Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?

Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…

Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.

The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here

In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.

As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…

So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?

What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…

As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… 😉

BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”

215 thoughts on “Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?

  1. newton: Not sure what you mean by an essence , does one’s life experiences contribute to it or is it bequeathed from on high?

    You’d have to ask walto he is the one who brought it up as a reason to deny quantum immortality .

    Peace

  2. walto: Are we interested in………….. Those are all different things.

    I’m not particularly interested in any of those things they seem to me to be a rabbit trail. However several folks here seem to think that the issue of walto’s indistinguishably is relevant to this topic.

    I would simply say that if the MWI is correct there is no way to say which walto is the true walto.

    So by extension each and every walto is the true walto given materialism or none of them are.

    I recall a thought experiment in which a future women’s brain ( call her Alice) is comprehensively and perfectly downloaded into an advanced computer.

    Now you have two beings each claiming to be the real Alice how can a materialist choose between the two.

    That is the sort of thing I find interesting

    peace

  3. Kantian Naturalist: In other words, Albert’s objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation (which seem quite right to me) have also got to apply to the Many Worlds Interpretation.

    I would tend to agree. The problem is that once we eliminate Copenhagen and MWI the pickings start to get slim.

    peace

  4. walto: OK, then distinguish them. What property does one have that the other doesn’t? (Hint: If you understand this example, you’ll find you can’t.)

    for starters sphere one is appears to me to be in one spot and sphere two is in another (possibly to it’s left or right).

  5. fifthmonarchyman: I would tend to agree. The problem is that once we eliminate Copenhagen and MWI the pickings start to get slim.

    I find the basic idea of Bohmian mechanics quite interesting but I don’t know enough to be an advocate or critic of it. But since we don’t have any version of quantum mechanics that’s compatible with general relativity, I don’t get too caught up with any of these issues. And since we don’t even have a single unified comprehensive theory of fundamental physics, I don’t think the prospects are good for “reducing” biology to physics. Heck, we don’t even know how to “reduce” Mendelian genetics to molecular genetics, or psychology to neuroscience!

  6. fifthmonarchyman: I would simply say that if the MWI is correct there is no way to say which walto is the true walto.

    So by extension each and every walto is the true walto given materialism or none of them are.

    The most one could say is this: given the many worlds interpretation, there exist universes in which there are counterparts of us which differ by virtue of some quantum mechanical event. That’s not to say that a counterpart exists in every universe — there are universes in which my parents never met, or in which they never had children, or had a daughter instead of a son, etc.

    That aside, since I am mortal in this universe, then all of my counterparts are also mortal as well. No immortality to be found in the MWI.

  7. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not a fan of the many worlds interpretation except maybe as part of a tri-perspectiveal understanding of QM in conjunction with the Copenhagen and Relativistic perspectives.

    The reason I’m exploring it here is that I’m very intrigued by arguments for immortality that don’t involve the Christian God.

    This sort of exercise helps me to sharpen my own views and to understand where other folks are coming from.

    It’s the kind of interesting discussion I would like to see more of here.

    I would love to hear what folks with a classical materialist/naturalist understanding ofconsciousness and person-hood think of the idea that immortality is certain in their worldview if the MWI is the correct understanding of QM.

    peace

    I know where you’re coming from…
    If you’d like to sharpen your understanding of the possibility of immortality from QM prospective, I’d recommended Penrose/Hameroff quantum consciousness theory called Orch OR…
    Their 20 year predictions have recently been verified by experiments…
    I don’t think OOR proves immortality, at least not yet…
    However, the quantum information conservation law can validate their theory of the conservation of our experiences, memory etc. If they are proven to be quantum…

  8. fifthmonarchyman: I would simply say that if the MWI is correct there is no way to say which walto is the true walto.

    So by extension each and every walto is the true walto given materialism or none of them are.

    Is this the argument then? I’m asking because you won’t just tell us.

  9. fifthmonarchyman: You’d have to ask walto he is the one who brought it up as a reason to deny quantum immortality .

    Peace

    If you want to hypothesize immortality ,what is it that is immortal?

  10. fifthmonarchyman: I recall a thought experiment in which a future women’s brain ( call her Alice) is comprehensively and perfectly downloaded into an advanced computer Now you have two beings

    Computers are beings?

    each claiming to be the real Alicehow can a materialist choose between the two.

    Pick the original.

    How does a non materialist answer the question?

  11. fifthmonarchyman: You’d have to ask walto he is the one who brought it up as a reason to deny quantum immortality .

    Peace

    Essences are necessary properties, characteristics that make something the sort of thing it is. So, e.g. persons are sometimes held to be essentially sentient. Note that’s not true of human beings. Other species (including alien ones) might be said tto be persons if and only if they’re sentient, while some human beings (which, presumably, essentially have a certain sort of DNA) are not sentient, and so, not persons based on that definition. Iguanas may be essentially reptilian.

    An individual essence (or ‘haecceity’) is thought by some philosophers to be an essential property of an indivual item, a property that can be had by nothing but that individual and is had by that individual in every possible world in which it exists.

    I note again that most philosophers these days who think that no person could be anybody else (though many might have been seamstresses rather than a plumbers) nevertheless do not rely on haecceities.

    And I don’t think one needs them to deny that MMI entails immortality. Why Everett or anybody else thinks it might has still received no explanation or support on this thread, in spite of my repeated request for any argument to that effect,

  12. J-Mac: If they are proven to be quantum…

    How are you getting on with your replication of the “think to affect interference lines” experement?

Leave a Reply