Electron and Information.

[Faradave]

There is an observable, non-local, causal connection between entangled particles and this has often been demonstrated by experiment.

This mistaken impression is one of the toughest for professors to deal with as it is so counterintuitive.


Imagine a case of ambidextrous oven mitts. A "pair" is defined (or "prepared") by withdrawing two. This is a shared (or "entangled") state in that there can be be a left mitt and a right mitt, though neither yet bears such a designation. They are together, simply "a pair" (analogous to a total-spin-zero state of two entangled electrons).

We decide to measure the handedness of a mitt by throwing it in the air. If it lands with thumb to the right, it's a "right mitt"; thumb to the left, it's a "left mitt". "Thumb right" and "thumb left" have no absolute meaning but depend entirely upon the observer's orientation to (interaction with) the mitt being measured. A similar rule (a designation in the landing zone) could as easily have been made to measure "thumb toward" or "thumb away" from the observer.

Key point: Once the landed mitt has been measured (say "right mitt"), the other of the pair simultaneously, at any separation, acquires the opposite designation ("left mitt"). This involves no interaction whatever between the two mitts, only their prior preparation (designation) as a pair. The only causal interaction was the random observation by the observer of the measured mitt. When that happened, their shared state of being simply "a pair" precipitated into two separate states of being a "right mitt" and a "left mitt".

[mitchellmckain]

I noticed one repeated flaw in your analysis of entanglement that should be obvious if you think about it. The timing of events in an experiment involving entanglement is determined by the setup of the experiment. For example, two entangled particles can be sent on divergent paths with polarizing filters to either block or allow the particles to pass. The experimenter knows what to expect from his filters and he controls the timing of events by placing of the filters either closer to the source or farther away so he knows which particle was observed first.
By many repeated runs of the experiment he can determine that the first particle to encounter a filter decides the state of its partner so the measurement of the second particle is not random. There is an observable, non-local, causal connection between entangled particles and this has often been demonstrated by experiment..

Since this violates the laws of physics I don't believe your claim any more than I would believe the hundreds of claims made each year of perpetual motion machines violating the second law of thermodynamics. Yours, in fact, is tantamount to claiming a machine to send messages into the past. So while I demand documentation of your so called experiments, I am more confident they are flawed than if we were talking about a proof for the existence of God.

Already I can simply counter with the several facts: using a filter to control one of the particles is not the same a measuring it and so the correlation between entangled particles would not even apply. Entanglement ONLY gives a correlation between random measurements. Second, when two events are separated a space-like difference, any talk of one event happening first is completely relative -- simply change the inertial frame in which you view the situation and the order reverses. Again I insist that you have misunderstood the meaning of the scientific results.

[mitchellmckain]

Key point: Once the landed mitt has been measured (say "right mitt"), the other of the pair simultaneously, at any separation, acquires the opposite designation ("left mitt"). This involves no interaction whatever between the two mitts, only their prior preparation (designation) as a pair. The only causal interaction was the random observation by the observer of the measured mitt. When that happened, their shared state of being simply "a pair" precipitated into two separate states of being a "right mitt" and a "left mitt".

There is just a couple corrections required to this. The use of the word "simulteously" is flawed here. All events at a space-like distance from each other are equally simultaneous. And so the suggestion that the word "simultaneous" refers to a particular point in the path of the other particle is incorrect. In fact, there is no observable change to the other particle -- unless a measurement is made of it the entanglement has no effect at all. The only the consequence of entanglement is that the results of measurements of both of the two particles will be correlated with each other.

Here is a link on the topic
Science News: "Entanglement is Spooky, but not action at a distance."

[Faradave]

And so the suggestion that the word "simultaneous" refers to a particular point in the path of the other particle is incorrect.

I can't find where I made such a suggestion. None was intended.

[bangstrom]

Since this violates the laws of physics I don't believe your claim any more than I would believe the hundreds of claims made each year of perpetual motion machines violating the second law of thermodynamics. Yours, in fact, is tantamount to claiming a machine to send messages into the past. So while I demand documentation of your so called experiments, I am more confident they are flawed than if we were talking about a proof for the existence of God.

Already I can simply counter with the several facts: using a filter to control one of the particles is not the same a measuring it and so the correlation between entangled particles would not even apply. Entanglement ONLY gives a correlation between random measurements. Second, when two events are separated a space-like difference, any talk of one event happening first is completely relative -- simply change the inertial frame in which you view the situation and the order reverses. Again I insist that you have misunderstood the meaning of the scientific results.

This is an over simplified explanation of entanglement by Brian Greene

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sear ... ction=view


This video explains how we know quantum entanglement is different from classical entanglement by the use of Bell’s test of inequality.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the- ... ent-so-far

I see the tests of Bell’s equality as similar to the quantum experiment where two polarizers can block 100 percent of the light but a third polarizer in the middle can “help” the light passing the three filters so the light is no longer blocked.

With entanglement, the particle striking the first rotated filter “helps” the second particle pass through a similar filter rotated in the opposite direction so more light passes through the apparatus than expected by classical mechanics. This tells us that the first particle striking a filter can affect the orientation of the second particle even though the particles and filters lie on different paths.

It also suggests that orientation of the second particle is set when the first particle is observed rather than at the moment when the entangled particles were first generated.

[bangstrom]

The only the consequence of entanglement is that the results of measurements of both of the two particles will be correlated with each other.

The consequence of entanglement is that the correlation between the two particles is greater than anticipated by classical physics suggesting that the orientation of the first particle observed fixes the orientation of the second particle.

In a test of Bell's equality, If one filter is rotated to reduce the number of particles passing through it by say 50 percent and the filter on the path of the other particle is rotated in the opposite direction to reduce the number of particles by the same amount, Bell’s equality predicts the number of particles that should pass through the apparatus.

Experimental results show that the number of correlated particles passing through the apparatus is greater than predicted by Bell’s equality suggesting that the observation of one particle has fixed the the orientation of the second particle at the moment of observation so they both have opposite spins.

The events are simultaneous so the experiment works when viewed either forward or backward in time. When looking forward in time, Alice makes the first observation which fixes the orientation of Bob’s particle. Looking backward in time, Bob makes the first observation which fixes the orientation of Alice’s particle. In either case the number of particles passing through the apparatus is greater than anticipated by random chance.

Here is a link on the topic
Science News: "Entanglement is Spooky, but not action at a distance."

In the articles Gell-Mann states there is no need for nonlocality (action at a distance) because there is nothing passing from here to there. He is right about “nothing passing” but to me “non-locality” implies interaction with “nothing passing from here to there” so this is a matter of semantics.

I feel the same about Bennett’s comment, “It’s spooky, but it’s not action at a distance.” We may agree on the physics but with somewhat different views about the semantics.

[mitchellmckain]

This is an over simplified explanation of entanglement by Brian Greene

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sear ... ction=view

Yes it is very simplistic and imprecise on several points. One of them is the same point I made with Faradave. The terms "simultaneous" and "at the same time" cannot refer as most people assume to a particular point on the unmeasured particles path but refers to ANY point where there is a space-like interval between it and the measurement of the measured particle. If pointed this out to him, he would agree and clarify that what I say is quite correct. And if pointed out, he would also clarify like in the link above that this is not any kind of causal action at a distance.

This video explains how we know quantum entanglement is different from classical entanglement by the use of Bell’s test of inequality.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the- ... ent-so-far

I see the tests of Bell’s equality as similar to the quantum experiment where two polarizers can block 100 percent of the light but a third polarizer in the middle can “help” the light passing the three filters so the light is no longer blocked.

The tests which proves that Bell's INEQUALITY fails and does not hold, show that if we hold to the premises of the scientific worldview, then there are no hidden variables determining the results of quantum measurements. This is indeed a major departure from classical physics and a source of significant cognitive dissonance for many scientists because it goes against the premise scientific inquiry that events have causes within the laws of nature which can be investigated.

The key point in the second video explanation you have linked is where he says that the only way you can get a number larger than what Bell's inequality predicts is if the numbers are not already written on the paper. In other words, we know from the failure of Bell's inequality that two particles are truly in a superposition state and it is not just a matter of us not knowing which state they are in. The individual particles are truly neither spin up nor spin down until a measurement is made. That is what the failure of Bell's inequality proves.

But beyond this you have read too much into the simplistic nature of his explanation. Bell's equality does not mean that relativity is violated and that one particle causes a change in the other particle faster than light. He says that relativity is not violated and the ONLY way that can be true is if the Minkowsky structure of space time is adhered to which does not allow any causality between events separated by a space-like interval. I guarantee that if you ask him this he will tell you that this is correct. Like he said, the correlation is already there and it is the entangled state of the particles which is non-local not any kind of causal action between them. With a space-like interval between the two measurements they are simultaneous and any talk of one causing the other is complete nonsense.

[mitchellmckain]

The only the consequence of entanglement is that the results of measurements of both of the two particles will be correlated with each other.

The consequence of entanglement is that the correlation between the two particles is greater than anticipated by classical physics suggesting that the orientation of the first particle observed fixes the orientation of the second particle.

In a test of Bell's equality, If one filter is rotated to reduce the number of particles passing through it by say 50 percent and the filter on the path of the other particle is rotated in the opposite direction to reduce the number of particles by the same amount, Bell’s equality predicts the number of particles that should pass through the apparatus.

Experimental results show that the number of correlated particles passing through the apparatus is greater than predicted by Bell’s equality suggesting that the observation of one particle has fixed the the orientation of the second particle at the moment of observation so they both have opposite spins.

Incorrect. What the failure of Bell's inequality shows is that nothing predetermines the results of the measurments of these particles. Until the measurement is made, the particle does not have a spin of either up or down. Yes this does seem spooky to many scientists because it means the two particles are not completely separated from each other by the distance between them. They are part of a shared wave state despite being far apart from each other. But it is important to understand that this does not violate relativity, which means no causality across space-like intervals.

Here is a link on the topic
Science News: "Entanglement is Spooky, but not action at a distance."

In the articles Gell-Mann states there is no need for nonlocality (action at a distance) because there is nothing passing from here to there. He is right about “nothing passing” but to me “non-locality” implies interaction with “nothing passing from here to there” so this is a matter of semantics.

I feel the same about Bennett’s comment, “It’s spooky, but it’s not action at a distance.” We may agree on the physics but with somewhat different views about the semantics.

It is not semantics. The difference is between, thinking mired in Euclidean space-time which sees the universe as consisting of a series of instantaneous snapshots, and the Minkowsky space-time structure where everything outside the light cone is equally simultaneous. As long as there is a space-like interval between the two measurements they are simultaneous and thus there is no causal action going on between them.

[mitchellmckain]

And so the suggestion that the word "simultaneous" refers to a particular point in the path of the other particle is incorrect.

I can't find where I made such a suggestion. None was intended.

Let me rephrase that to make it more clear...

And so any suggestion by the word "simultaneous" that a particular point in the path of the other particle is being referred to, is incorrect.

This is all I meant. My purpose was simply to clarify not to accuse. The fact is that the vast majority of people have a Euclidean picture of space time as a series of snapshots strung together (a lot like a movie film) and thus the word "simultaneous" suggests to them a particular point in time somewhere else that is at the same time. But in Minkowsky space-time, what is simultaneous or at the same time right now on the planet saturn is a actually a period of time about 4 hours long. All times in that period are equally simultaneous with "now" here on earth.

[bangstrom]

Bell's equality does not mean that relativity is violated

I don't know of anyone here who is claiming relativity is violated.

He says that relativity is not violated and the ONLY way that can be true is if the Minkowsky structure of space time is adhered to which does not allow any causality between events separated by a space-like interval.

He says relativity is not violated but the rest is your speculation beyond what was stated.
No causality across space-like intervals sounds impossible to me. Space-like intervals are part of an imaginary cone at the extreme edge of a space-time continuum and totally space-like intervals may not exist in nature. Or, if you consider Heisenberg’s uncertainty, a particle residing on a line is impossible. A particle will be tunneling about from one side of the line to the other. I think causality must exist at the at all space-time intervals even if the timing is far too fast to measure.

Incorrect. What the failure of Bell's inequality shows is that nothing predetermines the results of the measurments of these particles. Until the measurement is made, the particle does not have a spin of either up or down.

Check your facts. The failure of Bell’s inequality shows that the observation of of the first particle predetermines the observation of the second particle. The entangled particles are part of a shared wave state until one of the particles is observed. The first observation fixes the spin state of both particles in an anti-correlated state so we know that, if one particle is “spin up,” the other particle is “spin down.”

[mitchellmckain]

Bell's equality does not mean that relativity is violated

I don't know of anyone here who is claiming relativity is violated.

You are, because you obviously do not understand or accept relativity.

He says that relativity is not violated and the ONLY way that can be true is if the Minkowsky structure of space time is adhered to which does not allow any causality between events separated by a space-like interval.

He says relativity is not violated but the rest is your speculation beyond what was stated.

It is not speculation. It is the special theory of relativity.

No causality across space-like intervals sounds impossible to me.

And yet that is exactly what special relativity tells us.

Space-like intervals are part of an imaginary cone at the extreme edge of a space-time continuum and totally space-like intervals may not exist in nature.

Space-like intervals have a very clear mathematical definition. It is whenever the Minkowsky metric interval
ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - dt²
between two events is greater than zero.

Or, if you consider Heisenberg’s uncertainty, a particle residing on a line is impossible. A particle will be tunneling about from one side of the line to the other.

The only "line" we have been talking about is the speed of light, and there is nothing in the phenomenon of quantum tunneling about tunneling past the speed of light to some higher speed. Like the measurement of entangled particles, tunneling is decoherence and is thus a completely random event so there is no causality involved whatsoever.

Now, it is a misconception that relativity says that absolutely nothing is faster than the speed of light. Phase velocity (the speed of a wave crest) can for example exceed the speed of light. But that is because the wave crest is not a physical object but a mathematical construct. Tunneling and decoherence are in the same category. But what is limited to the speed of light is causality and information.

I think causality must exist at the at all space-time intervals even if the timing is far too fast to measure.

So you think special relativity is wrong.

Incorrect. What the failure of Bell's inequality shows is that nothing predetermines the results of the measurments of these particles. Until the measurement is made, the particle does not have a spin of either up or down.

Check your facts.

I know the facts of modern physics which I studied for my master's degree in the subject and which you simply refuse to accept. Besides, this just what the guy said in the video you linked.

The failure of Bell’s inequality shows that the observation of of the first particle predetermines the observation of the second particle.

No it does not. That is not even coherent because one event does not precede the other. The two measurements/observations with a space-like interval between them are simultaneous.

The entangled particles are part of a shared wave state until one of the particles is observed.

Yes and you imagine a Euclidean space-time snap shot where one is observed and the other is not. But that is wrong. Space-time is not Euclidean. It is Minkowsky.

The first observation fixes the spin state of both particles in an anti-correlated state so we know that, if one particle is “spin up,” the other particle is “spin down.”

If there is a space-like interval between the two measurements then neither one is first.

Look... special relativity is one of the premises for the derivation of Bell's inequality. Throwing out special relativity is one possible resolution and this is essentially what David Bohm does. But this is rejected by the scientific community because this doesn't agree with any of the other objective evidence.

[mitchellmckain]

Woops... I got the last three of those quotes wrong... attributed to myself rather than bangstrom

also that formula for the metric assumes distances measure in light units (light seconds, light minutes, etc to match the units used in time), so it might also be written as follows if you use other distance units.

ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - c² dt²


Also... let me say that the way relativity is often presented uses those Euclidean snapshots and then just notes that these change depending on what inertial frame you use. Thus it is covered in the relativity of simultaneity. My way of presenting this simply reflects the observation by myself and others who teach relativity that this relativity of simultaneity is the key to understanding relativity, and until students grasps this part then they are prone to confusion and error in the calculations.

[bangstrom]

So you think special relativity is wrong.

My one AND ONLY problem with special relativity is Einstein’s second postulate where he states the axiom that c is the speed of light. This notion was important in formulating special relativity but it leads to avoidable paradoxes when carried to its logical extent.
I think Einstein’s second postulate should be reworded to something like, “Observational distance and time have a constant ratio of units, c, for all inertial observers sharing the same conventional choice of units.” Quote from N. “Viv” Pope and Anthony Osborne.
Nothing about the math of special relativity changes if you consider c as a space-time dimensional constant rather than as the speed of light. The value of c remains the same no matter what we call it.

Space-like intervals have a very clear mathematical definition. It is whenever the Minkowsky metric interval
ds² = dx² + dy² + dz² - dt²
between two events is greater than zero.

Look at the Minkowsky metric. Every square represents a single unit of space which includes a single unit of time at the ratio of one second of time for every 300,000 km of space. If you try to plot the path of an EM signal assuming that light has a speed it doesn’t work in Minkowsky space because it introduces a second source of time delay.

One source of delay in Minkowsky space is the dimensional constant c where every displacement is space includes a displacement in time. And the second “extra” source of time delay is the travel time of the EM signal itself.

Minkowsky’s time delay could be the speed of the EM signal but speeds are variable and observer dependent. Minkowsky’s time delay is best interpreted as a dimensional constant built into the system. The same is true in special relativity where the time delay of an EM signal is a constant one second delay for every 300,000 km of separation for all observers independent of their individual speeds.

I know the facts of modern physics which I studied for my master's degree in the subject and which you simply refuse to accept. Besides, this just what the guy said in the video you linked.

If you know the facts you should be able to support them with more than personal opinions. Where is the support for your denial of quantum instananeity or its absence of causality.

If there is a space-like interval between the two measurements then neither one is first.

The experimenter first makes one observation and later makes a second. Why is it not clear?

[bangstrom]

Now, it is a misconception that relativity says that absolutely nothing is faster than the speed of light. Phase velocity (the speed of a wave crest) can for example exceed the speed of light. But that is because the wave crest is not a physical object but a mathematical construct. Tunneling and decoherence are in the same category. But what is limited to the speed of light is causality and information.

Phase velocity is a mathematical construct thought to be just a tiny bit faster than the so called "speed of light." Quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the loss of entanglement "decoherence" are observable physical phenomenon that occur as either simultaneous events or much too fast to measure. They are not just mathematical constructs. They are examples of quantum instantneity which you appear to deny as real.

[Faradave]

c where every displacement is space includes a displacement in time. And the second “extra” source of time delay is the travel time of the EM signal itself.

There are two issues here, which if resolved, will make things clearer.

First, I can travel at 1 mile/hour and be causal. A future light cone defines the outside limit on causality but causality applies to all the worldlines it contains not just the cone itself. You're on the right track in assuming that speed limit c is universal because it derives from the underlying structure of the universe. However, the "little squares" you refer to aren't square in non-Euclidean spacetime and causality applies to slopes ≤ c.

Second (this is much more important to your understanding), worldlines don't grow! A worldline in 4D (or a 2D slice) of spacetime is pre-established in the same sense that the time coordinate is. We view it as an outsider.


The conventional worldline of a photon does not start at emission and grow (or extend at some rate) to absorption. It simply is in 4D, in the same way that the time & space coordinates are. There is no "extra source" of time delay.

People may argue philosophically that the future doesn't exist yet. Fine, then don't draw it. But the future is inherently built in to whatever spacetime diagram you do draw.

In spacetime, a worldline simply implies existence. "Speed" is expressed by a worldline's slope, not by its growth.

[Faradave]

... faster than the so called "speed of light." Quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the loss of entanglement "decoherence" are observable physical phenomenon that occur as either simultaneous events or much too fast to measure. They are not just mathematical constructs. They are examples of quantum instantneity which you appear to deny as real.

There is an entire class of phenomena which are legitimately faster than light, without violating SR.

It is important for you to realize that entangled particles share a connection, which happens to be spacelike. Like any connection, it is inherently mutual, just as if you and I were connected by a string. Thus, if the connection is severed for one of a connected pair, it's simultaneously severed for both, regardless of separation. Severing a connection is a legitimate, faster-than-light change in state.

You may find it easier to consider a classical change in "status". If you have a twin brother exploring Pluto and he unfortunately dies in an avalanche, you are instantly no longer a twin. SR was not violated by this change in status.

[mitchellmckain]

Ignoring a lot of meaningless nonsense, which only confirms that bangstrom does not accept or understand relativity and doesn't seem to have any desire to do so...

The experimenter first makes one observation and later makes a second. Why is it not clear?

I can first observe a bacterium in the microscope and then observe a blur on an x-ray of a patient who wiggled. Does that mean that the bacteria wiggled first even if the x-ray was taken the previous day?

I can first observe a solar flare on the sun and then later that day observe a solar flare on Alpha Centauri A. Does that mean that the solar flare on the sun happened first? Remember that Alpha Centauri is four light years away.

[bangstrom]

There is an entire class of phenomena which are legitimately faster than light, without violating SR.

Agreed.

It is important for you to realize that entangled particles share a connection, which happens to be spacelike. Like any connection, it is inherently mutual, just as if you and I were connected by a string. Thus, if the connection is severed for one of a connected pair, it's simultaneously severed for both, regardless of separation. Severing a connection is a legitimate, faster-than-light change in state.

Your twin example makes sense but an important element missing. Where is the observable shared connectedness between the twins? The shared connection must be more than calling them twins or connecting them with a string. A quantum connection is something observable and more like the Corsican twins where, if you strike one twin, the other feels the pain.

Your twin example needs a non-local common connection if the twins are said to be entangled. If the twins are constantly changing hats and one twin always wears a red hat when the other twin wears a blue hat as if they only had two hats between them, then they would have an observable common connection. And, if the anti-coordinated color of their hats continued with no apparent communication between them, then we could say the twins were entangled.

You may find it easier to consider a classical change in "status". If you have a twin brother exploring Pluto and he unfortunately dies in an avalanche, you are instantly no longer a twin. SR was not violated by this change in status.

In the quantum understanding of connectedness, if the twin on Pluto dies with a blue hat on, we instantly know the twin back home is wearing a red hat and the loss of entanglement fixes the the hat color that both twins are wearing from that point on and they are no longer entangled.

Here is a summary of a strange experiment involving entanglement . It has short review of how quantum entanglement works and some perplexing observations.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/05/ ... -same-time

I don’t doubt the observations but I doubt the conclusions. The electrons in the experiment persist from beginning to end so it makes more sense to consider the entanglement as between electrons than between photons existing at different times. This is another example of the sort of experiment that makes me doubt the existence of photon particles.

[bangstrom]

Ignoring a lot of meaningless nonsense, which only confirms that bangstrom does not accept or understand relativity and doesn't seem to have any desire to do so...

The experimenter first makes one observation and later makes a second. Why is it not clear?

I can first observe a bacterium in the microscope and then observe a blur on an x-ray of a patient who wiggled. Does that mean that the bacteria wiggled first even if the x-ray was taken the previous day?

I can first observe a solar flare on the sun and then later that day observe a solar flare on Alpha Centauri A. Does that mean that the solar flare on the sun happened first? Remember that Alpha Centauri is four light years away.

The observer knows which event he observed first and which he observed second. An observer in orbit about Alpha Centauri knows which solar flare he observed first and which flare he observed second.

When one member of an entangled pair is observed it simultaneously fixes the quantum state of the other pair. That is what is observed in experiments involving entanglement.

This is from the article I cited in the previous post:

"For example, if you measure the first photon and find it horizontally polarized, you'll know that the other photon has instantaneously collapsed into the vertical state and vice versa—no matter how far away it is. Because the collapse happens instantly, Albert Einstein dubbed the effect "spooky action at a distance." It doesn't violate relativity, though: It's impossible to control the outcome of the measurement of the first photon, so the quantum link can't be used to send a message faster than light."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/05/ ... -same-time

[mitchellmckain]

The experimenter first makes one observation and later makes a second. Why is it not clear?

I can first observe a bacterium in the microscope and then observe a blur on an x-ray of a patient who wiggled. Does that mean that the bacteria wiggled first even if the x-ray was taken the previous day?

I can first observe a solar flare on the sun and then later that day observe a solar flare on Alpha Centauri A. Does that mean that the solar flare on the sun happened first? Remember that Alpha Centauri is four light years away.

The observer knows which event he observed first and which he observed second. An observer in orbit about Alpha Centauri knows which solar flare he observed first and which flare he observed second.

The point is that when you observe something does not equal when it happens. So making one observation and then making a second observation DOES NOT make it clear that the first event happened before the second event!

When one member of an entangled pair is observed it simultaneously fixes the quantum state of the other pair. That is what is observed in experiments involving entanglement.

When the two measurement are separated by a space-like interval then there is no first measurement. According to relativity any assignment of one to an earlier time than another is completely arbitrary. They are effectively simultaneous and thus neither is first and one does not cause the other.

"For example, if you measure the first photon and find it horizontally polarized, you'll know that the other photon has instantaneously collapsed into the vertical state and vice versa—no matter how far away it is. Because the collapse happens instantly, Albert Einstein dubbed the effect "spooky action at a distance." It doesn't violate relativity, though: It's impossible to control the outcome of the measurement of the first photon, so the quantum link can't be used to send a message faster than light."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/05/ ... -same-time

Right and "doesn't violate relativity" means that there is no causal relationship over space-like intervals.

[bangstrom]

The point is that when you observe something does not equal when it happens. So making one observation and then making a second observation DOES NOT make it clear that the first event happened before the second event!

When the two measurement are separated by a space-like interval then there is no first measurement. According to relativity any assignment of one to an earlier time than another is completely arbitrary. They are effectively simultaneous and thus neither is first and one does not cause the other.

The timing of observations alone does not determine the timing of events, but the observer knows which observation he made first and which he made second and that is the critical part.

If observing one particle of an entangled pair finds the particle in the spin-up position, the status of the second particle is then fixed in the spin-down position. Quoting from the article, “"For example, if you measure the first photon and find it horizontally polarized, you'll know that the other photon has instantaneously collapsed into the vertical state and vice versa—no matter how far away it is.”

It is possible in cases of extremely close timing or of great distances, as in your Alpha Centauri example, that one observer might see the timing of events as A happening first and then B while an observer on the opposite end sees B happening first.
If observer at A sees his particle as spin- up he knows the observer at B sees his particle as spin-down and vice versa.
The two observers would have to get together and compare notes to decide which observer saw which first to establish causality but this doesn’t happen in experiments involving entanglement because there is only one set of local observations.

Right and "doesn't violate relativity" means that there is no causal relationship over space-like intervals.

This is where you go too far and claim, “There is no causal relationship over space-like intervals.”
I don’t see how one can make this assumption unless they take an absolutist, literal interpretation of Einstein’s second postulate. This is contrary to the observed effects of quantum instanteity and the denial of causality at any level is a dubious claim.
If we can have particles paired at space-like intervals I see no reason why we can't have causality at space-like intervals.

[mitchellmckain]

Right and "doesn't violate relativity" means that there is no causal relationship over space-like intervals.

This is where you go too far and claim, “There is no causal relationship over space-like intervals.”
I don’t see how one can make this assumption .

And this is where you prove you have no understanding of relativity. ANY referenence will tell you exactly the same thing. It is NOT an assumption. It is the essence of special relativity supported by ALL the objective evidence.

Wikipedia

Video

Virginia Tech

Another good explanation

Slide Show

Unfortunately, a lot of people today care more about their sci-fi tv shows than than they do about science, so they refuse to believe what science is telling us about this, latching onto whatever they can misunderstand and twist out of context in order to justify this.

[bangstrom]

And this is where you prove you have no understanding of relativity. ANY referenence will tell you exactly the same thing. It is NOT an assumption. It is the essence of special relativity supported by ALL the objective evidence.

Wikipedia

Video

Virginia Tech

Another good explanation

Slide Show

Unfortunately, a lot of people today care more about their sci-fi tv shows than than they do about science, so they refuse to believe what science is telling us about this, latching onto whatever they can misunderstand and twist out of context in order to justify this.

None of references you cited address the issue of whether c is best interpreted as the speed of light or as a dimensional constant. The math and charts of special relativity remain identical whether
299,792 kilometers per second is called the speed of light or if it is interpreted as a dimensional constant but c behaves nothing like a speed and it is in every way like a dimensional constant.

Special relativity tells us that any two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time at the rate of one second for every 300,000 kilometers of distance. This is true for all observers despite their individual velocities which suggests that c is a constant ratio and not a speed. Speeds add but you never have c +/- v. C is a ratio giving us the constant amount of time found in every unit of space. Nothing can travel faster than c because c is a ratio of time to space and you can’t go faster than a ratio any more than you can travel faster than 1.6 kilometers per mile.

The interpretation of c as a speed breaks down in general relativity where the speed of light varies with gravitational densities and GR even permits “speeds” faster than light such as the expansion rate of the universe. In GR, the Hubble ratio adds to the ratio of c to give the universe a combined ratio of expansion that is greater than the so called speed of light.

I understand how it is possible for one observer to see events happening in the reverse order of another so that causality appears to be reversed but I didn’t see any support in your citations for your view that causality can not exist with space-like separation.

Most of the confusion and paradoxes of special relativity, such as the Pole and Barn experiment, are eliminated if you understand c as a dimensional constant rather than as the speed of a photon carrying energy from place to place.

What gives you confidence in saying that c is a speed and not a dimensional constant?

And, I ask again, are you denying the possibility of quantum instantaneity?

[socrat44]

And, I ask again, are you denying the possibility of quantum instantaneity?

quantum instantaneous - doesn't have interval -
- instantaneous point action of quantum particle ( h*)
Of course it is possible if the speed of quantum particle is c >1.
====

[mitchellmckain]

And this is where you prove you have no understanding of relativity. ANY referenence will tell you exactly the same thing. It is NOT an assumption. It is the essence of special relativity supported by ALL the objective evidence.

Wikipedia

Video

Virginia Tech

Another good explanation

Slide Show

Unfortunately, a lot of people today care more about their sci-fi tv shows than than they do about science, so they refuse to believe what science is telling us about this, latching onto whatever they can misunderstand and twist out of context in order to justify this.

None of references you cited address the issue of whether c is best interpreted as the speed of light or as a dimensional constant. The math and charts of special relativity remain identical whether
299,792 kilometers per second is called the speed of light or if it is interpreted as a dimensional constant but c behaves nothing like a speed and it is in every way like a dimensional constant.

What all of these references address was the issue actually under discussion rather than your bizarre red herring, attempting to distract everyone. All of them confirm the fact that there is no causality over space-like intervals - something which you have repeatedly denied and given various absurd labels such as "speculation" and "assumption," when the truth is that this is a scientific fact central to special relativity.

What gives you confidence in saying that c is a speed and not a dimensional constant?

c is a physical constant with the dimensions of velocity. It is also a means for giving space and time the same dimensions, making many physical equations simpler. As such the term "dimensional constant" is somewhat correct converting time units to space units in much the same way as we convert inches to centimeters. What is complete baloney is your rhetoric about this fact somehow disproving the Minkowsky structure of space-time established by special relativity. This also makes a clear mathematical difference between space and time so that "dimensional constant" is only applicable by analogy rather than literally correct.

And, I ask again, are you denying the possibility of quantum instantaneity?

This is not a scientific term. Looks like the invention of a fringe publication with no standing in the scientific community and it is clear why. The very word "instantaneity" is mired in a Euclidean understanding of space-time and failing to understand the relativity of simultaneity.

Can you demonstrate any understanding of the relativity of simultaneity? Or.. as I suspect this is all a part of some gobble-dee-gook choosing sci-fi over science.

[bangstrom]

quantum instantaneous - doesn't have interval -
- instantaneous point action of quantum particle ( h*)
Of course it is possible if the speed of quantum particle is c >1.
====

Quantum instantaneity may not have a time interval or the interval may be far too short to measure but QM does not require a direct physical contact for one particle to effect the condition of another particle. This means there is no need to invent an imaginary particle (h*) to satisfy the feeling that the interaction among electrons must be carried out by a particle carrying energy through space. None of this particle interaction is a part of the observation so it is best not to complicate the issue by introducing an explanation that can’t be confirmed by observation. This is the problem with Einstein’s axiomatic second postulate.

Two remote electrons having the proper orientation and resonant frequency and, possibly just the right the presence of atoms in the near vicinity, can momentarily share a common Schroedinger wavefunction as if the electrons were side by side. This is the phenomenon we know as quantum entanglement. The exact location of the electrons is considered “indeterminate.” They can be in a higher energy orbit than expected or at a lower energy orbit and their locations can only be described by probably functions until they are observed. When the electrons are momentarily entangled, it is likely that one electron is in a high energy orbit when its partner electron is low and vice versa.

The two electrons function as if they are two halves of a single particle until the entanglement is lost. If the loss of entanglement catches the greater amount of energy in the electron that was previously at the lower energy level, we have light related event that is indistinguishable from the classical observation of light but it does not involve either a photon or energy traveling through the space.

John Cramer’s “Transactional Interpretation” is one such theory of light that explains light as a two-way, wave-like connection between atoms without the complication of a photon particle or energy moving through space with a speed. The energy transfer is accomplished by an electron in one atom moving within the atom to an orbit of higher momentum while an electron in the “emitter” atom simultaneously drops to an orbit of lower momentum. The observed timing of events is consistent with special relativity where two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time at the rate of one second of time for every 300,000 km of space.

http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/Cramer%20- ... tation.pdf

[bangstrom]

What all of these references address was the issue actually under discussion rather than your bizarre red herring, attempting to distract everyone. All of them confirm the fact that there is no causality over space-like intervals - something which you have repeatedly denied and given various absurd labels such as "speculation" and "assumption," when the truth is that this is a scientific fact central to special relativity.

Yes, I claim that causality should remain at space-like intervals but I found no conformation in your references to support your view that there is no causality over space like-intervals. Can you give me an example where any of your references support this view?

c is a physical constant with the dimensions of velocity. It is also a means for giving space and time the same dimensions, making many physical equations simpler. As such the term "dimensional constant" is somewhat correct converting time units to space units in much the same way as we convert inches to centimeters. What is complete baloney is your rhetoric about this fact somehow disproving the Minkowsky structure of space-time established by special relativity.

I never said anything about disproving Minkowsky. My claim is that the value of c in Minkowski’s is as you say, ”a physical constant with the dimensions of a velocity.“ However it does not work as a physical dimension plus the speed of light. The value of c works as a straight forward dimensional constant in both special relativity and in the Minkowsky diagrams so we can forget about c as the speed of light when interpreting the diagrams. C is a physical constant with the dimensions of a velocity and that works.

This also makes a clear mathematical difference between space and time so that "dimensional constant" is only applicable by analogy rather than literally correct.

What does that mean?

This is not a scientific term. Looks like the invention of a fringe publication with no standing in the scientific community and it is clear why. The very word "instantaneity" is mired in a Euclidean understanding of space-time and failing to understand the relativity of simultaneity.

This is another evasive answer to a yes or no question. Can you give word you prefer to “instantaneity” and answer the question? Are you denying the possibility of quantum (instantaneity, non-locality, or pick another word) ?

Can you demonstrate any understanding of the relativity of simultaneity? Or.. as I suspect this is all a part of some gobble-dee-gook choosing sci-fi over science.

My understanding of the relativity of simultaneity is as I stated several times before. Any two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time at the universally observed rate of one second of time for every 300,000 km of space and this works for all observers.

[mitchellmckain]

What all of these references address was the issue actually under discussion rather than your bizarre red herring, attempting to distract everyone. All of them confirm the fact that there is no causality over space-like intervals - something which you have repeatedly denied and given various absurd labels such as "speculation" and "assumption," when the truth is that this is a scientific fact central to special relativity.

Yes, I claim that causality should remain at space-like intervals but I found no conformation in your references to support your view that there is no causality over space like-intervals.

Then you didn't actually spend any time with them. That tells me you have no interest in the science, for I know this stuff backwards and forwards and even I could read, watch or listen long enough to find where they say this.

c is a physical constant with the dimensions of velocity. It is also a means for giving space and time the same dimensions, making many physical equations simpler. As such the term "dimensional constant" is somewhat correct converting time units to space units in much the same way as we convert inches to centimeters. What is complete baloney is your rhetoric about this fact somehow disproving the Minkowsky structure of space-time established by special relativity.

I never said anything about disproving Minkowsky.

You do that everytime you insist on causality over space-like intervals which is impossible in Minkowsky space-time. It is not even logically coherent as explained by all those links above for you can only think that way by insisting on a Euclidean structure of space-time as composed of a series of instantaneous snapshots. This is precisely what a Minkowsky space-time denies.

This also makes a clear mathematical difference between space and time so that "dimensional constant" is only applicable by analogy rather than literally correct.

What does that mean?

It means c is not literally a conversion between two arbitary units of measure for the same thing like inches to centimeters, because space and time are not really the same thing. On the other hand, in special and general relativity, we come to understand that the idea of fixed axes for space and time are somewhat arbitrary and so it makes sense to have a unit conversion between them. It is not completely arbitrary like in a Euclidean space subject to 360 degree polar and 180 degree azmuthal rotations (like with a sphere), but to hyperbolic rotations which keep the three areas of the light cone (past, present, and future) unchanged.

simulation of hyperbolic rotation

This is not a scientific term. Looks like the invention of a fringe publication with no standing in the scientific community and it is clear why. The very word "instantaneity" is mired in a Euclidean understanding of space-time and failing to understand the relativity of simultaneity.

This is another evasive answer to a yes or no question. Can you give word you prefer to “instantaneity” and answer the question? Are you denying the possibility of quantum (instantaneity, non-locality, or pick another word) ?

non-locality works fine. If you stick to that and avoid references to instantaneous, causality, or communication then you are "ok to go" (sorry, couldn't help the reference to the film Contact).

Can you demonstrate any understanding of the relativity of simultaneity? Or.. as I suspect this is all a part of some gobble-dee-gook choosing sci-fi over science.

My understanding of the relativity of simultaneity is as I stated several times before. Any two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time at the universally observed rate of one second of time for every 300,000 km of space and this works for all observers.

That is only true of things ON the light cone. For things inside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only time between the events and no distance. For things outside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only space between the events and no time.

In any case, the relativity of simultaneity refers to the following:

If you have two observers with very long ships moving past each other at relative velocity of 86.6% the speed of light and each has clocks all over their ship synchronized with all the other clocks on their own ship. Then when they look at the clocks of the other ship and take into account the time it takes light to get to them, they will conclude that the clocks of the other ship are not synchronized. The point is that two events which are measured as simultaneous in one inertial from will not be measured as simultaneous in a different inertial frame. As explained in the video I linked in the previous post, the order of events changes from one inertial frame to another UNLESS there are time-like intervals between the events (each is in the past or future light cones of the others). Therefore in Minkowsky space-time it doesn't even make sense to talk about causality over space-like intervals, for any talk of one happening before the other is completely arbitrary.

[bangstrom]

Then you didn't actually spend any time with them. That tells me you have no interest in the science, for I know this stuff backwards and forwards and even I could read, watch or listen long enough to find where they say this.

If the references say what you claim they say, you should be able to identify a paragraph or two that supports your opinion that causality does not exist over space-like intervals.

c is a physical constant with the dimensions of velocity. It is also a means for giving space and time the same dimensions, making many physical equations simpler. As such the term "dimensional constant" is somewhat correct converting time units to space units in much the same way as we convert inches to centimeters. What is complete baloney is your rhetoric about this fact somehow disproving the Minkowsky structure of space-time established by special relativity.

Minkowsky space-like intervals are an idealized model of reality but they are not reality. Atoms and other particles do not exist as static points restricted to an imaginary line. Zitterbewung (ZPE) and Heisenberg uncertainty tell us that there is no such thing as a static particle so you can’t say that particles never stray from the space-like line or that causality does not exist in the real world just because you cant reconcile it with the model.

It means c is not literally a conversion between two arbitary units of measure for the same thing like inches to centimeters, because space and time are not really the same thing. On the other hand, in special and general relativity, we come to understand that the idea of fixed axes for space and time are somewhat arbitrary and so it makes sense to have a unit conversion between them. It is not completely arbitrary like in a Euclidean space subject to 360 degree polar and 180 degree azmuthal rotations (like with a sphere), but to hyperbolic rotations which keep the three areas of the light cone (past, present, and future) unchanged.

How is a calling c a dimensional constant not literally correct? The value of c is the same one second for every 300,000 km of distance at all rotations.

non-locality works fine. If you stick to that and avoid references to instantaneous, causality, or communication then you are "ok to go" (sorry, couldn't help the reference to the film Contact).

Non-locality also works for me but then you dismiss the things that make non-locality… non-local. Non-locality includes the phenomenon of entanglement, and what Einstein called, “Spooky action at a distance.”

That is only true of things ON the light cone. For things inside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only time between the events and no distance.

If there is time between events, they are not simultaneous so they are outside the definition of quantum simultaneity.

For things outside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only space between the events and no time.

Outside the light cone is an imaginary zone beyond observable reality.

In any case, the relativity of simultaneity refers to the following:

If you have two observers with very long ships moving past each other at relative velocity of 86.6% the speed of light and each has clocks all over their ship synchronized with all the other clocks on their own ship. Then when they look at the clocks of the other ship and take into account the time it takes light to get to them, they will conclude that the clocks of the other ship are not synchronized. The point is that two events which are measured as simultaneous in one inertial from will not be measured as simultaneous in a different inertial frame.

This example is one of synchronous clocks rather than simultaneous events. The observers don’t agree on the observed velocity of the other ship so how could they agree on the speed of light especially when it comes from different directions? My take away from this example is that c works as a universally observed dimensional constant but it fails as a speed.

As explained in the video I linked in the previous post, the order of events changes from one inertial frame to another UNLESS there are time-like intervals between the events (each is in the past or future light cones of the others). Therefore in Minkowsky space-time it doesn't even make sense to talk about causality over space-like intervals, for any talk of one happening before the other is completely arbitrary.

I agree there are circumstances where events can appear in reverse order depending on the perspective of the observer but the invalidation of Bell’s inequality demonstrates that the observation of the first particle decides the condition of the second particle for both observers.

The two observers would have to get together and compare times to decide which particle was observed first and by whom but they both observe that the formerly entangled particles are anti-coordinated so if one is in a spin-up condition the other is in a spin-down condition and vice versa. Causality still holds true because the first observation of one particle simultaneously determines the condition of the second particle.

[mitchellmckain]

If the references say what you claim they say, you should be able to identify a paragraph or two that supports your opinion that causality does not exist over space-like intervals.

Yes I can, the question is, why can't you? I provided the links, you just have to follow them. So why don't you? You have no interest in the science.

non-locality works fine. If you stick to that and avoid references to instantaneous, causality, or communication then you are "ok to go" (sorry, couldn't help the reference to the film Contact).

Non-locality also works for me but then you dismiss the things that make non-locality… non-local. Non-locality includes the phenomenon of entanglement, and what Einstein called, “Spooky action at a distance.”

If you stick to that and avoid references to instantaneous, causality, or communication then you are "ok to go."

That is only true of things ON the light cone. For things inside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only time between the events and no distance.

If there is time between events, they are not simultaneous so they are outside the definition of quantum simultaneity.

What "definition of quantum simultaneity" are you imagining. There is no such thing.

The Euclidean idea of simultaneous based on space-time composed of instantaneous snapshots has been disproven by science. Instead we have a relativity of simultaneity and the Minkowsky space-time where events are only ordered in time if there is a time-like interval between them (in each others past or future light cone).

For things outside the light cone you can choose an inertial frame where there is only space between the events and no time.

Outside the light cone is an imaginary zone beyond observable reality.

LOL LOL LOL space-like intervals are outside the light cone, therefore by your own statement any causality you claim to exist over space-like intervals is part of an "imaginary zone beyond observable reality."

Are you writing a comedy?

In any case, the relativity of simultaneity refers to the following:

If you have two observers with very long ships moving past each other at relative velocity of 86.6% the speed of light and each has clocks all over their ship synchronized with all the other clocks on their own ship. Then when they look at the clocks of the other ship and take into account the time it takes light to get to them, they will conclude that the clocks of the other ship are not synchronized. The point is that two events which are measured as simultaneous in one inertial from will not be measured as simultaneous in a different inertial frame.

This example is one of synchronous clocks rather than simultaneous events. The observers don’t agree on the observed velocity of the other ship so how could they agree on the speed of light especially when it comes from different directions? My take away from this example is that c works as a universally observed dimensional constant but it fails as a speed.

Each tick of a clock is an event. Each arrival of a second hand, minute hand and hour at a number on the clock is an event. Thus each clock represents a whole series of events. When you have syncronized clocks then the entire series of these events for different clocks are simultaneous, BUT what we learn from relativity is that this is entirely relative to the inertial frame in which they were synchronized. That is the relativity of simultaneity.

As explained in the video I linked in the previous post, the order of events changes from one inertial frame to another UNLESS there are time-like intervals between the events (each is in the past or future light cones of the others). Therefore in Minkowsky space-time it doesn't even make sense to talk about causality over space-like intervals, for any talk of one happening before the other is completely arbitrary.

I agree there are circumstances where events can appear in reverse order depending on the perspective of the observer but the invalidation of Bell’s inequality demonstrates that the observation of the first particle decides the condition of the second particle for both observers.

Incorrect. Bell's inequality demonstrates NOTHING about the order of events, which are either fixed for time-like intervals or arbitrary (relative to the inertial frame) for space-like intervals.

The two observers would have to get together and compare times to decide which particle was observed first and by whom but they both observe that the formerly entangled particles are anti-coordinated so if one is in a spin-up condition the other is in a spin-down condition and vice versa. Causality still holds true because the first observation of one particle simultaneously determines the condition of the second particle.

The point is that there is no basis for them to agree on which was first and the only rational conclusion is that with a space-like interval between them neither of the two measurements are first. Thus there is no instantaneous causality or information transfer between the two events. There is only the agreement between the random results of simultaneous measurements. The result is not a violation of relativity or the Minkowsky limitation of causality to time-like intervals, but there is a contradiction with Einstein's premise of local realism and we have to accept that there are non-local aspects to reality.