Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest45734 on 10/04/2018 12:54:54

Nonlocality of particles or quantum entanglement allows almost instantaneous information transfer beyond the speed of light in 4D space time.
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html
Many wild and wonderful ideas exist as to how this EPR paradox arises. Could this be related to extra spacial dimensions or perhaps due to a photon from its point of view not experiencing time or space
https://phys.org/news/201405doeslightexperiencetime.html
Does anyone sentient have any insight.

Can you please ensure that you format your post headings as questions please.

Quantum entanglement.....wow.
If there's an elephant in the room of physics that's it.
The idea is avoided, I know that.

Technically speaking, quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than light.
However, one way to visualize the correlated properties between two entangled particles is to view them as being connected by a wormhole: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholesquantumentanglementlink/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholesquantumentanglementlink/)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qtentangle/ (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qtentangle/)
This paper covers the territory pretty well. I always liked the Bob and Alice experiments.

When two small objects interact could they become one object and then split into two again but with each pair defined by the other (opposite halves)?
So detecting one of the pair would automatically tell you something about the other......
Can't be so simple as that,can it?

As I understand it, quantum entanglement does not involve instantaneous information transfer.
It is very hard to give examples that are both accurate to QM and relatable to our experiences, but the common comparison is this:
Two twin brothers want to share their birthday cake, but they are both on vacation in different places. Their mother cuts the cake with a single slice and sends each piece to one of her sons. Until opening the package, neither son knows whether the cut was made evenly, or if the other twin got a larger or smaller piece. It doesn't matter how far away the twins are, when one opens his package to see 60% of a cake, he instantly knows that his brother will be disappointed.
This example is representative of most QM entanglement sort of experiments in that an operation (cutting of the cake) is done that produces two complimentary things (slices of cake), which are then sent mailed) different ways such that information about them is unknown until the thing is actively inspected (package opened). The example falls short of QM reality because the outcome (who got how much cake) is determined by the mother (and she knows)and even if some randomization is introduced, it still doesn't quite capture the nature of superposition... but it works well enough.
There is nothing magic about the instantaneity here. Each twin already has the knowledge that the cake slices will together add to one cake, and then presented with one slice, has all the information required to know the size of the other slice. This breaks down if their assumption is invalid (maybe mom ate a piece too). It is also important to remember that it still took time to send the cake to each of the twins, so the information sent from mom to son is constrained by the speed of light. That each son gains insight into both packages at the same time is only a matter of logic, not physics.

If particles are local (wave)excitations in a global field would it make sense for them to "become one" in any interaction and then break apart into two constituent parts?
Can they ever "break into three or more parts"?

There are numerous articles indicating the information transfer is at least 10000 times faster than light https://newatlas.com/quantumentanglementspeed10000fasterlight/26587/
Are these articles wrong.

If particles are local (wave)excitations in a global field would it make sense for them to "become one" in any interaction and then break apart into two constituent parts?
Can they ever "break into three or more parts"?
Seee Bose Einstein Condensates
https://www.nature.com/articles/35051038

Excellent answer @chiralSPO
At an extremely simplistic level you can view the 2 sides of a coin as being entangled. Toss the coin and see heads, you don’t need to look at the other side to see what it says. Of course, as @chiralSPO says this doesn’t do justice to the overall concept.
Entanglement arises in situations where we have partial knowledge of the state of two systems. We say that the states of 2 systems are “independent” if knowledge of the state of one of them does not give useful information about the state of the other, but, we say the states are entangled when information about one improves our knowledge of the other. Basically, entanglement is a lack of independence.
It’s important to recognise that entanglement is an everyday occurrence within atoms and in the results of particle collisions, independant outcomes are rare.
There are numerous articles indicating the information transfer is at least 10000 times faster than light https://newatlas.com/quantumentanglementspeed10000fasterlight/26587/
Are these articles wrong.
Entanglement is beloved of popular articles because it sounds mysterious, it is also very often misrepresented.
Note the article says “So is the spooky action at a distance associated with entanglement actually instantaneous, or does it simply has a very large propagation speed?”
Whereas the paper says “If the spooky action does exist, what is its speed?”
The paper places a lower bound on that speed, if the action exists.
I haven’t been right through the paper, but it does not indicate any propagation of information between Alice and Bob, what it does show is that when Alice measures the polarisation she can use her prior knowledge to determine the state of the other photon.
What is really interesting here is the distance of Alice & Bob from Charlie, over that distance the photons have remained entangled.

If entanglement is an intrinsic feature of quantum particles, surely, there needs to be no transfer of information at the quantum level.
Later the three get together to compare notes
As the article states; information is shared later.

If entanglement is an intrinsic feature of quantum particles, surely, there needs to be no transfer of information at the quantum level.
I think this depends on what you are calling information.
When 2 particles collide they transfer information about their momentum.
Later the three get together to compare notes
As the article states; information is shared later.
Again we have to be clear what we mean by information.
The article states “Charlie generates a pair of entangled photons, and records the time.
When Alice detects a photon, she records the polarization and the time at which the measurement was made. When Bob measures his photon, he also records the polarization and the time of arrival.”
So we can see that all 3 collect a lot of data and they get together to analyse it.
Yes, data is information, but don’t confuse it with the idea of spooky transfer of information.

There's only one piece of knowledge one can know from entanglement and that's the state and position of the other particle

When 2 particles collide they transfer information about their momentum.
This is true, but when they collide there is no distance between them. I was thinking of information transfer at distance.
For example; if two entangled quons are one LY apart, it should not be possible for information to be exchanged between them in less than one year. If, however, there is no underlying difference between them, there is no necessity to postulate any transfer of information, at any speed.
Not my (crackpot?) idea  David Bohm's.

The article states “Charlie generates a pair of entangled photons, and records the time.
When Alice detects a photon, she records the polarization and the time at which the measurement was made. When Bob measures his photon, he also records the polarization and the time of arrival.”
So we can see that all 3 collect a lot of data and they get together to analyse it.
Yes, data is information, but don’t confuse it with the idea of spooky transfer of information.
All the data/information you mention is collected by people, and any exchange takes place at subluminal speed. I certainly see nothing spooky or problematic about that.
However, I think I would be right in saying that the question of transfer of information (if, indeed, any is transferred) between distant quons is still unresolved.

There's only one piece of knowledge one can know from entanglement and that's the state and position of the other particle,
Absolutely; but are we not looking at two different scenarios?
1. Transfer of information between quons and people.
2. Transfer of “information” between one quon and another.
These seem to be quite different situations.

If information could be transferred faster than light speed then you could detect events from the future light cone.

Agreed. This must be another argument against the transfer of information in entanglement scenarios.

Agreed. This must be another argument against the transfer of information in entanglement scenarios.
How about Quantum teleportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation this allows for information transfer but at no more than light speed. https://phys.org/news/201707physiciststransmitearthtospacequantumentanglement.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/chinasquantumsatelliteachievesspookyactionrecorddistance
I follow your arguments above, but WHY do many apparently reputable people produce papers claiming information is transferred faster than the speed of light. Are they just misunderstanding the pie or coin analogies above for instantaneous information transfer :) OR is there something to their claims.
Edit: https://www.livescience.com/28550howquantumentanglementworksinfographic.html (The transfer of state from photon A to Photon B takes place at a speed at least 10000 times faster than the speed of light)
Qouting from the above link
In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."
Metaphorically: Taking an additional slice out of one of two entangled pies instantly adjusts the size of the slice in the other entangled pie, at a speed at least 10000 times faster than the speed of light.
Or is it more accurate to state that the state of neither photon is known until one is observed, and once one is observed then you instantly know the state of the other photon, regardless of separation distance.

If information could be transferred faster than light speed then you could detect events from the future light cone
So if an entangled particle was travelling away from you at light speed in a space ship, it would be effectively passing more slowly through time. When the entangled particle is viewed from the space ship it would know the state of the entangled particle it left behind which would now exist in its future. Are you now telling me time travel is possible with entangled particles.

In support of information transfer faster than light I found this.
In 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, preexisting (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.
https://phys.org/news/201511nistteamspookyactiondistance.html

As I understand it, quantum entanglement does not involve instantaneous information transfer.
It is very hard to give examples that are both accurate to QM and relatable to our experiences, but the common comparison is this:
Two twin brothers want to share their birthday cake, but they are both on vacation in different places. Their mother cuts the cake with a single slice and sends each piece to one of her sons. Until opening the package, neither son knows whether the cut was made evenly, or if the other twin got a larger or smaller piece. It doesn't matter how far away the twins are, when one opens his package to see 60% of a cake, he instantly knows that his brother will be disappointed.
This example is representative of most QM entanglement sort of experiments in that an operation (cutting of the cake) is done that produces two complimentary things (slices of cake), which are then sent mailed) different ways such that information about them is unknown until the thing is actively inspected (package opened). The example falls short of QM reality because the outcome (who got how much cake) is determined by the mother (and she knows)and even if some randomization is introduced, it still doesn't quite capture the nature of superposition... but it works well enough.
There is nothing magic about the instantaneity here. Each twin already has the knowledge that the cake slices will together add to one cake, and then presented with one slice, has all the information required to know the size of the other slice. This breaks down if their assumption is invalid (maybe mom ate a piece too). It is also important to remember that it still took time to send the cake to each of the twins, so the information sent from mom to son is constrained by the speed of light. That each son gains insight into both packages at the same time is only a matter of logic, not physics.
This example is classical an of course it makes sense. However, this implies a single hidden variable...quantum mechanics doesn't. That's the difference.
In the classical example, we have slice A and B. The kid can look and it test is wether it is A and make another test to see if it is B. Suppose it is A. The kid makes a test to see if it is B and yields negative. And if it tests fot A gets positive. So the hidden variables are Tested A + / tested B  and for the other pair the opposite signs. So the hidden variable can be a matrix that can have two options (+,) or (,+), which can be represented by 0 or 1, so a single boolean variable, for a classical particle you would need an infinity (in quantum you need none ). That's classical.
Now in quantum the state is not defined until a measurement is done. So it seems an instantaneous action at distance. Even with the detection of a single particle emmited by a source, the particle is everywhere until measured then it disappears from all positions and reveals itself on a single one. In other words a measurement here makes the particle appear here and vanish from all other superpositions. But at least what is clear is that there unlike particle travel as waves, the collapse of a quantum field does not involve waves or signals traveling. I don't get it. I think something is wrong either with relativity or QM, if not with both.

Or is it more accurate to state that the state of neither photon is known until one is observed, and once one is observed then you instantly know the state of the other photon, regardless of separation distance.
I think you are getting close to the crux of this question, because the above is certainly true.
Looking at the article you quote:
Edit: https://www.livescience.com/28550howquantumentanglementworksinfographic.html (The transfer of state from photon A to Photon B takes place at a speed at least 10000 times faster than the speed of light)
Qouting from the above link
In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."
In there they say:
“The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.”
If you believe the above, then you must also believe that both photons exist in all possible states until measured, and when one is measured then somehow the other one must be informed of that measurement.
If, on the other hand you believe that entanglement puts two photons into related states such that measuring one reveals the state of the other, then no communication is necessary.
If you stick to strict QM rules then you must believe the former, and use that terminology.
However, QM does not pretend to deal with an underlying reality, it has a set of rules and terminology for handling wavefunctions and probabilities in such a way as to predict the behaviour of quantum systems, that is all. The terminology can lead to a number of paradoxes.
Feynman once said to his students, shut up and calculate

But at least what is clear is that there unlike particle travel as waves, the collapse of a quantum field does not involve waves or signals traveling. I don't get it. I think something is wrong either with relativity or QM, if not with both.
Perhaps they are both correct, but describe things differently.
“The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.”
If you believe the above, then you must also believe that both photons exist in all possible states until measured, and when one is measured then somehow the other one must be informed of that measurement.
As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.

Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.
Wouldn't the key factor, here, be: "... or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement"?
This must imply that FTL transfer of information is not considered to be a feature of quantum entanglement.

As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.
Possibly we don’t need extra dimensions. Could it be that David Bohm was there way ahead of us? In his reasoning about the “implicate order”, a quon on one side of the Universe is the quon on the other side, and is everything in between as well.
The entanglement we perceive, and the apparent transfer of information, equates to an interpretation of Bohm’s “explicate order”. It is the 3+1dimensional shadow of the underlying infinite reality.
Viewed in this context, "spooky action at a distance" is no longer either “spooky” nor is it “action at a distance”.
A measurement is simply the translation of infinite quantum reality, which we cannot see directly, into our limited perception of reality.
Is it surprising that it looks weird?

As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.
Possibly we don’t need extra dimensions. Could it be that David Bohm was there way ahead of us? In his reasoning about the “implicate order”, a quon on one side of the Universe is the quon on the other side, and is everything in between as well.
The entanglement we perceive, and the apparent transfer of information, equates to an interpretation of Bohm’s “explicate order”. It is the 3+1dimensional shadow of the underlying infinite reality.
Viewed in this context, "spooky action at a distance" is no longer either “spooky” nor is it “action at a distance”.
A measurement is simply the translation of infinite quantum reality, which we cannot see directly, into our limited perception of reality.
Is it surprising that it looks weird?
Thanks for the heads up on David Bohm https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/davidbohmimplicateorderandholomovement/ .This link was fascinating.
Mixing theories again: drawing on String Theories Membrane of space, the Holographic principle projecting 3D space onto a membrane. If I view the membrane as connecting all points in space, am I interpreting holographic principle and string theory correctly, or am I getting ahead of myself?.
Could David Bohm be correct Spooky action at a distance all things are connected.

There's only one piece of knowledge one can know from entanglement and that's the state and position of the other particle
I read your paper on definitions of masses. Do you have an opinion on locality and non locality re entanglement of particles. Do you favour a many worlds interpretation, what is your opinion on additional dimensions to explain non locality?

But at least what is clear is that there unlike particle travel as waves, the collapse of a quantum field does not involve waves or signals traveling. I don't get it. I think something is wrong either with relativity or QM, if not with both.
I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with either, what is a problem is in the interpretation.
As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.
Well, before we disappear down various rabbit holes, bear in mind that photons are not essential for entanglement, electrons & others exhibit it.
M, string, membrane and other theories, are complex analyses and pick and mix of top level quotes without a thorough understanding of the detail of each will lead to incorrect conclusions. If you have studied these in detail and are able to provide analysis to support any conclusions then a new theory is in order and the possibility of international accolade. Such a task is not for the faint hearted, even one of these requires a considerable amount of study.
On entanglement, the interesting debate going on below the level of pop press is whether it is an artefact of QM probabilities and the way measurements are taken.
@disinterested  looks like our posts collided.
Interestingly I was going to ask @PmbPhy for his views, he is a QM expert

If information could be transferred faster than light speed then you could detect events from the future light cone
So if an entangled particle was travelling away from you at light speed in a space ship, it would be effectively passing more slowly through time. When the entangled particle is viewed from the space ship it would know the state of the entangled particle it left behind which would now exist in its future. Are you now telling me time travel is possible with entangled particles.
You confuse the rate of change of a system with time travel.

If you have studied these in detail and are able to provide analysis to support any conclusions then a new theory is in order and the possibility of international accolade.
I dont think I will be getting any international accolade :) . I am just hoping for a clearer understanding. I am currently reading about string theory, and have in the past read various other theories. The concept of the membrane seems to be a bit vague, and could be analogous to the holographic universe concept.
Edit Here is a link to entanglement via an additional dimension https://arxiv.org/ftp/quantph/papers/0307/0307117.pdf I am not the only one that is considering extra dimensions. Other papers say non locality does not exist

I’m posting this here as well because it has a relevance to the duscussion
Non Locality has been proven many times by many different research groups. Do you just not like the concept of spooky action at the quantum level regardless of the evidence.
sorry, I was in a rush when I posted, I should have said i don’t see enough evidence in the nonlocality experiments to suggest any instantaneous or ftl transfer of information.
The results are explained by the probabilities of the wave functions. To quote the article: “The NIST experiments are called Bell tests, so named because in 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, preexisting (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.”
And the NIST paper: “Quantum mechanics at its heart is a statistical theory. It cannot with certainty predict the outcome of all single events, but instead it predicts probabilities of outcomes. This probabilistic nature of quantum theory is at odds with the determinism inherent in Newtonian physics and relativity, where outcomes can be exactly predicted given sufficient knowledge of a system.”
If you read the NIST paper you will see that they have demonstrated that QM is unlikely to be governed by local realism and hidden variables. They have eliminated a number of loopholes including the possibility of subliminal communication, however, that does not imply nor do they claim  superliminal communication.
There is a difference between making a measurement that forces the particle to be in a particular state, vs forcing an entangled particle into a particular state which breaks the entanglement. Those are not the same thing, one is a measurement, the other is a change of state followed by a measurement. When people talk about using entanglement for fasterthanlight communication, what they want is a measurement procedure that forces a particular outcome. You need to look carefully at quantum computing to realise it does not require the latter.
Yes, you are right that I lean towards a wavefunction explanation in that the behaviour of the entangled particles can be described by the probabilities of the combined wavefunction. The problem is, as you will see from threads on this forum, many people have real difficulties understanding probabilities, even simple ones like a pack of cards. Add to this the metaphors eg many worlds, and calculations eg all paths, and the average punter begins to extend to a reality that doesn’t exist. Yet many of these concepts are applicable to the classical world eg you can work out the trajectory of a cannon ball by assuming it takes all paths. Also I can take a playing card at random from a deck, post it to you without looking and assume that it is in a superposition of 52 states until you look at it when its wavefunction collapses and we know its position and state. The problem is that the quantum world is far more complex.

As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.
Possibly we don’t need extra dimensions. Could it be that David Bohm was there way ahead of us? In his reasoning about the “implicate order”, a quon on one side of the Universe is the quon on the other side, and is everything in between as well.
The entanglement we perceive, and the apparent transfer of information, equates to an interpretation of Bohm’s “explicate order”. It is the 3+1dimensional shadow of the underlying infinite reality.
Viewed in this context, "spooky action at a distance" is no longer either “spooky” nor is it “action at a distance”.
A measurement is simply the translation of infinite quantum reality, which we cannot see directly, into our limited perception of reality.
Is it surprising that it looks weird?
Yes, I think that it is very important to remember that the whole universe is connected. It is much easier for us mere mortals to consider small, simple, selfcontained (closed) systems, with welldefined boundaries (both in space and time). But this is not an accurate depiction of reality. All experiments "on QM systems" must be understood not just as the system of interest, but also including all of the setup, surrounding apparatus etc. and really the whole universe.
It is interesting to note that several QM properties are completely independent of space or spatial factors. For instance spin (which is often the crux of entanglementrelated thought experiments/real experiments). This website ( http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html ) discusses the notion of "spin space" which is completely independent from "location space". It is very technical (sorry), but perhaps of interest for some of the readers.

It is interesting to note that several QM properties are completely independent of space or spatial factors. For instance spin (which is often the crux of entanglementrelated thought experiments/real experiments). This website ( http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html ) discusses the notion of "spin space" which is completely independent from "location space". It is very technical (sorry), but perhaps of interest for some of the readers.
Is the wave function connected to the spin space
Wave function description of quantum entanglement. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf
Perhaps you are right all things in space are connected ;D but maybe no useful information is transmitted :[

Does a field generated by a particle contain information about the state of the particle? If so do entangled particles pick up information on each other from their respective fields. This is highly unlikely when separation distances may be measured in lightyears. However, the probability is not zero.

Does a field generated by a particle contain information about the state of the particle? If so do entangled particles pick up information on each other from their respective fields. This is highly unlikely when separation distances may be measured in lightyears. However, the probability is not zero.
The distance of separation in QFT does not have any effect on entanglement. The particles could be adjacent to each other or separated by some random distance the outcome is the same.
There are no particles there are only EM fields, The field contains information on direction and magnitude or spin, depending on which of the two links on the preceding two posts you read. The following article gives some history behind many of the differing theories over the years resulting in a possible field view of everything. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

Yes, so what we call particles are fields that behave in a certain way, they interfere, interact, create waves and have an identity as a individual system. There is another thing I was wondering. They say the fields collapse to a single definite position and in QM for a particle when we apply the position operator we get a single position. In my opinion it is not quite like that. Here is some basic description. There is no way of designing some apparatus to determine an exact position. So I would say the fields simply interact with each other during a collapse, say a photon is absorbed by an electron. The photon field continues further as embeded into the electron field. This hapens at a moment of time an throughout all the space the fields occupied(which is the whole universe). Hence there is no definite position of interaction. When we detect something those positions are regions where the fields are stronger. And there is also the problem of time. How does it happen, at a single moment of time? This is another issue in my opinion.
Thanks

To say that a particle is everywhere at once with varying probability for position is wrong in several ways. Firstly, it would be experiencing an infinite range of potentials all at the same time and if every particle did this all forces would cancel. This is because all particle fields would also have to be everywhere at once. Secondly, this would require all particles to be entangled with each other. You don't have an infinite number of spin states to support this. There are numerous other problems.

Ok so we have two particles that have become entangled. Neither will be able to outrun the propagation speed of the signals between them since even photons can't travel faster than light. So that the state of each particle could be available to the other within the field. In the case of an electron it is being constantly updated on the state of its partner in real time. So if information in the field indicates a change in the state of the other particle the entanglement is lost. We only assume this is instantaneous over vast distances.

But even a classical field, extends to infinity, the electric field around an electron extends to infinity. The strength of the fields vary and at some small distance from the peak, it becomes infinitesimal but not zero. So most of the energy is concentrated into a small place. That also explains particles "poping in and out of existence" from "nothing ".
Also there is no propagatin wave between entangled particles to carry information. Another thing, instead of thinking about particles in a superposition of being at certain positions according to the wavefunction, it is easier to think of a field and probabilities of an interaction of the field as a independent unit. QFT makes more sense in physics, QM uses a mathematical model that is quite weird because it tries to adapt the classical model of a particle as a corpuscle to quantum world which may not be a good idea.

But even a classical field, extends to infinity, the electric field around an electron extends to infinity. The strength of the fields vary and at some small distance from the peak, it becomes infinitesimal but not zero. So most of the energy is concentrated into a small place. That also explains particles "poping in and out of existence" from "nothing ".
Also there is no propagatin wave between entangled particles to carry information. Another thing, instead of thinking about particles in a superposition of being at certain positions according to the wavefunction, it is easier to think of a field and probabilities of an interaction of the field as a independent unit. QFT makes more sense in physics, QM uses a mathematical model that is quite weird because it tries to adapt the classical model of a particle as a corpuscle to quantum world which may not be a good idea.
When fields are detected they collapse instantly giving up the energy as quanta/particles. Fields are non local until they are detected when they manifest as quanta/particles with energy E=hf. A field can not be defined locally ie it is unbounded until it is detected. To state a field is unbounded and cant be defined locally is like saying it is everywhere in space, or everything is connected (at least to a certain extent) once a wave collapses producing a quanta of energy or forms a particle(wave function)