[guest45734]

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.

[guest45734]

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, pre-existing (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/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html

[nilak]

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.

[Colin2B]

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/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.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

[guest45734]

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.

[Bill S]

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.

[Bill S]

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+1-dimensional 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?

[guest45734]

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+1-dimensional 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/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement/ .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.

 

[guest45734]

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?

[Colin2B]

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

[jeffreyH]

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.

[guest45734]

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/quant-ph/papers/0307/0307117.pdf I am not the only one that is considering extra dimensions. Other papers say non locality does not exist

[Colin2B]

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 non-locality 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, pre-existing (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 sub-liminal communication, however, that does not imply -nor do they claim - super-liminal 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 faster-than-light 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.

[chiralSPO]

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+1-dimensional 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, self-contained (closed) systems, with well-defined 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 entanglement-related 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.

[guest45734]

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 entanglement-related 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  but maybe no useful information is transmitted 



 

[jeffreyH]

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.

[guest45734]

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

[nilak]

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

[jeffreyH]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.