Undergrad Delay in signaling between entanglement particles

Click For Summary
Entangled particles do not exhibit the kind of delayed signaling that the discussion suggests, as their interactions do not depend on distance. The concept of entanglement swapping allows for complex interactions between particles, but these are rare and do not imply a delay in reaction or interaction. There is no evidence supporting the existence of a delay in the interaction between entangled particles. The understanding of entangled systems indicates that they operate as a single unit rather than through sequential interactions. Overall, the notion of a measurable delay in entangled particle interactions is not supported by current scientific evidence.
danielhaish
Messages
152
Reaction score
10
I know that there isn't any delay that depends on the distance between particles, by the time it take to signal l to arrive from point a to b , but do there is any small delay that doesn't depends on distance .
like the Minimum distance between two bodies divided by the speed of light .
for example if we would create some kind of interaction domino with couples of entanglement practicals so when measuring one particle t will effect the practical it been entangle to which will interact with another practical and so on like the following draw
drawisland (1).png

in this draw A,A' B,B' C,C' are an couples of entanglement particles , we also know that A' is interact with B and B' with C and so on. I am wondering if would have a lot of couples of entanglement particles so we may measured a delay between the time we measure A till we can observe the result that bigger then the time it take to tell when the piratical has been measured (the time it take the electromagnetic signal to get from the first location to the last one )
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A “practical” is a hands-on exam or a lab exercise. A “particle” is a small object or (in QM) a quantized excitation of a corresponding particle field.
 
  • Like
Likes danielhaish
Dale said:
A “practical” is a hands-on exam or a lab exercise. A “particle” is a small object or (in QM) a quantized excitation of a corresponding particle field.
Ok i changed it, my mistake my browser is not recognize this word so I changed it
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
danielhaish said:
...in this draw A,A' B,B' C,C' are an couples of entanglement particles , we also know that A' is interact with B and B' with C and so on. I am wondering if would have a lot of couples of entanglement particles so we may measured a delay between the time we measure A till we can observe the result that bigger then the time it take to tell when the piratical has been measured (the time it take the electromagnetic signal to get from the first location to the last one )

Entangled particles do not operate the way you are picturing them. A particle can only be entangled as part of a single system at a time. That system can be more than 2 particles. But if it is, the statistics change.

There is a specialized mechanism which is called "entanglement swapping". It is "possible" to entangle particle A with particle D' as part of a chain of swaps. The setup is quite complex and those swaps would only occur as a very rare event.
 
  • Like
Likes danielhaish
DrChinese said:
Entangled particles do not operate the way you are picturing them. A particle can only be entangled as part of a single system at a time. That system can be more than 2 particles. But if it is, the statistics change.

There is a specialized mechanism which is called "entanglement swapping". It is "possible" to entangle particle A with particle D' as part of a chain of swaps. The setup is quite complex and those swaps would only occur as a very rare event.
and do you think there is small delay of interaction ?
 
Last edited:
danielhaish said:
and do you think there is small delay of reaction ?
Not only is there no evidence for a delay in the reaction, there is no reason to think that there is a reaction.
 
  • Like
Likes danielhaish
Nugatory said:
Not only is there no evidence for a delay in the reaction, there is no reason to think that there is a reaction.
sorry I meant interaction
 
danielhaish said:
sorry I meant interaction
I know what you meant, and my answer still stands.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
470
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K