Relativistic mechanism for nonlocality

[Crow]

Please excuse a beginner's question. I don't see the need for superluminal or hidden varible theories to avoid what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Couldn't the spacetime contraction in relativity theory provide the answer?

 

Let's suppose that we could put an observer on the back of a photon. For that observer, spacetime will have contracted to zero or near-zero. The inception of that photon's life and its ending would be simultaneous or nearly so.

 

For two entangled photons, our observer would see near-zero distance between the two and near-zero time for information to pass from one to the other. Our observer would not experience nonlocality and would find no need for hidden or superluminal varibles.

 

So, isn't our spooky experience of the entangled photons just an artifact of our frame of reference? From the photon's frame of reference their is no nonlocality and no need to construct a hidden varible theory.

 

What am I missing?

[Klaynos]

You can entangle other particles other than photons... like electrons... There's no information transfer anyway...

[Crow]

Yes, nonlocality and hidden variable theories do not require information transfer. Because Bell's theorem indicates hidden varible theories cannot overcome nonlocality, I have heard it said that a superluminal theory in which information is transfered is required to defeat nonlocality. I disagree.

 

From the frame of reference of two entangled electrons, the spacetime contraction would be very much less than is the case for photons. However, since the electrons would be traveling much slower than the speed of light, photons could be used for information transfer.

 

If information transfer within the spacetime frame of reference of any two entangled particles can occur, and if our experience of nonlocality is just an artifact of our frame of reference, would this not provide some support for Einstein's preference of realistic physicalism?

 

I'm assuming that I am wrong, but I'd like to know why.

[Klaynos]

But the knowledge of the other particle that can be any distance away is known immediately to the observer that measure the first...

 

You can even have your entangled photons stationary, so there's no relativistic effect whatsoever.

[Crow]

OK, I get it. We have two stationary particles located far apart. If we take a measurement of #1 and quickly take a measurement of #2 before a photon sent from #1 could ever reach it, we still aways find entanglement. It's obvious, so I wonder why I didn't think of it . So much for an information transfer theory...which is fine with me because I much prefer nonlocality.

 

Thanks for your patience and rapid response to my question.

[Klaynos]

No thanks required It's good to see people asking questions and thinkng things threw

[throng]

Please excuse a beginner's question. I don't see the need for superluminal or hidden varible theories to avoid what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Couldn't the spacetime contraction in relativity theory provide the answer?

 

Let's suppose that we could put an observer on the back of a photon. For that observer, spacetime will have contracted to zero or near-zero. The inception of that photon's life and its ending would be simultaneous or nearly so.

 

For two entangled photons, our observer would see near-zero distance between the two and near-zero time for information to pass from one to the other. Our observer would not experience nonlocality and would find no need for hidden or superluminal varibles.

 

So, isn't our spooky experience of the entangled photons just an artifact of our frame of reference? From the photon's frame of reference their is no nonlocality and no need to construct a hidden varible theory.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

That’s the problem, isolating the two photons creates the isolated observation of the two movements. Assuming rest seems somewhat obscure…

 

The observer can interpret movement anyhow as he can’t co-ordinate himself.

 

Being directly between the photons is like being everywhere in between, because the photons move “forward and backward”, being everywhere on the line. So, being "still" on the line is exactly like riding a photon in that motion is unobservable.

 

So its instantaneous on the line and anything can be assumed observing the line. It is tricky interpreting the isolated observation of two photons.