Pseudorandom Entanglement and Special Relativity

[greswd]

I was thinking about the superluminal speeds observed with quantum entanglement.

Perhaps the particles are not really entangled, each of them just changes their spin with an in-built pseudorandom algorithm, allowing them to appear to be "in-sync" and thus entangled.

This is just purely hypothetical.

 

[DrChinese]

I was thinking about the superluminal speeds observed with quantum entanglement.

Perhaps the particles are not really entangled, each of them just changes their spin with an in-built pseudorandom algorithm, allowing them to appear to be "in-sync" and thus entangled.

This is just purely hypothetical.

Hypothetical conjecture is normally not welcome for threads. What you are proposing, however, is the same question that is presented here frequently. That being: Could local hidden variables account for entangled pair statistics?

The answer to that question is: NO. Please take a bit of time to read up on EPR (1935) and especially Bell's Theorem (1964), which concludes:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

 

[Mentz114]

I was thinking about the superluminal speeds observed with quantum entanglement.

Perhaps the particles are not really entangled, each of them just changes their spin with an in-built pseudorandom algorithm, allowing them to appear to be "in-sync" and thus entangled.

This is just purely hypothetical.

Looks like a local hidden variable explanation which rules it out. I think this one is like the coincidence loophole and has been ruled out by experiments.

[Dr C. beat me by seconds]

 

[DrChinese]

[Dr C. beat me by seconds]

Yes, but you beat me by seconds on the other thread. :)

 

[greswd]

I think this one is like the coincidence loophole and has been ruled out by experiments

Did those experiments involve the concept of a pseudorandom generator?

 

[greswd]

Hypothetical conjecture is normally not welcome for threads. What you are proposing, however, is the same question that is presented here frequently. That being: Could local hidden variables account for entangled pair statistics?

The answer to that question is: NO. Please take a bit of time to read up on EPR (1935) and especially Bell's Theorem (1964), which concludes:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Can you elaborate Bell's theorem regarding pseudorandom generators? Thanks.

 

[DrChinese]

Can you elaborate Bell's theorem regarding pseudorandom generators? Thanks.

A pseudorandom generator is simply a specific form of hidden variables. Bell's Theorem shows that any hidden variable theory is incompatible with the predictions of QM. You really need to understand Bell's Theorem before we can proceed further.

Hint: pseudorandom generators (and hidden variable theories in general) CAN explain perfect correlation/anti-correlation of entangled particles when their spin is measured at the same angles. However, at other angles, it cannot do so.

 

[DrChinese]

I might humbly suggest a page on my web site, which presents a simple proof of the theorem:

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

If you understand this, you will understand why no local (independently evaluated) algorithm can emulate QM. All local hidden variable hypotheses are either pseudo-random or purely random, by the way. They couldn't match the most obvious of observation otherwise.

 

[greswd]

Oh I see.

My mind is so torn.

On the one hand, we have the de Sitter effect, which is IMHO one of the strongest evidences for Special Relativity. On the other hand, we are confronted with entanglement.

Us not being able to send any meaningful information with entanglement doesn't placate it.

What to do?

 

[DrChinese]

On the one hand, we have the de Sitter effect, which is IMHO one of the strongest evidences for Special Relativity. On the other hand, we are confronted with entanglement.

... What to do?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is one's view of SR and QM.

Modern quantum field theory is relativistic. There is no significant contradiction between SR and QM. Physicists who work with particle accelerators every day (there are a number on this forum) use both without any worry. If they don't worry, I don't worry. :)

 

[zonde]

My mind is so torn.

On the one hand, we have the de Sitter effect, which is IMHO one of the strongest evidences for Special Relativity. On the other hand, we are confronted with entanglement.

Isn't de Sitter effect evidence for General Relativity?

Anyways, you probably are mixing up Special Relativity (a physics theory) and the idea that Relativity principle is fundamental (assumption).

 

[greswd]

Isn't de Sitter effect evidence for General Relativity?

Anyways, you probably are mixing up Special Relativity (a physics theory) and the idea that Relativity principle is fundamental (assumption).

The de Sitter effect for binary stars.

Videos taken of binary stars very far away don't exhibit the dynamic lag that is to be expected if emission theory is correct.
This proves that spacetime is Lorentzian, not Galilean.

A superluminal signal in the case of entanglement suggests a superluminal reference frame, something that can't exist in the Lorentzian framework.

 

[vanhees71]

Oh I see.

My mind is so torn.

On the one hand, we have the de Sitter effect, which is IMHO one of the strongest evidences for Special Relativity. On the other hand, we are confronted with entanglement.

Us not being able to send any meaningful information with entanglement doesn't placate it.

What to do?

I don't know what the de Sitter effect has to do with quantum entanglement, but the solution is very simple. Just use standard relativistic local quantum field theory which is among the most successful fundamental theories ever discovered. There is by construction no action at a distance, and indeed problems a la EPR with entanglement only come from the unnecessary assumption that there is a collapse of the state as a real process. There is no such thing within standard relativistic QFT, and thus we can live very well with an astonishing significance of violation of Bell's inequality as predicted by standard QFT, i.e., with the long-ranged correlations described by some entangled many-body (usually two-photon) states.

 

[zonde]

This proves that spacetime is Lorentzian, not Galilean.

It doesn't. Experiments don't prove anything.
De Sitter experiment falsifies emission theory and confirms special relativity.

A superluminal signal in the case of entanglement suggests a superluminal reference frame, something that can't exist in the Lorentzian framework.

Superluminal phenomena can coexist with relativistic particles if you take Relativity principle as effective, not fundamental.

 

[greswd]

It doesn't. Experiments don't prove anything.
De Sitter experiment falsifies emission theory and confirms special relativity.

Superluminal phenomena can coexist with relativistic particles if you take Relativity principle as effective, not fundamental.

Do you know of any candidates for a superseding theory of flat spacetime involving superluminal reference frames?

 

[zonde]

Do you know of any candidates for a superseding theory of flat spacetime involving superluminal reference frames?

Lorentzian interpretation (LET) of special relativity is based on preferred reference frame so it can be easily extended with superluminal phenomena.

 

[greswd]

Lorentzian interpretation (LET) of special relativity is based on preferred reference frame so it can be easily extended with superluminal phenomena.

Do you have any articles which describe how it is extended?

You can take a look at this thread where I discussed the issue of imaginary space
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ace-of-superluminal-lorentz-transform.851498/

 

[zonde]

Do you have any articles which describe how it is extended?

I don't know of any (haven't looked for such articles actually). But I suppose it's too trivial to expect any.
You just assume that one reference frame is special and describe any superluminal phenomena in that reference frame.

I looked at the thread and the link in that thread. I don't know that no-go theorem mentioned in the article but of course one has to give up some symmetries of SR when introducing preferred frame.

Btw have you looked at his thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ftl-signal-and-causality.854757/?

 

[greswd]

yeah the tachyonic antitelephone

one has to give up some symmetries of SR when introducing preferred frame.

Idk, imaginary transverse space doesn't make sense to me.

 

[zonde]

imaginary transverse space doesn't make sense to me.

Neither to me.

 

[greswd]

Neither to me.

Then I don't think it can be easily extended.

 

[zonde]

Then I don't think it can be easily extended.

Sorry, I don't follow you.

 

[greswd]

I was referring to your post #16. Attempting to extend it may lead to imaginary transverse space, a concept that doesn't make much sense.

 

[zonde]

I was referring to your post #16. Attempting to extend it may lead to imaginary transverse space, a concept that doesn't make much sense.

I don't see how picking preferred frame can introduce "imaginary transverse space". I just take some inertial frame that is valid in SR and attach a label to it that says it's "special". Where do I get "imaginary transverse space"?

 

[greswd]

I don't see how picking preferred frame can introduce "imaginary transverse space". I just take some inertial frame that is valid in SR and attach a label to it that says it's "special". Where do I get "imaginary transverse space"?

in #15 I mentioned superluminal reference frames, which if you see the other thread I posted, has imaginary y and z transformations.

 

[zonde]

in #15 I mentioned superluminal reference frames, which if you see the other thread I posted, has imaginary y and z transformations.

Let me ask you, do you understand that the paper you are discussing in the other thread derives some transformation under quite specific assumptions?
So that you can't make general statements based on results of that paper.

 

[greswd]

Let me ask you, do you understand that the paper you are discussing in the other thread derives some transformation under quite specific assumptions?
So that you can't make general statements based on results of that paper.

I'm still thinking in terms of superluminal reference frames.

From my understanding that is what the paper describes.

I believe that the existence of superluminal entities implies the existence of superluminal special-relativistic reference frames. Idk, I could be wrong.

 

[greswd]

Let me ask you, do you understand that the paper you are discussing in the other thread derives some transformation under quite specific assumptions?
So that you can't make general statements based on results of that paper.

I'm interested in the extensions to superluminal frames. Maybe superluminal entities can exist, but never superluminal frames? That sounds odd, but is entirely possible.

 

[zonde]

I'm interested in the extensions to superluminal frames. Maybe superluminal entities can exist, but never superluminal frames? That sounds odd, but is entirely possible.

Special relativity describe symmetries between certain reference frames. Superluminal entities simply can't follow these symmetries described by SR i.e. physical laws for superluminal entities have to be different (asymmetric) in different reference frames.

 

[DrChinese]

I believe that the existence of superluminal entities implies the existence of superluminal special-relativistic reference frames. Idk, I could be wrong.

What superluminal entities are we talking about? (And does that have something to do with this thread?)

Note that for Bohmian Mechanics, where there is instantaneous action at a distance, there is no "superluminal" reference frames (whatever those are). Many believe that Bohmian Mechanics requires a preferred reference frame, however.