Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[DevilsAvocado]

... or we could just make it simple and say:

Local Hidden Variable Theory = Norwegian Blue Parrot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/npjOSLCR2hE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/npjOSLCR2hE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Frame Dragger is BACK!

 

[Frame Dragger]

Frame Dragger is BACK!

Heyo DevilsAvocado! Love the Montey Python reference, "...it's gone and joined the choir invisible, this, is a DEAD PARROT!."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

...it's gone and joined the choir invisible

Yeah! You got it! Choir Invisible = Hidden Variable !

Great to have you back FD! I was real worried there for awhile... Now let’s get real ironic AGAIN!

(got to go now, see you later terminator)

 

[DrChinese]

DrC expressed a distaste in discussing the implications of these terms due to semantic arguments...

The notion behind a 'hidden variable' is that a variable exist that is 'hidden', obeys Einstein realism, and local. EPR experiments obviously can't perform experiments directly on these variables that are presumed 'hidden', else the argument moots itself. Instead we take a measurable variable, such as spin, make some assumptions about the relationship between the hidden element and the measurable variable, and use the measurable variable as a proxy for probing the hidden variable. Thus we are basing our results on this presumed relationship between these hidden and measured variables. This is in general what's referred to when it's said that counterfactual definiteness is a basic assumption of Bell's Theorem. Essentially it presumes that the measured variable is an observer independent absolute property defined by the hidden variables. Thus non-contextuality is related to counterfactual definiteness by the property of observer independent absolutes. What Bell's Theorem proves, from my perspective, is that, if such hidden variables exist, all known measurable variables must be emergent properties of these hidden variables, not inate properties of them.

This in no way proves it is possible to contextualize 'hidden' variables in such a way to recover QM, and people can argue forever on the semantics of how to do that. It merely identifies a class of 'hidden' variables which Bell's Theorem fails to rule out. ...
I like to think that sub-Planck physics is involved, which not only contains QM/GR but allows QM/GR to be derived. Yet what I like is of no consequence to physics. Ontological claims of what will work, as well as claims of the impossibility of avoiding non-locality, etc., is mooted by the facts as we know them at this time, in spite of the excellent work of Bell and many many others.

I realize there may be some differences in what kind of hidden variables might exist. My thing is to avoid getting into a semantic argument (I would rather focus on the physics). The key to that is to FIRST accept that there cannot be local hidden variables of the type identified by EPR (i.e. no objective elements of reality). I think you can then move on to extend the scope further, to include hypothetical classical components of elements of reality (i.e. where the element of reality is an observable, but the component may not be).

In Relational BlockWorld, I like to say the the hidden variables lay in the future. RUTA will probably choke on that description. If you accept that, then you would probably end up concluding that the future influences the past and causality is lost. RUTA would probably be OK with that, because he considers RBW to be acausal.

There also could be all kinds of weird rules at the subatomic level that are hidden from us. But the problem with that "escape" is that where else do they manifest themselves? Were there other evidence, it would make more sense.

 

[RUTA]

In Relational BlockWorld, I like to say the the hidden variables lay in the future. RUTA will probably choke on that description. If you accept that, then you would probably end up concluding that the future influences the past and causality is lost. RUTA would probably be OK with that, because he considers RBW to be acausal.

If you want to characterize future experimental outcomes as the "hidden variables" needed to understand EPR-Bell phenomena per RBW, then what you said is absolutely true.

 

[DrChinese]

If you want to characterize future experimental outcomes as the "hidden variables" needed to understand EPR-Bell phenomena per RBW, then what you said is absolutely true.

That is what I meant, but you said it better. It is almost as if there are many little hands reaching out from the past, waiting for a handshake before their impact is finalized. Gee, now I am starting to sound like Yoda Jedi.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

That is what I meant, but you said it better. It is almost as if there are many little hands reaching out from the past, waiting for a handshake before their impact is finalized. Gee, now I am starting to sound like Yoda Jedi.

Please don't do that, I can only manage one throbbing headache at a time. ;)

 

[RUTA]

That is what I meant, but you said it better. It is almost as if there are many little hands reaching out from the past, waiting for a handshake before their impact is finalized. Gee, now I am starting to sound like Yoda Jedi.

That's Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. In TI, there is literally a wave "coming from" the future experimental outcomes to interact with the wave leaving the source at the beginning of the experiment. That's how they get the Born rule. Of course, if there are waves coming from the future to influence the present, then the future is already "there." And, since the present is the future of the past, the past must also be "there." That's the blockworld wherein "nothing happens." Here's a nice quote from Geroch (General Relativity from A to B, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978, pp. 20-21):

There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.

So, why bother trying to tell "stories" about "the future influencing the past?"

 

[ThomasT]

Why do you believe that?

I, and others, think the non-viability of lhv representations is due to a problem with the formal requirements not fitting the experimental situations, and, if that's so, then ftl 'explanations' for BI violations (and the correlations) are obviated.

 

[ThomasT]

ThomasT, I must say that it’s not only "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" that’s a mystery to me – your 'interpretation' of EPR & Bell test experiments is a 'mystery' as well (no offence).

None taken. Spooky action at a distance is just a collection of terms that has no physical meaning. I'm pretty sure that EPR meant it facetiously. If what I'm saying about EPR and Bell is a mystery to you, then all I can tell you is to keep studying and thinking about this stuff and what I'm saying about it will eventually make sense to you -- even though you might still disagree with what I'm saying about it. In any case, I think we're both fascinated by the mysteries of the quantum realm, and that's a key ingredient in motivating one to learn more about this stuff.

First: When talking about angle (and settings), I think that most interested folks here understand that it’s the angles of the analyzers we are talking about, and not LHV. When talking about 'pre-agreement' and LHV, it’s the 'presetting' of the particle spin (of the pair) that’s addressed, which can be spin up(+) or spin down(-).

Where do you think it's most logical to assume that the relationship between the counter-propagating photons is created -- (1) during the emission processes which are so carefully and subtley prepared by the experimenters with the intention of doing just that, or (2) sometime after emission due to ftl communication between the photons?

Part of what I'm saying is that choosing (1) is ok because neither Bell nor GHZ rule it out. And if (1) is ok, then (2) isn't warranted.

I agree, we really don’t know exactly what’s going on. There are different interpretations, trying to explain, but no 'official explanation'.

Agreed.

I do hope that we all agree that 'something happens' that seems to violate locality ... ...

The discussion in this thread is centered on the fact that we don't all agree that something happens (wrt quantum entanglement) to violate c-limited locality.

 

[ThomasT]

That sounds all well and good, but:

0, 120, 240: give me the dataset. The rest is just words, like "pigs fly". Easy to say, give me an example that addresses these. I learned this from Bell, so if it doesn't apply, it should be easy to come up with.

I think we agree that viable lhv accounts of entanglement are impossible. The question is why. This is what we're trying to sort out.

You're saying that it might be due to nonlocal effects of one side of the experimental setup on the other. I'm saying that not only is that not a physical explanation (equivalent to "pigs fly"), but also that there is a simpler, physical/formal, explanation for why Bell inequalities are violated experimentally and for the lhv inconsistencies via the GHZ theorem -- and that it might have to do with requiring the joint context to be represented by a hidden variable which is irrelevant wrt determining the results of the joint context.

The "give me the dataset" question you're asking has to do with the simplest version of Bell's theorem, the simplest Bell's inequality (which I referred to in the recent, really long, thread ostensibly dealing with the fair sampling loophole -- which loophole we also agree doesn't matter wrt determining the meaning of BI violations and GHZ inconsistencies). This is why I bring up the cos^2 Theta rule wrt optical Bell tests where it clearly does apply. There's simply no reason to assume that the application of this optical law isn't in accord with c-limited local causality. And yet, the interpretation of Bell's theorem which has Bell's theorem pertaining to what does or doesn't exist in reality, wrt this situation, says, in effect, that "the correlation between the angular difference of the polarizers and the joint detection rate, formally expressed in terms of the local hidden variable, can't possibly duplicate the full range of qm results -- ie., the full cos^2 Theta angular dependency -- IF THE ENTANGLEMENT OF THE OPTICAL DISTURBANCES HAS A LOCAL COMMON CAUSE.

Now, if you delete the part in caps, then I agree. The joint detection rate can't possibly be viably expressed in terms of the LOCAL hidden variable (which entails that it can't possibly be viably expressed in a separable form, a form that is factorable into an expression of the individual detection rates). This is because the determining factors in the joint context are common, or (despite your objection to this terminology) global, variables: 1) the angular difference between the polarizers, and 2) the angular difference between the optical disturbance incident on the polarizer setting at one end and the optical disturbance incident on the polarizer setting at the other end.

This is, I think, the correct physical interpretation of the formal expression of 'quantum nonseparability' for the experimental situation under consideration. And, as you can see, it has nothing to do with nonlocal or ftl 'influences' between entangled photons.

 

[ThomasT]

... ThomasT has his own version of the 'scientific model': First you decide how the world should work according to your personal taste, and nothing else – then you make up pseudo-mathematical theories that seems to fit your personal view.

And when ThomasT is proven wrong – he just refuse to reply – blaming on things being a bit tedious.

And I agree – this is getting tedious – in the manner this debate is performed.

Finally: I must point out that I from the beginning had the same view as ThomasT – this "spooky action at a distance" can’t be true! This is just mathematical mumbo-jumbo from physicist trying to raise more funding by presenting spectacular theories!

If you're interested in learning, as I am, then a little silliness is ok, and even somewhat refreshing when one get's saturated with the stuff that's being considered. However, stuff like the above is not ok. Not only is it a false personal attack, but, more importantly, it doesn't further the discussion.

Clearly, we're all operating from some degree of ignorance. A primary function of this forum (and science in general) is to help us learn about the world.

Learning sometimes requires actually thinking.

If you spend all your time dealing with youtube videos, cheerleading, criticizing, fashioning tin foil regalia for you and your pets, snipping quotes here and there, etc., etc. -- basically anything but actually thinking about and researching the stuff you're commenting on -- then ... well, your (mostly off-topic) posts speak for themselves.

Now, there's a legitimate consideration to explore, a question about the applicability of Bell's (and GHZ's) formal requirements/constraints that might obviate ftl 'influences' between entangled particles, that hasn't been definitively resolved.

 

[my_wan]

DrC,
There's nothing in your response that I factually disagree with, but I'm going to make some points wrt semantics and the importance of dealing with them. Your certainly not the primary audience I have in mind, but hopefully it'll provide food for thought.

I realize there may be some differences in what kind of hidden variables might exist. My thing is to avoid getting into a semantic argument (I would rather focus on the physics).

Yes I generally support this sentiment. It's more difficult in the context of EPR because the physics we have merely defines constraints of a presumably unknown model, which is dependent on ontological features which are semantically defined. What I find most distasteful in this context is singling out an ontology, and making ad hoc demands and rejections of the physics we do have on those grounds. People lose winnable debates doing this all the time by overstating both their positive and negative claims.

The key to that is to FIRST accept that there cannot be local hidden variables of the type identified by EPR (i.e. no objective elements of reality).

Again I absolutely agree, the constraints imposed by BI are absolutely real, and constitute some real physical constraints we have to work with in this area. Denial should be and is costly for those who do so. However, many people are predisposed to ontologically invert the words used here, as I'll articulate next. Debates that fail to recognize this do get painful.

I think you can then move on to extend the scope further, to include hypothetical classical components of elements of reality (i.e. where the element of reality is an observable, but the component may not be).

This is the type of model I like playing with. The semantics issues arise when you ask: Is it the elements postulated to be ontically real and remain unobservable that are the "elements of reality", or is it the measurable variables for which their existence is dependent on the relative configuration space of the ontic elements? Einstein realism is best served by the first, empiricism by the second. In fact there is no physical significants to these ontological distinctions whatsoever, and those seeking Einstein realism would be well served to recognize the empirical perspective. Pure empiricism may have limits, but it forever remains the sole source of cogency, legitimacy, for any theoretical model. Arguing the absolute legitimacy of one ontology over the other in itself is a no-go. If we accepted raw claims like this we'd still be stuck on Aristotle. Hence your focus on the physics is far more than justified, just not entirely feasible in the face of unknowns or what specific constraints on such unknowns actually entails.

In Relational BlockWorld, I like to say the the hidden variables lay in the future. RUTA will probably choke on that description. If you accept that, then you would probably end up concluding that the future influences the past and causality is lost. RUTA would probably be OK with that, because he considers RBW to be acausal.

[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/images/smilies/laughing.gif
I do find it an ugly distortion of my ontological predispositions, but for the reasons I provided above I'm still undecided how it'll fair under various ontological transforms. RUTA's response was a bit predictable, RUTA appears quiet adept at navigating these ontological mine fields. Makes it all the more fascinating.

There also could be all kinds of weird rules at the subatomic level that are hidden from us. But the problem with that "escape" is that where else do they manifest themselves? Were there other evidence, it would make more sense.

Yep, the unknown is a beast. I can't rightly or legitimately get into much detail of my own perspective in this thread, but I generally tend to think complex rule sets indicate the need to look deeper for simpler ones. The range of empirical data involved is extensive, for which EPR is just a small piece. I'm not really happy with any mere interpretation, or anything short of unification. I also tend to find ad hoc rules crafted solely to sweep under the rug, make unobservable, problem issues highly distasteful. Unfortunately I can't honestly yell BS either without something better on empirical, not ontological, grounds.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I, and others, think the non-viability of lhv representations is due to a problem with the formal requirements not fitting the experimental situations, and, if that's so, then ftl 'explanations' for BI violations (and the correlations) are obviated.

What others? What separation of the source would satisfy?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

ThomasT please explain – In what way is this ok, and furthering the discussion:

... If you spend all your time dealing with youtube videos, cheerleading, criticizing, fashioning tin foil regalia for you and your pets, snipping quotes here and there, etc., etc. -- basically anything but actually thinking about and researching the stuff you're commenting on -- then ... well, your (mostly off-topic) posts speak for themselves. ...

Criticizing? You’re talking about this?

Nice rant, but (1) I didn't say anything about Bell test loopholes, ...

Tin foil regalia? Do you mean this initial occasion of derogatory insinuation?

... There is nice picture that I spied in another thread: ...

YouTube videos? Well, I have to pass that complaint to PF ADMIN, since there is clearly a function for embedded YouTube videos in the editor, which most probably is meant to be used.

... basically anything but actually thinking about and researching the stuff you're commenting on ...

I haven’t fully understood your implementation of the 18th century optical law yet, but you must clearly be exaggerating – in claiming that it can be used for mind reading as well??


I think that those who followed this thread from start clearly can see what’s true or false in everything that ThomasT is claiming.


Finally I must inform any other reader that dear old ThomasT deliberately has distorted the quoting. If ThomasT does this again, I will report him, since this is clearly a violation of Physics Forums Global Guidelines:

"When you quote from a post, please delete large sections that are not directly relevant to your response, to make reading easier, but do not distort the original poster's meaning in the process."

Here is the correct quote:

... Finally: I must point out that I from the beginning had the same view as ThomasT – this "spooky action at a distance" can’t be true! This is just mathematical mumbo-jumbo from physicist trying to raise more funding by presenting spectacular theories!

But I changed my mind. And I can assure ThomasT – it didn’t hurt at all...

 

[Frame Dragger]

I wouldn't want to be without DA's contributions to this thread; he brings an element of levity and concise thought that can be lost sometimes. RUTA, you and Dr C really make this thread perfect for me, but I must be honest and say ThomasT, you seem to be picking a fight here. I know that, because I've picked a few in my time as well (as indicated by the line through my name for 10 days). I don't believe DA is being mean, he's just expressing what RUTA did very simply: your point is not scientific, not in the spirit of inquiry into this matter, and you refuse or are unable to share a theory of your own to counter the matters at hand.

The issue here is not: "ftl" anything when considered within the QM framework. Is there a better theory yet to come? Sure! Is it here yet? No, and until it is this kind of random challenge to otherwise reasonable and well accepted points is fruitless. Can there be a fair sampling that would satisfy you? Why don't you share your view, with the math, rather than simply verbally dissecting those of others?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thank you so very much Frame Dragger. You are much too kind.

 

[zonde]

That isn't so. There is absolutely no evidence (cite it if you think I am wrong) whatsoever that the classical Product state is the limit as efficiency approaches 100%.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0802"
From this paper:
"The count rate is about 80k/s in each arm, and the coincidence is about 20k pairs per second. As a result, we prepare the polarization entanglement as

|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}=1/\sqrt{2}\;(|H\rangle_{1}|H\rangle_{2}+|V\rangle_{1}|V\rangle_{2}), (1)

where where |H\rangle(|V\rangle) denotes horizontal (vertical) polarization, the subscripts 1 and 2 specify spatial modes, and subscript s means state of source. The visibilities for the polarization correlations are about 98.1% for |H\rangle/|V\rangle basis and 92.6% for |+45^{\circ}\rangle/|-45^{\circ}\rangle basis, without the help of narrow bandwidth interference filters."

From first sentence we can calculate that detection efficiency is about 25% (20k / 80k per second).
Quasi-decoherence (deviation from perfect 100% case) is 1.9% for |H\rangle/|V\rangle measurement but 7.4% for |+45^{\circ}\rangle/|-45^{\circ}\rangle measurement.

Of course it is hard to tell what is the reason for that difference without explicitly testing what affects this quasi-decoherence. But let me say this that way "this observation is in agreement with hypothesis that classical product state is the limit as efficiency approaches 100%".
Where usual QM interpretation does not predict any difference between decoherence for those two measurements in ideal case. You can however hypothesize that there where imperfections in this setup like angle of incident beam with PDC crystal was not ideal and things like that.

 

[DrChinese]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0802"
From this paper:
"The count rate is about 80k/s in each arm, and the coincidence is about 20k pairs per second. As a result, we prepare the polarization entanglement as

|\Phi^{+}\rangle_{s}=1/\sqrt{2}\;(|H\rangle_{1}|H\rangle_{2}+|V\rangle_{1}|V\rangle_{2}), (1)

where where |H\rangle(|V\rangle) denotes horizontal (vertical) polarization, the subscripts 1 and 2 specify spatial modes, and subscript s means state of source. The visibilities for the polarization correlations are about 98.1% for |H\rangle/|V\rangle basis and 92.6% for |+45^{\circ}\rangle/|-45^{\circ}\rangle basis, without the help of narrow bandwidth interference filters."

From first sentence we can calculate that detection efficiency is about 25% (20k / 80k per second).
Quasi-decoherence (deviation from perfect 100% case) is 1.9% for |H\rangle/|V\rangle measurement but 7.4% for |+45^{\circ}\rangle/|-45^{\circ}\rangle measurement.

Of course it is hard to tell what is the reason for that difference without explicitly testing what affects this quasi-decoherence. But let me say this that way "this observation is in agreement with hypothesis that classical product state is the limit as efficiency approaches 100%".
Where usual QM interpretation does not predict any difference between decoherence for those two measurements in ideal case. You can however hypothesize that there where imperfections in this setup like angle of incident beam with PDC crystal was not ideal and things like that.

Where in the paper does it say ANYTHING remotely similar to the idea that the Product State statistics are approached?

By way of example: at 0 degrees, the Product State is 25.0% and the stated observation was apparently 1.9%. Does not seem too close. At 45 degrees, the Product State value should be 50.0% and the actual was apparently 42.6%.

Don't you think the authors would be raising flags if the stats deviated from QM predictions by a significant amount?

By the way, the 25% detection stat is a bit deceiving. That is because the value is net. Net meaning for both detectors jointly. Obvioulsy, there are a lot of unmatched hits too. I would estimate the gross efficiency at close to 50% (since 50%^2 = 25%).

 

[yoda jedi]

dependent on ontological features which are semantically defined. singling out an ontology, and making ad hoc demands.

assigning properties to ontology that is independent of us.

 

[unusualname]

Interesting and entertaining (at times) discussion. :)

It's clear that Bell Test (violation) experiments are correct (to anyone sensible), and it's also clear that Special Relativity is correct, so to account for entanglement we need either "magic" or a FTL causal mechanism that doesn't contradict SR.

A causal mechanism that doesn't contradict SR would mean it couldn't interact with any classical matter in any classically known way, but that's not such a big deal or even unusual, since (for example) Evolution created our consciousness and that seems be non-classical (and the Blind Watchmaker is skillful but She's not a magician ;) )

It seems to me that this (controversial) piece of the puzzle could be eliminated or confirmed by devising tests to demonstrate a (hypothesised) finite limit on the speed of the entanglement correlations

(I'm hypothesising that entanglement is due to FTL signalling and is not an instantaneous event)

There are two obvious ways I can see how this might be observed.

1. Adapt/Refine the tests which close the communication loophole so that they report an upper bound on the possible speed that ftl "signalling" occurs

2. Increase the number of bits in experimental quantum computers until the finite bound becomes noticeable due to delays in calculations

1 may be practical if the upper bound on the "signalling" speed is reasonable (please god ;) ) , say c^k for some lowish value of k, 2 is probably impractical but each bit requires an exponential increase in the signalling path, so might become noticeable earlier than you might think.

Once confirmed, we could then work much more confidently on constructing a model of how such a signal might travel, and how it does not violate SR (it may be restricted to another dimension, where ftl isn't forbidden)

I really can't believe entanglement enables instantaneous correlations across unlimited space.

 

[DrChinese]

It seems to me that this (controversial) piece of the puzzle could be eliminated or confirmed by devising tests to demonstrate a (hypothesised) finite limit on the speed of the entanglement correlations

(I'm hypothesising that entanglement is due to FTL signalling and is not an instantaneous event)

Believe it or not, there have been such tests. They show that if there is an FTL influence, it must be at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... It seems to me that this (controversial) piece of the puzzle could be eliminated or confirmed by devising tests to demonstrate a (hypothesised) finite limit on the speed of the entanglement correlations ...

Welcome to PF unusualname! (that is an unusual name!? )

Very interesting, sound and constructive thoughts, which at least I welcome to this thread, for a change!

I do think that some of this has already been tested in setting a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light (for those hypersensitive of quotes, I temporary recommend closed eyes or a different activity, because now I’m about to do one of those very troublesome Wikipedia quotes):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...speed.22_of_the_quantum_non-local_connection"
A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.[13] However, modern quantum physics cannot expect to determine the maximum given that we do not know the sufficient causal condition of the system we are proposing.

And here’s a link to the arXiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316" .

You were asking about the finite limit, and that seems yet to be a problem.

But, please elaborate your thoughts; it’s real refreshing with open-minded poster’s who like a fair and interesting discussion!

Edit: Ahhh! DrC beat me... sorry. (I’ll go and check your new FS gadget now)

 

[DrChinese]

Edit: Ahhh! DrC beat me... sorry. (I’ll go and check your new FS gadget now)

I cheated, edited it...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I cheated, edited it...

Hehe! Is that "RBW posting"!?

 

[DrChinese]

Hehe! Is that "RBW posting"!?

Definitely.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Definitely.

Haha! We should revive "The Monty... Posting"...!? ()

 

[unusualname]

10,000c? That's nothing, if god's being reasonable we might be lucky to get c^2 :)

Thanks for the link, I hadn't been aware of any specific results (although any of the experiments post-Aspect would have a roughly calculable lower bound, I assume)

I initially had the idea that the signal would travel between the particles along some kind of higher dimensional space closely tied to the classical 3d space traced out by each particle, but that doesn't tie in well with single particle interference effects which you would hope would be due to a similar mechanism.

But I don't think it's a highly subtle sub-planckian mechanism or anything else so devious, mainly because evolution is pretty straightforward and works with the simple tools and materials provided by the environment at granularity no worse than atomic level, and I am pretty convinced consciousness is related to entanglement.

 

[RUTA]

It seems to me that this (controversial) piece of the puzzle could be eliminated or confirmed by devising tests to demonstrate a (hypothesised) finite limit on the speed of the entanglement correlations

(I'm hypothesising that entanglement is due to FTL signalling and is not an instantaneous event)

I really can't believe entanglement enables instantaneous correlations across unlimited space.

If the events are space-like related, even 1 m/s faster than c, there is a frame in which those events are simultaneous.