Quantum Entanglement and FTL Communication

[tim.tdj]

Hi Everyone

I would firstly like to start by saying that I fully understand why us humans are not able to use quantum entanglement for FTL communication. It is because we can't force an outcome without breaking the entanglement and we can't detect as soon as a measurement has been made at the other end.

My question is this: Does quantum entanglement mean that the Universe itself has privileged access to a means of FTL communication for its own administrative purposes? (I can't see how quantum entanglement would work otherwise.)

Thank you very much

Kind regards

Tim

[swansont]

That's not really a question of quantum mechanics, since QM is our description of how nature behaves. Not some behind-the-scenes view. Similar to how we don't have a description of what the universe looks like from the point of view of a photon, since we can never move at the speed of light. Our determination is limited to what we can measure. 

So we are not in a position to know how this "actually works" — that's a metaphysical question. What we do know is that the states are undetermined until measured, and as they are correlated, you only need one measurement to determine the states. 

[tim.tdj]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not really a question of quantum mechanics, since QM is our description of how nature behaves. Not some behind-the-scenes view. Similar to how we don't have a description of what the universe looks like from the point of view of a photon, since we can never move at the speed of light. Our determination is limited to what we can measure. 

So we are not in a position to know how this "actually works" — that's a metaphysical question. What we do know is that the states are undetermined until measured, and as they are correlated, you only need one measurement to determine the states. 

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much for your reply.

So I guess that we do not currently have the means to answer this question. Do you think we ever will be able to answer it or do you think that there is some sort of fundamental barrier that will always be in the way of the answer?

[swansont]

Just now, tim.tdj said:

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much for your reply.

So I guess that we do not currently have the means to answer this question. Do you think we ever will be able to answer it or do you think that there is some sort of fundamental barrier that will always be in the way of the answer?

If there is no means to test it, it will always be hidden. QM already indicates that there are some things that we cannot know.

[Strange]

Just now, tim.tdj said:

So I guess that we do not currently have the means to answer this question. Do you think we ever will be able to answer it or do you think that there is some sort of fundamental barrier that will always be in the way of the answer?

If we come up with some more "fundamental" theory, then you will still be able to ask "how does that work". So no, there will never be any "ultimate answer"; there can't be.

[tim.tdj]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If there is no means to test it, it will always be hidden. QM already indicates that there are some things that we cannot know.

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

If we come up with some more "fundamental" theory, then you will still be able to ask "how does that work". So no, there will never be any "ultimate answer"; there can't be.

Hi Swansont and Strange

Thank you both very much for your replies.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

If we come up with some more "fundamental" theory, then you will still be able to ask "how does that work". So no, there will never be any "ultimate answer"; there can't be.

And that's a good thing, since we tend to stop looking when we think we've found something. It took me a while to see that theory is better than proof, and current best explanations are better than answers.

[Eise]

3 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

My question is this: Does quantum entanglement mean that the Universe itself has privileged access to a means of FTL communication for its own administrative purposes? (I can't see how quantum entanglement would work otherwise.)

Quantum entanglement does not 'work'. Sounds maybe as nitpicking, but it is not meant like that.

'Working' generally suggests a causal relationship. But there isn't one in entanglement. FTL is not just FTL, it's also 'FTC': faster than causality. Entanglement is a relationship of correlation. It means a.o. that it is the way nature is, not how it works. 

2 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

So I guess that we do not currently have the means to answer this question. Do you think we ever will be able to answer it or do you think that there is some sort of fundamental barrier that will always be in the way of the answer?

In my opinion there can't be an answer, because there simply is no way that entanglement 'works'. Entanglement follows directly from the formalism of Quantum mechanics, and so was derived before it was empirically proven. 

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi Everyone

I would firstly like to start by saying that I fully understand why us humans are not able to use quantum entanglement for FTL communication. It is because we can't force an outcome without breaking the entanglement and we can't detect as soon as a measurement has been made at the other end.

My question is this: Does quantum entanglement mean that the Universe itself has privileged access to a means of FTL communication for its own administrative purposes? (I can't see how quantum entanglement would work otherwise.)

Thank you very much

Kind regards

Tim

The ER=EPR conjecture states that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole. And according to MIT physicists by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, you form a wormhole. Such a wormhole might enable FTL communication. But it's a big 'what if'. http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

[tim.tdj]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Quantum entanglement does not 'work'. Sounds maybe as nitpicking, but it is not meant like that.

'Working' generally suggests a causal relationship. But there isn't one in entanglement. FTL is not just FTL, it's also 'FTC': faster than causality. Entanglement is a relationship of correlation. It means a.o. that it is the way nature is, not how it works. 

In my opinion there can't be an answer, because there simply is no way that entanglement 'works'. Entanglement follows directly from the formalism of Quantum mechanics, and so was derived before it was empirically proven. 

Hi Eise

Thank you very much for your reply. However, I'm afraid I don't understand it.

As I see it, if two things (A and B) are correlated then at least one of the following three statements is true:

1. A causes B.

2. B causes A.

3. Something else causes A and B.

What you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) seems to suggest that in the case of quantum entanglement, none of the above three statements are true. Have I misinterpreted you?

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

The ER=EPR conjecture states that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole. And according to MIT physicists by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, you form a wormhole. Such a wormhole might enable FTL communication. But it's a big 'what if'. http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Hi Itoero

Thank you very much for your reply. Sounds like a very interesting idea.

[QuantumT]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

entangled particles are connected by a wormhole

Interesting theory! But how can single particles create gravity wells that deep? A few inches sounds reasonable, but thousands or millions of miles, not so much.

Edited March 6, 2019 by QuantumT

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

Interesting theory! But how can single particles create gravity wells that deep? A few inches sounds reasonable, but thousands or millions of miles, not so much.

The conjecture was proposed by Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Maybe it makes more sense if you call them gravity channels.

The conjecture leads to a grander conjecture that the geometry of space, time and gravity is determined by entanglement.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Itoero

[QuantumT]

21 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Maybe it makes more sense if you call them gravity channels.

Gives rise to some questions:

1) Does QE occur in nature? And if it does...
2) Would said channels not require an extra dimension?

[Itoero]

2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

 

1) Does QE occur in nature? And if it does...

It depends what you consider Nature to be.

 

5 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

2) Would said channels not require an extra dimension?

Yes I think you can consider those channels to be the 2d information. Those 'channels' imo contain what is called holographic entanglement entropy.

[Eise]

12 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

As I see it, if two things (A and B) are correlated then at least one of the following three statements is true:

1. A causes B.

2. B causes A.

3. Something else causes A and B.

What you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) seems to suggest that in the case of quantum entanglement, none of the above three statements are true. Have I misinterpreted you?

No, you did not misinterpret me. And 3. is the case, more or less. The problem with QM is that it does not obey the logic we are used to when working with macro, i.e. classical objects. On one side, as long as a quantum particle does not interact with other objects (particles or measuring devices) many of its properties are not (exactly) determined. On the other side (within the bounds of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), some conservation laws apply just as rigidly as in classical mechanics, like conservation of momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc.

Applied to entanglement: in the first place one must create an entangled pair of particles. Here is the 'Something else causes A and B' part. Classically, one would be ready with this: the particles have exactly the same value for some observable, (or exactly the opposite depending on the property you are observing, or the way you entangle the particles), because the particles have this property that is observed. But in QM that is not the case: the exact values of what you observe are only definitely determined at the moment of measurement. But still the conservation laws must hold. And this leads to the classically not understandable situation that on one side the measurements are correlated, but are not (completely) fixed by some property that the particles posses in themselves. And even stronger, and this makes the weird situation empirically provable, QM predicts a stronger correlation than all possible classical theories.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Gives rise to some questions:

1) Does QE occur in nature? And if it does...

Yes. There are a number of papers that discuss how entanglement is present/important in certain phenomena, outside of a physics lab. Entanglement in DNA, for example. (But caveat emptor, a lot of pop-sci articles discussing entanglement kinda suck as far as explaining any physics)

16 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi Eise

Thank you very much for your reply. However, I'm afraid I don't understand it.

As I see it, if two things (A and B) are correlated then at least one of the following three statements is true:

1. A causes B.

2. B causes A.

3. Something else causes A and B.

What you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) seems to suggest that in the case of quantum entanglement, none of the above three statements are true. Have I misinterpreted you?

Entanglement is a phenomenon or condition, not an interaction. So things might happen a certain way because particles are entangled, but it would not be correct to say that the entanglement is the cause, even though some people will take the lazy shortcut and phrase it that way. (as I said above, a lot of pop-sci articles discussing entanglement kinda suck as far as explaining any physics)

[tim.tdj]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

No, you did not misinterpret me. And 3. is the case, more or less. The problem with QM is that it does not obey the logic we are used to when working with macro, i.e. classical objects. On one side, as long as a quantum particle does not interact with other objects (particles or measuring devices) many of its properties are not (exactly) determined. On the other side (within the bounds of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), some conservation laws apply just as rigidly as in classical mechanics, like conservation of momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc.

Applied to entanglement: in the first place one must create an entangled pair of particles. Here is the 'Something else causes A and B' part. Classically, one would be ready with this: the particles have exactly the same value for some observable, (or exactly the opposite depending on the property you are observing, or the way you entangle the particles), because the particles have this property that is observed. But in QM that is not the case: the exact values of what you observe are only definitely determined at the moment of measurement. But still the conservation laws must hold. And this leads to the classically not understandable situation that on one side the measurements are correlated, but are not (completely) fixed by some property that the particles posses in themselves. And even stronger, and this makes the weird situation empirically provable, QM predicts a stronger correlation than all possible classical theories.

Hi Eise

Thank you very much for your reply.

After reading what you have said and also reading about the "wormholes" or "gravity channels" mentioned by other people in this thread, I think that I may have managed to combine what you have said and the "wormholes" into a metaphorical analogy about what I think may be going on. I hope you don't mind me speculating here.

Firstly, I get the impression that the most important concept that you mentioned was the conservation laws.

Here is my metaphorical analogy: Imagine that there is a coin spinning fast in such a way that the axis of its spin is exactly half way along a "wormhole" between two entangled particles. When one of the two particles gets "measured", the coin stops spinning and gets sliced along its edge and the "head" of the coin emerges from one end of the "wormhole" and the "tail" of the coin emerges from the other end. Hence the correlation. This therefore preserves the laws of conservation.

One remaining problem with this is that according to Einstein's relativity, absolute simultaneity does not exist. This means that there will be times when both particles are measured close enough together in time that there is disagreement as to which of the two particles was measured first. I think that the solution to this is to ask the following question: "Which particle was measured first from the perspective of the wormhole?" Another way of putting this is as follows: "From which end of the wormhole was the "spinning coin" measured first?"

How plausible do you think my metaphorical analogy is?

EDIT: Can you see any problems with it?

Edited March 7, 2019 by tim.tdj

[swansont]

1 hour ago, tim.tdj said:

I hope you don't mind me speculating here.

Speculating requires more rigor than you have supplied. A lot more than just tossing out some terminology and coming up with an analogy. We need some combination of an actual model, some specific predictions, and/or evidence that your idea is correct.

The fact that you are building on an unconfirmed proposal weakens your case. And from what I can tell, your analogy is not consistent with that proposal. The wormhole would facilitate communication, not travel of the particle.

And relativity/simultaneity isn't typically an issue here. It doesn't matter who measures the state first. Simultaneity is only an issue of you are trying to confirm that the correlation exists faster than could be communicated, and you can set up your experiment so that simultaneity isn't an issue. If simultaneity is an issue, then you will have trouble doing that specific test.

 

 

 

[tim.tdj]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Speculating requires more rigor than you have supplied. A lot more than just tossing out some terminology and coming up with an analogy. We need some combination of an actual model, some specific predictions, and/or evidence that your idea is correct.

The fact that you are building on an unconfirmed proposal weakens your case. And from what I can tell, your analogy is not consistent with that proposal. The wormhole would facilitate communication, not travel of the particle.

And relativity/simultaneity isn't typically an issue here. It doesn't matter who measures the state first. Simultaneity is only an issue of you are trying to confirm that the correlation exists faster than could be communicated, and you can set up your experiment so that simultaneity isn't an issue. If simultaneity is an issue, then you will have trouble doing that specific test.

 

 

 

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much for your reply.

I fully realise that what I have proposed is not a sharply defined model and I have no way of obtaining any evidence that it is correct. I am merely exploring a possibility. I expect that many important scientific ideas have emerged as a result of, at first, taking the first few tentative humble baby steps which is what I am doing here with this analogy.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

And from what I can tell, your analogy is not consistent with that proposal. The wormhole would facilitate communication, not travel of the particle.

The "spinning coin" in my metaphorical analogy is only meant to represent a piece of information or mechanism which gives information to the entangled particles at either end. It is not meant to represent an actual particle which can travel through the wormhole.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much for your reply.

I fully realise that what I have proposed is not a sharply defined model and I have no way of obtaining any evidence that it is correct. I am merely exploring a possibility. I expect that many important scientific ideas have emerged as a result of, at first, taking the first few tentative humble baby steps which is what I am doing here with this analogy.

The "spinning coin" in my metaphorical analogy is only meant to represent a piece of information or mechanism which gives information to the entangled particles at either end. It is not meant to represent an actual particle which can travel through the wormhole.

Yes, by people already fully versed in the subject; not neophytes. I would hazard that you need at least 20 years of full-time experience in a science endeavour to have any chance of altering any paradigm in that subject.

Edited March 7, 2019 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, tim.tdj said:

 I fully realise that what I have proposed is not a sharply defined model and I have no way of obtaining any evidence that it is correct. I am merely exploring a possibility. I expect that many important scientific ideas have emerged as a result of, at first, taking the first few tentative humble baby steps which is what I am doing here with this analogy.

That's not what we do here, though.

First step would be to actually confirm the wormhole conjecture. Building anything speculative on top of that is strictly out of bounds

[tim.tdj]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not what we do here, though.

Hi Swansont

If this is not the place where non-experts such as myself can communicate with experts such as you in order to explore ideas such as mine to find out how plausible they are then can you point me to another forum on the Internet which serves this purpose?

The fact is that, because of events in my life beyond my control, I do not have any direct access to academic expertise. Such access is the privilege of the few. Without the support of academic expertise, it is very difficult for me to develop my ideas and to verify that they make sense to the scientific community. I find this deeply frustrating because I am insatiably curious about this sort of thing. Just watching scientific documentaries and reading science articles in magazines and on the Internet is not enough for me. Sometimes when I am listening to the scientists speaking on these documentaries or when I am reading what they have said in the articles, I often want to ask them various questions. Sometimes I have sent them very polite emails asking them the questions I wanted to ask them but the vast majority of the time, I have never received a reply. Can you understand my frustration?

I would, however, like to point out that I am actually deeply appreciative and grateful for the time that you and your colleges on this forum have all given me with this with your expertise. Thank you very much indeed for this.

Edited March 7, 2019 by tim.tdj

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

If this is not the place where non-experts such as myself can communicate with experts such as you in order to explore ideas such as mine to find out how plausible they are then can you point me to another forum on the Internet which serves this purpose?

 

There are no short cuts to understanding.

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

Hi Swansont

If this is not the place where non-experts such as myself can communicate with experts such as you in order to explore ideas such as mine to find out how plausible they are then can you point me to another forum on the Internet which serves this purpose?

I don't have that information.

This is a place where you can communicate with experts, but in this case it should be in the form of questions, rather than vague proposals to be disassembled. The latter is difficult to do in a way that you will understand if you are not already literate in the field you are discussing. Just saying "No, that violates conservation of angular momentum" doesn't mean much to someone who doesn't understand what angular momentum is and why one would expect it to be conserved, along with all of the esoteric details that come along if it happens to be an issue within quantum mechanics.

We end up having to explain all of that, and a discussion board is not the best format for that. Better resources exist. Universities put lectures online. There are video series (e.g. Khan academy).

42 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

The fact is that, because of events in my life beyond my control, I do not have any direct access to academic expertise. Such access is the privilege of the few. Without the support of academic expertise, it is very difficult for me to develop my ideas and to verify that they make sense to the scientific community. I find this deeply frustrating because I am insatiably curious about this sort of thing. Just watching scientific documentaries and reading science articles in magazines and on the Internet is not enough for me. Sometimes when I am listening to the scientists speaking on these documentaries or when I am reading what they have said in the articles, I often want to ask them various questions. Sometimes I have sent them very polite emails asking them the questions I wanted to ask them but the vast majority of the time, I have never received a reply. Can you understand my frustration?

I do. And those questions you want to ask them you can ask here. But that's not the same as reading about some idea, like wormholes being a connection within entanglement, and running with it.

 

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There are no short cuts to understanding.

Indeed.

You can't expect to  jump into the deep end and have things go well if you haven't learned how to swim.

[tim.tdj]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't have that information.

This is a place where you can communicate with experts, but in this case it should be in the form of questions, rather than vague proposals to be disassembled. The latter is difficult to do in a way that you will understand if you are not already literate in the field you are discussing. Just saying "No, that violates conservation of angular momentum" doesn't mean much to someone who doesn't understand what angular momentum is and why one would expect it to be conserved, along with all of the esoteric details that come along if it happens to be an issue within quantum mechanics.

We end up having to explain all of that, and a discussion board is not the best format for that. Better resources exist. Universities put lectures online. There are video series (e.g. Khan academy).

I do. And those questions you want to ask them you can ask here. But that's not the same as reading about some idea, like wormholes being a connection within entanglement, and running with it.

 

Indeed.

You can't expect to  jump into the deep end and have things go well if you haven't learned how to swim.

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much indeed for all your help. I will have a look at the Khan videos.

Edited March 7, 2019 by tim.tdj