So are quantum entangled or teleported particles instantly there

[Menan]

I have been reading about this and frankly it seems to me that experimentation and even crude developments are being made in this field.  So is there evidence that entangled particles at a distance are entangled instantly, which would be faster then light travel?  Because this would mean communication between the farthest satellite Voyager I think would take the same time as a thought before expression.

No one doing these experiments will or can be truly forthcoming because of company rules.

 

Thanks

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, Menan said:

So is there evidence that entangled particles at a distance are entangled instantly, which would be faster then light travel? 

As far as we know it is instantaneous. But as there is no movement or communication involved, this does not violate the restriction on faster than light travel.

31 minutes ago, Menan said:

No one doing these experiments will or can be truly forthcoming because of company rules.

A lot of experiments have been published related to this. This isn't the right place for conspiracy theories.

[Menan]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

As far as we know it is instantaneous. But as there is no movement or communication involved, this does not violate the restriction on faster than light travel.

A lot of experiments have been published related to this. This isn't the right place for conspiracy theories.

Light is not instantaneous, how is faster then light travel not violated

Do you really think that Bell is going to tell Google or the Chinese what they are doing?  Corporate espionage is not conspiracy, its part of life today

Edited October 29, 2018 by Menan

[Strange]

A group of Chinese scientists measured the speed of entanglement to be at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

 

Just now, Menan said:

Light is not instantaneous, how is faster then light travel not violated

Because no information is transmitted. Measuring entangled particles shows a correlation between measurements. But you only know about this correlation if you compare the measurements, and this can only be done at light speed (or less).

More detail here:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-can-we-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light-e0d7097c0322

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#5cb783023a1e

[Menan]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

A group of Chinese scientists measured the speed of entanglement to be at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

 

Because no information is transmitted. Measuring entangled particles shows a correlation between measurements. But you only know about this correlation if you compare the measurements, and this can only be done at light speed (or less).

More detail here:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-can-we-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light-e0d7097c0322

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#5cb783023a1e

How would one entangle a proton and even once done how could you tell that proton from the other trillion trillion near it. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Menan said:

I have been reading about this and frankly it seems to me that experimentation and even crude developments are being made in this field.  So is there evidence that entangled particles at a distance are entangled instantly, which would be faster then light travel?  Because this would mean communication between the farthest satellite Voyager I think would take the same time as a thought before expression.

The entanglement isn't what happens instantly (which doesn't really make sense). It's the loss of entanglement that does — decoherence. The entanglement process — state preparation — can take as much time as you want it too. It's the measurement of one particle's state that causes the entanglement to be lost, and the other particle instantly collapses to one state.

11 hours ago, Menan said:

No one doing these experiments will or can be truly forthcoming because of company rules.

A lot of this is happening in academia. 

10 hours ago, Menan said:

How would one entangle a proton and even once done how could you tell that proton from the other trillion trillion near it. 

A Penning trap, or other sort of trap for charged particles (ion trap), so that there aren't any other ones near it.

[Menan]

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 5:50 AM, swansont said:

The entanglement isn't what happens instantly (which doesn't really make sense). It's the loss of entanglement that does — decoherence. The entanglement process — state preparation — can take as much time as you want it too. It's the measurement of one particle's state that causes the entanglement to be lost, and the other particle instantly collapses to one state.

A lot of this is happening in academia. 

A Penning trap, or other sort of trap for charged particles (ion trap), so that there aren't any other ones near it.

I agree this does not make sense, and I truly believe that the people working with this do not understand fully either.  We do not understand DNA either but have been modifying it for tens of thousands of years

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Menan said:

I agree this does not make sense, and I truly believe that the people working with this do not understand fully either.  We do not understand DNA either but have been modifying it for tens of thousands of years

I meant that saying the entanglement happens instantly doesn't make sense.How you do the entanglement may differ. It may be in place because of a direct interaction between two particles, or there may be two separate interactions that leave them entangled, and those interactions can have a separation in time.

Nobody "fully understands" a lot of things, but that has no bearing on whether we have some understanding of it. Pardon the bluntness, but it's a pretty useless observation.

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, Menan said:

I agree this does not make sense, and I truly believe that the people working with this do not understand fully either.  We do not understand DNA either but have been modifying it for tens of thousands of years

This is always going to be a stumbling block for you if you really want to learn science. Just because we don't know everything it doesn't mean we don't know anything. Science is constantly updating itself, that's why we work with theory rather than try to find "answers". Theory is built upon slowly and methodically until it's the most trusted explanation we have for a specific phenomenon.

[Eise]

4 hours ago, quiet said:

Very distant plates, for example separated by an astronomical distance. On one of the plates we alter something. For example, we alter the charge by touching the plate with an electrified object. In the new situation, the force can not have the same value as in the previous situation. How long is it necessary for the new force value to be established on the plate away from us?

The answer is surprising. No time. Zero. Both plates update the new force value together. I repeat, in the equation of capacitive force space, speed and time do not exist. These three terms operate only in the definitions we propose to develop mechanics and branches of physics related to mechanics.

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity?

@Menan

You show that you do not understand entanglement. 

Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green.

Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened.

Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. 

The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30^o, 45^o, 55.3977^o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. 

And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.

[studiot]

There are several nice one liners of explanation from others here who already have lots of green points.

So I am picking Eise to award +1 to for an exceptionally clear explanation of entanglement.

 

@ Quiet, I suggest you read up on displacement current (in capacitors). That has the local speed of light.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion on capacitors has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116839-capacitors-split-from-so-are-quantum-entangled-or-teleported-particles-instantly-there/

 

 

[koti]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity?

@Menan

You show that you do not understand entanglement. 

Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green.

Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened.

Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. 

The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30^o, 45^o, 55.3977^o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. 

And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.

Mic drop. +1.

Edited November 3, 2018 by koti

[Menan]

11 hours ago, Eise said:

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity?

@Menan

You show that you do not understand entanglement. 

Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green.

Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened.

Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. 

The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30^o, 45^o, 55.3977^o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. 

And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.

LOL another genius who says it cant be done.  Clue information has already been sent this way, so do try to keep up

[Eise]

40 minutes ago, Menan said:

LOL another genius who says it cant be done.  Clue information has already been sent this way, so do try to keep up

Sigh... One of my, call it didactic, principles is trying to explain as simple as possible something. For this it is essential to see where the person to whom it is addressed stands in his understanding. In your case, it is very low. So I very slowly built up my explanation. Anyone interested in it would appreciate it, I hope (I am afraid that the points I got are by people who already understand entanglement). But sometimes somebody comes along who thinks he understands these things better, and does not want to learn. So this was a pearl for the swines...

But if you know better, explain to us how it can be done! We are listening!

But if you say that it is a secret, and therefore you do not know, we know all what you really are... So please explain how entanglement can be used to send message faster than light.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Menan said:

Clue information has already been sent this way,

Perhaps you could provide a reference to that?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Sigh..

My dear fellow, have a consoling glass of advocaat.

[Menan]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I missed where it was actually established that the time would be zero..

I do not establish such things, but the current best estimate for an entanglement speed is three trillion meters per second or four times light speed.  So somebody dig up Albert and have him start the whole thing over.  Effectively instantaneous between any two Earth points

https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-quantum-entanglement-2/

Edited November 4, 2018 by Menan

[Menan]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you could provide a reference to that?

No problem

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/quantum-entanglement-camera

18 hours ago, Eise said:

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity?

@Menan

You show that you do not understand entanglement. 

Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green.

Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened.

Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. 

The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30^o, 45^o, 55.3977^o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. 

And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.

No one understands entanglement...……………..All that can be understood are the results.  You also do not understand what is in my left pants pocket, but probably know everything about the beginning of time. Kind of illogical, don't you agree?

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Menan said:

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you could provide a reference to that?

No problem

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/quantum-entanglement-camera

Thank you for providing this link, I had not heard about the experiment.

 

How do you think the explanation given differs from the one Eise gave, if at all?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Menan said:

No problem

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/quantum-entanglement-camera

Neat. But not the sort of instantaneous communication asked about in the OP. There is no faster than light communication here.

8 hours ago, Menan said:

No one understands entanglement...……………..All that can be understood are the results. 

Depends on you definition of "understand" I suppose, but it is explained by quantum theory.

[Eise]

11 hours ago, Menan said:

No problem

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/quantum-entanglement-camera

As Strange already noticed, there is no faster than light 'communication' involved. What is the case is that those experimenters showed you can derive which colour balls are at the remote side, by measuring the colour of the balls on their own side. Of course it is more complicated than that in this experiment, but it is the basic principle. But here is a thought for you: if those experimenters do not understand entanglement, why then were they able to do this? And also, there are already more technologies based on entanglement. How could these technologies be developed when nobody understands entanglement?

11 hours ago, Menan said:

No one understands entanglement...……………..All that can be understood are the results.

No: the mathematics of entanglement is clear and unambiguous. The only problem for us is to picture how the correlation in QM can be stronger than classically possible. 

11 hours ago, Menan said:

You also do not understand what is in my left pants pocket, but probably know everything about the beginning of time. Kind of illogical, don't you agree?

No. What you have in your pocketsess is a fact that I cannot derive from theory: it needs an observation. Obviously you do not understand the difference between simple observations and established (in the case of entanglement) scientific theories. And I don't know everything about the beginning of time. But I do know a little which cosmological theories are more or less established, and which ones are still (very) hypothetical.

18 hours ago, Menan said:

Yes the time as described seems to be zero, this violates known physics.  If the space were between astronomical bodies, millions or billions of miles, would the time still be zero, or would the distance allow for precision measurements.  If this time is zero, what do we really know to be true?

There is no problem that the time between the measurements can be infinitesimal small. Compare with the red/green balls: how short can the time be between me opening my box, and the alien opening his box, and we still see that the measurements are correlated? Again you suppose that there is causation between my measurement and that of the alien, but there isn't. There is only correlation. And this does not violate physics at all: that entanglement should exist was first derived theoretically (Bell's theorem). But in those days technology was not developed enough to really test this. Only one or two decades later, the experiments were done, and they succeeded: these experiments proved, that the understanding of the theoretical physicists was correct. And now you say that nobody understands entanglement? Entanglement is a very clear case where first there was the theoretical prediction, i.e. the understanding, and then the confirmation by experiment.

[zapatos]

18 hours ago, Eise said:

Sigh... One of my, call it didactic, principles is trying to explain as simple as possible something. For this it is essential to see where the person to whom it is addressed stands in his understanding. In your case, it is very low. So I very slowly built up my explanation. Anyone interested in it would appreciate it, I hope (I am afraid that the points I got are by people who already understand entanglement). But sometimes somebody comes along who thinks he understands these things better, and does not want to learn. So this was a pearl for the swines...

But if you know better, explain to us how it can be done! We are listening!

But if you say that it is a secret, and therefore you do not know, we know all what you really are... So please explain how entanglement can be used to send message faster than light.

I am not one of those who has a good grip on entanglement. Loved reading your explanation as it was extremely helpful. And in praise of the rep system, it was all the positive rep on that post that made me stop to read it carefully.

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Eise said:

No. What you have in your pocketsess ...

You deserve an upvote for this line alone!

12 hours ago, Menan said:

You also do not understand what is in my left pants pocket

It is a red herring.

[Eise]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

You deserve an upvote for this line alone!

Thank you. And glad you didn't spoil my joke this time!