Im not too clever, but faster than light?

[invalid name]

im not too clever, but "faster than light?"

Hi,

I have no real background in physics, but got to thinking of something.

--------------------------------------------

Let’s say light travels at around 670,616,629.384 miles per hour

Then let's say I have a imaginary rod 134123326 miles long (double the number above) (size must be bigger than the distant lights travels in a given time).

This rod is not affected by heat (no shrinking of expanding) and is straight, no bending takes place.

----------------------------------------------

If I also set up a electrical circuit at the other end, with rod acting a switch. (Electric is not transferred via the rod)

a race take place between two people, sending information from the same point, here at one side of the rod to the other side of the rod, 134123326 mile away

The first person uses radio waves the second Morse code.

The message is "hello", Morse code "... . .-.. .-.. ---"

----------------------------------------------

Now here is what I was thinking.

The radio waves are sent and travel at 670,616,629.384 miles / hour. Taking two hours to reach the end point.

But if the Morse coder could type out the message, complete / cutting the circuit at the other end, by pulling on the rod. Would the information travel instantly?

 

[HallsofIvy]

You don't need to make it that long! Imagine a rod from here to the moon. As long as the rod is perfectly rigid, a push on the rod on the Earth will result in an instantaneous motion at the moon, thus resulting in instantaneous communication as you say.

Consequence? In relativity, there cannot be "perfectly rigid" materials, even theoretically.

 

[DaveC426913]

To further HoI's post:

The rod is made of matter. The atoms and electrons in the matter cannot interact any faster than the speed of light. Whatever mechanism you propose to transmit along it will be constrained by this limit.

 

[David Burke]

I cannot see why the system in question falls into the area of GR. The rod would be modeled best using classical mechanics as the atoms are only moving a small distance at a very slow velocity in comparison to c. Time dillation and length contraction shouldn't be even noticable in the example stated. An observer in the inertial frame of the Earth or moon were to measure the rods speed during the experiment it would be very slow, maybe 3-4 cm/s. I would simplify the experiment to a hose wrapped around the equator a hundred times with an observer holding both ends. If the observer pushes a bung down one end of the hose to move the fluid in that end the fluid in the other end will rise with no delay as the pressure in all points of the hose is equal. This is not a question of a particle have a velocity faster than light, it's simply a large object moving a very small distance.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I cannot see why the system in question falls into the area of GR. The rod would be modeled best using classical mechanics as the atoms are only moving a small distance at a very slow velocity in comparison to c. Time dillation and length contraction shouldn't be even noticable in the example stated. An observer in the inertial frame of the Earth or moon were to measure the rods speed during the experiment it would be very slow, maybe 3-4 cm/s. I would simplify the experiment to a hose wrapped around the equator a hundred times with an observer holding both ends. If the observer pushes a bung down one end of the hose to move the fluid in that end the fluid in the other end will rise with no delay as the pressure in all points of the hose is equal. This is not a question of a particle have a velocity faster than light, it's simply a large object moving a very small distance.

So you would argue that you could send a signal faster than the speed of light?

 

[DaveC426913]

I cannot see why the system in question falls into the area of GR. The rod would be modeled best using classical mechanics as the atoms are only moving a small distance at a very slow velocity in comparison to c. Time dillation and length contraction shouldn't be even noticable in the example stated. An observer in the inertial frame of the Earth or moon were to measure the rods speed during the experiment it would be very slow, maybe 3-4 cm/s.

Yes, the rod travels a 3-4cm/s, no one's arging that. You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with time dilation and everything to do with the speed with which atoms can interact.

Question: when you push on the near end, how fast does the push get transmitted through the rod? How fast can one atom bump its neighbour? Faster than c? The rod cannot be perfectly rigid; there is no such thing, even theoretically.

The pulse of the push will take 4s to reach the other end of the rod.
Thus, no superluminal transmission.

If the observer pushes a bung down one end of the hose to move the fluid in that end the fluid in the other end will rise with no delay as the pressure in all points of the hose is equal.

No noticeable delay - over short distances. How fast can water molecules trasmit pressure?

 

[SF]

I'd reckon the speed with which the movement is transmitted equals the speed of sound in the rod's material.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'd reckon the speed with which the movement is transmitted equals the speed of sound in the rod's material.

Which typically is a lot less than the speed of light.

Of course, the original post was positing a perfectly rigid material in which the "speed of sound" would be infinite.

 

[DaveC426913]

Which typically is a lot less than the speed of light.

Of course, the original post was positing a perfectly rigid material in which the "speed of sound" would be infinite.

The best I would accept is:

"...positing a material as perfectly rigid as theoretically possible, in which the "speed of sound" would be at or near the speed of light."

 

[YellowTaxi]

This type of argument above is one of the reasons I could never accept relativity theory.

All my textbooks say take 2 reference frames measured out with light, rigid rods...

By definition of relativity theory there is no such a thing as a rigid rod, as explicitly explained above

The theory seems to contradict itself from the very beginning.
Or at least it's very difficult (impossible ?) to formulate the Lorentz transformations from Einstein's angle without immediately breaking the rules you are about to describe... ;-/

Probably the person who started this topic was influenced by the same contradictions.
Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain this ?

 

[DaveC426913]

The theory does not contradict itself - the explanations for laypeople often do though. Don't confuse them.

The theory does not know from 'rods', rigid or otherwise - but for us to understand it, we need to grasp the theory in bite-sized chunks. This is why we use thought experiments, usually including an array of "ideal" (physically impossible) tools, such as spaceships with unlimited fuel and acceleration, telescopes with unlimited distance, etc.

An attempt to understand relativity without any of these mental crutches, will require examination of the mathematical formulae directly. And there, you can be sure, it will have no contradictions.

P.S. Having said all that, I'd doublecheck your textbooks.
- Are you sure they were proposing a rigid rod? Or are you mashing things in your memory?
- They might have been proposing it as a sort of 'reducto ad absurdum' - i.e. showing how it is impossible.

 

[baywax]

Which typically is a lot less than the speed of light.

Of course, the original post was positing a perfectly rigid material in which the "speed of sound" would be infinite.

Can the speed of sound match c if its embedded in the light inside of a fiber optic? In this case perhaps the "sound" has been translated into binary and is then transferred as the binary "information" that is relaying the sound at the speed of light.

Is this the same thing as sending an actual "sound" at the speed of light?

 

[SF]

Nope, it's not the same thing: http://www.google.com/search?client...oup+velocity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[mosassam]

The information involved in the non-local effects proposed by Bell's Theorem (and as experimentally demonstrated) travels faster than light. It appears to be instantaneous over large distances.

 

[Newbie says Hi]

The information involved in the non-local effects proposed by Bell's Theorem (and as experimentally demonstrated) travels faster than light. It appears to be instantaneous over large distances.

Well, I think that in this instance, we have to be careful about distinguising the various usage of the word "information" because of its subtle and delicate nature in the EPR-Bell context. What I mean is that the influences associated with the wavefunction collapsing does not send out energy or causal "information", and that the only evidence of this influence is the correlation in the data at the two separate locations -- data that must be examined together to find any correlation... unlike other forms of "information" transfer.

----
Anyone reading this, PLEASE let me know if I got anything wrong, I'm still a student and honing out my QM skills... I'm by no means an expert like the others in here.

 

[mosassam]

What I mean is that the influences associated with the wavefunction collapsing does not send out energy or causal "information"

I too am a bit out of my depth so let's help each other.
Indeed, the 'information' involved in the various EPR-Bell experiments must be considered as different in nature in that it transcends causality, but we cannot dismiss this information simply because it flies in the face of "conventional' expectations. It has been experimentally verified that measuring one particle of a Bell correlation instantaneously transforms the properties of the other. For the second particle to assume the correct properties I can concieve of no explanation (which probably indicates my own limitations more than anything else), other than it has received information concerning the nature of the first particle. My point - the apparent 'instantaneous' nature of this effect indicates that information has 'arrived' without traveling and even light has to travel. Causality goes out of the window, so to speak, but if we begin by assuming that information must have a causal aspect we go round in circles and the 'information' in the EPR-Bell experiments cannot be considered information because it seems to have no causal aspect.
I think

 

[baywax]

Nope, it's not the same thing: http://www.google.com/search?client...oup+velocity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Cool thanks. I thought about it before I read this and figured that the sound is reduced to a binary (group of 1s and 0s) reproduction of sound.

If I try to sell a reproduction of a Rembrant I'm not selling a Rembrant. Thus, with this logic, sound is not traveling at c there is a binary group representing a sound traveling at c that will activate a device at the other end where the sound will be (partially) reproduced (when compared to the original, analog, sound).

But, about the the perfectly straight rod. Isn't there friction slowing the transmission of the sound wave?

Like, say there's a tin can on earth, a perfectly taunt string and another tin can on the moon. Communications are still limited to the speed of sound minus the density of the string. No?

 

[Newbie says Hi]

I too am a bit out of my depth so let's help each other.
Indeed, the 'information' involved in the various EPR-Bell experiments must be considered as different in nature in that it transcends causality, but we cannot dismiss this information simply because it flies in the face of "conventional' expectations. It has been experimentally verified that measuring one particle of a Bell correlation instantaneously transforms the properties of the other. For the second particle to assume the correct properties I can concieve of no explanation (which probably indicates my own limitations more than anything else), other than it has received information concerning the nature of the first particle. My point - the apparent 'instantaneous' nature of this effect indicates that information has 'arrived' without traveling and even light has to travel. Causality goes out of the window, so to speak, but if we begin by assuming that information must have a causal aspect we go round in circles and the 'information' in the EPR-Bell experiments cannot be considered information because it seems to have no causal aspect.
I think

I don't want to get off topic and I think there have been numerous discussions on this subject already, so I'll just say that the postulates of special relativity and their logical consequences are not violated in my opinion if we accept that the influences involved in the ERP-Bell experiments do not send out any sort of causal information. This way, no contradiction in our understanding of natural laws follows.

 

[mosassam]

So you would argue that you could send a signal faster than the speed of light?

Don't the ERP-Bell experiments demonstrate this?

 

[mosassam]

I don't want to get off topic and I think there have been numerous discussions on this subject already, so I'll just say that the postulates of special relativity and their logical consequences are not violated in my opinion if we accept that the influences involved in the ERP-Bell experiments do not send out any sort of causal information. This way, no contradiction in our understanding of natural laws follows.

I don't want to get off the subject either, which seems to be "information traveling faster than the speed of light" (but I may be mistaken).
Does the "transmission of information" involved in the EPR-Bell experiments travel faster than light (or am I missing something of fundamental importance - which is very likely )?

 

[heusdens]

"faster then light" is possible.

The speed of shadow for example can be faster then the speed of light.

All which is said is that the speed of any signal / information or energy can not exceed light speed in vacuum.

Group velocity can also travel faster as the speed of light.

But like the speed of shadow, this does not involve any transfer of information or energy.

 

[baywax]

Did you get that?

 

[HallsofIvy]

The best I would accept is:

"...positing a material as perfectly rigid as theoretically possible, in which the "speed of sound" would be at or near the speed of light."

That makes no sense. If a rod were "perfectly rigid" then the "speed of sound" in it would be infinite, not "at or near the speed of light". Do you mean you would accept that as the upper limit of "rigidity" in a material (which would NOT be "perfectly rigid").

 

[mosassam]

The speed of shadow for example can be faster then the speed of light

D'oh
What about the speed of speed? Surely nothing travels faster than speed

D'ooooooh

 

[baywax]

"faster then light" is possible.

The speed of shadow for example can be faster then the speed of light.

Please do me the honor of proving this statement.

 

[Hurkyl]

Consider the following setup:

You have a circular room, 4 meters in radius.
A pillar stands in the center of the room.
You have a light source moving at one-half light speed in a circular path around the pillar with a radius of one meter.

How fast does the pillar's shadow travel along the wall of the room?

 

[baywax]

Consider the following setup:

You have a circular room, 4 meters in radius.
A pillar stands in the center of the room.
You have a light source moving at one-half light speed in a circular path around the pillar with a radius of one meter.

How fast does the pillar's shadow travel along the wall of the room?

Don't tell me the shadow is traveling at 2 x c.

 

[russ_watters]

Why not...?

 

[baywax]

Why not...?

Its just an expression.

Let me guess, because there is no mass to a shadow it is possible for it to travel faster than c without discombobulating (another expression).

 

[baywax]

How about a finger turning a light switch to the on position? Does it travel at the speed of light?

 

[YellowTaxi]

The theory does not contradict itself - the explanations for laypeople often do though. Don't confuse them.

P.S. Having said all that, I'd doublecheck your textbooks.
- Are you sure they were proposing a rigid rod? Or are you mashing things in your memory?

My University textbooks from my physics degree course say it. [Not books for the layman]. And I distinctly remember thinking about this as soon as I read it. ie that relativity is flawed because it's a very circular argument, and is full of contradictions.

I think Einstein used the same explanation in his small booklets on relativity, not sure if he did so in the original 1905 paper though. Anyway I still don't believe in SR. Though the math obviously fits the data.
ie, I'm not convinced SR has a good logical explanation. Just an idea that works (though defies logical explanation IMHO), and it's cute because it all follows from the simple concept of the constancy of c, that's all.

- They might have been proposing it as a sort of 'reducto ad absurdum' - i.e. showing how it is impossible.

.nope. absolutely not.

 

[mosassam]

How fast does the pillar's shadow travel along the wall of the room?

It travels at the same speed as the light coming from the light source, regardless of how quickly that light source travels. I must be missing something big time because to insinuate that a shadow can travel faster than the light producing that shadow seems, to me at least, surreal.

 

[baywax]

Why not...?

Are there any examples of a light source traveling at .5 c around a pillar in a rotunda? Because if there are no examples then there is only the idle and rather nerdy speculation that a shadow will travel faster than the speed of light

 

[YellowTaxi]

A shaddow CAN move faster than c,
because it carries no energy or information (it cannot exert a force etc)
so all is well.

However, if this is a fact, then it suggests a shaddow could be made to travel at infinite speed, and could be used to precisely synchronise all clocks thoughout the universe. The clocks could not otherwise be synchronised by the usual method of a pulse of light carrying energy.

Which in turn IS a contradiction of SR as far as I know.

 

[SF]

A shadow won't travel at infinite speed, that's just an illusion.
A shadow is defined by absence of light and that's limited by the speed of light.

If the sun were to dissapear, we'd only know that after ~8 minutes. Same about the shadow cone.

As you stand on the ground and rotate a laser beam (just like the shadow cone) parallel to the ground, the path of the photons will define a spiral, expanding outward from you with the speed of light.

 

[Hurkyl]

It travels at the same speed as the light coming from the light source, regardless of how quickly that light source travels. I must be missing something big time because to insinuate that a shadow can travel faster than the light producing that shadow seems, to me at least, surreal.

If the shadow in my example traveled at the speed of light, then it would go once around the room every 84 nanoseconds, while the lightsource goes once around the room every 48 nanoseconds. Do you really believe that?

Or what if I made the lightsource move very slowly... say, 1 meter per second. Do you still think the shadow should be traveling at the speed of light?


Basically, why the heck should the speed of light have anything at all to do with the speed that a shadow moves?

 

[Hurkyl]

A shaddow CAN move faster than c,
because it carries no energy or information (it cannot exert a force etc)
so all is well.

However, if this is a fact, then it suggests a shaddow could be made to travel at infinite speed, and could be used to precisely synchronise all clocks thoughout the universe.

Why do you think that?


The local conditions that cause the shadow are limited by the speed of light. If you want to "send" a shadow to Proxima Centauri that travels at twice the speed of light, you will have to spend over two years sending preparatory information before you can "send" the shadow.

 

[YellowTaxi]

A shadow won't travel at infinite speed, that's just an illusion.

? A shadow is only the unlit region. I think the boundary of the shaddow can travel faster than light even though the photons inside the lit region don't.

A shadow is defined by absence of light and that's limited by the speed of light.

I don't think that's true. See above. There's no reason why the boundary cannot exceed c. The water trail of a hose-pipe played across some concrete can travel a good deal faster than the water droplets that make up the stream of water.

If the sun were to dissapear, we'd only know that after ~8 minutes.

I agree that's probably true. But it's not quite the same thing as the speed of a boundary between regions of the lit & the unlit (a shaddow) which is caused say by an object moving at speed much less than c past an adjacent light source is it. The further you are from the source the faster the shaddow will travel. I don't think it has anything to do with c.
The light is not required to move faster than c.

As you stand on the ground and rotate a laser beam (just like the shadow cone) parallel to the ground, the path of the photons will define a spiral, expanding outward from you with the speed of light.

so ? how does that show that the boundary between the lit and unlit cannot move across a surface (or any place) at a speed > c ? I don't think it does. Maybe I missed something there. Any-one shed some light on this ?

 

[YellowTaxi]

Why do you think that?

The local conditions that cause the shadow are limited by the speed of light. If you want to "send" a shadow to 'someplace', you will have to spend over two years sending preparatory information before you can "send" the shadow.

It's irrelevant that the shaddow has to be prepared. And I don't think you follow the argument. There is nothing in relativity that says a shaddow can't pass over an object at > c. (as far as I am aware)
It would however be difficult (impossible) to switch it off instantaneously, in exactly the same way that water keeps coming out of a hose-pipe after you turn the supply of photons off. ;-)

 

[mosassam]

If the shadow in my example traveled at the speed of light, then it would go once around the room every 84 nanoseconds, while the lightsource goes once around the room every 48 nanoseconds. Do you really believe that?

You seem to have misread my post. I am not interested in the speed of the light source moving around the room. I am interested in the speed of the light coming from the light source. If you look more closely at my post you will find I view this example as bizarre, to quote "I must be missing something big time because to insinuate that a shadow can travel faster than the light producing that shadow seems, to me at least, surreal."
After viewing the last couple of posts I will be bailing out until sanity has been restored

 

[SF]

See the attached image.

 

[AnssiH]

You seem to have misread my post. I am not interested in the speed of the light source moving around the room. I am interested in the speed of the light coming from the light source. If you look more closely at my post you will find I view this example as bizarre, to quote "I must be missing something big time because to insinuate that a shadow can travel faster than the light producing that shadow seems, to me at least, surreal."
After viewing the last couple of posts I will be bailing out until sanity has been restored

Mosassam, the shadow on the wall is just a pattern. It's just like if you were pointing a flashlight or a laser to a wall and in semantical sense "moving the spot of light around" (And erroneously assuming "identity" to the spot of light or a shadow btw... "Fallacy of identity" :)

Anyway, by rotating the flashlight, you can obviously make the spot of the light that the flashlight produces to move at any given speed at all (if you care to measure such a "speed" at all), without the "photons" moving faster than C. (Or trivially call something a shadow and say it is moving at any arbitrary speed)

That is to say, when you move the spot of light from one position to another (at arbitrary speed), the spot of light does not carry any information. If there is a fly at location A, who wants to inform a fly in location B about something, this cannot happen by you moving the spot of light from A to B (the bug would have to inform you first, and then that could happen at speed C only... you can figure it out)

Sanity restored? :)

 

[ZapperZ]

This is what will happen when actual physics question is asked in the Philosophy forum. If someone would have asked this in the Physics forums, we could have given a clear answer already, which had been available online years and years ago, since this is a very frequent question.

This issue has already been tackled (and put to bed) in this FAQ:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#3

As a general reminder, our guidelines regarding over-speculative posts and crackpottery applies throughout PF, including the Philosophy forums. While we may have given a bit of a freedom in discussing various philosophical aspects of the sciences, misinformation and outright fabrication of scientific facts and principles are not and will not be tolerated. So if you attempt to answer, for example, a specific physics question even in here, and you do not have a clear understanding of the physics involved, please defer to someone else who is more knowledgeable in that particular area. If not, you will get this same layer upon layer of confusion, unless creating such utter confusion is your intention in the first place.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

Simpler analogy to the superluminal shadow:

Point a laser pen at the left edge of the Moon, and then instantly flick it to the right edge. The spot will have moved faster than c.

It does not violate relativity because no one part of it has moved faster than c. Also, you can't transmit information at >c this way.

 

[YellowTaxi]

exactly my point dave,
no energy moves > c just the edge of the shadow. hence you could use the edge of the shadow that's cast from the 'lighthouse' (or laser beam) to synchronise all events by this >c shadow which could in theory be made to travel as fast as you wish (>>>>c)

 

[AnssiH]

exactly my point dave,
no energy moves > c just the edge of the shadow. hence you could use the edge of the shadow that's cast from the 'lighthouse' (or laser beam) to synchronise all events by this >c shadow which could in theory be made to travel as fast as you wish (>>>>c)

Exactly so. This is not that different from synchronizing events by sending two photons to opposite directions.

Perhaps a practical example is helpful.

Say, you synchronize two light sensors - attached to opposite ends of a wall - by flicking a laser pen across them. For simplicity, let's say we are standing in the exact middle between the light sensors.

When the light hits the first light sensor (A), call that event A. And when the second sensor (B) is hit, call that event B.

Provided you flicked fast enough, now we have two events that are separated by a space-like distance (and in lab-frame A happens before B).

Yes, in terms of relativity this would also mean there are inertial frames in which event B occurs before A. (Like if judged from the frame of an object that is moving from sensor A towards sensor B. Call it "2nd frame")

But even in this "2nd frame" the "A-photons" were "sent off" from the laser pen before the "B-photons". Just that A-photons fly much longer distance (since in this frame sensor A is moving away; escaping the photons all their journey, while sensor B is moving towards the photons, shrinking the distance they need to move)

And yes, in this "2nd frame" the spot of light would be found to start from sensor B and move towards sensor A; opposite to how it moves in lab-frame.

If this still seems odd, remember the spot of light does not have an identity to itself. I.e. you can call it a "thing" only in semantical sense, but physically it is more proper to view it as a stable pattern that we just happen to call "spot of light". (When a building casts a shadow, is it the "same shadow" from one day to another, or from one moment to another? Same thing with this spot of light)

 

[mosassam]

This is what will happen when actual physics question is asked in the Philosophy forum. If someone would have asked this in the Physics forums, we could have given a clear answer already, which had been available online years and years ago, since this is a very frequent question.

Philosophical issues concerning light and shadow have been opened up here, if confusion exists (which it does) it remains philosophical.

While we may have given a bit of a freedom in discussing various philosophical aspects of the sciences

Would this be the Royal "WE" or the fascist "WE"?

misinformation and outright fabrication of scientific facts and principles are not and will not be tolerated.

Please point out any "misinformation and outright fabrication of scientific facts" that has occurred on this post. You may find that "facts" has a loose interpretation on the Philosophy forum.

 

[ZapperZ]

Philosophical issues concerning light and shadow have been opened up here, if confusion exists (which it does) it remains philosophical.

No, it wasn't. What happens with a "shadow" of light, etc. is NOT subject to "philosphical" interpretation. It is solved using the special relativity AND algebra. The confusion exists because people didn't understand either.

Would this be the Royal "WE" or the fascist "WE"?

Now don't start. You know fully well what you got into when you signed up on PF. I pointed out exactly which part of the PF Guidelines that one needs to pay attention to, and the fact that you are here explicitly implies that you agreed to those rules, or are telling me your word means nothing here?

Please point out any "misinformation and outright fabrication of scientific facts" that has occurred on this post. You may find that "facts" has a loose interpretation on the Philosophy forum.

Sure. You made one yourself when you wrote

The information involved in the non-local effects proposed by Bell's Theorem (and as experimentally demonstrated) travels faster than light. It appears to be instantaneous over large distances.

Spend any considerable amount of time in the QM forum on Bell-type experiments and you'll see the message repeated several times that NOTHING traveled faster than light in those experiments. Anton Zeilinger, in all his publications on Bell-type experiments, never once suggested such a thing.

The answer to these questions are not obtained via philosophical discussions. They are obtained via invoking physics principles and experimental observations. This is different than trying to figure out that they mean beyond what physics has given, which would fit in this forum and which I don't care to touch. However, some people have confused between the two.

Please read the issue surrounding the current crackdown in the Philosophy forums in the Feedback section.

Zz.

 

[mosassam]

Spend any considerable amount of time in the QM forum on Bell-type experiments and you'll see the message repeated several times that NOTHING traveled faster than light in those experiments. Anton Zeilinger, in all his publications on Bell-type experiments, never once suggested such a thing.

As a layman/newbie philosopher I do not understand this point:
Does the measurement of the properties of one particle in a Bell corellation instantaneously affect the properties of the second particle, or not?
I ask this because, as I understand it, it does (obviously my understanding can be considered minimal) and this opens a very large can of philosophical worms (for me at least).

 

[ZapperZ]

As a layman/newbie philosopher I do not understand this point:
Does the measurement of the properties of one particle in a Bell corellation instantaneously affect the properties of the second particle, or not?

And this is why you shouldn't be using it without understand what it is you are using. This seems to be very prevalent on here, and resulted in the usage of physics ideas in rather strange and, at best, misleading way.

Note that the Bell experiments are trying to illustrate the entanglement properties of QM. Within that formulation, there is nothing that connects the entangled properties from one to the other. So how could something traveled when nothing is?

Also note that you can easily do this with classical properties. Take a particle, split it into two spontaneously, and measure the momentum of one. You immediately and instantaneously know the momentum of the other, no matter how far away it is. There's nothing strange here and no one argues about FTL transfer of anything. It is all conservation laws. The same applies to Bell-type experiments. What makes it different and "strange" is the superposition principle that is inherent in the system. Unlike a classical system in which the properties are actually well-defined even before a measurement, a quantum system does not have such property. It is this superposition of all possible outcomes that makes these two situations different. That is a very crucial ingredients that most people missed when they don't look at the details.

Zz.