08/28/23: This edited version adds some nuance the the term “entanglement.” It was first posted to my substack on 08/27/23.
So the question is asked, “How does a nano-sized light wave, quantum percolation, or terrahertz wave get transduced into electrical signals (like those surrounding neurons) – and vice versa: How do electrical signals get transduced back into nano-sized waves or quantum percolation fields and the attendant photon stream?”
The answer has to do with what are called surface plasmon polaritons. When a photon coming from a near or distant place strikes the surface of a graphene sheet, it creates a surface wave in the thin layer of plasma (electron cloud) on the surface of the graphene mesh. This very tiny wave is called a surface plasmon polariton wave (SPP). If the material struck were to be thicker than graphene, then the wave would be a 3D wave called a phonon.
The phonon is a mass mechanical vibration, and the plasmon is an electron cloud wave vibration. Since the impinging photon and light field is a pure energy vibration, the photon (light energy) is coherently linked to the plasmonic vibration induced in the electron cloud. This sufficiently explains how information could be extracted from the incoming photon and converted into electrical signals, the latter of which the electron cloud provides.
In the case of quantum percolation, the plasmon signal recreates the “tiny wave” configuration that existed at the center of the tessellated field of the incoming photon’s energy path. In the case of non-quantum – but coherent – transverse signals (e.g. terrahertz signals) – the plasmon effects a transcribing of that signal directly into the graphene of the sheet. The main difference is speed.
The configuration of all this suggests that a very small piece of graphene sheet can accept information from a light wave many times bigger than it is, because it generates waves only from the center of the tessellated field. In my opinion, (at least in the case of quantum entanglement) – the center of this field carries angular momentum, which may be projected from 3D to 2D when the light strikes the mesh.
Edit 08/28/23
There is a bit of nuance involved in the term “quantum entanglement” as applied to this kind of data exchange. My definition of quantum entanglement requires a continuous reflexive (Wilberforce pendulum) action between two or more quantum-active endpoints. The “continuous” (until decay) requirement underlies the idea of the two objects being “entangled.” However; it is possible for the same data exchange to happen with a one-shot reflex. This would not properly be called (continuous) entanglement, but would still be cause for bi-directional data exchange.
In such a one-shot scenario there is not a continuous reflexive action, but instead a single stroke from one object to another, and a single reflex (like a radar reflection) from the other node. The difference between the single-shot quantum connection and a traditional radar would be that the one-shot quantum connection can return the complete quantum state of the object that has been targeted.
There is a subtle difference in the speed of the one-shot quantum “transaction.” Since the forward stroke in the one-shot is building the self assembled path as it goes, the forward stroke is a regular light speed (C). The reflex is almost instantaneous. So, it is only half cycle “instantaneous” as compared to regular quantum entanglement. However; the exact same amount of information can be sent in this way. And the exact same amount of information can be received.
The overall circuit speed would be the speed of normal light (C), multiplied by two (approximately). Depending upon circumstance, either full entanglement (continuing reflexive action in the manner of coupled oscillators or a Wilburforce pendulum) – or the one-shot method could be used. The one-shot method has a very distinct advantage however. The advantage is that the quantum state in the reflex can be destroyed on receipt, but since it is only a one-shot connection – it doesn’t matter. The message is still received. Some forms of signal detection cause the quantum state to be destroyed upon detection. This is the old “any observation kills the entanglement” fact/myth of Einstein and others. Some detectors do not kill the entanglement, and in a one-shot scenario it doesn’t matter anyway.
One last note I could make. I am able to visualize the actions of quantum mechanics by doing so in a way that emphasizes the mechanical schematics, strangely enough. I wonder why they call it quantum mechanics, eh? The electrical stuff is an abstract layer that works to confuse people and cause them to make erroneous conclusions about the underlying theory. Of course, that abstraction also compartmentalizes the data in a way that makes calculations much less cumbersome. As Richard Feynman said, “Shut up and calculate.” They all did, and that is the problem.
The reverse process is only slightly different, and will be the topic of another post. Stay tuned!
Note: the author is a writer on technical subjects in some areas, of novels, and of other literature, but does not have any formal credentials related to the medical field, or in physics. Thus, this all constitutes an opinion of what might be possible, based on his own hobby-level knowledge quests
Musings 