster than light as how Mr. Michio Kaku phrased in the video which I will post near the end of this blog post, we will be able to travel faster than light (according to Mr. Michio Kaku).  I sure like the sound of travel faster than light, because Mr. Michio Kaku mentioned in the video that time travel would be possible if light’s constant speed could be beat.

Personally, without anything to backup my belief, I think nothing is finite and nothing is infinite.  You can say this is a philosophical thought, because it’s really contradictory in a sense.  OK, perhaps philosophical thought doesn’t have to be contradictory, but for me and in this case it is.  For one thing we know for sure, we don’t know if the speed of light is the ultimate speed of the universe even though Einstein said it is.  How come?  Remember how Einstein was a nobody who came along and changed how we would think about sir Isaac Newton’s gravity theory altogether?  Because of Einstein, we came to understand that Newton’s gravity way of thinking could be off if gravity is to be calculated at extreme levels (i.e., super large or super small sizes such as black hole or quantum mechanical elements).  Nowadays, we can use Newton’s gravity way of calculation for things that aren’t as grand as black hole and so on — and things won’t be off too much.  When we need a much fine tune calculation on all gravitational concerns, we have to use Einstein’s relativity theory as many in the past and now have agreed that Einstein’s relativity theory is more suitable for much more accurate gravitational calculations (i.e., for things at extreme scales).  So in a sense, we might not know that in the future there will be a genius in the making which will prove Einstein wrong, right?  Of course, such a genius won’t be me and you.  It ain’t that easy to have a genius at Einstein caliber to come along, really!

I guess, the point I’m making is that when we thought the earth was flat, it became round.  When we thought the earth was the center of everything, then came the sun said no it’s not “How dare you be so wrong earth?”  When the thought of  the sun is at the center of a solar system wasn’t enough, we amazed at the scale of our galaxy.  Who would have thought that we could not count all the galaxies there ever were and are in space?  To think there would also be unimaginable amount of stars and space whatever within each galaxy alone… mind explosion!  With every twist and turn, we had it wrong.  How could we have not think of what if our universe has had an edge, and beyond this edge would lie a much bigger universe that would encompass the one we are in for an eternity to come unless…  Imagine a russian nested doll which would not end (i.e., there would always be another layer of dolls).  So, I think we should question Einstein often even if Einstein is currently correct!  By questioning Einstein often, we open up a hope that one day we might be able to travel faster than light and achieve time travel.  For what purposes do we need faster than light speed and time travel?  I would leave that for you to decide.  Check out “Michio Kaku: What if Einstein Is Wrong?” video right after the break.  Enjoy!!!