Recent content by jeffn1

If you buy into the QFT notion of non-local fields, it makes sense that quantum entanglement is a result of the interaction with those non-local fields.

I tend to think entanglement is the result of (let's say) infinite quantum fields, with the caveat that whatever we (think) we know is always tentative. I tend to think classical physics is to general relativity as quantum mechanics is to quantum field theory. I just picked up a copy of Art...

I suppose I have tended view a central component of QFT the (assertedly) infinite (but at least, non-local) nature of quantum fields. So, once I bought into QFT, it did not seem "weird" to apply it to entangled particles. I am curious if any cares to comment on this statement: Because QFT...

I think I am saying the same thing Bhoppa is saying (and, I suspect, the book he linked). He said QFT treats two entangled particles as a single particle. Since quantum fields are non-local (infinite, it is often said), the correlations within the two-particle structure remain even if they are...

Bill, any additional thoughts or articles on how quantum fields may explain (non-local) entanglement would be much appreciated. I tend to suspect this is the case. But, I have not found much literature explaining non-local entanglement by referring to QFT. To me (non physicist enthusiast in...

There is no consciousness here (I would argue). The entangled particle are correlated. I am curious about other peoples theories of how they remain correlated even when separated by billions of miles. Most of what I have read just says, they act "as one particle". But, this is not satisfying...

Is light "a quantum field" or is it more accurate to say it is an "excitation in a quantum field"? (Specifically, the electromagnetic field).

My impression is, at a quantum level, all fundamental "particles" are really waves. According to Quantum Field Theory, all fundamental particles are merely excitations of their underlying quantum field. But, I tend to think there is a better case for viewing fundamental particles as...

Yes, the concept I would throw out is that, perhaps, the entangled particles retain their same relationship to their underlying (and non-local) quantum field. So, even when they are separated by billions of miles, their spins (for example) would retain the same relationship to their underlying...

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was responding to Bhobba's statement ("I would say entanglement is an easier concept to understand in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)....", quoted more fully, below). He seems to think that QFT does help explain entanglement, and that seems to make sense to...

Would the statement that the two entangled particles retain the same relationship to their underlying quantum field be consistent with your view? To me, that is a nice explanation for quantum entanglement without any issues about faster than speed of light communication, etc.

Thank you. Have you read the article? It is very mainstream. It is by no means "personal speculation or personal theory development".

I received an email requesting that I introduce myself. Although I did not study physics, I have a pretty strong background in the philosophy of science, which was the subject of my undergraduate thesis at Wesleyan University. I am a practicing lawyer (University of Virginia). [Off topic...