Graduate Realism from Locality? Bell's Theorem & Nonlocality in QM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Locality Realism
  • #61
vanhees71 said:
Of course, one has to do the right manipulations with the photons to get (approximately) the said Bell states. As a theorist (and not a quantum-optics expert) I'm only interested in the fact that the experimentalists can do that somehow with great accuracy.
Of course. It's just sometimes people focus on entangled photons so much that they start to perceive them as the only "natural state" for twin photons. So I wanted to bring up product state twin photons just to be sure that we are on the same page.

I tried to think over your claim in post #54. I'm not sure I understand your (and probably not only your) view about symmetrization. I have seen the explanations about swapping the particles and getting the same situation. Well if we include position into particle description then we are not swapping anything physical, we just swap meaningless labels in representation. But swapping one representation with other should not have any physical consequences.
And then it seems that in QFT we get very elegant treatment of this situation because in QFT particles don't have arbitrary labels. There particle state is either occupied or not so there is nothing to swap.

On the other hand there is absolutely real experimentally observable phenomena called Hong-Ou-Mandel interference which shows that there is something interesting about identical (indistinguishable) photons.

So I view symmetrization as property of dynamical process where two indistinguishable photons at initial states 1 and 2 end up in final states 3 and 4. And the physical property of symmetrization is that this process can not be described as (photon from state 1 transitions to state 3 and photon from state 2 transitions to state 4) OR (photon from state 1 transitions to state 4 and photon from state 2 transitions to state 3).
If I remember correctly I got this explanation form Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
And this explanation seems to be consistent with HOM interference.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Demystifier said:
No, it would be nonlocal and contextual.

Gotta (try to) read the papers. I'm confused here - what constrains context a priori? Is something like all "previous" contexts, i.e. all GR consistent causal world-lines?

[Edit] Pretty interesting. I wish I understood the little proof of theorem 4.1-3 on the "Non existence of non-contextual value-maps". It's obviously key and it's pure math and... I don't quite follow. And I tried to read up on Kochen-Specker... which I also... don't quite follow - but which seems more physical.

To me they sort of tie the idea of the Bhomian Pilot wave to Quantum Gravity Tensor Network Models
 
Last edited:
  • #63
zonde said:
Of course. It's just sometimes people focus on entangled photons so much that they start to perceive them as the only "natural state" for twin photons. So I wanted to bring up product state twin photons just to be sure that we are on the same page.

I tried to think over your claim in post #54. I'm not sure I understand your (and probably not only your) view about symmetrization. I have seen the explanations about swapping the particles and getting the same situation. Well if we include position into particle description then we are not swapping anything physical, we just swap meaningless labels in representation. But swapping one representation with other should not have any physical consequences.
And then it seems that in QFT we get very elegant treatment of this situation because in QFT particles don't have arbitrary labels. There particle state is either occupied or not so there is nothing to swap.

On the other hand there is absolutely real experimentally observable phenomena called Hong-Ou-Mandel interference which shows that there is something interesting about identical (indistinguishable) photons.

So I view symmetrization as property of dynamical process where two indistinguishable photons at initial states 1 and 2 end up in final states 3 and 4. And the physical property of symmetrization is that this process can not be described as (photon from state 1 transitions to state 3 and photon from state 2 transitions to state 4) OR (photon from state 1 transitions to state 4 and photon from state 2 transitions to state 3).
If I remember correctly I got this explanation form Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
And this explanation seems to be consistent with HOM interference.
My point is much simpler. Photons are indistinguishable bosons. A convenient (generalized) basis for free photons is the momentum-helicity or momentum-linear-polarization-state basis (you cannot easily talk about position representations for photons since photons do not have position observables to begin with). I denote them with ##|\vec{p},\lambda \rangle##, where ##\lambda \in \{-1,1 \}## is the helicity of the photon (the projection of the total angular-momentum on the direction of ##\vec{p}##). This refers to plane-wave left- and right-circular polarized em. waves.

Now photons are bosons, and thus the correct Hilbert space is a bosonic Fock space, i.e., for each ##(\vec{p},\lambda)## there's an annihilation operator ##\hat{a}(\vec{p},\lambda)## which obeys the bosonic commutation relations ##[\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda),\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}',\lambda')]=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}') \delta_{\lambda \lambda'})##. A complete set of (generalized) orthonormal basis vectors are common eigenstates of the occupation-number observables ##\hat{N}(\vec{p},\lambda)=\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda) \hat{a}(\vec{p},\lambda)##,
$$|\{n(\vec{p},\lambda ) \}_{\vec{p} \in \mathbb{R}^3,\lambda \in \{-1,1\}} \rangle = \prod_{\vec{p},\lambda} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n(\vec{p},\lambda)!}} [\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p},\lambda)^{n(\vec{p},\lambda)}|\Omega \rangle,$$
where ##|\Omega \rangle## is the vacuum (ground) state, for which all ##n(\vec{p},\lambda)=0##.

An ##n##-photon Fock state is thus from the totally symmetrized part of ##n##-fold Kronecker product of the single-photon Hilbert space.

E.g., if for a photon pair you want the polarization-singlet state ##|1,-1 \rangle-|-1,1 \rangle##, the spatial (momentum) part must also be antisymmetric. I.e., written in the product basis you have
$$|\psi^{-} \rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|\vec{p}_1 \rangle \otimes |\vec{p}_2 \rangle-|\vec{p}_2 \rangle \vec{p}_1)(|1 \rangle \otimes |-1 \rangle)-|-1 \rangle \otimes |1 \rangle.$$
Multiply this out and you get the completely symmetrized state in the tensor-product notation. This is very cumbersome. With the creation operators it's much more convenient
$$|\psi^- \rangle = \frac{1}{2} (\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}_1,1) \hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}_2,-1) - \hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}_1,-1) \hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}_2,1 ) \Omega \rangle.$$
The HOM (Hong-Ou-Mandel) effect in its most simple form can be described as follows. Two photons of the same frequency enter a (symmetric) beam splitter. Let's look at plane-wave modes. Let the incoming two photons be created by ##\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger}## and ##\hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger}## respectively. Here we use the abbreviation
$$\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}=\hat{a}(\vec{p}_a,\lambda_1), \quad \hat{b}_{\lambda_2} = \hat{a}(\vec{p}_b,\lambda_2).$$
The incoming two-photon state is
$$|\psi_0 \rangle=\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger}.$$
The "scattering matrix" describing the balanced symmetric beam splitter is given by the unitary matrix
$$U_{\text{BS}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \mathrm{i} \\ \mathrm{i} & 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$
This transforms the creation operators of the incoming to those of the outgoing photons
$$\begin{pmatrix} \hat{a}_{\lambda}^{\prime \dagger} \\ \hat{b}_{\lambda}^{\prime \dagger} \end{pmatrix}= U_{\text{BS}} \begin{pmatrix} \hat{a}_{\lambda}^{\dagger} \\ \hat{b}_{\lambda}^{\dagger} \end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} \hat{a}_{\lambda}^{\dagger} + \mathrm{i} \hat{b}_{\lambda}^{\dagger} \\ \mathrm{i} \hat{a}_{\lambda}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{\lambda}^{\dagger} \end{pmatrix}.$$
Thus after the beam splitter the state is
$$|\psi_2 \rangle=\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\prime \dagger} \hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\prime \dagger}|\Omega \rangle = \frac{1}{2} (\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger}+\mathrm{i} \hat{b}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger})(\mathrm{i} \hat{a}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger} + \hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger})|\Omega \rangle=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2} (\mathrm{i} \hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger}+\mathrm{i} \hat{b}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger} - \hat{a}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{\lambda_1}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{\lambda_2}^{\dagger})|\Omega \rangle .$$
Now if the photons have different parity, i.e., are distinguishable, you get with probability 1/2 both photons in the same mode (either a or b) and with probability 1/2 in different modes (one in a and one in b). This is as expected from the classical case.

If, however ##\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda## the output state is
$$|\psi_2 \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2_{a,\lambda} \rangle + |2_{b,\lambda}),$$
i.e., both photons always end up in the same mode (with probability 1/2 in a and with probability 1/2 in b).

This is a specific quantum effect of indistinguishable photons and cannot explained in the classical wave picture.
 
  • Like
Likes eys_physics and Mentz114
  • #64
If I am the only observer who can make a wave function to collapse, and all other humans are "Wigner's friends", or Schrödinger's cats, does that mean that quantum mechanics is "local" in some sense meant by the original poster DeMystifier?

I support the Many Worlds interpretation where the wave function never collapses. We may, for example, calculate the development of the wave function using Schrödinger's equation. The calculation is "local" in the sense that a computer can calculate the next time step of the wave function using only "local" data for each calculation grid point.

I, as an observing subject, feel that I am now located in a certain branch of the Many Worlds. I, subjectively, have seen the wave function of the universe to "collapse" as this branch. But the whole network of the Many Worlds exists. I think one can say that this interpretation is "local".
 
  • #65
Heikki Tuuri said:
The calculation is "local" in the sense that a computer can calculate the next time step of the wave function using only "local" data for each calculation grid point.

No, it can't, because the potential term in the Hamiltonian is not local. For example, in the case of a multi-particle system, the potential is a function of the positions of all the particles, which is a nonlocal function.
 
  • Like
Likes Heikki Tuuri
  • #66
To overcome the problem brought up by member Peter Donis, we need to model all interactions as couplings between a particle and a field, or between two fields.

For example, an electron responds to the electric field at its location, and does not care where the particles who create this field are located. Energy and momentum can be stored in the field.

We know that the self-force between an electron and its field is poorly understood in classical electromagnetism. Thus, the locality is not an empirical fact but a conjecture. We have to conjecture that a consistent local theory of an electron and its field can be formulated.
 
  • #67
PeterDonis said:
No, it can't, because the potential term in the Hamiltonian is not local. For example, in the case of a multi-particle system, the potential is a function of the positions of all the particles, which is a nonlocal function.

Just because there is a non-local method to calculate "the next step" doesn't mean there isn't also a local method. So far nobody has shown an example of an experiment where MWI seems to require non-local information and it certainly hasn't been proven.
 
  • #68
Heikki Tuuri said:
We have to conjecture that a consistent local theory of an electron and its field can be formulated.
We have a (at the practical level) consistent local theory of the electron field and the electromagnetic field. It is called QED. The electron is only an approximate, asymptotic concept in this theory.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #69
akvadrako said:
So far nobody has shown an example of an experiment where MWI seems to require non-local information

As an interpretation of QM, the MWI makes all of the same experimental predictions as all other interpretations of QM, including predictions of violations of the Bell inequalities, which is the standard thing being referred to by the term "nonlocality".
 
  • #70
PeterDonis said:
As an interpretation of QM, the MWI makes all of the same experimental predictions as all other interpretations of QM, including predictions of violations of the Bell inequalities, which is the standard thing being referred to by the term "nonlocality".

Well, there is of course "Bell non-locality", but that doesn't apply to the description mentioned by @Heikki Tuuri. Bell non-locality doesn't mean that you can't calculate the future state using only local information.
 
  • #71
akvadrako said:
Bell non-locality doesn't mean that you can't calculate the future state using only local information.

What do you mean by "the future state"?

Suppose we have a system consisting of two particles which are entangled. Then neither particle has a definite state by itself; only the two-particle system does. If the particles are separated, there simply is no local state, so it can't be possible to calculate any future state using only local information. You can only calculate the future state of the two-particle system, which is inherently nonlocal. And making measurements on the particles will produce correlations that violate the Bell inequalities.
 
  • #72
A. Neumaier said:
We have a (at the practical level) consistent local theory of the electron field and the electromagnetic field. It is called QED.

This theory is "local" in the sense that operators at spacelike separated events commute. But I don't think that's the meaning of "local" that @akvadrako and @Heikki Tuuri are (implicitly) using.
 
  • Like
Likes zonde and Auto-Didact
  • #73
PeterDonis said:
This theory is "local" in the sense that operators at spacelike separated events commute. But I don't think that's the meaning of "local" that @akvadrako and @Heikki Tuuri are (implicitly) using.
I agree.

To calculate a property at a single spacetime position ##x## one needs the complete state information from a nonempty intersection of its past cone with a Cauchy surface. But in relativity theory, this is the only proper meaning of ''local''. More is not available and not needed.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #74
A. Neumaier said:
We have a (at the practical level) consistent local theory of the electron field and the electromagnetic field. It is called QED. The electron is only an approximate, asymptotic concept in this theory.

QED is a perturbation method which can be used to calculate collisions of particles. It applies to very limited phenomena.

Classically, I imagine electrons as fishing floats on the waves of water. The correct future theory must handle the complicated interaction between the water and floats. The future theory is "local", though. We do not have any spooky action at a distance when we fish.
 
  • #75
A. Neumaier said:
To calculate a property at a single spacetime position ##x##

But many things we are interested in when studying multi-particle quantum systems are not properties at a single spacetime position ##x##.

Heikki Tuuri said:
We do not have any spooky action at a distance when we fish.

We do if the Bell inequalities are violated.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact
  • #76
PeterDonis said:
But many things we are interested in when studying multi-particle quantum systems are not properties at a single spacetime position ##x##.
For predicting in quantum field theory properties of a whole region X in spacetime (whether distances, areas, volumes, or coincidence counts) one needs the complete state information from a nonempty intersection of the union of the past cones of X with a Cauchy surface. This extended locality is most likely a consequence of the local commutation relations, though I have not seen a proof. But it is what one expects from hyperbolicity and Lorentz covariance.

This is consistent with violations of Bell inequalities since the proofs of Bell inequalities (and its variations) make stronger locality assumptions. They ignore the nonlocal character of the property of being coincident.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes lodbrok and Auto-Didact
  • #77
PeterDonis said:
What do you mean by "the future state"?

Suppose we have a system consisting of two particles which are entangled. Then neither particle has a definite state by itself; only the two-particle system does. If the particles are separated, there simply is no local state, so it can't be possible to calculate any future state using only local information. You can only calculate the future state of the two-particle system, which is inherently nonlocal. And making measurements on the particles will produce correlations that violate the Bell inequalities.

I mean state in a physical sense, not any specific representation, meaning all the information contained within the past light cone of some system. The best proof of the locality in general is this paper from David Deutsch, Vindication of Quantum Locality, a followup from a series of papers from 1999. But even more clearly, there are plenty of demonstrations of how Bell inequality violations and other quantum features can be reproduced with only casually local operations, meaning only systems (qubits) that interact affect each other. I have not found a paper showing an example of a quantum feature that can't be reproduced this way.

@DarMM has some good posts where he lays out all the ways that Bell non-locality doesn't imply dynamic non-locality. The way I think about it is Bell non-locality means that the state can't be factored into regions within a single spacetime. But it's easy enough to violate Bell inequalities with multiple outcomes which create new (local) worlds that later combine into the right ratios – I assume you have seen this.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
akvadrako said:
I mean state in a physical sense, not any specific representation, meaning all the information contained within the past light cone of some system.

And that's a perfectly good concept, but, again, it is a different interpretation of the word "local" (which is why @A. Neumaier used the term "extended locality").

akvadrako said:
only systems (qubits) that interact affect each other

And this requires a particular interpretation of "affect each other" that is not the only possible one.

IMO the best way to approach this is to use qualifiers, such as:

akvadrako said:
Bell non-locality doesn't imply dynamic non-locality

This makes it clearer what is being talked about: violations of the Bell inequalities, but no FTL signaling, for example.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Auto-Didact
  • #79
PeterDonis said:
And that's a perfectly good concept, but, again, it is a different interpretation of the word "local" (which is why @A. Neumaier used the term "extended locality").

I was just referring to the meaning of local in the post you replied to – that the "next step" can be computed using only local information – the information contained in that region. Of course the further forward you want to compute, the larger region you'll need to consider.
 
  • #80
akvadrako said:
@DarMM has some good posts where he lays out all the ways that Bell non-locality doesn't imply dynamic non-locality. The way I think about it is Bell non-locality means that the state can't be factored into regions within a single spacetime. But it's easy enough to violate Bell inequalities with multiple outcomes which create new (local) worlds that later combine into the right ratios – I assume you have seen this.
The way I think of it: Many Worlds is alocal (term borrowed from @Demystifier) at the ontological level since the universal wavefunction comes prior to Minkowski spacetime which is sort an emergent macroscopic structure. However it is operationally local.

Regarding the papers dealt with here, it is the statement following 3.2.2 in the 2018 paper that I think most would have an issue with:
Thus if we were to measure ##\tilde{\mathcal{O}}##, obtaining ##\lambda_l##, we would know that:
##\nu(\mathcal{O}) = \lambda_l## (3.2.2)
concerning the result of then measuring ##\mathcal{O}##. Thus ##\nu(\mathcal{O})## would pre-exist the measurement of ##O##
It's a consequence of antirealism in views like Copenhagen that knowing what would happen if ##\mathcal{O}## were measured does not imply that ##\mathcal{O}## in fact has a value pre-existing the measurement. You simply know what that value would be if a ##\mathcal{O}## measurement were carried out. This is even borne out in the mathematics of QM in a standard Copenhagen reading. Only a combined set of measurements ##\tilde{\mathcal{O}}## and ##\mathcal{O}## form a complete context that allows you to use Gelfand's theorem and obtain a single sample space on which to perform reasoning like this implication.

"Unperformed experiments have no results" as Peres said.

Many-Worlds and retrocausal stuff can escape the theorem for separate reasons.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and akvadrako
  • #81
akvadrako said:
the "next step" can be computed using only local information – the information contained in that region

And my point is that if the "region" in question includes spacelike separated measurements of entangled particles, this does not satisfy many people's intuitive notion of "local". It's "local" in the sense that everything can be computed in terms of the past light cone of the region as a whole, but that is not the same as the past light cone of either measurement event taken in isolation.
 
  • Like
Likes zonde
  • #82
akvadrako said:
@DarMM has some good posts where he lays out all the ways that Bell non-locality doesn't imply dynamic non-locality. The way I think about it is Bell non-locality means that the state can't be factored into regions within a single spacetime. But it's easy enough to violate Bell inequalities with multiple outcomes which create new (local) worlds that later combine into the right ratios – I assume you have seen this.
PeterDonis said:
And that's a perfectly good concept, but, again, it is a different interpretation of the word "local" (which is why @A. Neumaier used the term "extended locality").
...
This makes it clearer what is being talked about: violations of the Bell inequalities, but no FTL signaling, for example.
akvadrako said:
I was just referring to the meaning of local in the post you replied to – that the "next step" can be computed using only local information – the information contained in that region. Of course the further forward you want to compute, the larger region you'll need to consider.
PeterDonis said:
And my point is that if the "region" in question includes spacelike separated measurements of entangled particles, this does not satisfy many people's intuitive notion of "local". It's "local" in the sense that everything can be computed in terms of the past light cone of the region as a whole, but that is not the same as the past light cone of either measurement event taken in isolation.
Since the issue of what exactly is meant by non-locality seems to continually get brought up again and again in this thread, yet still seemingly continues to be misunderstood, I would like to refer to this thread which gives a specific explicit mathematical model of non-locality and contextuality; the model was naturally constructed fairly recently by combining several branches of advanced pure mathematics in a very particular way.

There is a fairly strong argument to make that such a new first principles approach - based on combining and utilizing previously unused advanced mathematics - is precisely the type of mathematical theory as a new foundation which will be needed to literally go beyond QM, e.g. 1) to construct a relativistic version of Bohmian Mechanics based in novel mathematics, and 2) probably also to construct a proper theory of quantum gravity from first principles.
 
  • #83
PeterDonis said:
And my point is that if the "region" in question includes spacelike separated measurements of entangled particles, this does not satisfy many people's intuitive notion of "local". It's "local" in the sense that everything can be computed in terms of the past light cone of the region as a whole, but that is not the same as the past light cone of either measurement event taken in isolation.

I'm not sure if we disagree about the meaning of local or if MWI is local in that sense. In terms of measurements on separated entangled particles A & B, the regions would be around A and around B, taken in isolation. When a measurement happens on A the region splits into A1 and A2, but nothing happens to B – there is no splitting until something from region A interacts with region B. The behavior can be simulated on computers where region A is on Mars and B on Earth and they evolve independenly until you simulate when something from A interacts with something from B. That seems to me like quite a strong definition of locality.
 
  • #84
akvadrako said:
When a measurement happens on A the region splits into A1 and A2, but nothing happens to B – there is no splitting until something from region A interacts with region B.

I understand this is an intuitively plausible description of what is going on. But the problem with it is that the configuration space of the system is not ordinary 3-dimensional space, and the state of the system cannot be expressed as a function (even a complex-valued or vector-valued or other thingie-valued function) on ordinary 3-dimensional space. But your description implicitly assumes that it can.

In configuration space, the splitting occurs as soon as a measurement happens, and it splits the entire state--there is no "delay" while part of the state waits for information from the rest of the state. (More precisely, the two-particle system becomes entangled with the measuring apparatus, so it no longer has a definite state on its own; but if we restrict to looking at the portion of the overall state that is in the two-particle configuration space, it "splits" as soon as the entanglement happens.)

From a QFT viewpoint, there are no "particles" as continuous entities moving through space (or spacetime), and there is no "state" of a multi-particle system at a particular time (since "at a particular time" itself has no invariant meaning in relativity). There are just measurement events and correlations between them. That avoids the difficulty about "splitting" above and whether it is "nonlocal" or not, but it also removes the very basis for adopting the MWI in the first place, since the MWI's account assumes that there is a meaningful "state" of the two-particle system at a given time (or the two-particle system entangled with a measuring apparatus).
 
  • #85
Is quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance? There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence to support it. Surely early two slit photon experiments at least prefigure the idea not even of measurement or even non measurement having an effect at a distance?
 
  • #86
Heikki Tuuri said:
QED is a perturbation method which can be used to calculate collisions of particles. It applies to very limited phenomena.

Classically, I imagine electrons as fishing floats on the waves of water. The correct future theory must handle the complicated interaction between the water and floats. The future theory is "local", though. We do not have any spooky action at a distance when we fish.
That's a very limited view rather than a limitation of the theory. There's not only "vacuum QED" to calculate cross sections in two-body collisions as needed in accelerator experiments but you can also use the many-body formalism in thermal equilibrium as well as in general off-equilibrium situations to describe macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena in condensed-matter physics (non-relativistic realm) up to relativistic heavy-ion collisions (relativistic realm), though in the latter case the main theory needed is QCD rather than QED.
 
  • Like
Likes Heikki Tuuri
  • #87
edmund cavendish said:
Is quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance? There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence to support it. Surely early two slit photon experiments at least prefigure the idea not even of measurement or even non measurement having an effect at a distance?
No, quantum entanglement is not "spookky actions at a distance". The usual and successful relativistic QFT are all of the local type, i.e., they obey the microcausality constraint, according to which local operators all commute at space-like separation of their arguments. A local measurement on one of, e.g., two entangled photons at Alice's place cannot in any way causally affect the photon at Bob's far distant place. Still the entanglement describes a strong correlation between the two photons, but it's a correlation imprinted on the photon pair by its preparation and not a causal effect of A's measurement on B's photon (or vice versa).
 
  • #88
PeterDonis said:
I understand this is an intuitively plausible description of what is going on. But the problem with it is that the configuration space of the system is not ordinary 3-dimensional space, and the state of the system cannot be expressed as a function (even a complex-valued or vector-valued or other thingie-valued function) on ordinary 3-dimensional space. But your description implicitly assumes that it can.
This is also no conceptual problem since the experimental setup is defined in some reference frame (say, the "lab frame"), and there you have a well-defined split in "time" and "space". Of course, due to Poincare invariance of relativistic QFT you can formulate everything in a Poincare-invariant way and describe the situation in any reference frame you like.
 
  • #89
vanhees71 said:
...but it's a correlation imprinted on the photon pair by its preparation

Vague terminology! The anti-correlation is prescribed by the preparation process, nothing else.
 
  • #90
edmund cavendish said:
Is quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance?

No!

"The correlations between entangled particles in quantum mechanics can be said to “violate causality” in the sense that distant correlations arise with no local cause, i.e., no common cause (hidden variables) and no transfer of energy or information between the separate events. "

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath731/kmath731.htm
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 874 ·
30
Replies
874
Views
44K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
823
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K