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…”

501 Replies to “Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?”

  1. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Of course it’s QM. I don’t have my own theorem I just encountered the idea a few months ago.

    here is a Wikipedia page with a summary

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

    Here is an overview from astrophysicist Ethan Siegel he is pretty entertaining.

    https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-immortality-5a74caaa0f64

    Check them out and if you have questions I will try and help you out if I can.

    I have a question: why do you find this argument at all persuasive? It’s a thought-experiment, which means it’s based on a highly constrained and artificial scenario, designed to show that there is at least kind of case in which it the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation yield different results. It’s certainly clever but hardly probative.

  2. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: I have a question: why do you find this argument at all persuasive? It’s a thought-experiment, which means it’s based on a highly constrained and artificial scenario, designed to show that there is at least kind of case in which it the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation yield different results. It’s certainly clever but hardly probative.

    This is a very good point Kantian!
    How many people on this blog, other than you, understand what thought experiments really means? Fifth should…I think…

  3. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Do you take that functionalist perspective to be materialist?

    Not necessarily, by materialist I mean the idea that the only things that are truly real are those that can be empirically measured

    walto: In any case, you can’t introduce that concept in the conclusion of a syllogism.

    You are right

    I was just trying to specify that the syllogism is only compelling for some one of that particular persuasion.

    I should have introduced it earlier.

    peace

    I

  4. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Not necessarily, by materialist I mean the idea that the only things that are truly real are those that can be empirically measured

    That looks like a confusion between metaphysics and epistemology, to start off with. Typically we construe materialism as a metaphysical position: the only things that real are those composed of matter. Or, as we nowadays prefer — since ‘matter’ is an antiquated term — physicalism: the only things that are real are those that are described and explained by fundamental physics, or reducible to the entities of fundamental physics (whatever those turn out to be).

    But the introduction of “empirically measurable” here suggests that you’re getting at an epistemological position — empiricism — or if we’re being precise, verificationism. A verificationist can happily allow all sorts of entities that are empirically measurable without worrying about whether or not they are reducible to fundamental physics.

    (Also just to add that in the history of philosophy, empiricism and materialism have often been opposed. The idea that are consistent and mutually supporting is a recent development.)

  5. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist,

    KN,

    I’m not really trying to be all that precise in what I’m calling materialism. It just the attitude that I find to be pervasive here that poo poos anything that is not subject to scientific investigation as a waste of time.

    From a scientific perspective there is no difference between the waltos in the various worlds before they diverge. So from a “science only” perspective they are in fact the very same walto.

    It’s that perspective that my syllogism is meant for.

    The folks I’m addressing would roll their eyes at any mention of metaphysics or epistemology.

    peace

  6. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: From a scientific perspective there is no difference between the waltos in the various worlds before they diverge. So from a “science only” perspective they are in fact the very same walto.

    From my perspective, which I consider to be scientific, if they diverged then they are not the same.

  7. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: From my perspective, which I consider to be scientific, if they diverged then they are not the same.

    Of course they are not the same after the divergence that is not at issue.

    Walto lives on in at least one world therefore walto lives on.

    As time goes on the world in which walto lives will become ever more unlikely and odd but that is immaterial to the point which is……. walto lives on

    peace

  8. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m not really trying to be all that precise in what I’m calling materialism. It just the attitude that I find to be pervasive here that poo poos anything that is not subject to scientific investigation as a waste of time.

    Everything here depends on the scope of the discourse, though.

    If we’re talking about how we should describe and explain the actual world, then scientific practices do and should have priority over other ways of acquiring knowledge.

    But we do much more than just describe and explain the actual world! Discursive/symbolic practices such as art, religion (for the most part), philosophy (including metaphysics), ethics, logic, and mathematics aren’t in the business of describing and explaining the actual world.

    Seen that way, there’s no huge difficulty in thinking that there are lots of cases in which scientific practices do have epistemic authority, and all sort of other cases in which they don’t. It’s just a matter of drawing the right distinctions.

    From a scientific perspective there is no difference between the waltos in the various worlds before they diverge. So from a “science only” perspective they are in fact the very same walto.

    According to the MWI, as I understand it, this isn’t quite right. There is a physically real difference between the two individuals — a quantum mechanical difference. The whole idea of the MWI is that any particle that is in a state of superposition at time t will be in state A in universe A and in state B in universe B. That holds for all particles within any individual’s body. So there’s a physically real difference between the individuals after the universes branch. The consciousness of the individuals would be identical before and after the branching only if consciousness were not itself physical.

  9. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert,

    I just realized this might be a question of determinism.

    Do you think that all of our decisions are physically determined?

    IOW do you think that it’s physically impossible for walto to choose to turn left or turn right because his actions physically determined?

    peace

  10. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Of course they are not the same after the divergence that is not at issue.

    But that is the issue.

    Walto lives on in at least one world therefore walto lives on.

    If it is not the same walto, then that is not at all relevant.

  11. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: So there’s a physically real difference between the individuals after the universes branch. The consciousness of the individuals would be identical before and after the branching only if consciousness were not itself physical.

    I think you are on to something.

    If consciousness is physical does that preclude the sort of world branching that the MWI requires?

    peace

  12. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Do you think that all of our decisions are physically determined?

    I’m not quite sure what you are asking. However, to be clear, I am not a determinist.

    I do see MWI as a mathematical model which attempts to be consistent with both determinism and choice.

  13. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: If it is not the same walto, then that is not at all relevant.

    But it is the same walto.

    Unless the sort of branching we are talking about in the MWI is impossible. Is that what you are suggesting?

  14. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: But it is the same walto.

    Unless the sort of branching we are talking about in the MWI is impossible. Is that what you are suggesting?

    Not everyone believes it is.

    However if it is true, it is the same walto until he makes the choice, the resulting world is different from this world ( the whole point) and the walto in that world is different.

    Same cat, a live cat is different in at least one way than dead one.

  15. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    Seems to me, if every branching walto is the same walto and consciousness was transcendent, he should have memories of all previous waltos, which makes no sense because he would remember both turning left and right

  16. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz: Seems to me, if every branching walto is the same walto and consciousness was transcendent, he should have memories of all previous waltos, which makes no sense because he would remember both turning left and right

    My understanding is the decision is made at the point of the new timeline/ world. He would have no memory of what happens the other timeline the choice to turn left . Each would have the memories of the originating time line because that timeline preceeeded the split.

    Seems like pretty messed up solution.

  17. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz: if every branching walto is the same walto and consciousness was transcendent, he should have memories of all previous waltos

    There are no “previous” waltos.
    There is only walto who lives on.

    At every branch walto has a memory of the action that caused him to continue his existence.

    newton: Seems like pretty messed up solution.

    I find your resistance to a scientific solution because you don’t like it’s implications to be fascinating.

    peace

  18. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: There is only walto who lives on.

    Why only one? If the walto branch that turned left can live forever and the walto who turned right can also live forever, both will in some branch.

    My point is, if sharing the same consciousness is what makes all waltos a single one and consciousness is not bound to any physical world, walto should have memories of all his branches, which leads to contradictory memories of having both turned left and right

    newton: Seems like pretty messed up solution

    Yeah, sounds ridiculous to me

  19. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    dazz: Why only one? If the walto branch that turned left can live forever and the walto who turned right can also live forever, both will in some branch.

    Sure, more than one can live forever but once the divergence happens only one is indistinguishable from walto.

    dazz: My point is, if sharing the same consciousness is what makes all waltos a single one and consciousness is not bound to any physical world, walto should have memories of all his branches, which leads to contradictory memories of having both turned left and right

    From the materialist perspective what we call consciousness is really just the sum of all the experiences walto has had meditated through his brain/body.

    What makes walto “one” (before the divergence) is simply the fact that he has exactly the same experiences meditated through a brain that is indistinguishable from walto’s brain.

    If the divergence does not result in the death of either individual then one walto lives on along with a person that is almost but not quite the walto we know and love because he has had slightly different experiences.

    dazz: Yeah, sounds ridiculous to me

    gee guys this is real science we are talking about not some silly religious idea.

    😉

    peace

  20. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    It’s an interpretation of ‘real science’–just like your religion is an interpretation of real life. They’re both completely implausible.

  21. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Heh. Fifth is tripping over his shoelaces again.

    Sure, more than one can live forever but once the divergence happens only one is indistinguishable from walto.

    Both copies are distinguishable, fifth. Each is different from the walto before the fork.

  22. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: They’re both completely implausible.

    Sounds like the fallacy of personal incredulity

    😉

    Seriously, are you saying that Christianity is the same sort of idea as the MWI??

    Simply an interpretation of scientific facts that you don’t particularity like.

    peace

  23. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: There are no “previous” waltos.
    There is only walto who lives on.

    This continues to be incorrect in Everett’s view, if there are many worlds there are many waltos, each a true walto for that world.

  24. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Seriously, are you saying that Christianity is the same sort of idea as the MWI??

    They’re both highly implausible, if that’s what you’re asking. And Christians have been willing to embrace that implausibility for centuries. Maybe you don’t do so yourself, but that’s just one more idiosyncrasy about you, I guess.

  25. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: This continues to be incorrect in Everett’s view, if there are many worlds there are many waltos, each a true walto for that world.

    Fifth has a particular position he’d like to push that he thinks will help him construct a reductio regarding materialism. He wants to use Everett for it. He’s not too interested in hearing either that he’s using him incorrectly or that Everett’s views about immortality were half-baked. That’s about where we are on this biz.

  26. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Fifth has a particular position he’d like to push that he thinks will help him construct a reductio regarding materialism. He wants to use Everett for it. He’s not too interested in hearing either that he’s using him incorrectly or that Everett’s views about immortality were half-baked. That’s about where we are on this biz.

    That’s how it seems to me, too.

  27. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:
    Both copies are distinguishable, fifth. Each is different from the walto before the fork.

    Most obviously, by the world they exist in.

    I wonder which walto is the one that made the choice to turn left.

  28. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: gee guys this is real science we are talking about not some silly religious idea.

    The difference is our purpose of life is not to glorify Everett and we are not threatened with eternal torture if we disagree with him.

  29. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: From the materialist perspective what we call consciousness is really just the sum of all the experiences walto has had meditated through his brain/body.

    I don’t think that’s true. I don’t know what a materialist theory of consciousness would be like — especially in your idiosyncratic use of “materialist” that no one else shares — but I don’t think it would be this.

    What makes walto “one” (before the divergence) is simply the fact that he has exactly the same experiences meditated through a brain that is indistinguishable from walto’s brain.

    If this is supposed to be a gloss on the MWI, it’s false. This has already been pointed out multiple times in this thread, so please pay attention: according to the MWI, there is a physically real difference between the two brains of the two persons in the two universes. That’s the whole point!

    gee guys this is real science we are talking about not some silly religious idea.

    There’s no “real science” here — just your seriously flawed misunderstanding of a thought-experiment designed to answer an epistemological question about two specific interpretations of quantum mechanics.

  30. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Fifth has a particular position he’d like to push that he thinks will help him construct a reductio regarding materialism. He wants to use Everett for it. He’s not too interested in hearing either that he’s using him incorrectly or that Everett’s views about immortality were half-baked. That’s about where we are on this biz.

    Perhaps there is a possible Fifth that understands this.

  31. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: we are not threatened with eternal torture if we disagree with him.

    sure you are, If you are in fact immortal then it behooves you to prepare for it.

    The followers of Everett will surely make choices that make their inevitable immortality more pleasant.

    Recall in the Sci fi tale I linked that each attempted suicide resulted in a more unlikely and thus more unpleasant future for the protagonist.

    peace

  32. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: That’s about where we are on this biz.

    Man you are a suspicious fellow. I’m really just interested in exploring atheist schemes for immortality because it helps me to sharpen my own views on the subject.

    Though I can’t resist pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. 😉

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: I don’t know what a materialist theory of consciousness would be like — especially in your idiosyncratic use of “materialist” that no one else shares — but I don’t think it would be this.

    May I suggest you check out kurzweil on the subject.

    If I recall he was little concerned about philosophical things like preserved identity.

    He just punted and said that the future singularity computers will figure out the details and have the processing power to win any debate with Luddites that might disagree .

    peace

  34. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: please pay attention: according to the MWI, there is a physically real difference between the two brains of the two persons in the two universes. That’s the whole point!

    The two universes are in fact one single universe before the divergence.

    The difference happens at that point.

    The “whole point” with the MWI is that instead of an observer collapsing the wave function at a particular point the single universe splits and becomes two separate universes each with a different trajectory.

    Same past different future.
    In universe one walto lives in universe two he dies

    Kantian Naturalist: There’s no “real science” here

    So just as with religion interpretations of QM are not “real” science.

    I promise I will be using that one later probably when debating whether the unpredictable nature of radioactive decay rules out determinism or the uncertainty principle rules out omniscience 😉

    peace

  35. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: May I suggest you check out kurzweil on the subject.

    I’ve read Kurzweil. He’s a quack.

  36. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: They’re both highly implausible, if that’s what you’re asking.

    No I’m asking if they are both implausible for the same sorts of reasons.

    ie you don’t like the implications philosophical or otherwise

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: I’ve read Kurzweil. He’s a quack.

    I agree

    He is the sort of fellow I’m describing with the term materialist

    peace

  38. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Same past different future.
    In universe one walto lives in universe two he dies

    Yeah, but that’s because of a quantum mechanical difference between them. And that difference is therefore a physical difference, because (must it be said?) quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. Hence there is a real physical difference between them, which means that you are mistaken to say that they are physically identical.

  39. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t know whether they’re implausible for the same sorts of reasons. Somewhat different sorts probably.

  40. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Yeah, but that’s because of a quantum mechanical difference between them.

    The difference occurs at the divergence not before.

    I really must ask again. Are you asserting that all choice is physically determined in some way??

    So that walto can not choose to turn either left or right in the same physical universe

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: I don’t know whether they’re implausible for the same sorts of reasons. Somewhat different sorts probably.

    Categorically different or just different in the particulars?

    If the former please specify

    peace

  42. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: He is the sort of fellow I’m describing with the term materialist

    Could you perhaps find a materialist who isn’t a quack?

  43. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Could you perhaps find a materialist who isn’t a quack?

    I keep trying. So far no luck. They’ve all been quacks.

  44. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I keep trying. So far no luck. They’ve all been quacks.

    That’s what comes of refusing to read all the people I keep suggesting. That’s not a fault of materialists; it’s just your own laziness.

  45. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: That’s what comes of refusing to read all the people I keep suggesting. That’s not a fault of materialists; it’s just your own laziness.

    I refuse to read porn. Were you recommending porn?

  46. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Could you perhaps find a materialist who isn’t a quack?

    I’m addressing the people who can’t be bothered by philosophical arguments. They are only impressed by science other discussions are a waste of time.

    Here is a good example from OMagain earlier in this very thread.

    quote:

    The fact that only one side can demonstrate how closely their opinions track reality seems to have escaped you.

    But feel free to continue to discuss when or if god created light with absolutely no chance of a resolution or of convincing the other party. You keep yourself all busy doing that while the rest of us get on creating and improving the world.

    end quote:

    He said this in response to my asking him to lay off on the belittlement of others here. He separated folks here into two teams those who can empirically “demonstrate” and those who must try unsuccessfully to convince others without science.

    He has the same attitude as Kurzweil about nonscientific stuff.

    Do you think OMagain is a quack?

    peace

  47. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    He’s ‘teamier’ than I’d like–as are you. But we all have to make decisions on what produces the best outcomes, and nobody like to be taken advantage of for being more reasonable than the other side. Giving an inch. That’s politics.

    So maybe you team players are right and I’m wrong.

    I’ll give an example: I got lambasted by some anti-Trump person on fb for complaining that he had reproduced a news article well known to be false. I said he was stooping to Trumpian tactics. He was extremely indignant. Because the other side is so awful and will do/say anything, etc., etc.

    And maybe he’s right. wthdik?

  48. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I refuse to read porn. Were you recommending porn?

    You’re hilarious. Do you write your own material?

    (And what’s wrong with porn? Nevermind, I don’t want to know.)

  49. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Here is a comment from Rumraket from the purpose thread

    quote:

    Does something about the hammer change after I “change the purpose” of the hammer? No. The hammer remains exactly as it was.

    That means “purpose” isn’t really a thing, it’s not a property of something at all.

    end quote:

    Is Rumraket a quack??

    peace

  50. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Do I really need to dig up some dismissive comments about philosophy from Alan Fox??? We all know they are out there

    Is Alan Fox a quack?

    peace

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.