> By toggling the switch on and off, the researchers could effectively cancel the rotation signal at will, which also allowed them to extend the stability of their large apparatus. "We have basically tricked the light into thinking it's in a non-rotating universe," says Silvestri.
"Experimental observation of Earth's rotation with quantum entanglement" (2024) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado0215
Sagnac interferometer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
Good to have some baseline assumptions!
> Carey Foster bridge, for measuring small resistances; Kelvin bridge, for measuring small four-terminal resistances; Maxwell bridge, and Wien bridge for measuring reactive components; Anderson's bridge, for measuring the self-inductance of the circuit, an advanced form of Maxwell's bridge
Is there a rectifier for gravitational waves, and what would that do?
Diode bridge > Current flow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode_bridge#Current_flow
And actually again, electron flow is fluidic:
- "How does electricity find the "Path of Least Resistance"?" (and the other paths) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3gnNpYK3lo
- "Observation of current whirlpools in graphene at room temperature" (2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40360684 :
> How are spin currents and vorticity in electron vortices related?
But, back to photons from electrons; like in a wheatstone bridge.
Are photonic fields best described with rays, waves, or as fluids in gravitational vortices like in SPH and SQS and CFD? (Superhydrodynamic, Superfluid Quantum Space, Computational Fluid Dynamics)
Actually, photons do interact with photons; as phonons in matter: "Quantum vortices of strongly interacting photons" (2024) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600762
Perhaps there's an even simpler sensor apparatus for this experiment?
What if we consider the quantum vacuum, with its virtual particles and fluctuations, as a modern version of the ether? In that case, could the rotation of the Earth interact with this "quantum ether" and influence the propagation of the entangled photons in the Vienna experiment? It's kind of like the idea of frame dragging in general relativity, where the rotation of a massive object affects the surrounding spacetime geometry.
Of course, this is just speculation, and any theory involving an ether-like concept would need to be consistent with all the experimental evidence supporting relativity and quantum mechanics. But I think it's still worth exploring these ideas, as they could lead to new insights into the nature of space, time, and gravity.
Special relativity came along and basically gave an explanation of the workings and movement of light that simply didn't need to make any assumptions about the medium in which light waves propagate. The photoelectric effect, showing that light has a dual nature, either particle or wave, pushed the need for an aether to carry it even lower down. QM probably sealed that completely, with the Schrodinger equation as an explanation of the wave-like nature of fundamental particles.
I really don't think that this interaction between the spin of the Earth and the properties of photons has any true relationship with the notion of an aether. If you wanted to, it would be easier to call the fields in QFT as a kind of aether, I believe they share more properties with the concept.
PS.
For example, look at walking droplet. It interacts with the medium through it pilot wave when it bounces off, part of the time, so drag is partial and depends on frequency too.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7pl5V0YU9taaXE0ZWJNRzlHNlU...
But we don't know if ether or QFT or any of these theories is actually what's going on.
But in quantum physics, we have things like the Schrodinger equation (or the QFTs) where it's not clear. They don't appear to be physical, but we also have the Bell inequalities that suggest there can't be an objective physical layer beneath them either, so we are left with a conundrum.
I think a lot of people do believe that quantum fields are real physical things, and actually "more real" than the classical intuitions we have. In this view, the electron field or the electric field are what actually exists, and balls or water or ether are the abstractions.
Hydrodynamic quantum analogs are macroscopic objects with quantum behavior, which we can study. We can clearly see, with our own eyes, medium, particle, it pilot wave, and their interaction. For example, double slit experiment is not a mystery anymore: it just self-interference of pilot wave.
HQM exists, it demonstrates quantum behavior, it has the pilot wave. If QFT doesn't fit the real world, then it is bad for theory, not for the real world.
If you construct a hydrodynamic experiment where two droplets are bounced on the same wave in different directions (analogous to two entangled particles moving in different directions), and then performed simultaneous measurements on them far away from each other, you would not see the same correlations between the measurements on the separate droplets that you see when doing this experiment with entangled particles.
However, if you perform your measurement on one side, and after enough time on the other, you would see the expected correlation: the measurement on droplet A modifies the pilot wave, and that modification is carried over to affect the behavior of droplet B after some time. In experiments on elementary particles though, this time is 0, or at least much less than distance/c, which is why we say that QM pilot wave theory is non-local.
Why not? And what "measurement" means for walking droplets, when we can see the whole situation just by looking at it?
The reason why I'm certain that this experiment will not reproduce the quantum effect, even though I didn't perform it, is that classical wave polarization is a local phenomenon, it propagates at the speed of light (or much slower) from the location where the polarizer is added. Conversely, the kinds of correlations that have been observed between entangled particles are non-local: they can't be explained by the two particles exchanging information at speeds lower or equal to the speed of light. This is well established in experiments related to Bell's inequality. It is also well established in experiments that this doesn't hold true for classical systems.
In fact, the inequality in Bell's theorem is based exactly on how classical statistics works: if you and I randomly choose to measure some aspect of each of a pair of "entangled" objects, and assuming the result of our measurement can only be +1 or -1, then on average the sum of our measurements will be less than or equal to 2. It turns out though that this logic doesn't work for entangled quantum objects.
And one small note here: based on everything we know, the key here is quantum entanglement, not scale. That is, if you could entangle two basketballs or planets for long enough to perform a Bell test on them, they would likely reproduce the particle results. However, this property of quantum systems is very hard to preserve for such a large system with so many ways of interacting with the environment and experiencing decoherence.
Maybe, it will be possible to make two entangled pairs of walkers and then see what happens to them.
Or maybe this could help with tracking time more accurately? Hopefully someone with knowledge can chime in with what this means in practice.
1/year ~ 3,17e-8 Hz
1/230 million years ~ 1,38e-16 Hz
I’ve been wondering about sending photons away from earth and having their paths bend due to gravity (and later have them interfere). That would be interesting because GR would be involved.