http://www.cosmopolis.com/topics/quantum-nonlocality.html
The Phenomenon of Quantum Nonlocality
Because the spin of a particle does not exist until a measurement is made, the act of making the measurement and determining the axis of spin of particle 1, will also determine the spin of particle 2, no matter how far apart it is from particle 1. Particle 2 will instantly respond to the state of particle 1, even if it is on the other side of the universe.
At the instant we perform our measurement on particle 1, particle 2, which may be thousands of miles away, will acquire a definite spin -- "up" or "down" if we have chosen a vertical axis, "left" or "right" if we have chosen a horizontal axis. How does particle 2 know which axis we have chosen? There is no time for it to receive that information by any conventional signal. (Capra, 1982, p. 85).
Quantum nonlocality as suggested by Bell's theorem is a fact of nature that has now been experimentally verified on many occasions. Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982 at the University of Paris-South proved the existence of quantum nonlocality. These experiments have been refined and repeated many times since.
CLEARING UP THE VAGUENES
Well, there are two fundamental issues at stake here, (1) the Issue of measurement of axis of the two particles and (2) the issue of the knowledge of choice of axis with regards to the causal relation between particles 1 and 2.
Let’s start with the first. The statement that “
the spin of a particle does not exist until a measurement is made…” seems to me to be intellectually misleading, at least as far as the notions of clarity and understanding are concerned. This statement sounds as if the maker is implying that the spin is not already naturally there and that it is the measurement itself that actually creates the spin. Unless this statement is construed as a metaphorical way of speaking or explaining things within the science community, then one would have no cause for admonishing the maker for phrasing it that way. Otherwise, if this statement were meant for wider consumption outside the science community, then the maker of the statement ought to say quite clearly that:
‘The spin was already naturally there (regardless of if its time of occurrence coincides or collides with its time of measurement) but that the measurer came to the knowledge of it at the time of measurement’
Well, this is a much clearer statement and it paints a much clearer picture. In this case, the time of occurrence is naturally distinguished from the time of measurement, and, as the statement clearly shows, there is no causal relation between the two, nor is there one between the spin and the measurement. However, as far as logic goes, there is no contradiction is saying that there can be a causal relation between the measurer and the spin, for there is nothing which logically rules out the measurer being both the cause of the spin and the cause of the actual measurement itself, as is typical under a controlled lab experiment condition. A scientist may artificially cause a particle to spin and at the same time measures it. But the measurement cannot cause the spin…..the spin naturally exists independent of measurement!
This will force the clearer conclusion that the spin naturally exists irrespective of whether we measure it or not, or irrespective of when we do decide to measure it.
On the issue of particle 2 ‘instantaneously reacting or responding to’ a change in the spatio-temporal conditions of particle 1 regardless of the distance, why should this come as a surprise to scientists? Why the confusion? In terms of the measurement of the action-reaction time relation, logic always naturally preserves completely the time interval between an action and a reaction regardless of the shortness of such an interval. The only problem here is the reaction time of the measurer which any measurement aimed at being accurate and logically consistent must take into account. Question now is:
When measuring the spin of particle 1 and the so-called ‘instantaneous reaction’ (the spin) of particle 2, does the measurer take into account his or her own ‘Reaction time’ (RT) (or what I sometimes call ‘Perceptual Rate of the Perceiver’ (PRP))?
If he/she erroneously discounts this from the measurement, why should he/she be dazed by the fact that, as far as logic dictates, he/she is trying to measure and grasp the information contents of events that are occurring at several times the rate of his/her perception, or response? To this end, I argue that:
The measurement of nonlocal events, as it currently stands, is infected by the erroneous exclusion of the RT/PRP of the measurer.
Where do you obtain RT/PRP? Physicists should pay their neuroscientist colleagues a visit, of course, that’s only if RT/PRP is already calculated and defined within the neuroscience discipline. If this has not been done, then the two disciplines must urgently collaborate and do so. As for me, I remain sceptical as to whether you can obtain an accurate and a logically consistent measurement of external events without taking into account the measurer who himself/herself is also an event relative to what is being measured.
How does particle 2 know which axis we have chosen? There is no time for it to receive that information by any conventional signal. (Capra, 1982, p. 85).
Particle 2 knows which axis you have chosen because you the agent of change form a transitional bridge in a chain of causal relation from particle 1 to particle 2. The only thing that is fundamentally significant of consideration by physics is the reaction speed of the signal from particle 1 to 2, which seemingly violates Einstein’s universal constant - the speed of light. The question that physics must now consider is whether it’s Einstein’s relativistic theory or the nonlocality thesis that needs revision. Well, this is contradicted by the author’s note:
Note: Quantum nonlocality does not prove that "signals" travel "faster than light." Rather, it shows that at a deep level of reality the speed of light as a limiting factor is irrelevant because phenomena are instantaneously connected regardless of distance.
My response to this is that Regulatory Laws of Nature (RLN) are never into the bad habit of leaving unaccountable gaps on logical pathways. The great Juggler may very well juggle as cunningly as he or she likes but can never pretend to mess with logic, let alone with RLN that uses logic to guard with double precision the complex and intertwining pathways of the juggler’s balls. Either Einstein universal constant is being violated or not. If it is being violated, there must be clear logical explanation. If it is not violated while the nonlocality thesis still holds, you aren’t going to tell us that a third party Super juggler or magician is involved. Even with this, I still see no reason for RLN or logic itself to be undermined. Ultimately, ‘instantaneous connection’ only makes sense if it completely submits to and obeys the rules of logic. If it does not, there is no difference between this sort of proposition and phantasmagoria, unless you are willing to call to interplay the notion of ‘INVISIBLE HAND’ that is already exhaustively considered in philosophy! As you know, philosophers have one notorious habit of punching holes into hypotheses, and the theory of invisible hand is no exception. One of the grounds for disputes is that invisible hands cannot act as ‘invisible bridges’ on logical pathways, however remote, linear, curved or randomised such pathways may outwardly seem. The logical pathways must remain clear and ‘visually’ accessible to the observer at all times.
