Non-locality: (FTL) 'influence' at all?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of non-locality in quantum mechanics (QM), particularly in relation to entangled photons and the implications of measurement on their correlations. Participants explore the nature of these correlations, the potential for faster-than-light (FTL) communication, and the philosophical implications of measurement and decoherence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether there is a causal relation between space-like separated photons and whether we can truly speak of 'influences' between them.
  • One participant argues that superluminal signals cannot be sent since only a fraction of entangled pairs display correlations, suggesting that the net probability of measurement outcomes is independent of each other's measurements.
  • Another participant posits that correlations only become apparent when measurements are compared, raising questions about the 'reality' of these correlations without observation.
  • There is a discussion about whether the measurement setup and decoherence must be considered in the context of Bell's inequalities and the nature of entangled pairs.
  • One participant introduces the idea that particles may only have a probability of specific values until their measurement results are compared, drawing a parallel to Schrödinger's cat scenario.
  • Another participant mentions that actual experiments show definite outcomes recorded locally, potentially faster than light-like separation occurs.
  • There is a query about whether superpositions can be measured in practice, with references to interference phenomena as examples.
  • Examples of interference phenomena, such as double-slit experiments and the behavior of larger objects like buckyballs, are discussed to illustrate the concept of superposition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of correlations in quantum mechanics, the implications of measurement, and the concept of non-locality. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on the fundamental questions posed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the nature of correlations and the role of measurement setups, indicating that unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions may affect interpretations.

entropy1
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
72
I have a basic question about the concept of non-locality in QM. I'll explain as I understand it (correct me if I'm missing the essence):

The so called 'non-local' property of two entangled photons (for instance), suggests that the measurement of one of the pair 'communicates' with the other, possibly FTL. However, since in the case of photons that are space-like separated, in accordance with special relativity, cannot communicate FTL, there arises a paradox.

However, is there even a causal relation between the two photons if they are space-like separated, and can we even speak of 'influences' (FTL or not)? Are we just seeing FTL because we are not equiped to see the nature of the correlation between the particles? I know this may appear too philosophical, apologies for that. I don't mean to. It is just that this problem makes more sense to me if I'm taking a informational approach (which I don't discuss here).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no way to send superluminal signals because only a fraction of the pairs display the correlations. One can show that the net probability for Alice to measure a particular result is independent of what measurement Bob makes and vice versa.

entropy1 said:
Are we just seeing FTL because we are not equiped to see the nature of the correlation between the particles?

Sure but any correlation must be non-local (where "locality" is intended in the standard sense: forward-causal, only one world...), so we're back where we started.
 
ddd123 said:
Sure but any correlation must be non-local (where "locality" is intended in the standard sense: forward-causal, only one world...), so we're back where we started.

But the correlation only becomes apparent when the measurements are brought together in proximity (locality)? Without comparison (of the measurement results) there is no factual correlation established? How 'real' is the correlation if not observed?
 
entropy1 said:
But the correlation only becomes apparent when the measurements are brought together in proximity (locality)?

Yes.

Without comparison (of the measurement results) there is no factual correlation established?

There is in the theory: you expect the correlations to be there and when you do the comparison via classical signals you see them. So the theory is correct.
 
ddd123 said:
There is in the theory: you expect the correlations to be there and when you do the comparison via classical signals you see them. So the theory is correct.

Does the theory have to take in account the measurement setup (perhaps experimenters included)? It seems to me these are always involved...

NOTE: I am not referring to consciousness collapse! (but rather decoherence involved with the measurement)
 
entropy1 said:
Does the theory have to take in account the measurement setup (maybe experimenters included)? It seems to me these are always involved...

NOTE: I am not referring to consciousness collapse! (but rather decoherence involved with the measurement)

In the Bell's inequalities no... It's just a simple property of entangled pairs. Of course actual tests are much more complicated and must rule out loopholes concerning the setup etc.
 
ddd123 said:
In the Bell's inequalities no.

Actually, I don't mean local properties of the photons themselves. I rather mean the locality aspect that seems to be necessary in the informational approach of the concept of correlation. To put it bluntly: can it be that the decoherence (in the measurement apparatus and all that occurs after the measurement readout) has to be (informational) consistent with the properties of the particles measured? That is, the particles only have a probability to have a specific value of their property until the information of both values is brought together? I could digress, but I don't think that is allowed. I hope my question is at least a little clear.

UPDATE: A different question would be: if Alice and Bob read their respective measurement results while they are still space-like separated, would they be in superposition of different possible values until they compared their results?
 
Last edited:
The measurements locally record a definite outcome in, say, a memory unit for each particle, in principle faster than the experimental regions can become light-like separated (I think this was actually the case in some experiments). In short, it's all laid out on paper "long" before the comparison is made. Not sure if this is what you wanted to know.
 
ddd123 said:
The measurements locally record a definite outcome in, say, a memory unit for each particle, in principle faster than the experimental regions can become light-like separated (I think this was actually the case in some experiments). In short, it's all laid out on paper "long" before the comparison is made. Not sure if this is what you wanted to know.

I think that is what I mean. To be sure: if Alice and Bob read their respective measurement results while they are still space-like separated, would they be in superposition of different possible values until they compared their results, or would they be in a definite state?
 
  • #10
We're talking about real experiments so the only scenario where, say, the actual hard drives are in a superposition with different outcomes is Many Worlds.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
  • #11
entropy1 said:
That is, the particles only have a probability to have a specific value of their property until the information of both values is brought together?

That's basically a variant of Schrödinger's cat. We have a cat at each detector, and the detector is wired to release a lethal cloud of cyanide gas if the particle it detects is spin-up. We send one member of a spin-entangled pair to each detector - and now both cats are in a superposition of alive and dead until we get together and compare results. However, we never observe such superpositions, so that can't be what's going on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
  • #12
Nugatory said:
However, we never observe such superpositions, so that can't be what's going on.

Can we actually measure superpositions in practice in other cases?
 
  • #13
entropy1 said:
Can we actually measure superpositions in practice in other cases?
Yes through interference phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
  • #14
ddd123 said:
Yes through interference phenomena.

I am not sure if I understand that. Do you have an example?
 
  • #15
entropy1 said:
I am not sure if I understand that. Do you have an example?
Double-slit or Mach-Zender interference can be predicted by placing the objects in path-superpositions.

This is a general slit calculation http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703126
 
Last edited:
  • #16
entropy1 said:
I am not sure if I understand that. Do you have an example?

The buckyball is a fun example. But there's a precise way to tell what is interfering and what isn't: the race has been to get the biggest objects possible to show interference. A lay article: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/news.2011.210.html
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Superluminal Quantum tunneling without FTL messaging
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad New Nobel Aspect contradicts himself on action at a distance bel
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Misunderstanding Eberhard's paper on FTL communication?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate Using GHz multi-particle entanglement for FTL communication
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Can you locally tell that a measurement you made was entangled?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Exploiting radiocarbon dating for FTL communication
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad How can Bohmian mechanics explain entanglement?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
Graduate Do entanglement networks encode a unique, local historical record?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Bell-state entanglement swapping and retrocausality
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Graduate Understanding communication via QE - is filtering the only obstacle? to FTL
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K