What is the concept of nonlocality in quantum mechanics?

[uzername]

I'm not a physics student, just a layperson, and I'm wondering if anyone can briefly explain to me the concept of nonlocality in the context of quantum mechanics.

My understanding is that basically it means that an electron at one physical location (or just theoretical?) can instantaneously "know" the behavior of another electron to which it's somehow mysteriously paired (or is that necessary?) and adjust its own behavior accordingly, without there being any physical proximity in a classical sense whatsoever.

Is that essentially accurate? If so, is it still an accepted theory, or is it refuted? I'm also not sure how this supposedly ties into 'entanglement'. Are they essentially the same concept, or is entanglement more refined somehow, or different in some other way?

 

[QuantumClue]

I'm not a physics student, just a layperson, and I'm wondering if anyone can briefly explain to me the concept of nonlocality in the context of quantum mechanics.

My understanding is that basically it means that an electron at one physical location (or just theoretical?) can instantaneously "know" the behavior of another electron to which it's somehow mysteriously paired (or is that necessary?) and adjust its own behavior accordingly, without there being any physical proximity in a classical sense whatsoever.

Is that essentially accurate? If so, is it still an accepted theory, or is it refuted? I'm also not sure how this supposedly ties into 'entanglement'. Are they essentially the same concept, or is entanglement more refined somehow, or different in some other way?

More or less. Basically you need to throw out the idea that in all circumstances electrons do not act locally, meaning sometimes it is best to view the space between particles as not being a limit.

Superdeterminism states that information is already predetermined. I like this idea, and works well with Bohmian Mechanics. Basically superdeterminism acts like a loophole which removes the non-locality spooky action at a distance.

Nevertheless, proving that the universe is predetermined seems to be out of our scopes, atleast for now.

As for being disproven, I doubt it will be disproven any time soon. Non-locality is a well-understood, and apparently, observed phenomenon. Particles simply do not have time for all this space between theories ;)

 

[QuantumClue]

I also think it is possible that quantum tunnelling could provide an answer to the strange phenomenon. Just like in situations, a particle can come across a potential in the vacuum of space. It's like a hill, and in order for the particle to use as little energy as possible (the principle of least energy, or the ''general action''), it will tunnel very large distances in order to reach point B from point A.

In much the same respect, our classical idea of entanglement would require information to be transferred from particle A to particle B over very large distances. It is possible that perhaps information tunnels the very large distance, just like how a particle will tunnel beneath spacetime very large distances when pressured into making the most efficient trajectory.

This is slightly speculative, but fringe at best.

 

[uzername]

Okay! Thanks for the responses. I'm glad to see that I'm on the right track, at least.

The direction I'm going in this, and what is confusing to me, is that we - I mean, us as human beings, and specifically thinking about our brains - have electrons in us, too, don't we? I've been reading about how our consciousness, in fact, appears to be working in some respects, maybe even fundamentally, through the actions of "ion channels" - calcium ion channels, potassium ion channels, etc.

Like I said, I'm not a physics guy, but isn't an ion a "charged particle?" Which has electrons, right? So what is confusing to me is that if nonlocality is true, and electrons at great distances can affect the behavior of other electrons even light years away, then wouldn't that tend to imply that our consciousness is in some ways potentially being affected by "nonlocal" phenomena and events?

Or is the idea more that if the two electrons are paired somehow in this hypothetical relationship, that the simultaneous action of both electrons doesn't really mean one is having an "influence" on the other, but just that they are acting in tandem, i.e., which would mean that essentially they are the same phenomenon?

Or again, it gets confusing because I'm not sure if this is all really just theoretical, or if the fact is that nonlocality actually is happening in "reality," like an electron on venus is somehow "communicating" with one somewhere else in the universe, possibly even in our own brains?

Trying not to sound schizo here, just confused about what the implications appear to be if nonlocality is literally true.

 

[QuantumClue]

An ion \bar{e} is any charged particle, so yes you are right. As for quantum entangled brains, this is something a doctor has already picked up on... Doctor Dean Radin has postulated on this, give him a google and he will show up.

Also a more famous scientist who speculated entangled brains before him was Doctor Jack Sarfatti. Many of his ideas have been ridiculed by science up to date, but do not let this hinder you. He is very intelligent, I have had a few debates with him myself. Even Susskind recognizes him as a brilliant yet adventageous scientist.

More importantly, you seem to be asking how two particles become entangled? It is possible all particles where entangled from the very beginning of time! If two particles are created from the same source, then the two particles will quantum mechanically entangled. This is the same as saying we can get an electron and a positron from a gamma gamma decay, and the two particles will be entangled, or have hidden information which describes them.

If there is a simultaneous action, either some information about them is being taken over very large distances in a very short time (such as tunnelling for instance) or a superluminal transfer of energy (which is forbidden by special relativity) or the final idea is that somehow everything is already determined. You'd be right in saying that there seems to be some indication that it is not a direct influence from particle A to B, and this is where non-locality arises from. However, non-locality could simply be a nice description to a rather incomplete knowledge on the system.

 

[uzername]

Thanks for the references. I will definitely look those up. I don't know what ideas specifically have been ridiculed, but it seems strange to think any would be in a field that has "many world" hypotheses and things like that. What could be more bizarre and seemingly implausible than that?

More importantly, you seem to be asking how two particles become entangled? It is possible all particles where entangled from the very beginning of time! If two particles are created from the same source, then the two particles will quantum mechanically entangled. This is the same as saying we can get an electron and a positron from a gamma gamma decay, and the two particles will be entangled, or have hidden information which describes them.

This is definitely an aspect I was thinking of. Everything must have come out the Big Bang (it seems to me), meaning essentially that the idea of the individuality of basically anything really would just be a perceptual or definitional quirk. If I move my finger, that's considered part of "me," so if an electron on Mars moves at the same time as one in me (i.e,.because they're somehow linked, not meaning just randomly), then why shouldn't that be considered part of "me," also?

And so the implications of that seem to be what the Buddhists are talking about when they mention "Emptiness," and so on, meaning a deep kind of interconnection in the underlying energy patterns that appear (because of how our sense apparatuses work) to be solid things when in fact it's really all just aspects of the same energy "field."

Or something like that! :D

 

[DrChinese]

... This is definitely an aspect I was thinking of. Everything must have come out the Big Bang (it seems to me), meaning essentially that the idea of the individuality of basically anything really would just be a perceptual or definitional quirk. If I move my finger, that's considered part of "me," so if an electron on Mars moves at the same time as one in me (i.e,.because they're somehow linked, not meaning just randomly), then why shouldn't that be considered part of "me," also?

And so the implications of that seem to be what the Buddhists are talking about when they mention "Emptiness," and so on, meaning a deep kind of interconnection in the underlying energy patterns that appear (because of how our sense apparatuses work) to be solid things when in fact it's really all just aspects of the same energy "field."

Or something like that! :D

Welcome to PhysicsForums, uzername!

I would not characterize this description as an accurate rendering of the situation. Moving your finger "here" does not cause something to move "there". Rather: If you observe a particle state "here", you may deduce that an entangled particle will be observed to be in a matching state "there".

There are many reasons to believe that everything is NOT set in stone from the big bang. Nor that entanglement has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of "Superdeterminism". I would strongly recommend that you learn more about quantum physics before trying to tie it to philosophy.

 

[uzername]

Welcome to PhysicsForums, uzername!

I would not characterize this description as an accurate rendering of the situation.

Okay, thanks. So in your view, which aspects of the description are inaccurate? Everything didn't arise out of the Big Bang? Or there is no underlying connectedness or interrelatedness of phenomena?

 

[QuantumClue]

Thanks for the references. I will definitely look those up. I don't know what ideas specifically have been ridiculed, but it seems strange to think any would be in a field that has "many world" hypotheses and things like that. What could be more bizarre and seemingly implausible than that?



This is definitely an aspect I was thinking of. Everything must have come out the Big Bang (it seems to me), meaning essentially that the idea of the individuality of basically anything really would just be a perceptual or definitional quirk. If I move my finger, that's considered part of "me," so if an electron on Mars moves at the same time as one in me (i.e,.because they're somehow linked, not meaning just randomly), then why shouldn't that be considered part of "me," also?

And so the implications of that seem to be what the Buddhists are talking about when they mention "Emptiness," and so on, meaning a deep kind of interconnection in the underlying energy patterns that appear (because of how our sense apparatuses work) to be solid things when in fact it's really all just aspects of the same energy "field."

Or something like that! :D

I agree with dr Chinese here. There are many leaps of faith in this post. It starts out ok, but then delves into the realm of psuedoscience. See, Buddhism is a belief system, while quantum mechanics is a physical accuracy of the world. One is structured on only idea's, while the other has evolved from ideas to experimental justification. You are doing what a scientist should not do. That is applying nutty phenomenon to quantum physics. You need to apply first quantum physics to the nutty phenomenon to accurately measure the likelihood of it properly helping to describe what is going on.

 

[DrChinese]

Okay, thanks. So in your view, which aspects of the description are inaccurate? Everything didn't arise out of the Big Bang? Or there is no underlying connectedness or interrelatedness of phenomena?

Moving your finger "here" does not cause something to move "there". Rather: If you observe a particle state "here", you may deduce that an entangled particle will be observed to be in a matching state "there".

There are many reasons to believe that everything is NOT set in stone from the big bang. Nor that entanglement has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of "Superdeterminism". I would strongly recommend that you learn more about quantum physics before trying to tie it to philosophy.

I would skip the comments by QuantumClue as being misleading as a starting point.

 

[QuantumClue]

Welcome to PhysicsForums, uzername!

I would not characterize this description as an accurate rendering of the situation. Moving your finger "here" does not cause something to move "there". Rather: If you observe a particle state "here", you may deduce that an entangled particle will be observed to be in a matching state "there".

There are many reasons to believe that everything is NOT set in stone from the big bang. Nor that entanglement has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of "Superdeterminism". I would strongly recommend that you learn more about quantum physics before trying to tie it to philosophy.

This I don't fully agree with dr Chinese.

Superdeterminism showed there was a loophole in the understanding of Bells Inequalities, which was the mathematical formulation that helped quantum physics understand the nature of non-locality. Non-locality of course came from the understanding of entanglement.

 

[QuantumClue]

I would skip the comments by QuantumClue as being misleading as a starting point.

Please, elaborate on the points of being misleading... I would love a debate on the subject of any misleading points provided by myself.

 

[uzername]

There are many reasons to believe that everything is NOT set in stone from the big bang. Nor that entanglement has anything whatsoever to do with the concept of "Superdeterminism". I would strongly recommend that you learn more about quantum physics before trying to tie it to philosophy.

Okay - I see your objection in your edit. I'm not really trying to tie anything to anything else that is not deserving of a tie, just trying to get a grasp on some of these concepts in relation to those that I'm more familiar with and that seem to be similar. I really wish now that I had more of a science and physics background, because all these topics are exceedingly interesting to me. But right now this is all I have to go on, and I'm trying to get an entry point.

Regarding the finger example, I see your point about 'here' and 'there'. I was trying to comment more on our definitional concepts of "us" as beings, as in we consider our finger to be us, and yet, if nonlocality is true and electrons somewhere else are acting in tandem with our own, then strictly speaking, logically, that would have to be considered part of the phenomenon we call 'us', even though definitionally we're typically not thought of as being physically anything beyond our own skins. That latter view doesn't really seem to be accurate, imho. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point also, but I believe I've heard it said that actually we are continually sharing electrons with everything around us - the furniture, the air, the ground we walk on, etc.

 

[DrChinese]

Please, elaborate on the points of being misleading... I would love a debate on the subject of any misleading points provided by myself.

Anything to do with Superdeterminism or Sarfatti does not belong in a discussion with someone who is just beginning to learn about entanglement. Period.

 

[DrChinese]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this point also, but I believe I've heard it said that actually we are continually sharing electrons with everything around us - the furniture, the air, the ground we walk on, etc.

You could as accurately state that there is a mutual gravitational influence between every electron in your body and those of the moon. That was known a long time ago, and is taught in elementary school.

But I would not say it proves we are all one. For all practical purposes, your statement is not accurate. I.e., it is not a useful statement. As I said earlier, I would strongly recommend you learn some of the basics before going into the philosophical implications. Then you will understand how difficult it is to translate from one arena to the other. Many of the issues start to become semantics, and your definitions dictate your conclusions.

 

[uzername]

I'm just looking up Superdeterminism, and then apparently that leads to the idea of "local hidden variables," and I can see that these ideas can start snowballing out of control very rapidly. :D

Since this idea of local hidden variables (I'll call it LHV) seems related to my initial question, I guess I'll ask about that. If I'm understanding correctly, there is some conflict or incompatibility between LHV and quantum theory, but I don't understand why something traveling at the speed of light or not has to be the determining factor, i.e., why they need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't events have the possibility of being both instantaneous (or faster than light speed), or not instantaneous, and still be quantum? Couldn't there be some other quantum variable that is 'delaying' the effect, or having some influence on the effect so that it's not instantaneous, but still quantum?

edited: nevermind - I think I get that, as a deterministic approach would negate the need for any kind of entanglement, because everything would "know" in advance what to do and how to behave anyway. Is that accurate?

 

[QuantumClue]

Anything to do with Superdeterminism or Sarfatti does not belong in a discussion with someone who is just beginning to learn about entanglement. Period.

As I said Superdeterminism showed there was a loophole in the understanding of Bells Inequalities, which was the mathematical formulation that helped quantum physics understand the nature of non-locality. Non-locality of course came from the understanding of entanglement.

So it has everything to do with a possible solution to entanglement itself. Not to mention that the person themselves asked about quantum mind entanglement. I never intruduced Jack Sarfatti into the conversation for the hell of it. He was mentioned because he was the first scientist to talk about the possibility of the phenomenon.

So I don't know what you would have wanted me to tell a layperson??

 

[DrChinese]

I'm just looking up Superdeterminism, and then apparently that leads to the idea of "local hidden variables," and I can see that these ideas can start snowballing out of control very rapidly. :D

Since this idea of local hidden variables (I'll call it LHV) seems related to my initial question, I guess I'll ask about that. If I'm understanding correctly, there is some conflict or incompatibility between LHV and quantum theory, ...

Yes, this snowballs and you get things out of order. Forget superdeterminism. That is not physics, more like a religious concept.

What IS physics is the idea that local hidden variable (LHV) interpretations of quantum mechanics are NOT viable. That conclusion is due to 3 important papers: EPR (1935), Bell (1965) and Aspect (1982). If you would like to learn a bit about these, check out the link which is part of my signature below.

 

[DrChinese]

Or read the original papers:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

 

[uzername]

Yes, this snowballs and you get things out of order. Forget superdeterminism. That is not physics, more like a religious concept.

What IS physics is the idea that local hidden variable (LHV) interpretations of quantum mechanics are NOT viable. That conclusion is due to 3 important papers: EPR (1935), Bell (1965) and Aspect (1982). If you would like to learn a bit about these, check out the link which is part of my signature below.

Thanks - did you see my earlier edit? I'll repost it here for convenience:

---------------------
edited: nevermind - I think I get that, as a deterministic approach would negate the need for any kind of entanglement, because everything would "know" in advance what to do and how to behave anyway. Is that accurate?
----------------------

 

[DrChinese]

Thanks - did you see my earlier edit? I'll repost it here for convenience:

---------------------
edited: nevermind - I think I get that, as a deterministic approach would negate the need for any kind of entanglement, because everything would "know" in advance what to do and how to behave anyway. Is that accurate?
----------------------

That is the basic concept, yes, and it is NOT generally accepted as having any scientific basis whatsoever.

 

[QuantumClue]

Yes, this snowballs and you get things out of order. Forget superdeterminism. That is not physics, more like a religious concept.

What IS physics is the idea that local hidden variable (LHV) interpretations of quantum mechanics are NOT viable. That conclusion is due to 3 important papers: EPR (1935), Bell (1965) and Aspect (1982). If you would like to learn a bit about these, check out the link which is part of my signature below.

Your audacity and ignorance is overwhelming. It is not a religious subject at all.

Superdeterminism has every ingredient as the Bohmian Interpretation has, stating that wave function has a structure made from pilot waves, stating also there is determinism ingrained into reality. There is no destinguishing the two, so unless you are calling superdeterminism a religion, you must also be calling the Bohmain Interpretation word salad.

 

[DrChinese]

So I don't know what you would have wanted me to tell a layperson??

I would recommend starting with conventional science rather than fringe ideas. Not trying to be mean, but it confuses people when they start at the end rather than the beginning. There is plenty of cool ideas to learn by what I call a more conventional approach... which would be learning about the early quantum ideas (Copenhagen). Followed by EPR perhaps, etc.

 

[uzername]

That is the basic concept, yes, and it is NOT generally accepted as having any scientific basis whatsoever.

That's too bad, because I have to admit that just on the face of it the idea has a kind of appeal. I don't mean in the sense that I would hope it is that way, but the idea that things have a kind of momentum or inevitable trajectory from an initial starting point just seems to make a lot of sense. Unless something were to interfere with that trajectory - but how can something interfere with itself? But I guess the deeper you go, the more it probably seems like it would have to be a massive oversimplification, with so many other factors involved, like maybe black holes or something? But then that would have to have been determined, too, wouldn't it? Unless the black hole was somehow extra-big bang, ie., before or "outside" or not a part or result of the big bang, only being incorporated into or merging with the results of it later, after the fact?

 

[DrChinese]

Your audacity and ignorance is overwhelming. It is not a religious subject at all.

Superdeterminism has every ingredient as the Bohmian Interpretation has, stating that wave function has a structure made from pilot waves, stating also there is determinism ingrained into reality. There is no destinguishing the two, so unless you are calling superdeterminism a religion, you must also be calling the Bohmain Interpretation word salad.

LOL.

Superdeterminism is in fact a religious idea because it is a matter of belief and cannot be falsified. There are NO superdeterministic interpretations of physics which have EVER been presented. And I am familiar with the literature on the subject.

 

[DrChinese]

I have written extensively in other threads about superdeterminism. At least 59 posts in fact. If you want to discuss or debate the subject, start a thread on it!

 

[QuantumClue]

LOL.

Superdeterminism is in fact a religious idea because it is a matter of belief and cannot be falsified. There are NO superdeterministic interpretations of physics which have EVER been presented. And I am familiar with the literature on the subject.

Bell took the idea seriously.

''John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:[1]

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.''

So yes, physics as we know it has adopted the possibility of this as a solution to the problem. So I refute your comments in its entirity.

 

[QuantumClue]

From wiki, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

 

[DrChinese]

From wiki, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

LOL, you might want to read the comment at the top about needing the attention of an expert.

I will repeat: superdeterminism is more like religion than science. Else perhaps you would care to present a superdeterministic version of physics that can be experimentally tested. You see, I can also present the GOD theory of QM which says there is a being - God - who decides each random event that is to occur in real time. He is the guy behind that curtain. Now I hope it is clear that theory is not science.

 

[DrChinese]

Bell took the idea seriously.

''John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:[1]

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.''

So yes, physics as we know it has adopted the possibility of this as a solution to the problem. So I refute your comments in its entirity.

You are hijacking a legitimate thread.