Quantum Entanglement: EPR Paradox & Bell Violation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around quantum entanglement, specifically in the context of the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem. Participants explore the implications of entanglement, the nature of non-locality, and the limitations of current theories in explaining these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the issues surrounding entanglement stem from limitations in our understanding or if quantum states are genuinely linked, allowing for faster-than-light communication.
  • There is a suggestion that while quantum mechanics effectively predicts phenomena, it does not clarify the underlying physical processes, leaving the nature of quantum non-locality unexplained.
  • A participant describes a gedankenexperiment involving a pi meson decaying into two entangled photons, illustrating how the spins of the photons are correlated and suggesting instantaneous communication between them.
  • Some participants express a desire for a clearer definition of non-locality, indicating that it remains an intriguing topic despite the current limitations of quantum mechanics.
  • It is noted that non-locality has been experimentally tested, but no new theories have emerged to explain it.
  • One participant emphasizes that entanglement can only be detected through measurement, and while predictions can be made about the entangled state of particles, assumptions cannot be made prior to measurement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the nature of quantum non-locality is not fully understood and remains a topic of exploration. Multiple competing views exist regarding the implications of entanglement and the ability to predict entangled states.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics, the unresolved nature of non-locality, and the challenges in making predictions prior to measurement.

Redsummers
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
I have two simple questions concerning the entanglement and its repercussions from the EPR paradox/bell violation.

Are we assuming this is a problem from our previous knowledge of the information or is it rather a matter of quantum states being really linked, thus letting information travel faster than speed of light (i.e. non-locality)?

Also, is there any new theory that explains somehow non-locality properties?


If I've done any basic, trivial mistakes feel free to bite me.
Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Redsummers said:
I have two simple questions concerning the entanglement and its repercussions from the EPR paradox/bell violation.

Are we assuming this is a problem from our previous knowledge of the information or is it rather a matter of quantum states being really linked, thus letting information travel faster than speed of light (i.e. non-locality)?

Also, is there any new theory that explains somehow non-locality properties?


If I've done any basic, trivial mistakes feel free to bite me.
Thanks,

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Redsummers!

No one really knows the explanantion at this point. The short story is: The formalism of Quantum Mechanics explains the relevant phenomena (i.e. makes predictions) effectively but is silent as to the underlying physical processes. There are "interpretations" of this formalism - some which are equivalent and some which have subtle differences - without adding any useful new predictions.

So we don't *really* know what quantum non-locality is.
 
Redsummers said:
I have two simple questions concerning the entanglement and its repercussions from the EPR paradox/bell violation.

Are we assuming this is a problem from our previous knowledge of the information

I don't think I understand this question. Could you please be more elaborate?

or is it rather a matter of quantum states being really linked, thus letting information travel faster than speed of light (i.e. non-locality)?

If you have two photons (or any other particle for that matter) in an entangled state, they "communicate" through no medium (no ether or interaction-carrier exists), and the "communication" happens instantaneously, so, yes, it is faster than light.
Consider a small gedankenexperiment: you have a scalar particle, like a pi meson , it decays into two photons. But "scalar" means that the pi-meson has spin 0. The photon has spin 1. So, in order to conserve the overall spin, one of the photons must have spin +1 and the other spin -1.
The state describing these two photons is known as a singlet state. It is an entangled state. The spin of one of the photons depends on the spin of the other.

Also, is there any new theory that explains somehow non-locality properties?


If I've done any basic, trivial mistakes feel free to bite me.
Thanks,

Non-locality is not explained. It has only been tested experimentally (see Aspect et. al. Orsay exp. 1984).
 
DrChinese said:
Welcome to PhysicsForums, Redsummers!

No one really knows the explanantion at this point. The short story is: The formalism of Quantum Mechanics explains the relevant phenomena (i.e. makes predictions) effectively but is silent as to the underlying physical processes. There are "interpretations" of this formalism - some which are equivalent and some which have subtle differences - without adding any useful new predictions.

So we don't *really* know what quantum non-locality is.

Thank you DrChinese,

It's alright, I expected something like this since I didn't find any interpretation regarding this issue elsewhere.

According to your formalism, it does make sense to deem Quantum Entanglement as an unexplained property. However I think non-locality is too much of intriguing to stop seeking a clearer definition because QM limitations. So I guess that we may know more about it in the upcoming future.

Qubix said:
I don't think I understand this question. Could you please be more elaborate?

I was first wondering if entanglement is in fact something we cannot predict and it makes itself obvious as soon as we start observing the phenomenon.

If you have two photons (or any other particle for that matter) in an entangled state, they "communicate" through no medium (no ether or interaction-carrier exists), and the "communication" happens instantaneously, so, yes, it is faster than light.
Consider a small gedankenexperiment: you have a scalar particle, like a pi meson , it decays into two photons. But "scalar" means that the pi-meson has spin 0. The photon has spin 1. So, in order to conserve the overall spin, one of the photons must have spin +1 and the other spin -1.
The state describing these two photons is known as a singlet state. It is an entangled state. The spin of one of the photons depends on the spin of the other.

Yeah, that's basically what I've been reading recently about. Even though I didn't encounter this example before, it's always interesting to see new observations.
Thanks!


Non-locality is not explained. It has only been tested experimentally (see Aspect et. al. Orsay exp. 1984).

Right, and it hasn't been until this year that Aspect and the others get recognition for the experiment (i.e. Wolf prize). http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41633"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redsummers said:
I was first wondering if entanglement is in fact something we cannot predict and it makes itself obvious as soon as we start observing the phenomenon.

Well, in Quantum Mechanics we are not allowed to make assumptions prior to the measurement. So, at least in this sense, we can only detect entanglement when physically interacting with the system. Regarding the ability to predict whether two (or more) particles will be in an entangled state, we can predict that. Think of the above example, we know the pi-meson is a scalar so we know the two photons will be entangled.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
13K