- #1
- 246
- 3
Is here any progress on explaining Bell's Inequality? I do not mean explaining what it is, I mean how it works.
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.
small delay
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".
Is here any progress on explaining Bell's Inequality? I do not mean explaining what it is, I mean how it works.
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?
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.
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?
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.