Surely you are joking Mr. Augustine!

[Subjective paradoxes and phoney entanglements]

Let's get some facts straight baby! I thought it's a pretty good idea to start with the Einstein, podolsky, and Rosen or the EPR paradox. Very soon you'll get an insight of the problem which I wish to address eventually. I'll try to keep this very non - technical. Whether I can do a good job or not - well, right now my guess is as good as yours. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in Quantum Mechanics(QM) tells us that we cannot measure a particle's velocity and its exact location in space simultaneously. Instead, the best we can do is predict the probability that one of the particles is at any chosen location.But there are well - known physical processes whereby two particles emerge from a common location with properties that are related. For example, if an initial single particle should disintegrate into two particles of equal mass that fly off "back to back", something that is common in the realm of subatomic particle physics, the velocities of the two constituents will be equal and opposite. Moreover, the positions of the two constituent particles will also be closely related, and for simplicity the particles can be thought of as always being equidistant from their common origin. Thus while QM does not give definitive answers regarding particle speeds or positions, it does, in certain situations, give definitive statements regarding the relationships between the particle speeds and positions.

EPR sought to exploit these relationships to show that each of the particles actually has a definite position and a definite velocity at every given instant of time. Here's how: imagine you measure the position of the right moving particle and in this way learn, indirectly, the position of the left moving particle. EPR reasoned that nothing in your act of measuring the right moving particle could possibly have an effect on the left moving particle, because they are separate and distant entities. The left moving particle is totally oblivious to what you have done or could have done to the right moving particle. Note that the particles may be seperated by a distance of meters, kilometers or light - years apart when you carry out the measurements. Based on a similar logic EPR cleverly pointed out that you could have chosen instead to measure the velocity of the right moving particle. In that case you'd have determined the velocity of the left moving particle, albeit indirectly. Putting both together EPR concluded that the left moving particle has a definite position and a definite velocity at any given moment. Of course, this whole discussion could be carried out interchanging the roles of the left and right moving particles. This leads to the conclusion that both particles have definite positions and speeds. However there is still no conflict with the uncertainty principle. EPR realised that thay cannot identify both the location and velocity of any given particle. But, even without determining both the position and velocity of either particle, EPR's reasoning shows that each has a definite position and velocity.Reality, EPR maintained, was more than the readings on detectors. Thus, EPR concluded that QM is an incomplete description of reality. The core of the EPR argument is that an object over there does not care about what you do to an object over here.

We had to wait till the entry of John Bell (picture - right) into the picture to resolve the EPR paradox. The generalisation of which is known as the "Bell's Theorem". It is well known that calcium atom, as it returns to its less energetic state, will emit two photons, travelling back to back, whose spins are perfectly correlated. Bell found that there is a bona fide, testable consequence associated with a particle having definite spin values. QM tells us that we cannot simultaneously measure the spin of a particle with respect to more than a single axis. So we choose three axes oriented at three different angles in space. Then we want to measure the spins as detected by the detectors placed at these three locations - that is, up or down. Here's the experiment. Two detectors were placed 13 meters apart and a container of energetic calcium atoms was placed midway between them. Whenever the detector settings are the same, the two photons are measured to have spins that are perfectly aligned. If lights were hooked to the detectors to flash red in response to clockwise spin and blue in response to a counterclockwise spin, the incoming photons would cause the detectors to flash the same color. How will we make sense of the measurements now? Imagine I and Dr. have a box each with three doors. There's a kind of magic flash light inside the box which flashes only red and blue. Now I and Dr. try to open the doors of our respective boxes. Five (minimum) out of nine times we both agree on the flashes we observe if the respective doors are programmed blue, blue and red or red, red and blue - which is more than 50%. Every other combination of the program would give us a percentile more than the previous. This is the same situation we have at hand for the experiment. The experiment examined data from a large number of runs of the experiment - data in which the left and right detector settings were not always the same but, rather, were randomly and independently varied from run to run - the detectors did not agree more than 50% of the time!The EPR paradox required more than 50%. What went wrong with EPR? Their assumptions! The results of the experiment concludes that an object over there does care about what you do to another object over here. This is quite contrary to EPR assumption. QM shows that particles randomly acquire this or that property when measured, we learn that the randomness can be linked across space. Pairs of appropriately prepared particles called entangled particles - don't acquire their measured properties independently. in other words, the universe is not local. The outcome of what you do at one place can be linked with what happens at another place, even if nothing travels between the two locations. This unique correlation is called "entanglement".

Now I'll come clean. This week's colloquium at the Physics department had a speaker who redefined entanglement. That was real "spooky" and not to mention "nonsense". I don't know why people didn't ask any good questions. The one question we had was spookier than the talk itself. My criticisms are very often ruthless and impolite. That's the reason why I refrain from asking questions, more often totally avoiding the colloquiums. This was a very busy week though. I was treated to some good vegetarian south indian food by Lakshmi over the weekend. It's almost three years since I had more than three dishes during a single meal and what can I say - was elated. I am from Kerala, which is a state, down south of India. The dinner reminded me of Kerala, filled with palm groves and where every meal has some form of coconut in it. Not only that - Kerala has other feathers to its cap also; it's the first place in the world to have a democratically elected communist government way back in 1958; people committing suicide on antisuicide day; record number of people getting killed in road accidents during road safety week and the list goes on. Wellesley invited me for the party once again. I think I've written too much.

Monads and Moguls.

Another year's gone. September 10th was the day I was born 27 years ago. Till now, I couldn't decipher the reason for my existence. To this end I have an interesting thought. People are born, they live and then perish. Why isn't their lives not deterministic? Why the rules of physics not applicable to them? In other words why can't we predict people's future?
In physics also, we try to predict the future. The future of the very simple and fundamental. When we deal with simple objects, what we are essentially doing is - keeping track of information. For example, when we consider the motion of a planet the necessary information we need to predict its future in time is, its mass, radius, velocity and its initial position. When it comes to a star, then we need to consider it's internal composition, time of its birth etc. - adding more information. Physics deals with the rudiments of the material world. From here on whatever I write - they are only my personal views.

Let's come to the fundamental question? How do you distinguish between an entity which has life and object which is lifeless? According to me its all about information density. If we add more and more information to an object then there should be a point in space-time where the lifeless object should transform to a life form (a subject!). As the information density increases the subject can even go to the extent of seeing objects which doesn't have any objective reality! I know this is a crazy idea. I tried to go through some of the holy books to see what they had to say. Unfortunately and as expected every scripture and holy book skirts the point but doesn't narrow down to the point. The point is why, what and who determines this cutoff? Is there a scope of any God here? Any assumed logical argument which concludes with the existence of a God is called Cosmological argument by philosophers. Leibniz had his Monodology in place. God is Great!

I was in Fayettville, AR last week to meet some of my friends. As usual, first I went to the bar, then to the strip bar. The former for entertainment and the later for enlightenment. Finally I am back here doing what I like the most - Cosmology.

Court Marshalled!

I thought of making this a combined blog for the previous week and this week because I forsee a weekend trip to Fayetteville, Arkansas coming sunday.

First let me briefly, mention what happened during the court trial. The defendent was me and the prosecution the county of Florence, Wisconsin. First the alderman takes up the case for hearing. All the concerned parties were present including me. The district attorney called the deputy who issued the ticket to the witness stand. Questions were asked left and right. Since I had'nt any lawyer representing me I was arguing for myself. The deputy drew a diagram of the vehicles on the chalk board as asked by the prosecution. To me it appeared as a free body diagram of PH2100 course. Next to come on to the witness stand was Mr. John who was driving the truck on that day. He answered to my questions as well as the prosecution's questions. Next was my turn. I was asked to raise my hand and swear something which I hardly understood because I felt that the beautiful young lady who administered the oath was trying to disprove special relativity. I just looked at her and said "Yes I do" - whatever that meant.

Then the district attorney questioned me followed by the Hon. Judge. I explained my version of the story with some elaborations on angular and linear momenta which I believe may have caused relativistic vaccua in the minds of the prosecution and the judge. I thought I did a pretty good job till then. But after that, to a question where I had to ascertain the speed of my vehicle, I guess I couldn't come up with the right explanation.I just said "I don't know" because that was the truth. On that basis the judge concluded (that's what he said in his verdict) that I may have been actually travelling at a greater speed than what I thought and hence guilty of the charges. At the same time he ruled that the truck driver didn't adhere to state laws concerned with the transportation of hazardous materials. I accepted the verdict( I had to or else they'd charge me for contempt of court!) but I couldn't agree with it because the conclusions violated the principle of general covariance and active diffeomorphism.
In summary - Got screwed up bombastically!

Alright. Next on the agenda was the search for alternatives for our form of the potential. I managed to make some progress on that front when I found some stringy scenarios. I had to formulate the Hidden Higgs paper using the equations of motion for a scalar field. I am sure it satisfies - but just in case for extra credit and also to satisfy the wants of a sex starved referee who's in love with the equations of motion and keeps sending in criticisms one after the other withstanding our hard found explanations, still keeps on saying "hit me baby one more time"!. I ordered books worth $300 this week which I needed urgently and eagerly waiting for the same. Here are the titles:
The future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology edited by Gibbons et. al
Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology (Contemporary Concepts in Physics Series) by Andrei Linde.
A First Course in String Theory [Hardcover] by Barton Zwiebach.
Cosmological Physics by John A. Peacock.
Early Universe by Kolbe and Turner.

Since our JRVP library is so cool and awesome that they have got NONE of these books!

The classes for the fall semester began on monday 30th August. I am assigned PH2200 supplemental learning. Part of which is attending Dr. Agin's lectures. As usual, hundreds of students have signed up for the course, some already started whining about Physics, some will start soon and the rest will drop the course! That's how the student psychology works and it's not that hard to know because this is the seventh time I am assisting such a course. That's all for this week. Blog bonkers will be back the sunday after next week. Adieus .