Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bangstrom

  1. The experiments of Bell, Aspect, and Clauser demonstrated that entangled particles are non-locally connected so that if you measure one entangled particle you instantly fix the quantum identity of its partner. Einstein was demonstrated to be wrong about his idea that any change to one particle could never affect a change to another distant particle without a direct physical, light speed connection. “The strange part of quantum entanglement is that when you measure something about one particle in an entangled pair, you immediately know something about the other particle, even if they are millions of light years apart. This odd connection between the two particles is instantaneous, seemingly breaking a fundamental law of the universe. Albert Einstein famously called the phenomenon "spooky action at a distance." https://phys.org/news/2022-10-quantum-entanglement-physicist-science-einstein.html
  2. Here are two You Tube videos from the last few days. The first one from IBM’s Qskit explains Bell’s inequality and some of its implications. It also explains how the violation of the Bell test demonstrates that non-local correlations are not classical. "Bells Inequality: the weirdest theorem in the word | Nobel …" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg The first part of this video below is from Sabina Hossenfelder where she explains non-locality “Spooky action at a distance.’ and how it is real. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sabina+hossenfelder+videos%2c+what+is+spooky+action+at+a+distance&docid=14063314246435&mid=B10F06990A26C1994BEFB10F06990A26C1994BEF&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
  3. I forgot to mention that Alice and Bob are assumed to be in the same local, inertial reference frame. We can choose a local reference frame, but of course, I understand there is no preferred reference. That is basic. Perhaps you got confused by my mention of space-like time. If an event happens at at one time, and another event happens the next day, the clock timing of the two events is called 'time-like.' However, if two events happen at exactly the same time. Say, one event happens on the moon and another event happens on Earth, the time-like separation between the two is zero because they are simultaneous but we know from SR that there is an observed space-like clock time separation of about one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This has nothing to do with the lack of a universal frame of reference. If Alice and Bob share the same inertial reference frame, the space-like time between the should be exactly the same for both. With space-like time, near events are only a short distance away in both space and time (spacetime) but remote events are farther away in space and time. There is a name for that observation and it is space-like time. Are you saying that is what I don't understand about the experiments?
  4. Where did you get that crazy idea. Abandoning local realism involves abandoning the principle that all local change must be mediated by a direct physical connection. Abandoning the principle of realism involves abandoning the principle that we live in an objective reality. Abandoning the idea that two entangled particles connected by a common wave function in which there are no particles is what meant by abandoning common sense. I have explained this several times before and it is so simple it should need no explanation. The observers at the opposite ends of the experiment have absolutely no way of knowing which measurement came first until later when they can later gather their information together. But it is possible to say which came first before that. Just ask the experimenters which observation they chose to measure first. The repeated observation that entangled particles are anti-correlated when they drop out of entanglement suggests that the entanglement must have been signaled or at least maintained by some sort of information that that kept the particles anti-correlated throughout the entanglement. For example, when two particles A and B are entangled even though they might be light years apart. A measurement made on either one of the entangled particles instantly destroys the entanglement for both of the entangled particles and their quantum properties which were indeterminate before (superimposed) instantly become determinate. This observation suggests that there must be some sort of wavelike connection between the two remote particles that maintained their their quantum properties as anti-correlated and even though the two particles may have been out of range of a light speed signal at the instant when their entanglement was lost. With the loss of entanglement (decoherence) the previously unobserved particle somehow instantly 'knew' a quantum property of its entangled partner had been observed and it presented a similar quantum property that was anti-correlated to the newly presented property of its former partner. This suggests some form of a non-local exchange of quantum information often called a 'signal'.
  5. The “faster than light” and the “instant signals” parts go by different different names such as ‘spooky action action at a distance’ or ‘non-locality, or ‘instant interaction’ . The violation of the Bell test rules out the possibility of classical ‘hidden variable” explanations for the above examples above that are permitted by quantum physics but not classical. If the three Nobel winners had discovered that the observations of their experiments invalidated the possibility of instant action at a distance and that this was a non-real artifact of classical physics, there would be nothing remarkable about their discoveries. The disappointing part of their discoveries is that the remarkable parts are only possible at the quantum level and are so far of little use for macro level for such things as FTL communication or Star Trek style teleportation. The exceptions may be for high speed quantum computing and for computer encryption. The properties of B are random not fixed prior to the first observation. The observation of particle A fixes the observed property B as anti-correlated to that of A. If A and B were both random they would not necessarily be anti-correlated. This is not classical because the quantum properties are not fixed from the start. Do you remember the gloves in boxes thought experiment that didn’t work with QM. The violation of the Bell test ruled out the possibility that the quantum properties are fixed from the start. The instant loss of entanglement on both ends is the signal.
  6. If you have a particle A and a particle B a considerable distance apart. The quantum properties of A are are said to be in superposition with particle B as long as the two are entangled. If you observe any one property of either A or B, the Bell test tells us that the observed properties are perfectly random. The Bell test is a statistical test and it is difficult to explain but explanations are easy to find and not terribly difficult to follow. So, for now, just assume the Bell test is correct and the and the quantum properties of entangled particle are random. If you observe a single particle, for example, observe particle A for spin direction, it can be observed as either spin-up or spin-down but the spin orientation before it is observed is perfectly random. If the spin of particle A is observed to be spin-down that means the entanglement with particle B is broken so the quantum properties of B are now fixed and no longer random. We know that, if the spin of particle A is spin-up, the spin of particle B must be spin-down unless something happens to disturb particle B after the loss of entanglement. But, as long as particles A and B are entangled their quantum properties are anti-correlated. This is all basic stuff of QM that has been known for many years and well described in many sources. Now to answer your question. If particle A is spin-up, particle B must be spin-down when entanglement is lost. The question is, "How does particle B 'know' it should should be spin-down and when did it 'know' it? There must have been some message to the wave function that kept the two particles anti-coordinated while entangled. It could be a light speed a signal that maintained anti-correlation, in which case, the spin of particle B could be observed as either spin-up or spin-down when observed since the quantum properties of entangled particles are random until observed The light speed hypothesis has been tested by observing the the spin of the unobserved particle B before a light speed signal had time to reach B and let it 'know' that particle A has been observed as spin-up so now it should be spin-down. This is where something superluminal is happening. Again, this is all old news and forests have been destroyed to explain how it works.
  7. The timing between the signal and its reception is instant. There is no time or observation to be made between the signal and sink so there is nothing to elaborate upon. I would like to claim prescience for finding a violation of of Bell’s inequality, for demonstrating non-locality and for the details of signaling by qubits of quantum information but unfortunately the three winner’s of this year’s Nobel prize have the preponderance of evidence that they thought of it first with their experiments. You may not be able to Google my pet theory but you can Google about why the three won this year. Is that why you are so reserved? Sorry, I didn't comment on your statement with so much going on at the time. You may be surprised that I agree with what you said. This is for both you and Joigus since he asked the same question. We know from SR that a spacelike separation is one second of time for every 300,000 km of distance. If the spacelike timing in an experiment is exactly the same from both locations, it is impossible to tell which came first based on that information because the two events are simultaneous. The only way to tell which came first is to ask the experimenter which end of the events they measured first. If the experimenter says they measured Bob’s end first, then Bob’s end was measured first. The experimenter is the only one making observations. Alice and Bob are imaginary so, in reality, neither one can measure anything. The numerical value for a spacelike timing and the speed of light are exactly the same, so the calculations using the value of c are the same no matter what we choose to call it. It also means that, if the time of a space-like signal between the two events when measured from both ends is is equal, the signal time was instant. The calculations remain consistent with SR with the one exception being the wording of the second postulate that nothing can travel faster than light. An instant signal is "magical" which is why Einstein called it, "spooky" and Zeilinger called it "eerie" but a non-local signal by quantum entanglement has been repeatedly demonstrated as real. That is why it has caused so much attention. An instant non-local signal may be real at the quantum level but we can only view the timing between two points separated by space as 'space-like' which makes it impossible to use quantum signaling for FTL communication.
  8. What is the non-alternative view and what kind of "details" are you looking for that I haven't given you already. If you want more information, why can't you Google that information yourself? The name of the signal is a 'qubit of quantum information'.
  9. TIQM is a theory of light. It is essentially the old Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory without the innumerable photons that all-but-one get absorbed. I wasn’t trying to be evasive but I forgot that when explaining advances in QM from the past quarter century to novices it is necessary to explain the basics that are otherwise commonly understood. The question is, What 'sends' a bit of information? The answer is nothing at all, überhaupt nichts, nada, nada, pues nada. A quantum bit of information simply appears at both ends of an entanglement when entanglement is lost. With quantum teleportation, a qubit of information can be sent from one point to another but entangled particles act as if they are two particles at the same location so there is no ‘other’ location to ‘send’ a qubit of information to. This defines what a qubit of information is. Form wikipedia; “In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit is a basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classic binary bit physically realized with a two-state device. A qubit is a two-state (or two-level) quantum-mechanical system, one of the simplest quantum systems displaying the peculiarity of quantum mechanics. Examples include the spin of the electron in which the two levels can be taken as spin up and spin down; or the polarization of a single photon in which the two states can be taken to be the vertical polarization and the horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other. However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a coherent superposition of both states simultaneously, a property that is fundamental to quantum mechanics and quantum computing.” This is a simplified explanation of the experiments done by Alain, ,Clauser, and Zeilinger. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/popul-information/ "This progress rests on many years of development. It started with the mind-boggling insight that quantum mechanics allows a single quantum system to be divided up into parts that are separated from each other but which still act as a single unit. This goes against all the usual ideas about cause and effect and the nature of reality. How can something be influenced by an event occurring somewhere else without being reached by some form of signal from it? A signal cannot travel faster than light – but in quantum mechanics, there does not seem to be any need for a signal to connect the different parts of an extended system."
  10. Air is an insulator so getting rid of the air would make it worse. A capacitor would work to stop sparking.
  11. For a long time it was thought the the universe contained some two billion galaxies but now the estimates may be a trillion. Anyhow, at any point in the curved 4D universe, any galaxy is surrounded by billions of galaxies so there is no escape from gravity. The theory that the most distant galaxies are moving away faster than light is based on the assumption that space is expanding and carrying them away even faster than their recessional velocities that are approaching c. If the universe is not expanding, then that earlier theory doesn't work. If expansion theory is correct and the most distant galaxies are moving away faster than light, then relatively speaking, from the point of view of an observer on one of those distant galaxies, they are standing still while we are on a galaxy moving away from them faster than light so we are already there. We can see galaxies moving faster than light because we can't see galaxies where they are today. We see the most distant galaxies where they were billions of years ago with recessional velocities they must have had at the time. There is a story, probably not true, that Einstein asked the conductor an a train to Munich, "Relatively speaking, when does Munich arrive at this train?"
  12. I am in favor of TIQM but is not my favorite because I think other lesser known theories of light do a better job of of explaining the same things. The question I won't answer is what? That must be some ancient ‘fact’ you favor because you don’t appear to be aware of anything recent.
  13. It isn't EM or limited to c and it is prior to an EM exchange of energy. John Cramer calls it a transaction between advance and retarded waves between a signal and receiver or quantum 'handshake'. Wheeler and Feynman had the same idea with similar names as have other theories but they all agree that it is a direct interaction between a signal and receiver.
  14. The presence of an interference pattern suggests the presence of a two way, non-local, wavelike connection between the signal and receiver prior to an energy transfer. Decoherence is simply the loss of a previous connection and an interference pattern indicates some kind of a previous connection. Instantaneous every time. No doubt an interference pattern is a collective property when more than two particles are involved. The possibility of interference is not lost over distance. Naturally, the quantum state comes and goes. It adheres and deconheres.
  15. The first signal amounted to a single qubit of non-local, quantum information that established the identity of Bob's particle as anti-correlated to Alice's particle. The second communication could have been by snail mail but, if it included accurate information about the timing of events, it should identify the timing of the first signal as superluminal. Bell, Aspect and Clauser won the Nobel prize for demonstrating that the first signal was both not fixed from the start and also that it was superluminal.
  16. The loss of entanglement is instant on both ends so both particles decohere and become determinate simultaneously. This is the observation made on both ends. We know from SR that two any two points separated by space are separated by time at the rate of one second for every for every 300,000 km of distance. The timing of events is space-like, "Spooky action at a distance." aka 'non-local' but Alice and Bob have no way of knowing this until they can compare notes later about the timing on both ends. This is why entanglement can not be used for for FTL signaling.
  17. The first part reads,“If you observe something only one time, you cannot conclude that it has changed. In Bell-like experiments, Bob from his side does not notice anything special. He just gets random results, as if he is just doing experiments on some simple particle source. “ OK, and I could add that neither Bob nor Alice notice anything special. Also this is a Bell-like experiment with entangled particles going one to Bob and the other to Alice. The last sentence reads,“Only when Alice and Bob compare their lists (these cannot be send FTL), they notice that the correlations are stronger than any classical system allows.” This is when the signal becomes determinate on Bob’s end and both Alice and Bob notice that their observations are anti-correlated in the after analysis. This can be repeated numerous times to verify that the anti-correlation was not by chance. Suppose that Bob reads his signal before any ‘light speed’ signal could reach his location, his signal should still always be anti-correlated with that of Alice suggesting that their signals were superluminal contrary to the classical view. Nicht wahr?
  18. The question is below: And my answer was below. What is the problem? Nope. Yes, he says that local realism is violated, but as MigL already said (and Joigus, and Zeilinger) that means that either: locality is violated, or realism is violated, or both of course. Zeilinger tends to giving up on realism. That's it. I won't react on all your other concept- and word bending misinterpretations. Learn reading, and then QM. He abandoned realism only and not locality for entanglement as well? I don’t read so good so can you explain what this means with no big words? “Nearly all physicists agree that the experiments have shown that local realism is an untenable position. The viewpoint of most physicists is that the violation of Bell’s inequality shows us that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. This nonlocality is exactly what Albert Einstein called “spooky’; it seems eerie that the act of measuring one particle could instantly influence the other one.” Anton Zeilinger “Dance of the Photons” p. 286 chapter “What could it all Mean ?”
  19. In one observation, we can know that one quantum property of particle B, has gone from indeterminate to determinate. If you have two entangled electrons A and B, the first observation is random, spin-up or spin-down, and the quantum properties of both electrons are indeterminate (superimposed). If particle A is observed first as spin-up that simultaneously and non-locally fixes the spin of particle B as spin down. With repeated experiments we can determine that the observation of particle B has also gone from random to fixed by the observation of electron A and the loss of entanglement.. The FTL nature of the transaction can not be discovered until a later analysis of the timing has been made. That doesn’t mean that there was no FTL transaction between the particles just because we can’t observe it as FTL until a later time. The no-communication theorem says you can not clone quantum properties but you can ‘clone’ or copy a single property but not all so QM allows for more probabilities than the classical model. I see Bell’s explanation as similar to the coin toss example. In the classical view, a coin can be heads on one side and tails on the other. It can also be heads green and tails red. So, if the heads side is is up, the green side is up also. The Bell test rules out the classical model because it allows for more probabilities than the classical model. A coin colored red and green can land heads-red or heads-green or tails-red and tails-green. In QM, each quantum property is random when observed and not necessarily fixed from the start or directly connected with all the other properties. Also, Einstein died in 1955 roughly a decade before Bell and Aspect' experiments invalidated the EPR effect so Einstein's view and the EPR do not serve as guides for understanding modern QM. This is exactly like the old saying, ‘It hasn’t happened until it is reported on TV.’ The classical communication channel needs non-local teleportation to come first or there would nothing to observe. Invalidated? Yes, the EPR effect certainly was invalidated. The EPR effect was Einstein et al.’s hypothesis and the EPR was invalidated by experiments involving the Bell test. The EPR was Einstein’s objection to non-locality- “Spooky action at a distance”. So what you said is true but contrary to your claim, “The QM depiction of the world that Einstein thought was too absurd to be true, turns out to be true.” Einstein and his EPR effect with no “Spooky action” were demonstrated as wrong and non-locality that Einstein found absurd was demonstrated to be true. In Zeilinger’s book ‘Dancing’ chapter “Atomic Sources of Entanglement and Early Experiments”, Zeilinger said, “The results of Clauser and Freedman’s experiment, published in 1972 , clearly showed that Bell’s inequality was violated. The world is nonlocal, concluded most physicists. But that, as we discussed already, is not the only possible interpretation.” He goes on the mention an experiment at Harvard that showed there was no violation of Bell’s inequality. Clauser later repeated the experiment hoping to demonstrate that local realism was valid but his results demonstrated that the Harvard experiment was in error and local realism was indeed violated. Zeilinger then goes on to explain how later more precise experiments confirmed that local realism was violated confirming non-locality. So the EPR effect was violated, dead and buried. Realism and locality are parts of the same thing. Zeilinger gave up local realism and locality and accepted the existence of non-locality. Quoting passages serves two purposes. It allows me to reexamine my personal views to see if they actually conform to what I think author says and it allows the reader to do the same and clear up any misconceptions that may arise. I find that better than the practice frequently used here of repeating unsupported personal opinions as if they were fact. That only means you have an opinion. In Zeilinger’s book ‘Dancing’ chapter “Atomic Sources of Entanglement and Early Experiments”, Zeilinger said, “The results of Clauser and Freedman’s experiment, published in 1972 , clearly showed that Bell’s inequality was violated. The world is nonlocal, concluded most physicists. But that, as we discussed already, is not the only possible interpretation.” He goes on the mention an experiment at Harvard that showed there was no violation of Bell’s inequality. Clauser later repeated hoping to demonstrate that local realism was valid but his results demonstrated that the Harvard experiment was in error and local realism was indeed violated. That is Zeilinger’s argumentation for non-locality. Sigh... Using 'action' again. "Action" was Einstein's word and often repeated by others. It has become a well understood cliché . Einstein et al. found non-local interaction at a distance too absurd to be true but the experiments of Aspect Clauser and others demonstrated it's reality. That was fifty years ago so it should not be news to anyone.
  20. I would say we still have local reality for non-entangled particles but non-locality and instant action at a distance for entangled particles. I have no problem with your use of math and others might appreciate it. I have studied a lot of math but always found it difficult and tedious. I never had any use for it and I have largely repressed the experience. Perhaps non-locality is not implied, but non-locality is the best alternative and it works when needed. Relativistic causality works in most instances but not for quantum entanglement. The violation of local realism and relativistic causality when non-local entanglement is involved leaves us with non-locality where a local change can instantly result in a change at a remote location. “Spooky action at a distance”. Probability amplitudes may be the heart of the problem. The violation of local realism and relativistic causality when non-local entanglement is involved leaves us non-locality where a local change can instantly result in a change at a remote location. “Spooky action at a distance”. That is what happens with Zeilinger’s quantum teleportation except that it does not make anything disappear but it does make something instantly appear ‘over there’. The indeterminate state of an entangled particle instantly becomes determinate, but in this case it is not random, The quantum identity of the remote particle becomes identical to that of the particle inserted into the ‘teleporter’ to use a familiar but incorrect word. For example, if you have two entangled particles AB and particle A is then sent far away to a remote location while B remains at home, then a second entangled pair CD can be created and particle C can be entangled with particle B so you have a three-way entanglement. At Alice’s location D-(CB) ----------------A Bob’s location If Alice observes the quantum state of particle D, the indeterminate properties (superposition) of all the particles instantly be determinate in a cascade of anti-correlated states. If D is +, C is -, B is +, and distant A is -. The observation of D is random and not fixed from the start. If Alice observed the quantum state of D as - , the entire cascade would be in reverse. The thing to note here is that the later entanglement of C with B to create the entangled state (CB) makes (CB) a sort of ‘teleporter’ such the the quantum state of C also becomes the quantum state of A. To a naive observer of the events, it appears that particle C enters the (CB) ‘teleporter’ and instantly appears at the remote location A. This sort of identity swapping violates both local realism and relativistic causality which are based on macro level observations but they do not apply to what is observed with entangled particles. We know from local reality that the Eiffel tower is in Paris and the leaning tower is in Pisa but in QM we never know which of an entangled particle is where until it is observed. Their ‘location’ is indeterminate and random until observed.
  21. The no-communication theorem deals with FTL communication at the macro level but not at the quantum particle level. That is a different issue. We can’t observe the wave function but we can observe the changes that appear after the wave function is lost. This is hubris. Swansont knows more about QM than you, me, and Joigus together. Swansont’s claims like those of joigus may be logical and consistent with the EPR effect but they are 50 years behind what we now understand about QM. The EPR effect was invalidated long ago by the Bell test and has been repeatedly invalidated ever since. Most notably by those who just won the Nobel. The two are necromancing with the EPR and that is what I can't accept. Again you do not understand quite what Zeilinger is saying here, and his viewpoint later in the chapter. I italicized the words. Zeilinger does not talk about events 'influencing' events in the past. He is saying that our interpretation of the experiment is different. Alice's measurement occurring before Bob's measurements, or after his measurements are different experiments, i.e. we need different interpretations of the experimental situation. Agreed, it is interpretation- not influencing- but that still that makes Alice an agent of change whether the experiment involves going forward or backward in time. Locality still applies in QM but quantum entanglement is an exception. Experts in any field rarely discuss the long established basics of their work so quotes from experts are hard to find. That job is left to the second tier experts and science journalists.
  22. Where does Zeilinger dismiss #5? From my reading he appears to be leaning in favor of actions to the past. That is, excluding actual EM signals to the past. We can send signals to the future but not the past. "Another logically possible position would be to presume that the individual particles act back into the past, From that point of view, they would influence the the source, back in the past, with which properties to emit each particle. It is again obvious that such a position would mean a very radical rewriting of our views of space and time." Also, quantum entanglement extends both forward and backward in time. The instant loss of entanglement can appear as being either forward or backward in time depending upon from which end you are acting as an observer. How do we know quantum states are correlated if they can't be measured? Also, can you define what you mean by non-locality?
  23. With a single particle, entanglement of course plays no role at all. I think of locality as a single particle responding to its local environment. Another particle remote from the first can also respond to its local environment. But, if an event in one location instantly changes an event in a distant location with no apparent connection, the action is non-local. For a little history, as I recall Feynman mentioned in QED that a single photon can not interfere with itself but when a single photon passes through a double slit it unexpectedly produces an interference pattern. Feynman’s explanation was that it was able to interfere with photons that passed through the slit in the past and photons that that will pass through the slit in the future. Feynman’s explanation was too strange for popular consumption but a better version survives in other present day theories such as John Cramer’s TIQM (not my favorite) with advanced and retarded waves that must make a non-local connection between one charged particle in the present, usually an electron, and a similar particle in the past before a quantum of energy called a ‘photon’ can be transacted into the future This means we can send a light signal to the future but not to the past, however a connection extending back to the past is a necessary prerequisite for sending a message into the future. A bit of speculation about this from the 1920’s was that a universe containing nothing but a tea kettle of hot water could never cool because there would be nothing to receive its energy. Zeilinger appears to be open to the idea of present influencing the past and Wheeler and Feynman agreed that the usual quantum theory can be interpreted in terms of direct interaction between an emitter and absorber. These views require a non-local connection ‘instant’ between the past and present. From p. 234 of Zeilinger's book "Dancing of the Photons" REALITY VS INFORMATION First Alice made an observation on her end of an entangled state and later Bob made an observation on his end. From Bob's view, his observation was the first and Alice's came later. ”The interesting point is that in the end we will, for Bob’s results, present a different interpretation depending on what Alice at a later time decides to do. She may decide to do a Bell-state measurement, or she might decide to do a measurement on each photon on its own, there is even an infinite zoo of possibilities in between. Depending on what Alice decides to do, the results registered earlier by Bob, the events that already happened, acquire a very different meaning." Or from p. 287 “Another logically possible position would be to presume that the individual particles act back into the past, From that point of view, they would influence the the source, back in the past, with which properties to emit each particle. It is again obvious that such a position would mean a very radical rewriting of our views of space and time." I find this radical view of space and time to be what is known as ‘Block Universal' time. For one thing, Block time conforms what Minkowsky said about about the inseparability of space and time. I like to think of the little squares in a Minkowsky diagram as little ‘time zones’ where moving through space is simultaneously moving through time. Anything distant from our perspective is also distant from us in time. This view is also consistent with SR where simultaneous events separated by space are always observed as separated by time at the constant rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. This is why, non-local events of quantum entanglement can never be used for FTL signaling. We only see events separated by distance as also separated by time.
  24. The interaction is instant and non-local. I explained before how they interact, and if you found my explanation unsatisfactory, I agree that it was. I can also explain how I really think it works but that would just be just another speculation about the un-observable. This is the mainstream explanation again and you can take it or leave it, or better yet, look it up for yourself. It is easy to find. Entangled particles are in a state of superposition prior to the first observation. That means that they both share the same quantum properties and they can’t be considered as separate. With the first observation the quantum state of the observed particle randomly becomes determinate and the quantum of the state of the other particle instantly becomes both determinate and anti-correlated with its formerly entangled partner. There is no need for a communication or signal to pass between the particles. When entanglement is instantly lost the quantum properties of the particles on both ends instantly appear and the action is non-local.
  25. Not so fast. He says "abandon local realism." Abandoning faithful Stalinism does not imply abandoning faithfulness, does it? I have never taken “abandon local realism” to be a statement about anything beyond quantum entanglement. Entangled particles interact non-locally while observed particles behave locally. There is a possibility that the quantum world is far more chaotic and non-local for us to make any sense of it but three billion years of bio-evolution have trained us to be selective in our observations and to see only the parts of this chaos that pertain to our survival. To find food, avoid danger and reproduce. I am not bothered that Hilbert space does not allow for non-locality as long as it stays away from my space. Quantum teleportation is not like Star Track in that only quantum identities are transported and not the particles themselves. ‘Quantum identities’ is the term I find commonly used, possibly, because only single identities are being observed and ‘quantum properties’ refers to the whole shebang. Also, quantum teleportation is not the same as qubit teleportation. Quantum teleportation involves a difficult to obtain three way entanglement involving four entangled particles. Like A-(BC)-D.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.