Thought Experiment Involving Quantum Entanglement

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on a thought experiment involving quantum entanglement and its implications for special relativity (SR). The consensus among participants is that quantum entanglement does not violate SR because it does not allow for the transmission of usable information. The discussion highlights that while one observer may gain knowledge about another's state instantaneously, this does not equate to information transfer, as the second observer has no control over the outcome. The analogy of socks is used to illustrate this concept, emphasizing that knowledge gained does not imply a violation of relativistic principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum entanglement principles
  • Familiarity with special relativity concepts
  • Knowledge of information theory in quantum mechanics
  • Basic grasp of quantum teleportation mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Quantum Entanglement and Information Transfer" to explore the nuances of information in quantum systems.
  • Study "Quantum Teleportation" to understand how entanglement can be utilized in practical applications.
  • Examine "Bell's Theorem" to delve deeper into the implications of entanglement on local realism.
  • Investigate "Superluminal Communication" to analyze the theoretical limits of information transfer in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, students majoring in mathematics and physics, and anyone interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and relativity.

Dahaka14
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
My friend just gave me a good thought experiment involving quantum entanglement violating special relativity that I can't seem to refute.
There are two immortal people A and B. A and B synchronize their clocks far away from any gravitational influence (say spot Y). B departs for spot(at an infinitely slow speed...therefore they do not lose synchronization) X a 1000 light years away from the place they synchronized them. There is a pair of electrons quantum entangled at spot X and Y. Before leaving A told B to kill himself if the electron that he measured was spin down. After a certain pre-decided interval A and B both make the measurement. A measures that his electron is spin up. Therefore, B is dead. Does that violate special relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ignoring the irrelevant information in that rather convoluted question, all that's being asked is whether entanglement violates special relativity. Which there is already a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=299687" on right now.

The general consensus is no, because entanglement does not transmit any usable information in itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This doesn't refute my friend's thought experiment. Please tell me exactly which part of it breaks down in its argument for violation of special relativity.

Also, I did not post it in that thread in fear of it getting pushed to the back of the discussion. I understand that no information is transferred, but in this case isn't there information being transferred in that you know the other guy will be dead after you measure it?
 
Forget quantum mechanics. You can do the same thing with two socks, one black and one red. A sees he has a red sock, and then instantaneously knows B has a black sock. That doesn't violate SR either.
 
In fact there is a reference frame where A knows that B is dead BEFORE B commits suicide.

However, it does not allow to makeany 'i killed my own father' paradoxes, so relativity is still valid.
 
thanks guys, i REALLY understand it now, i know what's going on here

i'm not just making stuff up to get jollies going, I'm planning on being a theoretical physicist myself, I'm majoring in math and physics, so I'm trying to be serious here, and a good physicist should be able to pick this thought experiment apart by saying where it fails
 
There's nothing to prevent knowledge about something far away appearing instantly. (sock example)

There is no information transfer: Information transfer require B be able to send some sort of message to A, which he can't. A will instantly know something, but B has no control over what that is. No information being sent, no violation of SR.
 
I believe it is more complicated: there is some information sent using superlimunal (entanglement) channel (S), but it can't be decoded without another part, sent traditionally (T).

S can not be decrypted without T, but T alone is not enough, so it proves that S contains some informations.

It is like sending an enrypted ZIP file instantly but sending a password by DHL. Without paper mail you can open ZIP, but still password alone does not contain all information.
 
I think in this situation there is nothing at all being transferred (at least nothing usable). But you're right in that something (which is not information) can be "sent" using entanglement. Combined with a classical channel, this is quantum teleportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
 
  • #10
Dahaka14 said:
thanks guys, i REALLY understand it now, i know what's going on here

i'm not just making stuff up to get jollies going, I'm planning on being a theoretical physicist myself, I'm majoring in math and physics, so I'm trying to be serious here, and a good physicist should be able to pick this thought experiment apart by saying where it fails

You have received serious answers. Think about the socks. For your example, they are sufficient as an explanation.

The mystery of quantum entanglement is more complex than your simple example. See ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/game.php for some example which cannot be explained with socks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 473 ·
16
Replies
473
Views
31K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K