Entanglement vs Superluminal speeds

[kyle_baron]

Since my other thread E=mc2 vs wave/particle duality turned into a discussion of the entanglement of 2 photons at speeds faster than the speed of light, I thought I'd start a new thread.<br /><br />Entanglement of 2 photons means that there is instant communication between the 2 photons spin, no matter where their location in the universe. Experiments have shown that this so called speed is at least 10 million x (c). The problem is, superluminal speeds violate special relativity.<br /><br />1. Is SR suspended at the quantum level? If so, how?<br /><br />2. Is their another explanation?<br /><br />3. Is the contraction of space possible at the quantum level? Can space expand on astronomical dimensions and contract on quantum dimensions, at the same time?<br /><br />4. Maybe there's no space at all at the quantum level (dimension)? And if there is no space, does that mean there is no time to go with it? If there is no space- time, what is the communication between the 2 photons spin occuring in? The answer would have to be nothing. Is nothing a viable dimension for instant communication between 2 photons?<br /><br />Obviously, no one has all the answers. I'm just looking for logical possibilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"1. Is SR suspended at the quantum level?"<br />-------<br /><br />nope not suspended because nothing travels between the two particles at superluminal speeds, that doesn't mean to say they don't communicate together at those superluminal speeds, just that nothing has to travel as messenger between them<br /><br />as to what that means, don't ask me, don't have it patented yet <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I think regarding the speed of communication in this phenomenon we might be today in the position where Galileo was when he tried to measure it with lanterns on hilltops, it won't be infinite but something incredibly fast, too fast for us to measure it today, same as light was too fast for Galileo and the means he had to measure it<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />1. Is SR suspended at the quantum level?" <br />nope not suspended because nothing travels between the two particles <br />nothing has to travel as messenger between them </i><br /><br />No messenger (or force) particle involved. I would agree with that. By the way, good explanation.<br /><i><br />I think regarding the speed of communication in this phenomenon we might be today in the position where Galileo was when he tried to measure it with lanterns on hilltops, it won't be infinite but something incredibly fast, too fast for us to measure it today</i><br /><br />Again, I agree. The speed is limited by the technological tools available (I think they used laser beams). The speed could be 10million x c, 100million x c, or instantaneous (infinite?).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Some properties may be independent of spatial dimensions. </i><br /><br />So, if I understand you correctly, your saying that the properties of entanglement are independent of the properties associated with space-time (or a non space-time). Excellent point. That would fall under question #2 for "another explanation".<br /><br />So far, you guys have answered the first two questions. Now, how about questions 3 & 4? These are string theory - planck length questions. Any thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

Physicist John Cramer is to test whether there can be superluminal communication in QM in a planned experiment:<br /><br />Wednesday, November 15, 2006<br />Going for a blast into the real past.<br />If the experiment works, a signal could be received before it's sent.<br />http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html<br /><br /> Analogous experiments have been reported before where there appears to be superluminal signaling. These results have been explained away as not real examples of faster than light communication:<br /><br />May 30, 2000<br />Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?<br />By JAMES GLANZ<br />http://www10.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physics-light.html<br />[May require free registration.]<br /><br />Note though the statement by Cramer that if there were superluminal signaling, this would require signals travelling backward in time is not correct.<br />Is has been known for several years that the experimental results or relativity could accomodate superluminal speeds as long as there were a preferred frame. Indeed actual confirmation of superluminial signaling could be regarded as experimental confirmation of a preferred frame.<br /><br /> See some discussion on this topic here:<br /><br />Conventionality of Simultaneity.<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/<br /><br /><br /> Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />the breakdown of the quantum level processes, quantum tunneling(QT) for instance</i><br /><br />That's a definite possibility. The two entangled photon's communication passing thru a barrier (dimension). Most of the rest of your statement went way over my head. I'm just looking for possibilities, the theorizing, I'll leave up to you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />If the experiment works, a signal could be received before it's sent.</i><br /><br />Retrocausality-Going back in time. That's just cool. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> That could mean that the 2nd photon all the way across the universe, could know before hand, what the 1st photon's spin was and react accordingly. This is getting weirder and weirder. I guess that's why people like QM. This is a possibility, not likely, but who knows? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Same here, Steve. As Richard Feynman once said, "No one understands Quantum Mechanics." And he was a Nobel Prize winner!<br /><br />You have, of course, succintly hit the nail squarely on the head: As the seperation between two entangled atoms grows, the statistical probability of this occurring shrinks to the infinitesimal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"The entangled photon/particle events to be detected have a probabilistic quality here, which make it more and more difficult to the point of impossibility to detect. As this must increase vastly with distance, one suspects that distance of itself causes quantum effects simply to disappear into indetectability. Thus entanglement itself disappears over distance."<br />-------<br /><br />interesting, first you becry that we can't know because we can't test at great distances and then all of sudden you 'know' that the effect "disappears over distance."<br />sounds like you conclusion is what you want it to be<br /><br />and with arguments like that you should be total sceptic since we can't test just about anything at all distancies, at all energies, in all circumstances... and so we can't know anything about the universe but only about some limited home world sphere, in short our knowledge can't have universal validity<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> The problem is, superluminal speeds violate special relativity. </font><br /><br />STR is bunk. this is why c is violated.

 

[vandivx]

take my word for it, STR or SRT LOL will stand even if it might suffer some change in coming years<br /><br />QM phenomena belong to a completely different category than macroscopic physics because they treat reality on more fundamental level, on particle level and scales that is<br /><br />we can't expect the same behaviour of matter on the particle level as we do on macroscopic level and vice versa <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<br />The problem is, superluminal speeds violate special relativity. <br /><i><br />STR is bunk. this is why c is violated. </i><br /><br />I won't argue with someone who's already made up their mind. It would be like talking to a wall. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I do however, respect the tenacity that you take for your position. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

appreciate that. <br /><br />i figure enough people pretty much agree w/STR and GR, so there needs to be another option, particulalry because the theories don't really describe reality and are self-contradictory.

 

[R1]

Here's a nice little brief video link to explain entanglement,<br />I think entanglement involves information traveling on a membrane in another dimension.<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq454iFp2c<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Thank you for the you tube animation on Entanglement. I thought it was cute. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />I think entanglement involves information traveling on a membrane in another dimension. </font><br /><br />I agree somewhat. I've read in another book "Slip String Drive" that entanglement involves the 2 particles on a gravity membrane in our dimension. The gravity is universal. And the membrane that our universe exists upon, is an inflated string, at the time of the BB. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>