"Spooky action at a distance"

"Spooky action at a distance".

2 particles are involved in quantum entanglement and when one is measured the state of the other particle is instantly known, sure. But I really don't understand why this is considered spooky or strange. Why can't these particles ALWAYS be opposites, regardless of anything? Is it so weird to be able to see what side of the coin is facing the floor when you toss it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Hidden_variables_theory
youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Violations_of_Bell.27s_inequality
quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
m.phys.org/news/2014-01-theory-teleport-energy-distances.html
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22720207T
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

For starters, action at a distance was resolved a long time ago, with the introduction of the force field to physics.

Entanglement is peculiar because the moment the state of one particle is determined, the probabilistic nature of the other is "collapsed" and it's state is known as well. The surprising part is that if the particles are physically separated, it doesn't seem as if there is any time delay between the two measurements. In other words, they happen instantaneously. That really just means that no signal or wave or whatever is being sent from one particle to another.

It's not that startling really. But our inability to explain it properly says a lot about the interpretation of quantum theory and how phenomena like this give rise to the phenomena of large-scale systems.

If you have a signal apparently travelling faster than light its pretty startling

I just said there was no signal.

Hence spooky action at a distance. Affecting one thing affects the other, regardless of distance and with nothing travelling between them

I would argue that unitarity is something that must be preserved to have a consistent universe, regardless of locality.

I don't think there's any action, either.

since we have some verified experiments of spooky action at a distance what are the implications of the phenomenon

could this be implemented in space travel?

>quantum entanglement

>I really don't understand why this is considered spooky or strange.

It's spooky and strange in the framework of physics.

If I see a car drive through a solid concrete wall and appear on the other side intact then it's spooky and strange in the framework of classic real world physics, but not in the framework of a video game.

the spooky thing is that if you tickle the one, the other starts laughing

No

Kek

>But I really don't understand why this is considered spooky or strange. Is it so weird to be able to see what side of the coin is facing the floor when you toss it?
The two sides of a coin are physically connected in close proximity.
Two entangled particles could be light years apart.
The "communication" happens instantaneously, which is "spooky" once you have become accustomed to thinking of the speed of light as a limit.

I have a dildo and a shrodinger cat. I put them both in boxes, shuffle and send one to your mother and one to you. You open your box and see a dead cat. Isn't it spooky to know that i send your mother a dick?

It's a spook because both particles are not opposites the whole time.

Both particles are in a superposition state.

It's not until one particle collapses that either particle is in a characteristic state.

Then, both particles are opposites immediately. No matter the separation.

but couldn't two entangled particles (or packets of particles) be used for FTL communication? I'm not sure if relativity or quantum theory states anything about information dynamics, but this should not be possible, right?

I'd like it if "Top Quark" became Veeky Forums's equivalent to "Top Kek".

No. You can't transfer information this way because of the random nature of the particle collapse. You can't tell which state your particle will collapse into, so you can't definitely make your partner's particle collapse into the preferred state.

Thanks for the clarification,I figured it would be impossible one way or the other.

There is no known way to force your own particle into a preferred state, thereby signaling to the other particle (and observer) in a controlled manner that will convey information.
It's tantamount to random chance how the entangled particles settle.

Suppose you could force it.
Since we would be just transferring information, would it violate any other fundamental laws of physics ?

Their might be a resolution for intrigued minds here.

Speeds at c, never experience time.

Thus the spooky action can be instantenous. But from our massful-reference framr the information is not instantenous.

Shut up mate :) It's instantaneous for us in an inertial frame v

Watch your mouth kiddo.

A information travels without time in inmts own reference frame. Just plug the data into the SR formula.

But in your reference frame. c has a speed limit and tgus information cannot reach us faster then c. But the states of the entangled particles can be defined by themself before we attain the information.

>It's a spook because both particles are not opposites the whole time.
>Both particles are in a superposition state.
>It's not until one particle collapses that either particle is in a characteristic state.
>Then, both particles are opposites immediately. No matter the separation.
Unless, of course, that's wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Hidden_variables_theory

LHV theory might not be exactly right, but by the time we get this figured out, it'll be pretty close to this.

>but couldn't two entangled particles (or packets of particles) be used for FTL communication?
No.
For all ftl comms, it works about like this:
>shuffle a deck of cards
>pick one at random, do not look at it
>tear card in half
>put each half in a separate envelope (all without peeking)
>send one card to london
>send the other to tokyo
>have someone in each city open the envelopes simultaneously
>tah-dah! "FTL"

>A information travels without time in inmts own reference frame
nope

>But the states of the entangled particles can be defined by themself before we attain the information.
No. You need to wait 1st measurements result

Yes. A photon that get exited from the sun, will hit you instantenously. For you, it takes 8 minutes.

Are you really that retarded?

Information in your reference frame. In any contain the restriction of mass. Will have the limit of c. For information itself, it experiences no time.

batgirl.jpg

How do you know state of your particle if I not tell you state of mine. For you particle still in superposition

I dont. But the moment you have measured yours, mine will be determined.

But the state ia not determined. Thus to share information, we cant break c.

*before anyone of us have measured, they are indetermined so we could never send or recive information faster then c.

>mine will be determined.
How you know that if i'm not telling you that I measured my particle?

I cant. But when you have measured yours without disrupting the state. Mine will be determined.

This information we need to share, for us that is the limit of c. That is why entanglement cant be used as an instantenous information carrier, to get around c

>Yes. A photon that get exited from the sun, will hit you instantenously. For you, it takes 8 minutes.
But the entangled particles aren't moving at c.
They have no motion relative to an ordinary, mundane frame of reference.
"B-b-but the INFORMATION is traveling at c... wait, no... the information is traveling faster than c, yeah, faster."
Nothing involved is moving anywhere near c.

How is the particle being in a superposition state any different than simply not knowing what state the particle is in?

If you generate two particles that must have some kind of relationship with one another (opposite spins or something), then all that 'spooky action at a distance' tells you is that just because a particle is in an unknown state doesn't mean that it actually lacks a state. We just can't see it. Therefore when we find out one, we find out the other. That is the simplest explanation from everything posted in this thread.

Though I'm sure there are other experiments that explain why superposition is an actual thing and why particles being that state means something more. i just have yet to see it posted.

>How is the particle being in a superposition state any different than simply not knowing what state the particle is in?
THIS

It's like saying "if the refrigerator door is closed, we can't tell if the light is on or off, therefore it's neither on nor off."

Because, when a particle isn't measured, it isn't actually in any of the states. You have to measure it to put it in a definite state. The superposition gives you the probability on measurement that the particle will be in a particular state.

Because information about its state can be definitively measured better than a completely unknown system. And that is the source of the "paradox".

youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

Starting around 4:00 is an explanation on why local hidden variables are ruled out.

>when a particle isn't measured, it isn't actually in any of the states
How would you know?
In particular, when we entangle tow particles, we might create a situation where we know the spin of both particles together sum to zero.
If one has "up" spin, the other must have "down" spin.
How does that relate to superposition?

Meh.
I'm just a code monkey, not a scientist, but it sounds like we're mixing up "what is" and "what we measure".
I'm also confused by the part where if we rotate the detector, it forces the particle's spin to align with the detector.
Why doesn't that violate conservation of angular momentum?
And the result of Bell's experiment is 50-50?
Couldn't that just mean the particles aren't "truly" entangled when measured this way?
If the spin were 100% random, you'd get 50-50 results.
Also, go back to 0:40 - "no, they're not actually spinning".
Maybe our ideas about conservation of angular momentum don't exactly apply in this sense?
And the explanation at 7:30 doesn't seem inconsistent with local hidden variables.
Maybe I'm just missing something.
Then there's this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Violations_of_Bell.27s_inequality
>A number of experiments have shown in practice that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. However, all experiments have loophole problems.[30][31]
>When measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the measurement results remain correlated.[32][33]
>The fundamental issue about measuring spin along different axes is that these measurements cannot have definite values at the same time―they are incompatible in the sense that these measurements' maximum simultaneous precision is constrained by the uncertainty principle.

It sounds like we don't have any definite answers yet, so it's a little early to rule out local hidden variables.
...but then again, I'm just a code monkey.

OP, I've had this same thought and posted on it multiple times.

The best answer I heard was that if the particles are always opposites, tests would produce a certain statistical result, but when the tests are run we get a different statistical result than expected.

>"Spooky action at a distance".
It goes deeper than just separation by space. You can perform entanglement experiments though "time" as well. (this is actually a no brainer when you realize that time and space are related).
quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

relativity: information can not travel faster than light

>relativity: information can not travel faster than light
If "local hidden variables" were actually wrong, you'd be able to use entanglement cheat GR.
But you can't.

>we can use indirect data to determine a stochastic experiment in some way
>thus 2 particles are magically connected
Who let mathematics do physics experiments?

how is it different from both their states being concrete but you simply finding out about the state of the second one by checking the first one ?.

to use a shit classical mechanics analogy if two objects have a some total angular momentum cant you find the 2nd particles momentum by subtracting the first's from the total ?.

How do you know that you measured it at all?

What about photons? Why is this different? How do you define speed/velocity without experiencing time? Serious questions.

No. Information can not travel faster then c. Its highest speed is c. As gravity for example.

Nothing travels faster then c. As if u travel at c. You experience no time during any distance.

Why is /sci a kindergarden?

As length contracts and time slows down the closer you get to c. U'll end up traveling longer distances during a shorter time.

For a particle with mass, u can never reach c asenergi will always be transfered to its relative mass. But the analogy will be the same. If u accelerate a particle to 99.9...% c, (...) to infinity. It will be analogys to c. And its an instantenous travel for that frame of reference.

This is so important. As time and spaceare relative tothe observer. U'll be observed travel at c and the distance we would watchit take eons to reach the otherside of the universe. But for the traveler. Instantenously.

c=d/t will be constant.

>And its an instantenous travel for that frame of reference.
MEANWHILE, NOTHING IS ACTUALLY MOVING ANYWHERE NEAR c IN THIS CASE.
And even if it was, it wouldn't get there FTL in OUR frame of reference.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ.
Think about it.
Light itself might "experience" no time to travel from the sun to here, but it still takes 8 minutes to us.

Hidden variables are tested for in Bell inequality experiments. So far the data is supporting entanglement.

>What is a superposition state?
This is most clearly illustrated by the double slit experiment. As long as you don't know which slit the particle has gone through, it is in a superposition of having gone through both. Say the wavefunction would be like half right and half left.
>How is this different from just not knowing the state?
This is the key phenomenon, that a superposition state exhibits interference in it's probability (density) waves.
In the double slit experiment, when particles form an image on a screen, the pattern exhibits wave-like interference. This implies that the wavefunction of the particle did go through both slits and the two parts of wavefunction can interfere. When the particle hits the screen, the wavefunction collapses, no more superposition.

So, superposition can be measured with interference and is actually a useful property of quantum measurement devices. Entangled particles are both in a superposition, which is why it's so interesting that they seem to know when the other collapses.

>So far the data is supporting entanglement.
The term "entanglement" is just a placeholder for "we don't know what the fuck is going on".
And the Bell inequality experiments have issues.
see:
>Then there's this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Violations_of_Bell.27s_inequality
>>A number of experiments have shown in practice that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. However, all experiments have loophole problems.[30][31]
>>When measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the measurement results remain correlated.[32][33]
>>The fundamental issue about measuring spin along different axes is that these measurements cannot have definite values at the same time―they are incompatible in the sense that these measurements' maximum simultaneous precision is constrained by the uncertainty principle.

Every entangled particle are correlated regardless of the distance that they're apart. There must be something that tells 1 particle what it is, and the other to be correlated to the 1st particle

God forbid we consider the other situation, where a quantum state stretches the visible universe, and everything in-between is caught in the quantum mechanic behavior.

they just did a loophole free experiment last year

>u can never reach c asenergi will always be transfered to its relative mass
holy shit read more popsci why don't you

If i understand that shit right there is nothing special here.


Why the fuck we know, that both particles have both spins, until we measure it. We didnt measure it, so it is in superposisiton but its just means we dont know what is it. It looks for me just like proof of our inability to understand things more then spookiness. Particle indeed have some spin, we just dont know it, couse we havent measure it.


Am i right? Or i just asked the questuion everyone asked starting with Einstein?

>We didnt measure it, so it is in superposisiton but its just means we dont know what is it

unless the superposition is an ontic feature of the system. No reason to believe it isn't, but no reason to believe it is. At the end of the day it's a matter of philosophical preference

>Am i right? Or i just asked the questuion everyone asked starting with Einstein?
the latter. read the EPR papers and their counter-arguments.

>At the end of the day it's a matter of philosophical preference
it's a matter of you being ignorant.
>the superposition is an ontic feature of the system
it is

>Entanglement is peculiar because the moment the state of one particle is determined, the probabilistic nature of the other is "collapsed" and it's state is known as well

Yes, and you don't have to be in the same room to know which side of the quarter lands right side up.

Vector and velocity are quantum states. Two particles can be entangled in terms of vector and velocity;

>m.phys.org/news/2014-01-theory-teleport-energy-distances.html

So, if you have two particles entangled in terms of vector and velocity, moving one particle will instantly move the other particle. If you had a plane of 100 particles, each entangled to a specific member of another 100 particle population somewhere else, you could push an object against one plane and get a mirror image on the other. In nature, perfect reflection would almost never happen, but this could explain how light and sound behave.

>That really just means that no signal or wave or whatever is being sent from one particle to another

That's why Hugh Everett supposed a universal wave function, and supposed superdeterminism to explain why the two particles 'knew' which state to take.

He also believed in quantum immortality, and his ideas have been tossed out for the many worlds hypothesis for no other reason than the implications for free will.

>But our inability to explain it properly says a lot about the interpretation of quantum theory

We can explain it properly. People just don't like how the explaination demands that we give up either locality, free will or causality. Academia won't accept the obvious conclusions, because it casts most of human history - right up to the modern day - in an ignorant light.

It is by no means an established matter of fact that the uncertainty is a real feature of nature. I would lean towards that being the case, but there are valid interpretations that would argue otherwise, you dumb fucking bitch.

>and how phenomena like this give rise to the phenomena of large-scale systems

Blackholes, as originally conceptualized - that is, with a singularity - don't exist. There's no bottomless pit. They back up like a toilet, and spit out jets of entangled photons and electrons. This explains the FTL speeds observed in blackhole jets, while not denying the FTL speeds observed.

Since everything in a blackhole shares the maximum number of states - limited by monogamy - and backs up due to the pauli exclusion principle, if something were to enter and exit a blackhole, it would form a closed timelike loop.

Which means that blackholes allow energy-multiplying timetravel that doesn't violate causality. Each moment is itself a set of states, which is defined as a wavefunction which flows through 'pixels,' and this wave goes in and out of the blackhole.

Evidence exists for this;

>adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22720207T
>ALMA Reveals a Galaxy-Scale Fountain of Cold Molecular Gas Pumped by a Black Hole

Of course, this predicts that stars from the early universe emerge from jets with a vector that takes them away from the core, towards the rim. Their older selves should be found diving into the blackhole - and we find the higher metalicity stars closer to the core.

how about you read a book on the subject and do proper research before spewing headcanon nonsense

>It is by no means an established matter of fact
it's as much of an established fact as any other scientific fact. This shit comes up everyday in Veeky Forums. You are not deep for questioning it on a scientific basis, you are ignorant. fuck off to and don't come back til you educate yourself.
>but there are valid interpretations that would argue otherwise
then name them, faggot.
valid philosophically maybe, but there's no other interpretation that doesn't require some tin-foil tier shit.

>it's as much of an established fact as any other scientific fact.

models /= reality. You should know this. Has anyone ever directly observed superposition? No? Then how can you say anything about it?

>then name them, faggot.
ensemble, Copenhagen (up for debate, it's also a matter of interpretation), relational, stochastic, etc. Do i really need to go on?

>models /= reality. You should know this.
models may or may not be equal to reality. In this case there's no reason to believe the model is not equal to reality. In fact, there is good reason to -not- think that it is -not- related to reality as no other model has the explanatory power of the standard model.
>ensemble
this specifically requires that experiments with well known results had missing information. Local hidden variables have been all but debunked. If you know an explanation for these results that doesn't sound like tin-foil tier shit, i'd like to hear it.
>Copenhagen
that's not up for debate. that specifically employs wavefunction collapse. Are you just spouting shit you know nothing about or are you retarded?
>relational
same as above, RQM assumes quantum mechanics is complete. Fuck. now I realize how much of an idiot i'm arguing with and how much i'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

everything you've typed in this thread requires ignorance on the subject. fucking philosotards speaking on shit they have only glimpsed at like usually. take your as back to or you're not adding anything and i'm not going to waste more time on your ignorance if you won't even both to educate yourself.

I agree with you and carry on, but nitpicking:
>models may or may not be equal to reality.
>there is good reason to think that it is related to reality
These are two separate statements. Of course it's related. It's somewhat doubtful any model will ever be equal.

There is quite literally no reason to believe that quantum mechanics is anything other than a tool for calculating probabilities. Any assumptions beyond that is metaphysics.

>this specifically requires that experiments with well known results had missing information. Local hidden variables have been all but debunked. If you know an explanation for these results that doesn't sound like tin-foil tier shit, i'd like to hear it.

makes the least amount of assumptions. It has nothing to say on whether the theory is complete. If anything is tinfoil, it's believing in actual spooky action.

>that's not up for debate. that specifically employs wavefunction collapse. Are you just spouting shit you know nothing about or are you retarded?

Some would say there is an actual wavefunction that collapses, others that the "wavefunction" is epistemic in this case. You do realize the notion of collapse is just jargon for acquiring knowledge of a definite state, don't you? It's absolutely up for debate. It's an interpretation.

>same as above, RQM assumes quantum mechanics is complete

No reason to believe it isn't. Show me some hidden variables.

woops, I meant to say
>there is good reason to think that IT IS reality
he's trying to imply that the probabilities in QM are simply a matter of convenience to make the theory useful in the same way the bohr model of atoms is useful but not correlated to reality, as he repeats here
>There is quite literally no reason to believe that quantum mechanics is anything other than a tool for calculating probabilities. Any assumptions beyond that is metaphysics.
But all experiments suggest that QM is complete, that probabilities are the best you can do because particles in fact behave in a probabilistic way. To deny it requires some some really ad-hoc theories such as superdeterminism, which is not how science is done.

>Send several million torn cards
>If you make your half card the top of the card the other is the bottom right away magically & vice versa
>Top part of card is 0
>Bottom part of card is 1
>Binary
>¿Right?

say you agreed with someone else beforehand that one state would mean you perform one action and another means you would do another. You agree at the specific time that you would look at the entangled states. Once that time comes, you immediately know what action they are planning to make. how is that not ftl information?

Because the other party is not sending you a state, the state that results is still random. FTL random is not FTL information.

>the state that results is still random
but it still gives you non-random information about the other side's intent. I was trying to keep it abstract as possible to avoid explanations that only apply to a particular situation, but say for example that it was for an escape plan. The result of the first entanglement implies which of of two other entangled particles you should collapse. The second says which hideout you should meet up at, so there's 4 possible meet up places. The result might be random, but you still concretely know which hideout you should meet at.

This is actually interesting. It's a fine point between non-locality and ftl communication. Is this example any different to just having the information printed on two sealed envelopes?

with two sealed envelopes the place is already determined before you exchange the envelopes. You passed the information on when you passed the envelope, even if they haven't looked at it, because it can't change. With entangled particles though, and if collapse is truly probabilistic, it's not determined until you force it to collapse.

That only explains the physical difference between the two types of media. In both cases you still have to meet beforehand arrange a transfer of information.

Then, even in the quantum case, you can only "communicate" about things you are [math]going[/math] to do. You can't send an updated message and you can't change the plan.

I'm trying to find a better explanation because this doesn't sound satisfactory. If A and B each receive a random, but correlated, bit then there was no actual information transfer. (Except that the bits knew how to correlate apparently faster than light).

>In both cases you still have to meet beforehand arrange a transfer of information.
but in the envelop case you exchange actual information. The envelope can't move faster than light, so nothing is exchanged ftl. with the entangled particles, even if you meet to acquire the particles you haven't exchanged any information because it doesn't exist yet.
>you can only "communicate" about things you are going to do
you're still communicating...at ftl speeds

Most of it is data-transportation over great distances. It is only used for small groups of particles, so we're still far from sending meaningful data. It could happen in the future though.

>we have some verified experiments of spooky action at a distance

It's just proof that the laws of physics are consistent across space. There's no action at a distance.

Couldn't you just use the (Collapsed, Uncollapsed) states to send information? Or do we not control the time at which it collapses?