Astronomers often use the speed of a QRB or other phenomena to put a maximum bound on the size of the generating object. I find the most recent of many examples in "Furiously Fast and Red: Sub-second Optical Flaring in V404 Cyg during the 2015 Outburst Peak", Gandhi et al 14 Mar 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04461. Lead author of the study Dr Poshak Gandhi comments: “The very high speed tells us that the region where this red light is being emitted must be very compact." Of course the way this works is, signals can't travel FTL. So since a flare was as short as 24 milliseconds it had to come from a source less than about 7200 km; in this case it's a jet from the central object, which they further estimate (by putting the flare at a few hundred gravitational radii) at something like 20 km diameter.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

This idea is of course ubiquitous. It has been used to upper-bound the size of quasars, and so forth. It's also related to the cosmological horizon problem. The early universe's particle horizons were not large enough to allow uniform CMBR, because it would have required FTL "communication" to reach thermodynamic equilibrium back then. Of course inflation is the favored explanation today.

Now, quantum entanglement results in non-local effects, which is a bit like FTL communication, when the wave function of entangled particles collapses due to measurement. Of course this can't be used for communication, since only random values of the entangled properties are "communicated" in this way. To put it like a first-grade reader, Alice can't force her particle to be spin up, so that Bob can read that as a binary "1". She can only force it to be up or down randomly. She knows Bob will read the same value, up or down, but can't control which it will be.

You may not know that multiple entangled particles are commonly demonstrated. A couple papers are "Experimental demonstration of a hyper-entangled ten-qubit Schrödinger cat state", Gao, Lu, Yao, Xu et al 2010, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n5/abs/nphys1603.html; and "Multipartite Entanglement Among Single Spins in Diamond" Neumann et al 2008, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5881/1326.abstract. Also check out biphoton frequency combs.

Putting these facts together it appears that entanglement could allow much larger objects to produce the fast flares usually ascribed to BHs, to account for the horizon problem, and so forth. It's not necessary for Alice to communicate a selected state to Bob - just any random state, like a temperature of 2.94K.

Suppose Alice is at one end of an object much larger than 7200 km; say, a light-hour or so. Bob is at the other end, with Eve, Colin, Dick and Jane, and 10^20 more friends interspersed throughout. They all have entangled particles which are, somehow, suppressing flaring. Now, Alice (a natural phenomenon of some sort, you understand) observes, or measures, her particle. Suppose its wave function collapses into the |allow_flaring> state. Then all the entangled particles do so, and we get simultaneous flaring throughout. When astronomers on Earth see it, 7800 years later, it lasts only 24 ms so they incorrectly conclude it came from a very small object.

Since this idea questions many well-accepted astronomical conclusions there must be something wrong with it. What is it?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# A Astronomical Implications of Quantum Entanglement?

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Astronomical Implications Quantum |
---|

I Did astronomers just lengthen the expected life of the Sun by 5 Gy? |

B Massive Space Objects Have Connections to QM Math |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**