Entanglement (split from Using entanglement to achieve...)

[studiot]

Just now, swansont said:

That’s the topic of this thread and you’re expected to provide evidence of this. We know of the electromagnetic, gravitational, string and weak interactions. Which one is responsible?

Ahem, pardo n me.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding;

strong not string ?

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Ahem, pardo n me.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding;

strong not string ?

Yes, thanks, that was a typo. Fixed.

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s the topic of this thread and you’re expected to provide evidence of this. We know of the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak interactions. Which one is responsible?

Electromagnetic.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s also pretty clear in the paper that the discussion of this interaction is not the discussion of entanglement, which cites the Freedman-Clauser experiment (entangled photons)

Which paper is this?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Electromagnetic.

So why isn’t it blocked the way EM signals are blocked?

How would neutrinos become entangled, since they don’t interact this way?

5 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Which paper is this?

The one you linked to, by Cramer and Mead

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your quote from Tetrode has nothing to do with entanglement. This was an early (1922) speculation about excited states of atoms, not electrons. (Don't try to tell us Tetrode did not understand the difference, as you did earlier.) 

 

If you go back in the thread you will find that I corrected my statement about Kracklauer claiming electrons were unknown in Tetrode's time. This was wrong and I posted what Kracklauer actually said, "Translater's note; At the time of writing, 'electron' appears to have been virtually a synonym for 'charged massive particle.'  

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

So why isn’t it blocked the way EM signals are blocked?

How would neutrinos become entangled, since they don’t interact this way?

27 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

So why isn't what blocked? I don't recall ever seeing anything about entangled neutrinos.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s also pretty clear in the paper that the discussion of this interaction is not the discussion of entanglement, which cites the Freedman-Clauser experiment (entangled photons)

The Cramer-Mead paper is all about entanglement as is the Freedman-Clauser experiment. I don't see the mismatch.

[bangstrom]

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your quote from Tetrode has nothing to do with entanglement. This was an early (1922) speculation about excited states of atoms, not electrons. (Don't try to tell us Tetrode did not understand the difference, as you did earlier.) 

 I don’t agree the Tetrode quote is not about but I am reading the quote from the perspective of having read the entire article and not just a short quote.

Here is another quote from the same article, “Thus purely on the basis of logic, there can be, in my view, no objection to this new formulation. It is actually no more than an extention of classical dynamics to relativistic interactions of point masses, as made necessary by Lorentz transformations. Moreover, there seems to be no contrary empirical evidence, at least so far as this initial analysis indicates. When solar radiation is emitted and then eight minutes later absorbed on Earth, in the intervening time interval, according to classical physics, it is to be found each moment at a distinct location as a field energy. This new theory, however, does not recognize fields, in its terms in the interval the energy is nonexistent, although it will reappear at the moment of absorption. This leads to no observable differences.” Hugo Tetrode

I understand this last sentence to mean that light energy at the signal disappears and instantly reappears upon absorption at another location without passing through the space between. This sounds like entanglement to me.

The time interval we observe between signal and sink can be accounted for by Special Relativity where we observe a time delay of one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

If you go back in the thread you will find that I corrected my statement about Kracklauer claiming electrons were unknown in Tetrode's time. This was wrong and I posted what Kracklauer actually said, "Translater's note; At the time of writing, 'electron' appears to have been virtually a synonym for 'charged massive particle.'  

.

But that makes no sense as an explanation. Tetrode didn't use the word "electron" in the passage you quoted. He said "atom". Why would the translator explain the possible meaning of a word Tetrode didn't use?  

(An atom is not an electrically charged particle, of course - not that electric charge has any bearing on entanglement.) 

 

Edited December 10 by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

So why isn't what blocked? I don't recall ever seeing anything about entangled neutrinos.

The electromagnetic signal you claim is present. One should be able to break entanglement simply by shielding one if the psrticles.

You are, in effect, claiming that neutrinos could not be entangled.

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

The Cramer-Mead paper is all about entanglement as is the Freedman-Clauser experiment. I don't see the mismatch.

The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect is not due to entanglement. Neither is Einstein’s bubble.

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

 I don’t agree the Tetrode quote is not about but I am reading the quote from the perspective of having read the entire article and not just a short quote.

Here is another quote from the same article, “Thus purely on the basis of logic, there can be, in my view, no objection to this new formulation. It is actually no more than an extention of classical dynamics to relativistic interactions of point masses, as made necessary by Lorentz transformations. Moreover, there seems to be no contrary empirical evidence, at least so far as this initial analysis indicates. When solar radiation is emitted and then eight minutes later absorbed on Earth, in the intervening time interval, according to classical physics, it is to be found each moment at a distinct location as a field energy. This new theory, however, does not recognize fields, in its terms in the interval the energy is nonexistent, although it will reappear at the moment of absorption. This leads to no observable differences.” Hugo Tetrode

I understand this last sentence to mean that light energy at the signal disappears and instantly reappears upon absorption at another location without passing through the space between. This sounds like entanglement to me.

The time interval we observe between signal and sink can be accounted for by Special Relativity where we observe a time delay of one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

 

There is nothing about entanglement here. It sounds like an idea for how light might transfer energy as discrete quanta - something they were wrestling with at the time, after Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect.  

Edited December 10 by exchemist

[bangstrom]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But that makes no sense as an explanation. Tetrode didn't use the word "electron" in the passage you quoted. He said "atom". Why would the translator explain the possible meaning of a word he didn't use?  

(An atom is not an electrically charged particle, of course.) 

 

The translator was commenting about Tetrode's use of the words "massive particle" in other parts of the article. Tetrode wrote more than what I quoted. As I said earlier, the confusion was with my faulty memory.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

The electromagnetic signal you claim is present. One should be able to break entanglement simply by shielding one if the psrticles.

You are, in effect, claiming that neutrinos could not be entangled.

The electromagnetic part exists only at the extreme ends. The signal and sink.  There is no "in between" an entanglement since it is nonlocal. A block between either particle would prevent entanglement in the first place so an entanglement can't be blocked.  If neutrinos could be entangled, how could you tell?

34 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There is nothing about entanglement here. It sounds like an idea for how light might transfer energy as discrete quanta - something they were wrestling with at the time, after Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect.

How is there nothing about entanglement here?

Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms. This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts. There is no need for a particle exchange to make the amounts discrete.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

How is there nothing about entanglement here?

Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms. This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts. There is no need for a particle exchange to make the amounts discrete.

Where’s the entanglement? 

[bangstrom]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Where’s the entanglement? 

My statement was about the discrete nature of light with no mention of entanglement.

Entanglement comes into play when one electron establishes a remote, nonlocal resonant connection with another

electron possibly located far away. They become spontaneously entangled.

One electron has an energy level above its ground state and the other electron has an energy level below its ground state.

Conditions permitting, the high energy electron drops to a lower energy orbital while simultaneously the other rises to a

higher energy level and both energy levels move towards a more equivalent state.

One electron goes up in its individual atom as the other electron goes down with no need for energy to physically travel

through the space between. Energy is conserved and no energy is lost to the void while waiting for a place to land.

“As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11365 Article: Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of WaveFunction Collapse page 4

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

My statement was about the discrete nature of light with no mention of entanglement.

Entanglement comes into play when one electron establishes a remote, nonlocal resonant connection with another

electron possibly located far away. They become spontaneously entangled.

One electron has an energy level above its ground state and the other electron has an energy level below its ground state.

Conditions permitting, the high energy electron drops to a lower energy orbital while simultaneously the other rises to a

higher energy level and both energy levels move towards a more equivalent state.

One electron goes up in its individual atom as the other electron goes down with no need for energy to physically travel

through the space between. Energy is conserved and no energy is lost to the void while waiting for a place to land.

“As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11365 Article: Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of WaveFunction Collapse page 4

 

You (and Tetrode) are describing the emission of a photon by an atom and its subsequent absorption by another - obviously at a different location. That is not what entanglement is. To produce entanglement one needs a process that results in a pair (or more) of QM entities together, such that they are correlated: their quantum state can only be described for the combined system and not for the individual entities. You do not have that when an atom emits or absorbs a photon. You have misinterpreted what Tetrode was talking about. 

I think you have also misunderstood what the Cramer & Mead paper is about. It proposes a mechanism for wave function collapse in the course of an interaction. That has nothing specifically to do with entanglement either. It is completely general to all QM interactions, whether the participating entities are entangled or not.  

(By the way, it looks to me as if it assumes an interpretation of QM in which the wave function is a physical thing, rather than a description of information about the system. As such it would appear to be at odds with some other interpretations of QM, such as the Copenhagen or the Relational interpretations. But I don't profess to be expert on that subject.)

 

 

Edited December 11 by exchemist

[swansont]

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

My statement was about the discrete nature of light with no mention of entanglement.

Entanglement comes into play when one electron establishes a remote, nonlocal resonant connection with another

electron possibly located far away. They become spontaneously entangled.

One electron has an energy level above its ground state and the other electron has an energy level below its ground state.

Conditions permitting, the high energy electron drops to a lower energy orbital while simultaneously the other rises to a

higher energy level and both energy levels move towards a more equivalent state.

One electron goes up in its individual atom as the other electron goes down with no need for energy to physically travel

through the space between. Energy is conserved and no energy is lost to the void while waiting for a place to land.

“As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, the process described involves the initial existence in each atom of a very small admixture of the wave function for the opposite state, thereby forming two-component states in both atoms. This causes them to become weak dipole radiators oscillating at the same difference-frequency ω0. The interaction that follows, characterized by a retarded-advanced exchange of 4-vector potentials, leads to an exponential build-up of a transaction, resulting in the complete transfer of one photon worth of energy ̄hω0from one atom to the other. This process is described in more detail below”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.11365 Article: Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of WaveFunction Collapse page 4

 

They don’t claim that this is entanglement (which is good, because it’s not). They state that it’s a description of a “quantum jump”

[studiot]

Just now, exchemist said:

But I don't profess to be expert on that subject.)

But that was a pretty damn good summary of relevant aspects of quantum theory in refutation.  +1

 

7 hours ago, bangstrom said:

This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts.

I think it is poetic that the very experiment that led Einstein to propose quantum theory and the word quanta also completely refutes this claim.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But that was a pretty damn good summary of relevant aspects of quantum theory in refutation.  +1

 

I think it is poetic that the very experiment that led Einstein to propose quantum theory and the word quanta also completely refutes this claim.

Not sure I follow that last bit. Surely atoms do only gain or lose energy in discrete amounts, don’t they? But knowing you, you have some subtlety in mind: can you elucidate?

[studiot]

Just now, exchemist said:

Not sure I follow that last bit. Surely atoms do only gain or lose energy in discrete amounts, don’t they? But knowing you, you have some subtlety in mind: can you elucidate?

Sure.

As to the non discreteness what happens to the atoms if I take a bar of steel or a bottle of gas and heat it up ?

Alternatively what happens to them if I take  them on the Edinburgh Express at 125 mph ?

Or if I simply lift them 2 metres into the air. ?

And what happens if one atom simply bumps into another ?

One will gain energy, the other will loose energy.

 

I think our mutual friend has forgotten about heat, kinetic and potential energy.

 

Now for the poetic bit.

The photoelectric effect was one of the two experiments that demonstrated that in some cases atoms can only take in some forms of energy in discrete amounts.

But if you consider the whole experiment not just the sexy bit, energy input of too low a frequency will also be absorbed as above, but the expulsion of an electron will not occur. For example shining infra red light on ssomething will simply heat it up, shining UV or X rays will cause photon emission.

 

Hope this helps

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sure.

As to the non discreteness what happens to the atoms if I take a bar of steel or a bottle of gas and heat it up ?

Alternatively what happens to them if I take  them on the Edinburgh Express at 125 mph ?

Or if I simply lift them 2 metres into the air. ?

And what happens if one atom simply bumps into another ?

One will gain energy, the other will loose energy.

 

I think our mutual friend has forgotten about heat, kinetic and potential energy.

 

Now for the poetic bit.

The photoelectric effect was one of the two experiments that demonstrated that in some cases atoms can only take in some forms of energy in discrete amounts.

But if you consider the whole experiment not just the sexy bit, energy input of too low a frequency will also be absorbed as above, but the expulsion of an electron will not occur. For example shining infra red light on ssomething will simply heat it up, shining UV or X rays will cause photon emission.

 

Hope this helps

Ah, so you refer to atoms in bulk rather than individually, then, radiating or absorbing as a black body. Fair enough.

Edited December 11 by exchemist

[swansont]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

As to the non discreteness what happens to the atoms if I take a bar of steel or a bottle of gas and heat it up ?

Alternatively what happens to them if I take  them on the Edinburgh Express at 125 mph ?

Or if I simply lift them 2 metres into the air. ?

And what happens if one atom simply bumps into another ?

One will gain energy, the other will loose energy.

 

I think our mutual friend has forgotten about heat, kinetic and potential energy.

The context was EM radiation and isolated atoms, so I don’t think it’s fair to say these were forgotten. They’re simply not the topic of discussion.

[studiot]

Just now, swansont said:

The context was EM radiation and isolated atoms, so I don’t think it’s fair to say these were forgotten. They’re simply not the topic of discussion.

Well I disagree.

Firstly atoms in the plural were mentioned in the quote I responded to.

Secondly it specified that this was the only way atoms (not electrons) could gain energy.

The scenariao you describe refers to electrons gaining energy, not electrons per se.

 

Secondly I also referred to a gas, in which the atoms or molecules may well be isolated for the purposes of this context.

Yet those individual atoms are constantly bumping into one and other and in that process gaining or loosing energy.

Therefore it is not the only way an atom can gain or loose energy.

 

Thirdly even in a solid steel bar the influx of EM radiation affects atoms individually. The same photon does not excite two or more atoms.

Finally the full quote I responded to follows a chain of reasoning commencing with the true statement

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms. This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts. There is no need for a particle exchange to make the amounts discrete.

"Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms."

But this is followed by the definitely untrue statement that does not follow from the true premise.

"This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts."

It is untrue because atoms isolated or otherwise can gain energy in other ways as I have noted some of them.

 

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

The context was EM radiation and isolated atoms, so I don’t think it’s fair to say these were forgotten. They’re simply not the topic of discussion.

There is also, I suppose, a nice point as to whether in black body processes one is right to say the atoms do the emitting or absorbing. The black body “oscillators” are systems comprising collections of atoms and it is those systems that do it rather the individual component atoms.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I disagree.

Firstly atoms in the plural were mentioned in the quote I responded to.

Secondly it specified that this was the only way atoms (not electrons) could gain energy.

The scenariao you describe refers to electrons gaining energy, not electrons per se.

 

Secondly I also referred to a gas, in which the atoms or molecules may well be isolated for the purposes of this context.

Yet those individual atoms are constantly bumping into one and other and in that process gaining or loosing energy.

Therefore it is not the only way an atom can gain or loose energy.

 

Thirdly even in a solid steel bar the influx of EM radiation affects atoms individually. The same photon does not excite two or more atoms.

Finally the full quote I responded to follows a chain of reasoning commencing with the true statement

"Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms."

But this is followed by the definitely untrue statement that does not follow from the true premise.

"This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts."

It is untrue because atoms isolated or otherwise can gain energy in other ways as I have noted some of them.

 

In your steel bar, absorbing an IR photon, no single atom absorbs it, surely? I imagine it will initially excite the conduction band electrons and this will get converted into a lattice vibration, won’t it? 

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I disagree.

Firstly atoms in the plural were mentioned in the quote I responded to.

Secondly it specified that this was the only way atoms (not electrons) could gain energy.

When you strip off the preceding sentence (Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms), yes, it said that. But in the context of the paragraph, no.

 

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

The scenariao you describe refers to electrons gaining energy, not electrons per se.

 

Secondly I also referred to a gas, in which the atoms or molecules may well be isolated for the purposes of this context.

You refer to a gas, but the ongoing discussion was not about a gas. Nobody else mentioned a gas, or a bar, or any of that.

 

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yet those individual atoms are constantly bumping into one and other and in that process gaining or loosing energy.

Therefore it is not the only way an atom can gain or loose energy.

Again, you are ignoring the context of the discussion.

 

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Thirdly even in a solid steel bar the influx of EM radiation affects atoms individually. The same photon does not excite two or more atoms.

In an excitation involving a single atom, the transitions are discrete. Once you have a solid, you can have interactions involving more than one atom.

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Finally the full quote I responded to follows a chain of reasoning commencing with the true statement

"Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms."

But this is followed by the definitely untrue statement that does not follow from the true premise.

"This is why atoms can only gain or emit energy in discrete amounts."

It is untrue because atoms isolated or otherwise can gain energy in other ways as I have noted some of them.

So it’s not possible that the mention of the discrete energy levels and light energy in one sentence implied the same context applied in the next sentence. Fine. Whatever.

Moving on.

[Eise]

On 12/7/2024 at 11:09 AM, bangstrom said:

I can make the problem more practical by suggesting that someone in Paris measure the platinum-iridium bar, once our standard length of a meter, with a meter stick only to find that the meter bar is now 98cm. long. How did the platinum bar shrink 2cm. since 1968 or is the meter stick too long because it was made in the USA?

Yes, that is exactly the problem with such standards. Therefore the physics community looked for physical phenomena that always result in exactly the same values. So my 'historical reconstruction':

Once, the metre was defined as "one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator, determined through measurements along the meridian passing through Paris". Not very practical if a laboratory wants to construct a precise metre.

So the idea of the standard metre was born: a metal bar in Paris as standard. From there copies were made and sent to everywhere in the world. But then after a while the problem appeared as you mention here: some copies were not exactly as long as the original. Which one(s) changed?

In the meantime, physical constants like c, u₀, e₀ were measured with ever more precision, but the precision needed in modern physics (and its derived technologies) became bigger than the deviations of the old standard definitions. However, these constants are dependent on each other: define two, and the third can be calculated.

Now given the invariance of c there was a good way out: take the most precise measurements of c given the old definitions of metres and seconds, and turn the definition around: define c at a fixed value based on these measurements, and the others follow from that. It doesn't matter logically which constants you define, and which you derive there from. But practically, it is much easier to define the metre based on c, and the second on a fixed natural frequency. As said before, every sufficient equipped laboratory can now 'construct its own metre and second', and it will be exactly the same between all laboratories. Now the other constants can be either derived, or measured according the new units. Your 'problem' simply does not exist.

On 12/7/2024 at 11:09 AM, bangstrom said:

On 12/6/2024 at 9:21 AM, Eise said:

But it follows directly from quantum mechanics itself, without needing information exchange.

 In Cramer's TIQM and similar models, it is an information exchange. An electron in one atom is allowed, by its nonlocal resonance with an electron in a remote atom, to drop to a lower energy orbit while simultaneously an electron in its entangled partner atom rises to a higher energy orbit. Energy disappears from one atom and remotely appears in another atom without passing through the space between. One electron goes down while the other goes up. Nothing passes through the space between but information. This is a stronger correlation than can be classically explained.

Nope. What this is about is that it makes no sense to ask 'which path information' between the 2 events. So yes, there is information exchange in this example, and energy is sent from one atom to the other. But this is not entanglement. It is simply the QM description of how a photon is emitted by one atom, and absorbed by another one. Imagine the absorbing atom behind a double slit: we cannot say through which slit it went. And as Swansont also remarked: if you block EM radiation completely no energy, and so no information will arrive at the absorbing atom.

In entanglement however, after the photons have passed, you block whatever interaction, it makes no difference, simply because there is no energy exchange, no information exchange, between the distinct detectors. One can even turn e.g. the polaroid filter(s) afterwards, you will find the correlation that QM predicts.

On 12/9/2024 at 3:17 AM, bangstrom said:

I have always considered entanglement to be a nonlocal interaction in violation of causality.

Then you have always been wrong. It is not an interaction, it is a correlation. So no violation of causality. No information or energy exchange.

On 12/10/2024 at 11:21 PM, bangstrom said:

I understand this last sentence to mean that light energy at the signal disappears and instantly reappears upon absorption at another location without passing through the space between. This sounds like entanglement to me.

The time interval we observe between signal and sink can be accounted for by Special Relativity where we observe a time delay of one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

Wot? This is energy transfer (see above). And instantly? How so, when we could measure that there is a time of d/c (d=distance between the atoms)? How does SR account for that, where in fact it forbids energy exchange faster than c?

On 12/11/2024 at 8:01 AM, bangstrom said:

One electron has an energy level above its ground state and the other electron has an energy level below its ground state.

Below the ground state? How is that possible?

Edited December 12 by Eise

[KJW]

On 12/11/2024 at 7:14 AM, bangstrom said:

I don't recall ever seeing anything about entangled neutrinos.

This indicates a misunderstanding of not only how particles become entangled, but also why particles become entangled.

 

[KJW]

On 12/10/2024 at 8:11 PM, bangstrom said:

On 12/9/2024 at 9:41 PM, KJW said:

To consider entanglement to be an interaction is to be unable to see past the non-entangled two-particle states, particularly the latter, where a remotely distant pair of probabilistic states are expected to behave independently in terms of their statistical outcomes, where correlation is regarded as impossible in the absence of some form of communication between the single-particle states.

 

Entanglement is not without communication and the item communicated is called ‘information.’

The no-communication theorem says that entanglement can't be used to communicate information. Presumably, if entangled particles did communicate their states, then this could be exploited to provide communication between people, in violation of the no-communication theorem. But suppose entangled particles do somehow communicate their states. How could this be demonstrated without violating the no-communication theorem? And if it can't be demonstrated, then what value does the idea that entangled particles communicate their states even have?

If this is being considered from a metaphysical perspective, then you need to consider why it is necessary for the correlation due to entanglement to be the result of communication, rather than accept that correlation can occur without communication.

 

 

On 12/10/2024 at 8:11 PM, bangstrom said:

On 12/9/2024 at 9:41 PM, KJW said:

The notion that entanglement is a non-local interaction in violation of causality runs afoul of Occam's razor in that it requires the invocation of a new property for particles, the property of interacting non-locally contrary to causality with other particular particles.

My understanding is that the violation of Bell’s inequality and the EPR effect demonstrated a violation of normal realism. Entanglement was a newly observed phenomenon not a “new property” in Occam’s sense as something made up ad hoc to explain the results.

Entanglement is observed but the non-local interaction is not observed, and it is the non-local interaction that runs afoul of Occam's razor.