Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?

Posted on by

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 thoughts on “Does quantum entanglement violate relativity?”

  1. Mung:
    A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics (PDF)
    The other five were Fred Hoyle, Victor Weisskopf, Steven Weinberg, Murray Gell-Mann, and Hilary Putnam.

    A couple of small points:
    Putnam was a mainly known as a philosopher but he had advanced mathematical skills. For example, he helped solve Hilbert’s tenth problem. So I doubt he was unfamiliar with Godel.

    Jaki criticizes Penrose as an example of a physicist who knows and writes about Godel but fails to mention the implications for limits on physics. Given Penrose’s deep knowledge of Godel, and his comfort in advancing theories which buck the scientific consensus, I would say that the reason he does not mention Godel in this way is that he simply does not think it is worth mentioning, because he thinks it would be wrong application of Godel’s theorems.

  2. BruceS: You are correct in saying that most philosophers and scientists do not accept any role for consciousness in solving the measurement problem .

    David Albert’s worries about the measurement problem have convinced me that it’s basically insoluble, and that Bohr’s way of doing physics is a dead-end. By contrast general relativity is in much better shape, conceptually speaking, because it specifies a geometry that explains why the questions work the way they do. It’s not some uninterpreted formalism.

  4. BruceS: My post was an attempt at humor. Decoherence theory, which is a consequence of QM theory, is recognized by most as solving some but not all of the measurement problem (at least for all practical purposes).Specifically, it tells us why we don’t see superpositions and why we do a particular set of classical results(the so-called preferred basis problem).But it does not tell us why we see probabilities — that needs an interpretation beyond the QM formalism.

    You are correct in saying that most philosophers and scientists do not accept any role for consciousness in solving the measurement problem .

    Thanks for clarifying it Bruce! I had thought one on my work colleagues was trying to be funny…

  5. BruceS: A couple of small points:
    Putnam was a mainly known as a philosopher but he had advanced mathematical skills.For example, he helped solve Hilbert’s tenth problem.So I doubt he was unfamiliar with Godel.

    Jaki criticizes Penrose as an example of a physicist who knows and writes about Godel but fails to mention the implications for limits on physics.Given Penrose’s deep knowledge of Godel, and his comfort in advancing theories which buck the scientific consensus, I would say that the reason he does not mention Godel in this way is that he simply does not think it is worth mentioning, because he thinks it would be wrong application of Godel’s theorems.

    Penrose is an atheist…Isn’t he biased?

  8. Kantian Naturalist: David Albert’s worries about the measurement problem have convinced me that it’s basically insoluble, and that Bohr’s way of doing physics is a dead-end.

    What are you referring to in Albert’s work?
    The philosophers of physics I read (ie the ones I like such as Albert, Maudlin, Wallace) view Bohr’s philosophical writing as hopelessly vague or even incoherent. So it’s more like a “not ever wrong” view of his philosophy.

    Becker’s recent popularization What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics is an enjoyable history of the Einstein-Bohr debates on QM as well as the modern work by Bell and the experimenters testing his results. The book’s theme, which is also the modern view, is that Einstein got it right and Bohr mostly missed his points with responses which were irrelevant and, again, not even wrong.

    GR does have its own issues with ontology like the hole problem. But overall I agree with you that philosophically its ontology is in better shape..

  9. J-Mac:
    BruceS,

    Bruce,
    Have you commented on this blog before???
    Or, am I having a deja vu?

    Years ago I participated. I found it was taking too much of my time and that I did not enjoy the Monty Python argument sketch “it is just contradiction” nature of many of the discussions. So this time I am trying to limit my time and avoid exchanges where people seem to have no common staring point to ground the type of discussion I enjoy..

  10. BruceS: Becker’s recent popularization What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics

    That looks fun–and about my level. Thanks!

  11. BruceS: …which I think makes some fair criticisms of Jaki’s argument that Godel’s incompleteness theorems limit physics.

    I’ll have to read it. Jaki doesn’t seem to me to be limiting physics.

    Herein lies the ultimate bearing of Gödel’s theorem on physics. It does not mean at all the end of physics. It means only the death knell on endeavours that aim at a final theory according to which the physical world is what it is and cannot be anything else. Gödel’s theorem does not mean that physicists cannot come up with a theory of everything or TOE in short. They can hit upon a theory which at the moment of its formulation would give an explanation of all known physical phenomena. But in terms of Gödel’s theorem such a theory cannot be taken for something which is necessarily true. Apart from Gödel’s theorem, such a theory cannot be a guarantee that in the future nothing essentially new would be discovered in the physical universe which would then demand another final theory and so on.

  12. walto,

    My objection wasn’t to the [missing] information theory (something to which I don’t subscribe–

    You’ve reversed yourself again? When did that happen, and why?

  13. Bruce:

    Jaki criticizes Penrose as an example of a physicist who knows and writes about Godel but fails to mention the implications for limits on physics. Given Penrose’s deep knowledge of Godel, and his comfort in advancing theories which buck the scientific consensus, I would say that the reason he does not mention Godel in this way is that he simply does not think it is worth mentioning, because he thinks it would be wrong application of Godel’s theorems.

    I recall reading a few years ago about a problem in physics whose solution was indeterminate due to Gödel’s results. I’ll see if I can track it down.

    ETA: Found it:

    Paradox at the heart of mathematics makes physics problem unanswerable

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are connected to unsolvable calculations in quantum physics.

  14. keiths:
    walto,

    You’ve reversed yourself again?When did that happen, and why?

    What the hellare you on about now?

  15. walto,

    You rejected the “missing information” interpretation of entropy, then you accepted it, and now you’re saying you reject it again.

    What happened?

  16. As indicated, I have no interest in debating this a third time. I was just hoping you’d admit that your view on the matter is controversial.

    I should have known better.

  17. BruceS: Years ago I participated.I found it was taking too much of my time and that I did not enjoy the Monty Python argument sketch “it is just contradiction” nature of many of the discussions. So this time I am trying to limit my time and avoid exchanges where people seem to have no common staring point to ground the type of discussion I enjoy.

    Same.

  18. keiths:

    You rejected the “missing information” interpretation of entropy, then you accepted it, and now you’re saying you reject it again.

    What happened?

    walto:

    As indicated, I have no interest in debating this a third time.

    You’re already debating it with yourself. Which of you is correct, the walto who accepts the missing information interpretation or the walto who rejects it?

  19. And do you have a reason for reversing yourself and rejecting the missing information interpretation? If so, what is it?

    Or was your reversal an accident, due to confusion?

  21. Mung: I’ll have to read it. Jaki doesn’t seem to me to be limiting physics.

    That’s a fair point. However, I still think Barrow’s arguments apply in the sense that if no TOE is possible, it won’t be because of Godelian limits on formal systems, but rather because science never claims proof, only empirical adequacy combined with meeting the norms of best science for theory construction and acceptance.

    Some have also said that we can always question any laws of a purported TOE by saying “why those laws”? But that then gets into PSR and brute facts and how they relate to science, which has been hashed out here already.

    Another possibility is that the TOE won’t have empirical consequences we can test: So is it science? Cue the anthropic principle and multiverses. Sabine H’s blog is a fun and informative place to read about contrarian opinions from a physicist (that is contrary to Brian Greene, Max Tegmark and multiverse-loving scientists).

    ETA fix link

  22. keiths:
    Bruce:

    I recall reading a few years ago about a problem in physics whose solution was indeterminate due to Gödel’s results.I’ll see if I can track it down.

    Yes, that seems an example of the type of non-computability-of-outcome that Barrow mentioned. I don’t know how serious it is deemed to be for the viability of the associated theories.

  23. Mung: Famous last words. 🙂

    Since my point was note to kn that keiths’ explanation wasn’t a consensus position and may actually be a minority view among scientists, and was not to deal with little keithy’s tantrum (‘I won’t get in the car! I want to stay here and fight with walto!!’)–if kn would be kind enough to acknowledge this, we can skip the ice cream trip and just go home, because someone obviously needs a nap more than ice cream.

  24. Christ, walto.

    I’m disagreeing with you and pointing out the contradiction in your position. Rather to be expected at a site called The Skeptical Zone, don’t you think?

    You made some mistakes in an area you find difficult. Someone better versed in the subject pointed them out. It’s not the end of the world.

  25. Bruce,

    Yes, that seems an example of the type of non-computability-of-outcome that Barrow mentioned. I don’t know how serious it is deemed to be for the viability of the associated theories.

    The fact that it only applies when the lattice is infinite makes it seem less troubling to me.

  29. keiths, to KN:

    Actually, scientists can and do speak of the entropy of single molecules.

    Remember, entropy is a measure of missing information: the gap between what is known about the system (its macrostate) and its precise microstate. As long as the microstate hasn’t been pinned down, the entropy is nonzero.

    walto’s response:

    keiths: Remember….

    That this is keiths’s view of the matter.

    Yet here’s walto, earlier:

    Since according to Feder, entropy is the number of microstates having the same specified amount of energy, it makes sense to talk about the entropy of a single molecule.

    And:

    But I agree with the great majority of what you have said about thermodynamic entropy. I’m convinced, in particular, that It’s missing information of a certain kind.

    Too funny. In his rush to disagree with me, walto failed to notice that he was disagreeing with himself.

  30. I hope people will read my entire post and not the bleeding hulk you mined and excerpted:

    And:

    Btw, do you agree that your views on this are not held by all reputable scientists or don’t you? That’s the actual issue here

  32. I hope people will read my entire post and not the bleeding hulk you mined and excerpted:

    I didn’t quote mine you, walto. You explicitly agreed with the missing information interpretation of entropy, and you agreed that it is meaningful to speak of the entropy of single molecules. Those are precisely the points that I made in my comment to KN.

    You’re understandably embarrassed to have contradicted yourself so blatantly. A philosopher, of all people, should be aware of the importance of logical consistency. But your embarrassment is not a reason to rewrite history or to pretend that your interlocutor is quote mining you. Dishonesty needn’t be your first resort.

  33. It’s clear walto was speaking about thermodynamic entropy.

    I agree that it makes sense to consider thermodynamic entropy a subset of (informational) entropy…

    It doesn’t follow that he agrees that every possible use of entropy is a subset of (informational) entropy.

  34. keiths: I didn’t quote mine you, walto

    I think people can decide that for themselves. I mean, I know you have a rep for doing that kind of thing, but I urge people to consider the issue on its merits rather than on your past sins.

  35. walto: Btw, do you agree that your views on this are not held by all reputable scientists or don’t you? That’s the actual issue here

  36. Br’er Fox, he wants you to look at the Tar Baby. Smell the Tar Baby. Touch the Tar Baby.

  37. Mung:
    Br’er Fox, he wants you to look at the Tar Baby. Smell the Tar Baby. Touch the Tar Baby.

    I gots to touch dat thing.

  38. Mung:

    It’s clear walto was speaking about thermodynamic entropy.

    Yes, and that’s also what we’re talking about now.

    At that time, he accepted the missing information interpretation (after finally conceding the incorrectness of the energy dispersal interpretation):

    But I agree with the great majority of what you have said about thermodynamic entropy. I’m convinced, in particular, that It’s missing information of a certain kind.

    Now he rejects it:

    My objection wasn’t to the information theory (something to which I don’t subscribe–

    The reversal should be obvious, even to a Mung or a colewd. Yet walto can’t give a reason for the reversal. It appears to be due to pure confusion (and poor memory) on his part.

  41. I don’t know how it held my arms and legs that time. And this one seems nicer! It wouldn’t do that, would it? I’m sure it’ll just answer my simple question instead:

    walto: Btw, do you agree that your views on this are not held by all reputable scientists or don’t you? That’s the actual issue here

  42. walto: I’m sure it’ll just answer my simple question instead:

    Look. Smell. Taste. Touch. BUT DO NOT SPEAK TO IT!!!

  43. walto,

    Btw, do you agree that your views on this are not held by all reputable scientists or don’t you? That’s the actual issue here

    No, the issue is that you objected to a perfectly valid statement of mine:

    Actually, scientists can and do speak of the entropy of single molecules.

    Remember, entropy is a measure of missing information: the gap between what is known about the system (its macrostate) and its precise microstate. As long as the microstate hasn’t been pinned down, the entropy is nonzero.

    That statement is correct, and I have supported it. You are unable to refute it.

  44. Let’s open up this discussion to others. Anyone out there who actually agrees with walto’s rejection of the missing information interpretation of thermodynamic entropy, and is willing to defend that position, unlike walto?

  45. keiths,

    I agree with the the missing information interpretation of thermodynamic entropy, I just disagree with YOUR missing information interpretation of thermodynamic entropy.

  46. Mung, is it your sense that there are a number of different views on the matter–that there’s no consensus at present?

  47. Mung,

    What aspect(s) of my view do you disagree with?

    In earlier discussions, you objected to my characterization of entropy as observer-dependent. However, that objection never made sense to me, given that observers can differ in the amount of information they possess about the exact microstate of a given system. Different quantities of missing information lead to different assessments of entropy, even though the system is the same in both cases.

  48. walto:

    Mung, is it your sense that there are a number of different views on the matter–that there’s no consensus at present?

    See this comment.

  49. walto: Mung, is it your sense that there are a number of different views on the matter–that there’s no consensus at present?

    Of course. An inventory of what current textbooks teach would probably be revealing. Not that I am offering to do that.

  50. keiths: What aspect(s) of my view do you disagree with?

    Basically, anything that comes out of your mouth. 😉

    It was a joke, keiths. Not an invitation to get into an argument. Sorry.

Leave a Reply