Quantum Entanglement

So here’s the problem…Quantum Entanglement.
Here’s my problem from it, rather.

Can someone explain to me how Gisin’s test does not exceed the localized speed of light?

One explanation that I read here and there is that information is not actually moving at all.
Instead, something like this is explained:

curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi … number=612

The first problem that I have with this is the presented notion that a beam of light is being sent out from the middle point to the far reaching points.
In the case of the Gisin test, quite the opposite is taking place.

library.thinkquest.org/C008537/c … ality.html

In the Gisin test, it is the photons that are sending the information back to Gisin, through the detectors, after being affected.
It is not Gisin that sends out information to the photon that does anything at all, as no information was being sent to it.
It was reacting to an obstacle in it’s path, and Gisin observed that the counterpart photon equally reacted to it’s entangled photon’s reactions to it’s obstacles.

The other part that I have a problem with is the assertion that no information is trafficked because the information is predisposed by consequence of the entanglement.
If this were true, then we should be able to trick the photons into “thinking” that they should react as if their counterpart has reacted (just like that description suggests above).
So far, no one has pulled off tricking photons that I am aware of.

And lastly, what is exactly wrong with information traveling faster than the speed of localized light?
Why exactly can’t information book-it to an entangled counterpart across infinite space at a speed greater than either photon’s localized speed of light?

I’m struggling to understand what the problem is with signing off on the apparent results of the Gisin test.

Stubbs: you really must read some of Joy Chrtistian’s papers. There was an article about him and how rotations don’t commute in new scientist in 2007, see Quantum Untanglement: is spookiness under threat? The Gisin experiment doesn’t really involve instantaneous action-at-a-distance. That’s just quantum mysticism, the sort of thing that makes people say Woo! That’s amazing man! People peddle this stuff because it sells books and magazines and gets them attention.

How is a reaction to an obstacle of a counterpart photon not action?
(I will look into those papers! Thanks!
Though, is there a copy of Quantum Untanglement: is spookiness under threat? somewhere that doesn’t require subscription?)

Edit: never mind, found a text copy at ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ … lement.asp.

I think my problem is this:
Everyone seems to think that arguing over whether or not communication is taking place is going to make it all happy-day.
But stating that the actions between Photon A and Photon B are not communication, but predisposed reactions from being split, is just as unnerving.

Just saying that it’s not communication doesn’t change the fact that photon B reacted to photon A stimuli; regardless how automated.
In fact, the more automated the action is…personally, to me, the more bafflingly confusing the implications are.

If it were just information, then I would only have one question: how does information travel faster than light?
But if it’s some automated infrastructure that is not information, then the question now requires another full description in 4 dimensions:
What rubberband is this?
Where is it?
How does it work?

Farsight, I have read most of Christian’s paper Failure of Bell’s Theorem and the Local Causality of the Entangled Photons.
He is essentially making a case of accusation regarding a mathematical error of a priori .
Again, this is a semantic in-house fight of quantum mechanics atm, and really has nothing to do with the essence of my question.

It seems like it relates, true, but it doesn’t.
It doesn’t because I don’t care about observations impacting the observable objects, nor do I care what the modeled representation of space is.

My question is simple:
How does this shit’s movement not count as moving faster than the speed of light?

It’s not a semantic question of interpreting data, or categorical names of whether it’s information or not.
It’s a simple question of motion.
Object A and Object B are moving.
Object A alters motion in reaction to obstacle A.
Object B alters motion simultaneously with Object A in reaction to Object A reacting to obstacle A.

How is this simultaneous causal movement not faster than the speed of light?

The way that the right handle bar moves in opposite direction of the left handle bar of my bicycle at exactly the simultaneous moment that the left handle bar moves, with only my left hand pulling on the bars, is because there is a continuous bar between the right and left side of the handle bar.
In essence, they are the same object stretched over space; so there is no transfer of anything at all save for the principles involved that cause the handle bar to move at all.

If this is the case between split photons, then the question is, where’s the rest of the handlebar?

Are you sure about it? If the force is applied on the left side, it should take finite time for the information to pass to the right side. I doubt there is instantaneous communication there merly because it is a rigid bar.

The motion is not simultaneous. A force applied to one side locally deforms the material of the handlebar. That deformation is propagated through the material to the other side. Molecules pulling molecules. It just happens really fast.

That is a mechanical explanation. Entanglement doesn’t follow mechanical “laws”, and so the question remains open. Stumps, I’m dumber than rocks with quantum, but from what I have managed to dimly grasp, the error is to try to use the mechanical paradigm to explain entanglement. We may not know (or ever know) the “how” of entanglement, but consider: The photon wasn’t split. At the quantum level, there was only the creation of the is and isn’t perspective which provides the illusion of the photon being two separate entities. There wasn’t two, just one. As the photon switched from it’s latency to state, it only appears to have “communicated” within the illusory split.

The problem we have is we think of process as linear, which in most cases, holds true. But quantum doesn’t follow the rules at the entanglement level. Experiments designed to measure linear properties produce the wow factor but fail to explain entanglement. If you want a real headache, look at the sub-sub atomic particles and the neverland world of the latency band of energy/particle formation. Is and isn’t occupying the same space with little hadrons switching back and forth… We ain’t there yet, and wrapping our heads around entanglement isn’t there yet either.

I’m not particulary bright, but if I need to feel really stupid, quantum is the pill…

I don’t think it’s unnerving. Two photons are created from one event, properties are conserved.

Have a really good look into this. How do you know that photon B reacted to photon A stimulus? The detail of what actually happens in quantum entanglement experiments is usually glossed over, and the “spooky” inferences are often presented as a fait-acompli.

Your question is something like “How does this magic occur?” The answer is “It doesn’t, there is no magic”. But the devil is in the detail of what’s being measured and how.

That’s fair enough.

But that isn’t. See the original paper at arxiv.org/abs/0810.4607. Try to pin down where the assertion comes from.

Exactly. The bicycle handlebars do not require a QM explanation. It’s not an appropriate example.

It’s the best example style of image I could produce considering the subject matter is quite literally non-comparable to anything else.
The best example is the seemingly instant tie between two sides of a handlebar.

Farsight, thanks for the reading material; I’ll get back with thoughts.

One thing I really hate about this subject matter, however, is the constant reference to, “spooky”.
That was a word one guy used a hell of a long time ago; it’s not a good description as it describes nothing.
I’m not sure why a bunch of scientists are clinging to such childish cartoon descriptions.

Tentative:

That’s a good conjecture, but does it have any basis in evidence?
Do you know of anything that suggests that the photon actually never really split, but remained intact as one?
And if so, how is it accomplishing the avoidance of being witnessed except at two points?
Wouldn’t this suggest that the photon is being stretched?

Alright Farsight.
Help me understand better, the following (I’m removing “spooky” from their vocabulary and replacing it with, “counter-causal”):

I don’t know these pieces of equipment intimately, so what they just rattled off about doesn’t really conceptually impress my mind. Therefore, I’m left with a blank page of reference.

This appears to be the gravity* of the charge against the experiment, so I want to fully understand exactly what the nature of this explanation means.
A) what is firstly meant by, “continuously scanned”?
B) what is meant by “kept stable”?
C) how does the explanation of A and B present a false simultaneous reading?

*no pun intended.

The whole point of this is that people don’t really understand the details of the experiment and why this “counter causal” inference arises. It’s something like a magic trick. It’s sleight of hand, followed by a pronouncement of “spookey!” People buy it, hook line and sinker, but when you challenge them to explain why, they can’t. Can you?

No, I can’t.
The only thing I can explain is that this…

…is the part that I think most disturbs me.
With something as fine and minute as the quantum level, I don’t think we can be satisfied with leaving open and possibly influential variable loopholes at all.
Even the slightest aspect left open would have potential to radically alter the outcome of the results.

Just simply because closing all loopholes is a large task, shouldn’t mean that we pronounce that we have verification from tests that have only closed one loophole and tested the outcome while looking at the readings from that one closed loophole.
What if the subject in examination does in fact take part in aspects of the unchecked loopholes and not just the one you closed off?

To me, it would be like bouncing a ball into the air and only looking down at the floor where it was bounced; waiting for the ball to return.
Even if you cover every nanometer of the radius of the floor that the ball is predicted to return upon with every sensor known to man, you have neglected observation of it’s total path.
For all you know, a monkey grabbed the ball above your head and slammed it back down at a different trajectory than it would have otherwise taken.

I get that it’s difficult, but if it’s difficult, then we should be more careful about our declarations.
This finding should have read that in a large scale and controlled test environment with one loophole closed and observed, the observed results produced instantaneous readings between the photons tested.

That basically tells us that the readings pull off giving us instant readings of both photons under the exact condition of only accounting for one specific loophole.

The answer is, whatever is taking place, it is not taking place in this loophole.
Not, entangled photons are reacting instantaneously because our one loophole observational test read both reacting simultaneously.

Damn! I knew I should never have posted to this. #-o OK. The problem is that we aren’t dealing with space over time. At the quantum level, what happens, happens in space/time. At best, our experiments performed in space over time can measure results, but not process. What appears to be a linear happening… isn’t. My EXTREMELY limited understanding is that quantum is much like a holograph, where our observations are simply two slightly different views of what is just a single point. As observers, we never escape our space over time orientation, and so what we measure and see is the “spooky” reference, but only because we aren’t capable of sensing space/time.

Caveat: I’m soooo out of my element here that I could be flat wrong on everything I’m saying.

It’s hard to hold in the head a “process” that isn’t linear. We think in terms of causal chains. This-causes-that. My feeble understanding is that, in quantum, this-causes-that and that-causes-this happens in the same space at the same time. Back to spooky and 3 or 4 aspirin… Supposedly, the theories behind is-isn’t (what we can measure) involves the sub-atomic particle/energy packets and their sub and sub… The explanation has to do with energy levels between the various subs that determine energy or particle. I tried to wade through some of the predictive math, but gave up. I’m just not bright enough. Hopefully CERN or Fermi will find the illusive Higgs boson sometime in the next decade. That’s supposed to be the answer of all answers. I don’t think it will do one damned thing to help the average person understand quantum.

Take my responses as mediated, not aggressive or oppositional.
I am merely responding with what you cause me to think.

They won’t find it.
It was an idea posited by pure mathematics drafted from other field’s existing in similar light.
Its only a mathematical bridge from the standard model to general relativity…that’s it.
Its based on absolutely no observable data; in fact, it’s based on the complete absence of observable data.

Don’t hold your breath.
If gravity works akin to a field upon particles, then everything related to Newton is flat, dead wrong.
Which would mean Einstein would also be wrong, which would mean the bridge from the standard model would lead to no where…not to general relativity.

And I can say that because assuming gravity is a field in which particles pass through to gain mass assumes emptiness; a concept thoroughly rejected by both Newton and Einsteins works; Einstein’s resting upon Newtonian physics in many respects.

Exactly how does anything take place outside of being in space-time?
Everything we know is within space and time (space-time).
When I poop, I poop in space-time, and in fact, it is space-time that I poop into space-time.
That’s how inescapable our dimensions are, and why they are so inescapable.

Saying quantum doesn’t take place in space over time is a strange assertion to me.
That’s like telling me that light doesn’t take place in feet over seconds, but instead feet-seconds.
That is cardinally the same thing as the measure of distance is inescapably tied to feet-seconds when we are in the feet-second ocean.

Meaning, we’re all in space-time’s ocean…we can’t step out and watch anything.
So of course quantum is in space-time.

There’s only 3 means of accomplishing this:

  1. dimensions beyond space-time
  2. objects moving faster than light
  3. test conditions stretch beyond 1 unit of light speed and measure both areas without regard to locality

That has cardinally not been shown to be accurate.
In fact, a large percentage of physicists now think that there might be a layer beyond the quantum layer that explains the quantum layer in a more classical means.

Or…in short, Farsight’s style of theoretical summation.

Well, I’m sure you’re right and I’m wrong. So what is the answer to your original question? :slight_smile:

The answer appears to be, from those original papers that Farsight showed me, that we don’t actually have any valid account that quantum entanglement exists in the way asserted at all.
We have very narrow experiments being done that, by the physicist’s own admittance, are incomplete in reducing the unknown variables of control in the tests.

If you can’t reduce the control to stable levels, then by every count of the scientific method, your tests are non-verifiable as a complete test of a theory that asserts anything beyond the extremely narrow singular control that you tested.

They are asserting that they test one, and only one, loophole - or control only one loophole.
That is far from acceptable in my opinion for leaping to the conclusion that the theory of quantum entanglement exists at a rate faster than the speed of light.

With such grand assertions, beyond maximum control should be exercised…not the minimum of control.
All they have shown me is that a single control shows that the accountability of the readings is not clear in cause as of yet…that’s it.

Sounds good to me Stumps. I am reminded of something I was saying elsewhere about the double-slit experiment. I’ll repeat it here in case it proves useful. It’s a bit longer than I’d like, but bear with me:

People tend to think of photons as “billiard-ball particles”, rather forgetting about long-wave radio. They also seem to forget about the E=hf which applies to photons, wherein f is frequency, a wave attribute, and h is Planck’s constant of action. Action is action, it’s “kick”, and it has the dimensionality of momentum x distance as well as energy x time. Yes, electromagnetic waves have a quantum nature, but they’re still waves, and you could vary the frequency smoothly and thus vary the energy smoothly. So they aren’t “lumpy” in the way that people suggest.

An electromagnetic wave involves a field variation, and the field can’t vary without some form of current. Obviously there’s no charged particle in there so it isn’t conduction current. So it’s got to be displacement current. Given that h always applies and the dimensionality of action is momentum x distance, you can say that electromagnetic waves feature a common displacement. Note that displacement current isn’t called displacement current for nothing. A real displacement is involved. Think of it as something like a gravitational wave. To picture it, Imagine a wave travelling through a stiff lattice. As the wave passes on through, the lattice is displaced and distorted. This distortion is not localized to one particular region of the lattice, just as a seismic wave isn’t localized to one particular region of the earth’s crust. Instead the distortion diminishes with orthogonal distance from the line of propagation. If you planted something solid in the ground to form two slits, you wouldn’t express amazement that a seismic wave passed through both slits at once. In similar vein you shouldn’t be amazed when a photon passes through both slits at once. I’d hazard a guess that the many-paths of QED is there because when a distortion travels from A to B, the distortion is not localised to the A-B line. Wherever the distortion is at any one moment of time, is where the photon is. It’s an extended entity, which is why the HUP applies.

Note that we can employ pair production to make electrons (and positrons) out of electromagnetic waves in the guise of gamma photons. Then we can annihilate electrons and positrons to get the electromagnetic waves back. We can also annihilate protons and antiprotons to get electromagnetic waves. Since material bodies are made out of electrons and protons etc, and these are demonstrably “made from waves”, in the end it’s all just waves. Or wavefunction if you prefer. Or “quantum field”. I kind of like spacewarp myself.

IMHO quantum physics is only mysterious when people insist on photons and material bodies as being made out of little point-particle billiard balls rather than waves. Then people talk about dual-slit electrons and say Woo! Two places at once! Parallel worlds! They forget that electrons are made out of waves, and that they are waves. That’s why we can do electron diffraction. They’re just waves going round and round, hence magnetic dipole moment and the Einstein-de Haas effect which demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics. Whilst one might take some issue with this classical interpretation, it is coherent and reasonable, and IMHO leaves the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation looking like wilful mysticism.

I think of everything in terms of frequency. I’ve never been able to escape thinking in this way, and likely never will.
Naturally then, your positions of wavism are perfectly natural and already how I tend to think of things.

For me, I wasn’t more confused how a photon could be linked and in two places; I was confused how a lateral shift in opposing motions could present itself in such a wave set simultaneously.
What they were saying was that switching the spin direction of one photon appeared to them to be switching the direction of the other photon’s spin as well, equally in opposing directions.

That’s where I was truly having a problem in my mind…because the only way that would make sense to me, is if these were eddies that were then in tidal draw after pushing forward.

But, finding that they only had one loop controlled; I can’t even really get that interested until more reports come out.
They kind of ruined their own finding in my opinion.

It’s strange, even if everyone tested a different loophole out of all possible loopholes…you wouldn’t be able to put together an accurate picture.
It’s like they are trying to map the photon in meridian…that works for the Earth, but I seriously doubt that accuracy of such with something as temporal as a photon.
Imagine trying to measure tidal levels in such a way; as if you were measuring the meridian of the Earth collectively.
You would have the strangest results of what the tidal behavior of the oceans were.

I think there’s qiute a bit of this sort of thing kicking around. You hear some pretty grand claims, but when you look past the media hype, the actual experimental evidence isn’t all that convincing. Meanwhile things like pair production go unexplained. How exactly does a +1022keV photon transform into an electron and a positron? How does that electromagnetic field variation and momentum moving at c get transformed into a standing electromagnetic field and mass that isn’t moving at c? The explanation just isn’t there.