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

[swansont]

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

I am well aware of the contradiction. You say the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second without even testing it

You admit that the speed of light has been tested numerous times, so to say it hasn’t been tested is either just gross ignorance, stupidity, or a lie.

 

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

and I actuality test it in the best vacuum achievable and the best state-of-the-art equipment money can buy and find it to be 299,792,500 meters per second, whose value are you going to use for your calculation? The value for c, right or wrong, is decided by convention so everyone uses the same numerical value. This is why it would be absurd to measure the speed of light based on units of distance and time whose calculations themselves are based on the conventionally established speed of light.

Ignorance again, since the speed of light was measured numerous times before the value was defined. That’s how they decided on the defined value!

There’s nuance and some history here that you are ignoring.

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

If you want to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year, you would have to first see how far light travels in a year and then see how far light travels in a year again. The second effort would be redundant. And if the second measurement is different from the first you don't know where the error could be without a lot of retesting.

I’m not sure why you have this fetish for measuring over the distance of a light year. Scientists do measurements, often quite clever in implementation, constrained by what they can actually measure. Restricting science by demanding that they do something that’s not possible is bad faith.

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In Cramer's TIQM and similar models, it is an information exchange

Interpretations of QM are meant to provide a framework for understanding QM, i.e. it aids in intuition. But all interpretations use the same theory and arrive at the same result.

Quote

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.

I can’t go by your say-so, given the misconceptions you’ve presented elsewhere. You need to provide citations/links

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In Special Relativity, time slows to a stop and lengths contract to zero at the 'speed' of light. This is the reference frame of light.

No, light does not have a rest frame associated with it; there’s no valid Lorentz transformation that brings you from an ordinary frame to one in which photons stand still.

Inertial frames in SR are related by rotations in spacetime, where the rotation angle is

\[\omega =arctanh \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)\]

What angle do you get for v=c?

Edited December 8, 2024 by Markus Hanke

[KJW]

On 12/6/2024 at 1:59 PM, bangstrom said:

If entanglement is not an action at a distance, then what is it?

Entanglement is the quantum superposition of correlated multi-particle states. The correlation already exists within the superposition so that when a particle is measured and the superposition "collapses", the state of the other particles are determined as well, without requiring those other particles to know anything about the measurement of the first particle. Note that entanglement can't be used to communicate information (no-communication theorem). I think entanglement is best understood as a logical connection between particles rather than a physical connection. Thus, multi-particle states can exist in quantum superposition without restriction by notions of causality.
 

 

[bangstrom]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, light does not have a rest frame associated with it; there’s no valid Lorentz transformation that brings you from an ordinary frame to one in which photons stand still.

Inertial frames in SR are related by rotations in spacetime, where the rotation angle is

 

ω=arctanh(vcWhat angle do you get for v=c?

I get an arctanh of zero. A wavelength of zero. Essentially a straight line on the time axis going nowhere. If correct, this raises some interesting interpretations about light.

3 hours ago, KJW said:

Entanglement is the quantum superposition of correlated multi-particle states. The correlation already exists within the superposition so that when a particle is measured and the superposition "collapses", the state of the other particles are determined as well

 I have a philosophical concern about the idea of superposition but I can’t say it ain’t so.

 

3 hours ago, KJW said:

the state of the other particles are determined as well, without requiring those other particles to know anything about the measurement

Their not knowing anything about the measurement of the first particle can occasionally be demonstrated in the autopsy of the event by the observation that one of their quantum states has quantum swapped with its entangled partner. This possibility is suggested by violations of the Bell test.

 

3 hours ago, KJW said:

Note that entanglement can't be used to communicate information (no-communication theorem).

3 hours ago, KJW said:

Note that entanglement can't be used to communicate information (no-communication theorem).

 It is my understanding that the no-communication theorem bears the caviat that it is limited to “classical” information.

“Quantum entanglement refers to the phenomenon where particles share a quantum state, such that the measurement of one particle instantaneously affects the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, the no-communication theorem stipulates that these effects cannot carry classical information.” -Wikipedia- No-communication theorem

 

4 hours ago, KJW said:

I think entanglement is best understood as a logical connection between particles rather than a physical connection. Thus, multi-particle states can exist in quantum superposition without restriction by notions of causality.
 

Superpositions and violations of causality are not 'logical' from the classical point of view. I would replace the word logical with non-local to satisfy the contrarians.

 

 

 

 

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

I get an arctanh of zero. A wavelength of zero. Essentially a straight line on the time axis going nowhere. If correct, this raises some interesting interpretations about light.

Are you sure? I thought arctanh (1) was ∞.  

[bangstrom]

I have no doubt you know better than me. Would that make it a straight line on the X axis?

[studiot]

edit post

Edited December 8, 2024 by studiot

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

If v = c then this fraction is exactly = 1.

 

arctan(1) is not equal to zero or infinity

arctan(1) = exactly 45 degrees or pi/4 radians

arctanh, not arctan

[KJW]

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

 I have a philosophical concern about the idea of superposition but I can’t say it ain’t so.

Superposition is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Superposition is a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of conjugate variables.

 

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Their not knowing anything about the measurement of the first particle can occasionally be demonstrated in the autopsy of the event by the observation that one of their quantum states has quantum swapped with its entangled partner. This possibility is suggested by violations of the Bell test.

I think you need to elaborate on the notion of "quantum swapping". In particular, you need to establish whether such phenomena are purely the result of quantum entanglement rather than a physical interaction that satisfies causality.

 

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

It is my understanding that the no-communication theorem bears the caviat that it is limited to “classical” information.

“Quantum entanglement refers to the phenomenon where particles share a quantum state, such that the measurement of one particle instantaneously affects the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, the no-communication theorem stipulates that these effects cannot carry classical information.” -Wikipedia- No-communication theorem

I don't think the no-communication theorem is saying that only classical communication is disallowed. The proof, which is based on standard quantum mechanics, is saying that there is no action that Alice can take that would be detectable by Bob. This seems to go beyond mere communication.

 

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

 

Superpositions and violations of causality are not 'logical' from the classical point of view. I would replace the word logical with non-local to satisfy the contrarians.

No one mentioned a "classical point of view". Entanglement can't be explained classically because it requires quantum superposition, a non-classical phenomenon. The correlation itself is classical in the same way that two billiard balls become correlated after collision. But if the two billiard balls are replaced with two particles whose trajectories are in quantum superposition, then any collision between the particles will be a quantum superposition of each of the collisions of each of the trajectories in quantum superposition, and the two particles will be entangled after the collision, unlike the two billiard balls.

I used the word "logical" to distinguish the connection between entangled particles from a physical connection. "Non-local" doesn't say what I wanted to say and tends to suggest a physical interaction that violates causality, contrary to the nature of entanglement. 
 

 

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I have no doubt you know better than me. Would that make it a straight line on the X axis?

If you have taken in what @Markus Hanke was saying, shouldn’t you be asking yourself what an angle of infinity could possibly mean?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, KJW said:

Superposition is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Superposition is a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of conjugate variables.

How is a|1> + b|2> a consequence of the HUP?

13 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Their not knowing anything about the measurement of the first particle can occasionally be demonstrated in the autopsy of the event by the observation that one of their quantum states has quantum swapped with its entangled partner. This possibility is suggested by violations of the Bell test.

You need to provide a link to an actual experiment where this has been demonstrated

[KJW]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

8 hours ago, KJW said:

Superposition is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Superposition is a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of conjugate variables.

How is a|1> + b|2> a consequence of the HUP?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that if a particle is a definite position state, then it is a superposition of definite momentum states. Similarly, if a particle is a definite momentum state, then it is a superposition of definite position states. And in between these two extremes, a particle must be both a superposition of definite position states and a superposition of definite momentum states. A particle cannot be simultaneously a definite position state and a definite momentum state. Thus, as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, superpositions are unavoidable.

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by KJW

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, KJW said:

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that if a particle is a definite position state, then it is a superposition of definite momentum states. Similarly, if a particle is a definite momentum state, then it is a superposition of definite position states. And in between these two extremes, a particle must be both a superposition of definite position states and a superposition of definite momentum states. A particle cannot be simultaneously a definite position state and a definite momentum state.

 

Are there position and momentum eigenstates, which have no uncertainty? I can’t think of any systems like this off the top of my head.

(Energy eigenstates, for example, can have an uncertainty, so knowing the lifetime does not put them in a superposition.)

In any event, a contrived example will not imply that this is generally true, i.e. a “necessary consequence”

[KJW]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are there position and momentum eigenstates, which have no uncertainty?

In principle, does "uncertainty" even exist? I mean, mathematically, any wavefunction can be expressed as a superposition of Dirac delta "functions" (distributions). Just because it's not possible in practice to exactly measure a particle's position or momentum doesn't mean that exact positions or momenta don't exist theoretically.

 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, KJW said:

In principle, does "uncertainty" even exist? I mean, mathematically, any wavefunction can be expressed as a superposition of Dirac delta "functions" (distributions). Just because it's not possible in practice to exactly measure a particle's position or momentum doesn't mean that exact positions or momenta don't exist theoretically.

Name a system with Dirac delta function position and momentum states.

Superposition is a straightforward consequence of the existence of multiple eigenstates and the fact that you can use different bases. There’n no need to invoke the HUP, which certainly doesn’t come into play in many circumstances.

[KJW]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Name a system with Dirac delta function position and momentum states.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Dirac delta function position and momentum states are the basis states of the position and momentum domains, respectively. However, I am restricting the discussion to Minkowskian spacetime.

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Superposition is a straightforward consequence of the existence of multiple eigenstates and the fact that you can use different bases. There’n no need to invoke the HUP, which certainly doesn’t come into play in many circumstances.

Yes. The reason I invoked the HUP is because it demands the existence of superposition. I wasn't suggesting that all superposition is a consequence of the HUP.

 

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, KJW said:

Superposition is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Superposition is a necessary consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental property of conjugate variables.

Could you explain the connection between HUP and superposition. They appear to be uncertainties about two different things. Ignore this, I see you already have.

 

8 hours ago, KJW said:

I think you need to elaborate on the notion of "quantum swapping". In particular, you need to establish whether such phenomena are purely the result of quantum entanglement rather than a physical interaction that satisfies causality.

 

"In what follows we put forth a simple approach to describing the individual system (and its development in time),which Einstein believed was missing from statistical quantum theory and which must be present before any theory of physics could be considered to be complete. The way forward was suggested by the phenomenon of entanglement. Over the past few decades,many increasingly exquisite Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen [2] (EPR) experiments [3–11] have demonstrated that multi-body quantum systems with separated components that are subject to conservation laws exhibit a property called “quantum entanglement” [12]: Their component wave functions are inextricably locked together, and they display a nonlocal correlated behavior enforced over an arbitrary interval of space-time without any hint of an underlying mechanism or any show of respect for our cherished classical “arrow of time.” Entanglement is the most mysterious of the many so-called “quantum mysteries.”It has thus become clear that the quantum transfer of energy must have quite a different symmetry from that implied by this simple “photon-as-particle” interpretation. Within the framework of statistical QM, the intrinsic symmetry of the energy transfer and the mechanisms behind wave function collapse and entanglement have been greatly clarified by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics(TI), developed over several decades by one of us and recently described in some detail in the book The Quantum Handshake[12]. [We note that Ruth Kastner has extended her “probabilist” variant of the TI, which embraces the Heisenberg/probability view and characterizes transactions as events in many-dimensional Hilbert space, into the quantum-relativistic domain [13,14] and has used it to extend This paper begins with a tutorial review of the TI approach to a credible photon mechanism developed in the book Collective Electrodynamics[16], followed by a deeper dive into the electrodynamics of the quantum handshake, and finally includes descriptions of several historic experiments that have excluded entire classes of theories. We conclude that the approach described here has not been excluded by any experiment to date." John Cramer and Carver Mead

This quote is too concise to clearly explain quantum entanglement violates causality or how the “photon-as-a particle” fails as a physical interaction while nonlocal entanglement secedes. These are dealt with the body of the text.

In this thread, many of my comments have been elaborations on these topics.

 

9 hours ago, KJW said:

I used the word "logical" to distinguish the connection between entangled particles from a physical connection. "Non-local" doesn't say what I wanted to say and tends to suggest a physical interaction that violates causality, contrary to the nature of entanglement. 

I have always considered entanglement to be a nonlocal interaction in violation of causality. "Spooky action at a distance."

[bangstrom]

On 12/7/2024 at 8:35 AM, swansont said:

I’m not sure why you have this fetish for measuring over the distance of a light year. Scientists do measurements, often quite clever in implementation, constrained by what they can actually measure. Restricting science by demanding that they do something that’s not possible is bad faith.

On 12/7/2024 at 4:09 AM, bangstrom said:

I said it would be absurd to try to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light-year, or any tiny fraction of that distance. This was hardly a demand.

I also said the units of measurement don't matter. The point I was trying to make was that our units of distance, time. and the value of c are all mutually defined so that any attempt to measure c in the same units in which they are defined will only yield the values that were put into it.

If you were to guess how far light can travel the distance of a light year over the time of a year,  what would it be?

Do you get it yet?

[Markus Hanke]

19 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I get an arctanh of zero.

No, it’s undefined. There is no hyperbolic angle (=transformation) that takes one from an ordinary inertial frame to a “rest frame of light”, because such a thing does not exist.

[bangstrom]

23 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, it’s undefined. There is no hyperbolic angle (=transformation) that takes one from an ordinary inertial frame to a “rest frame of light”, because such a thing does not exist.

"Undefined works for me." However, there are many attempts to define the undefinable.

I forgot to mention the Cramer-Mead article I cited above can be found at,https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11365 Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of Wave Function Collapse

Their model for the transmission of radiant energy does not include the involvement of a photon particle traveling through space from one electron to another carrying a quantum of energy. There is no passing through space in a measurable time.

Our observations of the time it takes light to get from one electron to another always includes a relativistic amount of time at the constant rate of c.

 

As I recall, Ruth Kastner called the passage of light from one atom to another as being beyond our concept of time. Here is another of her descriptions of the time of a signal from source to sink taken from same from my previously cited Cramer-Mead article.

“that multi-body quantum systems with separated components that are subject to conservation laws exhibit a property called “quantum entanglement” [12]: Their component wave functions are inextricably locked together, and they display a nonlocal correlated behavior enforced over an arbitrary interval of space-time without any hint of an underlying mechanism or any show of respect for our cherished classical “arrow of time.” Entanglement is the most mysterious of the many so-called “quantum mysteries.”It has thus become clear that the quantum transfer of energy must have quite a different symmetry from that implied by this simple “photon-as-particle” interpretation. Within the framework of statistical QM, the intrinsic symmetry of the energy transfer and the mechanisms behind wave function collapse and entanglement have been greatly clarified by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics(TI), developed over several decades by one of us and recently described in some detail in the bookThe Quantum Handshake[12]. [We note that Ruth Kastner has extended her “probabilist” variant of the TI, which embraces the Heisenberg/probability view and characterizes transactions as events in many-dimensional Hilbert space, into the quantum-relativistic domain [13,14] and has used it to extend and enhance the “decoherence” approach to quantum interpretation [15]]

[KJW]

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

"In what follows we put forth a simple approach to describing the individual system (and its development in time),which Einstein believed was missing from statistical quantum theory and which must be present before any theory of physics could be considered to be complete. The way forward was suggested by the phenomenon of entanglement. Over the past few decades,many increasingly exquisite Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen [2] (EPR) experiments [3–11] have demonstrated that multi-body quantum systems with separated components that are subject to conservation laws exhibit a property called “quantum entanglement” [12]: Their component wave functions are inextricably locked together, and they display a nonlocal correlated behavior enforced over an arbitrary interval of space-time without any hint of an underlying mechanism or any show of respect for our cherished classical “arrow of time.”

Yes, this is all rather standard about quantum entanglement.

 

 

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Entanglement is the most mysterious of the many so-called “quantum mysteries.”

It's not really that mysterious once one grasps the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

 

 

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

It has thus become clear that the quantum transfer of energy must have quite a different symmetry from that implied by this simple “photon-as-particle” interpretation. Within the framework of statistical QM, the intrinsic symmetry of the energy transfer and the mechanisms behind wave function collapse and entanglement have been greatly clarified by the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics(TI), developed over several decades by one of us and recently described in some detail in the book The Quantum Handshake[12]. [We note that Ruth Kastner has extended her “probabilist” variant of the TI, which embraces the Heisenberg/probability view and characterizes transactions as events in many-dimensional Hilbert space, into the quantum-relativistic domain [13,14] and has used it to extend This paper begins with a tutorial review of the TI approach to a credible photon mechanism developed in the book Collective Electrodynamics[16], followed by a deeper dive into the electrodynamics of the quantum handshake, and finally includes descriptions of several historic experiments that have excluded entire classes of theories. We conclude that the approach described here has not been excluded by any experiment to date." John Cramer and Carver Mead

This quote is too concise to clearly explain quantum entanglement violates causality or how the “photon-as-a particle” fails as a physical interaction while nonlocal entanglement secedes. These are dealt with the body of the text.

In this thread, many of my comments have been elaborations on these topics.

This seems to be about the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics rather than about quantum entanglement. Also, I was asking about "quantum swapping", which you did not address.

 

 

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I have always considered entanglement to be a nonlocal interaction in violation of causality. "Spooky action at a distance."

This view is somewhat simplistic and somewhat classical. It doesn't take into account the complexity of quantum reality compared to classical reality. For example, an arbitrary two-particle quantum state is almost certainly entangled. That is, it is actually the non-entangled two-particle quantum states that are rather special. These non-entangled two-particle states are either classical two-particle states (correlation but no superposition), or they are completely independent quantum two-particle states (superposition but no correlation). 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.

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. Entanglement between two particles does not require the two particles to be of the same type or of any particular type. It does not require the same level of correlation between single-particle states. It can be transferred to other particles that have never interacted. Subsequent interaction with other particles can alter the original entanglement. So how does a particle decide which possibly remotely distant particle it is entangled with and the level of that entanglement? It seems to me like an enormous burden to impose upon a particle. And what is the precise nature of the interaction? Bear in mind that entanglement is fully described mathematically under standard quantum mechanics without invoking a non-local causality violating interaction, or indeed any interaction at all.

 

 

[swansont]

19 hours ago, KJW said:

I'm not sure what you're asking. Dirac delta function position and momentum states are the basis states of the position and momentum domains, respectively. However, I am restricting the discussion to Minkowskian spacetime

Not sure what spacetime has to do with this, but if you have a delta function as an eigenstate for position, you don’t have a delta function for momentum (and vice-versa). There’s no path to superposition via this argument. The position and momentum states will have the width necessary for a one-to-one correlation, because they are fourier transforms of each other, which why there’s a HUP

[bangstrom]

22 hours ago, KJW said:

This seems to be about the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics rather than about quantum entanglement. Also, I was asking about "quantum swapping", which you did not address.

 

I failed to mention that, in TIQM, the mechanism for energy exchange is quantum swapping.

The conventional view of quantum swapping is limited to quantum properties not observable on a large scale while TIQM includes the relative energy levels among bound electrons as separate quantum states that can be swapped in the before-and-after of entanglement. A description of how quantum states swap energy levels among electrons is no different from how they swap things like spin with the exception that a trans location of energy levels is observable while the former is not.

 

22 hours ago, 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.’

 

22 hours ago, 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.

The thing violated by entanglement is usually called “normal realism” but that may be just a euphemism for causality.

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.

22 hours ago, KJW said:

Subsequent interaction with other particles can alter the original entanglement. So how does a particle decide which possibly remotely distant particle it is entangled with and the level of that entanglement? It seems to me like an enormous burden to impose upon a particle.

A simple explanation for how a particle decides was explained by Tetrode and it has changed little since his time..

“Suppose two atoms in different states of excitation are located near each other, normally it is to be expected that they would have little influence on each other; however, under special conditions with respect to positions and velocities, possibly also in the vicinity of a third atom, it might be that strong interactions occur, Such a situation could well lead to an energy transfer between atoms such that their excited states are exchanged. The energy loss of one and the gain of the other could occur in a time interval corresponding to their separation; that is, we would have an instance of emission from one atom and absorption by the other.” Hugo Tetrode

22 hours ago, KJW said:

And what is the precise nature of the interaction?

Two or more separate particles, possibly greatly separated, act and interact as if they were side-by-side.

 

23 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that entanglement is fully described mathematically under standard quantum mechanics without invoking a non-local causality violating interaction, or indeed any interaction at all.

I consider entanglement to be a non-local, causality-violating, interaction. The old ‘Spooky action at a distance.’ This may be a topic for further investigation.

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I failed to mention that, in TIQM, the mechanism for energy exchange is quantum swapping.

The conventional view of quantum swapping is limited to quantum properties not observable on a large scale while TIQM includes the relative energy levels among bound electrons as separate quantum states that can be swapped in the before-and-after of entanglement. A description of how quantum states swap energy levels among electrons is no different from how they swap things like spin with the exception that a trans location of energy levels is observable while the former is not.

 

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

 

The thing violated by entanglement is usually called “normal realism” but that may be just a euphemism for causality.

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.

A simple explanation for how a particle decides was explained by Tetrode and it has changed little since his time..

“Suppose two atoms in different states of excitation are located near each other, normally it is to be expected that they would have little influence on each other; however, under special conditions with respect to positions and velocities, possibly also in the vicinity of a third atom, it might be that strong interactions occur, Such a situation could well lead to an energy transfer between atoms such that their excited states are exchanged. The energy loss of one and the gain of the other could occur in a time interval corresponding to their separation; that is, we would have an instance of emission from one atom and absorption by the other.” Hugo Tetrode

Two or more separate particles, possibly greatly separated, act and interact as if they were side-by-side.

 

I consider entanglement to be a non-local, causality-violating, interaction. The old ‘Spooky action at a distance.’ This may be a topic for further investigation.

 

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.) 

The idea of entanglement only came into existence in 1935, a decade after the initial development of quantum mechanics, which really started in 1925 with Schrödinger's equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. Your attempt to apply this quotation to entanglement looks both anachronistic and inappropriate.  

Edited December 10, 2024 by exchemist

[swansont]

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I consider entanglement to be a non-local, causality-violating, interaction. The old ‘Spooky action at a distance.’ This may be a topic for further investigation.

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?

2 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.) 

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)