- 242
- 3
Is here any progress on explaining Bell's Inequality? I do not mean explaining what it is, I mean how it works.
That is the view Professor Brian Cox advocates.I believe that Einstein said that "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". However, it turns out that that's not quite right. What he should have said is that "no meaningful information can travel faster than the speed of light".
Ah, now we are getting to the part that is fascinating. I agree it seems to say "there is some 'space fabric' connection." If we could derive some measurable consequences from that idea and they panned out we would win the Noble prize. ;)The fact that the Bell inequalities are experimentally violated shows that there is some "space fabric" connection between the entangled (EPR pair) qubits.
Your (or possibly Smolin's) use of these words is potentially quite fascinating though. With respect to the collapse of superposition (even with entangled states), I personally haven't heard of anyone talk about it in terms of anything but "instantaneous". I suspect that a "small delay" (even if faster than light) would be quite interesting. Maybe you'll get your Nobel prize after all.small delay
There was a paper (which I'll have to go searching for) that indicated that if 'collapse' wasn't instantaneous, you could see deviations (small, though) from QM predictions.Your (or possibly Smolin's) use of these words is potentially quite fascinating though. With respect to the collapse of superposition (even with entangled states), I personally haven't heard of anyone talk about it in terms of anything but "instantaneous".
Sure.Is here any progress on explaining Bell's Inequality? I do not mean explaining what it is, I mean how it works.
Its tied up with what local means in QM which is really to do with the so called cluster decomposition property:It is that "cannot be explained locally" part that I feel needs explaining. How does that work with or without violating the speed of light?
It's almost impossible to resist the temptation to think that Alice's measurement determines the state of Bob's particle through some faster-than-light connection (perhaps messages carried by flying pigs, perhaps as you say "some 'space fabric'"). Nonetheless, you must resist this temptation.What is quite fascinating is that, as soon as Alice (making her the first to "read" her entangled qubit) "reads" hers, then the state of Bob's qubit is determined "instantaneously" (faster than light). The fact that the Bell inequalities are experimentally violated shows that there is some "space fabric" connection between the entangled (EPR pair) qubits.
Just to expand on Nugatorys excellent point (I wish I had said it) even if you believe some kind of influences are travelling FTL it cant be used to send information, so clocks cant be synced, and SR still holds.The problem is that if Alice's and Bob's measurements are spacelike-separated, there is no way of saying which one happened first. Some observers moving at some speeds relative to the experimental apparatus will find that Alice measured her particle before Bob measured his; others will find that Bob's measurement came first and determined the state of Alice's particle.
It doesn't work. Quantum mechanics is phenomenological theory that can't have realistic model at it extremes.It is that "cannot be explained locally" part that I feel needs explaining. How does that work with or without violating the speed of light?
Why not just take quantum mechanics, choose one Lorentz inertial frame to be the preferred frame in which the collapse of the wave function is real? Since the probabilities are Lorentz invariant, observers using other Lorentz inertial frames can calculate in exactly the same way, even though collapse is not real in their frame. In other words, choose the Lorentz Aether interpretation of special relativity. Not advocating this, just considering it as a logical possibility.It's almost impossible to resist the temptation to think that Alice's measurement determines the state of Bob's particle through some faster-than-light connection (perhaps messages carried by flying pigs, perhaps as you say "some 'space fabric'"). Nonetheless, you must resist this temptation.
The problem is that if Alice's and Bob's measurements are spacelike-separated, there is no way of saying which one happened first. Some observers moving at some speeds relative to the experimental apparatus will find that Alice measured her particle before Bob measured his; others will find that Bob's measurement came first and determined the state of Alice's particle.