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

  • #1
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57

Main Question or Discussion Point

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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
481
55
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.

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.
 
  • #3
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
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?
 
  • #4
481
55
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.
 
  • #5
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
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 refering to consciousness collapse! (but rather decoherence involved with the measurement)
 
  • #6
481
55
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 refering 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.
 
  • #7
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
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:
  • #8
481
55
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.
 
  • #9
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
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
481
55
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 entropy1
  • #11
Nugatory
Mentor
12,854
5,499
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 Schrodinger'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 entropy1
  • #12
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
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
481
55
Can we actually measure superpositions in practice in other cases?
Yes through interference phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes entropy1
  • #14
entropy1
Gold Member
978
57
Yes through interference phenomena.
I am not sure if I understand that. Do you have an example?
 
  • #15
5,428
291
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
481
55

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

Replies
303
Views
41K
Replies
80
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top