Does in EPR problem transfer anything between two particle? If it transfer, then it violates principle of special relativity. Is this statement true?
The violation of Bell's inequalities in EPR type experiments implies that the results can not be explained by a theory that is both local and realistic. A local theory is one that only allows particles access to information in the past light cone, i.e. information can only be transferred at the speed of light. If we insist on holding onto locality then we need an "unrealistic" (non-classical) theory to explain what is happening. One such unrealistic theory is the Many Worlds Interpretation that does not require communications at greater than the speed of light so the existence of unrealistic theories like the MWI means that EPR type experiments do not conclusively prove superluminal communications because there are alternative explanations. However, if we explain what happens in the EPR experiments by non-local interactions, it does not (IMHO) violate the principle of special relativity. It can be shown that if we have two macroscopic observers, that they can not pass information to each other at greater than the speed of light using an EPR type set up. Any apparent superluminal communication between microscopic entangled particles (which can only be confirmed at a later time) does not translate to superluminal communications at the macroscopic level. This means special relativity is valid for macroscopic systems.efaizi said:Does in EPR problem transfer anything between two particle? If it transfer, then it violates principle of special relativity. Is this statement true?
efaizi said:Does in EPR problem transfer anything between two particle? If it transfer, then it violates principle of special relativity. Is this statement true?
eaglelake said:The difficulty here is that we assume that the two particles are different and independent of each other. Bohr told us many years ago that they are inseparable: they are a single entity. This is hard to imagine since they are spatially separated. Nevertheless, in quantum mechanics they are one! In fact, the entire apparatus including the particles and measuring devices make up a whole that has no classical analog. The error is to treat each particle as a classical object, with its own trajectory and its own energy, momentum, position, etc. Such thinking leads to much confusion and misconceptions.
To answer your question: If there was some kind of a interaction between the particles, then yes, special relativity would be violated. But there is no interaction between the particles. They are not classical particles and they do not behave that way.
DrChinese said:Just to add to the above: it is *possible* that effects can flow from the future to the past. In such case, it would be possible to maintain Special Relativity within a quantum interpretation. [..].
harrylin said:That is impossible by definition, IMHO.
According to who (or what theory) is it possible?
Besides, quantum mechanics has, just like special relativity, different interpretations.
Thus, what do you mean with "a quantum interpretation"?
efaizi said:To answer your question: If there was some kind of a interaction between the particles, then yes, special relativity would be violated. But there is no interaction between the particles. They are not classical particles and they do not behave that way.
eaglelake said:EPR and Bell-like experiments assume separability and they all give erroneous results. The physics literature is full of such real experiments. Separability is a classical characteristic, but not a quantum one. Further, no interaction has ever been found that links the two particles. An interaction implies the application of forces and the exchange of energy and momentum. We are good at measuring such things and, yet, no one has ever been able to observe it.
Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever - Aspect is a good place to start.
DrChinese said:Just to add to the above: it is *possible* that effects can flow from the future to the past. In such case, it would be possible to maintain Special Relativity within a quantum interpretation. There are other interpretations in which SR is maintained as well.
And of course there is no useful information transfer in EPR type experiments.
harrylin said:For an alternative opinion see for example De Raedt, as discussed in this thread:
DrChinese said:Not sure what the De Raedt simulations have to do with this thread. I would not push that as an alternative QM interpretation as this is not generally accepted as equivalent to QM. In fact, Bell shows it cannot be.
harrylin said:I thought that you had studied their papers?! :uhh:
As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with this thread, if they are right then no "spooky", "superluminal" action takes place.
I was as much convinced by Bell's inequality as by David Copperfield's tricks - or spooks.
Now De Raedt appears to disproof Bell, both in theory and by means of counter examples. And it's not just about simulations but about probability calculations. Thus, please continue the discussion in that thread!
DrChinese said:That thread is a place to discuss, not this one. The concepts of De Raedt are quite complex and if you want to discuss somewhere else I will. It does not overturn Bell, nor does it really agree with QM. [..]
harrylin said:Eaglelake's claim that "EPR and Bell-like experiments assume separability and they all give erroneous results" is met with a contrary claim in the recent literature, ...
Nicodemus said:Intersting facial animations aside (how DO you make those?) I'm not hearing any substance in your post, other than accusations. Are YOU arguing for the Fair Sampling Loophole, which I'd say is approaching complete rejection, is something you're arguing for? A critical and open mind doesn't cling to old notions once they've been thoroughly discredited to the satisfaction of all but a vocal minority.
Nicodemus said:I'm arguing for Non-Locality, but if you want to call it spookiness, then yeah. I'm not arguing for information to exceed c however, just non-locality. You're arguing for what, the Bohmian view? "SuperDetermininsm aka god"? You can't be arguing for Local Hidden Variables, unless you just think QM is junk, so I'm a bit puzzled by your approach. [..]
harrylin said:...while on the other hand, there will also always be stubborn, dogmatic people who refuse to reconsider their opinion when new insights are published...
There are lots of "disproofs" of Bell/Aspect, and I review a lot of them. Here are some of the diehards who are publishing these:
Santos, Hess, Philipp, Broda, Christian, Zhao, Kracklauer, Laudisa, Nieuwnehuizen.
So obviously these folks have failed to make a persuasive argument, as none of their attacks are any more scientifically accepted than those of De Raedt et al. I won't bother to fend these off, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just don't use this forum as a place to post non-standard science as that violates forum rules. You should do that on your own web site.
efaizi said:So far, I didn't have understand that is EPR problem violate SR or not?
There are some parts of QM for which nobody has been able to design an experiment. In QM, these untestable theories are usually called interpretations. They’re kind of philosophical. Some of these interpretations include some instantaneous results. So they conflict with SR, but only at a certain level. Since interpretations are untestable, there’s no test you can do to demonstrate a conflict between QM and SR. So usually physicists say that the 2 theories are in agreement.efaizi said:So far, I didn't have understand that is EPR problem violate SR or not?
harrylin said:There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.
efaizi said:So far, I didn't have understand that is EPR problem violate SR or not?
DrChinese said:After a few thousand posts, I think the moderators know I advocate mainstream science. And sometimes there is discussion where the main idea of the thread gets hijacked. That is essentially what you are doing. So occasionally I open a separate thread to allow the original thread to remain on topic. Let's take further discussion of De Raedt elsewhere.
The fact is, there is a generally accepted idea called "quantum non-locality". That idea does not violate special relativity in the sense that superluminal signals are possible. I think that pretty well wraps things up here.