Hi, i have not been able to find any information or theory or merly a speculation by scientists about how entangled particles communicate instantly on arbitray large distances.

How is it possible when nothing travels faster than light ?

That's because we only have speculation on how quantum entanglement works. It requires you to understand super positions. Particles can exist in multiple states at a time, maybe you know about the dual particle wave functionality. Quantum entanglement is a process by which you cannot describe an individual particle because they are literally sharing super positional states. It's not that they communicate faster than light speed. It's that for all intents in purposes that is ONE particle that can split and take 2 different paths. So what happens to one IS happening to the other at the same time, because it's the same partcle, it's just occupying 2 points in space instead of 1.

 

If it helps any you have to remember that ALL of the rules and common sense things about the physical world need to be forgotten when talking about quantum. Compared to classical science quantum is straight up magic and breaks all the rules.

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by TheGeckomancer

Hi, i have not been able to find any information or theory or merly a speculation by scientists about how entangled particles communicate instantly on arbitray large distances.

How is it possible when nothing travels faster than light ?

 

The theory which describes this is quantum theory. I think the first paper on this was published in 1935 by Einstein and others: http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

There is not faster than light communication; it is rather that the two particles, although separated in space, act as a single system so any measurements made must be consistent.

It's a common misconception that there is communication, there is not.

Einstien suggested that they [the entangled particles] were like a pair of gloves in two closed boxes. When you open one, you then know the state of the other one... but there is no communication. That's what he reckoned anyway.. I think there is some experiment that measures spins at different angles or something that shows there is entanglement at a distance and is supposed to show that they are NOT like gloves in a box... but I'm not sure I really get that experiment fully (or the conclusions drawn at least).

If before you opened the boxes the gloves were both right and left in a superposition then it would be closer to what is observed in qm.

There was an experiment where they thought that the both particles have this information in them already. If one is measured spin up the other will be spin down and vice versa. Some theory thought that they have this information in them before they where even measured, but it proved to be wrong.

if we think of two entangled particles as closed system, yet they are one million light year apart, in witch medium are they in ?

I have a moderate grasp on the quontom mechanics and entanglement, but i cant quite understand this.

if we think of two entangled particles as closed system, yet they are one million light year apart, in witch medium are they in ?

i'm not sure what you're asking

There was an experiment where they thought that the both particles have this information in them already. If one is measured spin up the other will be spin down and vice versa. Some theory thought that they have this information in them before they where even measured, but it proved to be wrong.

if we think of two entangled particles as closed system, yet they are one million light year apart, in witch medium are they in ?

I have a moderate grasp on the quontom mechanics and entanglement, but i cant quite understand this.

 

This is quite a good, not too technical, explanation of Bell's Theorem (which is what you seem to be referring to):

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

With more detail here: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm

Before the measuring, they don't behave as single particles.

2 entangled particles form a single wave.

So when you measure an entangled particle, you basically measure a single wave that contains the info about both particles.

Measuring collapses the wave, so you measure collapsed superposed info.

 

Before the measuring, they don't behave as single particles.

2 entangled particles form a single wave.

So when you measure an entangled particle, you basically measure a single wave that contains the info about both particles.

Measuring collapses the wave, so you measure collapsed superposed info.

 

 

Ok this makes sense, so you entangle 2 particles and separate them one billion light years apart. measure one and it's spin up, how does the other particle become spin down instantaneous?

Is this probability wave one billion light years long ?

 

edit: fuck me sideways even this wouldn't make sense, nothing makes sense... that's why i love physics.

Edited November 27, 201510 yr by Kris_o_O

 

Ok this makes sense, so you entangle 2 particles and separate them one billion light years apart. measure one and it's spin up, how does the other particle become spin down instantaneous?

Is this probability wave one billion light years long ?

 

We don't know of a mechanism, and yes.

 

We don't know of a mechanism, and yes.

Sorry, are you saying yes to that the probability wave can be infidelity long ?

Sorry, are you saying yes to that the probability wave can be infidelity long ?

 

Infidelity? (autocorrect error?) The wave function can have an arbitrary spatial extent.

according to nils bor it occurs because of spoky action.

for einstain itz just gloves!

Ok this makes sense, so you entangle 2 particles and separate them one billion light years apart. measure one and it's spin up, how does the other particle become spin down instantaneous?

 

Seasoned physicists correct me when I am wrong, but.... the spin of the other particle does not become spin down instantaneous. What Bell's theorem says is that when you measure the spin in a vertical direction you will measure spin down. That's it. All the rest is metaphysical speculation. There is no causal relationship between measuring one particle and the other. So we know there is no mechanism.

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by Eise

 

Seasoned physicists correct me when I am wrong, but.... the spin of the other particle does not become spin down instantaneous. What Bell's theorem says is that when you measure the spin in a vertical direction you will measure spin down. That's it. All the rest is metaphysical speculation. There is no causal relationship between measuring one particle and the other. So we know there is no mechanism.

 

The statement is stronger than that. There is 100% correlation of the spins, which are undetermined before the measurement. If the particles had a pre-determined spin before the measurement, you would get different results. So in essence, the particle does become spin down when the other particle is measured to be spin up, because we know the specific spins could not have been in place before the measurement.

In all my studies I've never seen any experimental evidence of an instantaneous communication link. But of course they can communicate at the speed of light.

In all my studies I've never seen any experimental evidence of an instantaneous communication link. But of course they can communicate at the speed of light.

 

 

Delayed quantum eraser experiment can have extended photon paths and show that interference drops/appears quicker than possible by a SoL communication between the two detectors.

 

NB this is not a FTL communication - all information transfer is well below SoL but we can time measurements of signal and idler photons whilst other still "in flight" and disrupt/allow pattern with delays that do not concur with a SoL signal between two

 

 

---

 

edit - Not to say this is instantaneous - nor communication. But it is weird.

Delayed quantum eraser experiment can have extended photon paths and show that interference drops/appears quicker than possible by a SoL communication between the two detectors.

 

NB this is not a FTL communication - all information transfer is well below SoL but we can time measurements of signal and idler photons whilst other still "in flight" and disrupt/allow pattern with delays that do not concur with a SoL signal between two

 

 

---

 

edit - Not to say this is instantaneous - nor communication. But it is weird.

 

I know that's mainstreams stance, but I have evidence that says otherwise, but I'm not allowed to post it here.

In all my studies I've never seen any experimental evidence of an instantaneous communication link. But of course they can communicate at the speed of light.

 

There are experiments that show that the states can be measured to have their correlation such that D/∆t is much larger than c. (D is separation distance, ∆t is the time difference of the measurement). However, this is not considered a communication link.

I forgot to mention phase velocity can exceed c, but it's not communication. It corresponds to the propagation speed of a theoretical single-frequency component of the wave at that frequency. In a way it's an illusion, if you know what I mean. Look up de broglie wave.

I know that's mainstreams stance, but I have evidence that says otherwise, but I'm not allowed to post it here.

 

 

You had plenty of chances and wasted them on posturing/argumentation.

 

I will repeat: there is repeatable and documented experimental evidence for delayed quantum eraser and all its variants. Arguing hypothesis against empirical evidence is not a valid approach

You had plenty of chances and wasted them on posturing/argumentation.

 

I will repeat: there is repeatable and documented experimental evidence for delayed quantum eraser and all its variants. Arguing hypothesis against empirical evidence is not a valid approach

Why the need to lie? No, I presented math based on classical physics.

 

 

Anyhow, another example of an illusion is the mouse moving on a screen.

No, I presented math based on classical physics.

 

Exactly. Which is why it wasn't relevant.