Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Carier particle for quantum entanglement

  1. May 5, 2004 #1
    Can quantum entanglement effect be explained by a carrier particle traveling along spacetime geodesics with a zero time component? Or perhaps traveling along normal geodesics and then falling back in time along a time-like curve? Either of these essentially forms inifinite-speed motion of the carier particle, which would explain how entangled particles stay syncronized across large distances...

    Hmm.. perhaps some sort of photon-tachion interaction could do the trick? A photon carying the information part of the way while moving forward in time (due to limited velocity, i.e. along the surface of a lightcone), then a tachion carying the information the rest of the way while moving backwards in time. Or maybe a zero energy tachion would do the trick on its own, since its speed is then infinite. But if it has zero energy, how can it carry any information? :confused:
    Last edited: May 5, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 5, 2004 #2

    Perhaps the answer has something to do with information travelling faster than the speed of light.
    According to Einstein, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But maybe it does, and this explains the "spooky action at a distance" of quantum entanglement.
  4. May 5, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suppose it could be explained in such a manner, but talking about geodiscs, etc is wrong, as by using this explanation, you've just made a hidden variabels theory that is incompatible with relativity as you have information travelling faster than c. The usual expalntion of quantum entanglement doesn't require information to travel faster than c so it is compatible with relativity.
  5. May 5, 2004 #4
    Well, just like newtonian physics is only valid within certain cinstraints, I suspect and expect relativity to do the same. Once you're operating outside of those constraints, it no longer applies... As for hidden variables, the trick is of course to unhide them. Otherwise the explanations won't be very useful, I suppose.

    Actually, with respect to the original suggestion (particle moving along line with zero time component), I've realized that by definition, this would be a tachion, and what's more, a tachion with zero energy.. So the other explanations (time curves involvement and photon-tachion interaction) seem more reasonable. Btw, what is the usual explanation of entanglement?
  6. May 5, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You would epect certain features in relativity to hold true in any TOE, locality is one of them. As just about all advanced quantum theories are relativistic, the explanation is useless for them.

    The usual explanation of entanglemnt is that the different eigenstates are in superpostion and on collapse the wavefunction will fall randomly into one of them.
  7. May 5, 2004 #6
    Has it dawned on any of you that "entanglement" is nothing more than a misinterpretatin of quantum mechanics and relativity? Follow my thread and see what happens if you examine these issues carefully.

    Have fun -- Dick
  8. May 5, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not really, a) because quantum entanglemnt has bugger all to do with relativity, b) it requires very little interpretaion to get the predicted observations from the mathematical formalism of QM and qauntum entanglemnt has been observed anyway.
  9. May 5, 2004 #8
    Oh has it now? I think you are drowning in the Dirac sea!

    Have fun -- Dick
  10. May 5, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes entanglement appears in no-relativistic QM, SO howver you interpret relativity doesn't matter one iota.
  11. May 10, 2004 #10
    Entanglement is an attempt to maintain a local model of quantum events. However, one peels the onion though the process is nonlocal. DFrce information is passed throuigh nonllocal channels that cannot be desrcibed in any local model. The the theorwtuiclal industry had better get used to the idea of nonlocality as intimate a process as any yet used in physics, ever. No, relativity theory isn't violated. Relativity as understood and practiced needs soem adjusment of its own, but later.

    I have to jump in here someplace. There are gross misconceptions of what QM is all about and the errors go back 80 years at least to the heady times of the Stern_Gerlach experiments circa 1926. Everybody missed the boat, I mean everybody. The analysis of the SG experimental results was , to be polite, incomplete. The mystery asscoiated with certain quantum eventts is not complex that it requires any special mathematical modeling in order to make predictions of transition states through virtually any combination of SG segment arrangements.

    Check out the http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/ [Broken] ("Experimetnal Quantum Transition Physics) that turns the light on the hidden variables and effectively buries superposition, interfernece amplitutude and a host of other knowledge blinding QM concepts. QM does what it does and if one wants to wax eloquently on the grand predictive power of QM go for it.
    Here is a simple test.

    A Transition of a spin-1 particle, say +S , through through an unobstructed T segment where the S and T segm,ents vary in their experimental condion by the relative rotation of the magnetic field and gradient directions of the segments. Let S -> T -> S be the transition statement iof the particle through the T segment. What is glaringly obvious about this statement is the T -> S transition wher e the polarized T satte returns tot he S base state after exit form the T segment. How does the particle know how to get back to the base state? Comapss needles use th eearth;'s magnetic field we are told, here the particle must stuff a little energy away to reorient th emagnetic monopole of the particle that was reoriented after polrization on the T segment.

    Obviouskly there are elemnts that guarantee the reforemaion that are anot dseen in a simpole +S statement defining the observed sdate of the particle. There for the T state must necesarily retain that information necessary for the reformation of the +S base state. These elements are not obserrved, ergo we call them unobserved, or hidden or nonlocal elements.
    The webpage has it all.

    We can simply define the elements as 00 as an arbitrary designator where no physical implications are implied, other than the recognized reality of their essentiall nature. Therefore +S = S(100) where the 1 position designates a + particle. S(010) an 0S particle and a (001) a - S state . So S-> T takes on the form of S->T(00) fpor the polarization event when the particle enters the SG magnetic field and gradient volume.

    Actually we must rewrite the statement as T(00 00[T]) to account for the possibility that the T state, here a hybrid and in the field/gradient volume, would be changed into a permanent T state (which it does if two of the channels or trajectories are onbstructed).. All of this is in Feynman's "Lectures on Physics" Vol III chapter 5. All but the nonlocal notation and all but a rational analysis of experimetnal results. .RF has summarized completely the basic transition rules for spin-1 particles passing through SG segments that are obstructed and unobstructed, but then he loses it, big time. All this in the webpage.

    Howcome poalrization and depolarization isn't discussed in polite QM circles? Why aren't the effect of obstructuons perturnbing the nonlcal elements in SG transitions, particle collisions, ans so on?

    For all of you Feynman admirers be prepared to find another hero, because RF just took one big belly flopping nose dive.

    Here there are two events: Poalrization and the inverse process. In the latter the T-> S goes as (P')T(1 00 00[T]) -> (_ 00 _ _ ) -> S(100) = S(100).

    The 00 are the unperturbed nonlocal elements guaranteeing the reformatioon of the base state., which is the observed state. Call these elements anything you wish, but until they become "observed" in more than someone's speculative theory they shall remain unobserved or nonlocal.

    The polarization event? The inverse of P' course : (P)S(100) -? (_ 00 _ _) -> T(1 00 00[T]) where the underscored terms indicate the non- instantaneous nature of the polarization process. The unobserved elements faithfuilly maintain the force information for the reformtion process. Don't leap to some conclusion that the process can be described by a spring loaded process within the particle. The elements are nonlocal.

    Where do the transition states come from? Certainly not the tungsten filament that is the parroted watch word of the theoretical industry. The particles have their own intrinsic state generating processes. What is described as wildly fluctuatuing x, y components for the z-axis spin measuremts in QT are not x, y at all. This is a silly implication that has no experimental support. The elements are the nonused spin states that have been suppressed to permanent nonlocal status when the particle was polarized. See the webpage.

    If you are paying attention you wull notice that we have described an inertial guidance system. The polarization of the +S particle effectively reorients the 'magnetic monopole' of the particle to one of the htree allowed the T direction and when exiting the T segment , in field free space, the +S state, or magneitic monopole orientation is recovered. This is what I mean by inertial system.

    By look at this closely. The nonlocal elemnts are the crucial elements for th eobserved state. Thyese aren't "wildly fluctuating x, y terms beaten into arandom fluctuating state, these are nonlocal elements.

    The QM superposition convenience igrew from the beleif that any "wave" activity can be treated by a superposition of solution to the wavc equation. Unfortunately, the physical reality is such that superposition is a montrously inhibiting mathematical structure. :smile:

    The enemies of truth. Convicitons are moe dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook