Validity of a paper on the standard conclusions from Bell, etc

  • #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,400
130

Main Question or Discussion Point

In most popular explanations of entanglement, the quantum information of an entangled two-particle system changes without regard to the distance between the two particles. The following paper seems (to my unprofessional eye) to be questioning this interpretation
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0F80EA03E4D8CAB4F8DD5C7AEB9F07B3/S0033583516000111a.pdf/quantum_entanglement_facts_and_fiction_how_wrong_was_einstein_after_all.pdf
As it was published in Cambridge Press, I presume that it has some merit, but perhaps an eye better trained than mine could glance at it and hazard a judgement as to the validity of the author's doubts? Thanks.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,243
1,053
In most popular explanations of entanglement, the quantum information of an entangled two-particle system changes without regard to the distance between the two particles. The following paper seems (to my unprofessional eye) to be questioning this interpretation
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0F80EA03E4D8CAB4F8DD5C7AEB9F07B3/S0033583516000111a.pdf/quantum_entanglement_facts_and_fiction_how_wrong_was_einstein_after_all.pdf
As it was published in Cambridge Press, I presume that it has some merit, but perhaps an eye better trained than mine could glance at it and hazard a judgement as to the validity of the author's doubts? Thanks.
I don't follow the author's premise.

Similarly, no experiment seems yet to provide unambiguous evidence of remaining entanglement between single photons at large separations in absence of mutual interaction, or about immediate (superluminal) communication. ... The author suggests an experiment to decide whether or not photons may be entangled when no longer in field contact with each other.

I am not sure what Norden is trying to say with the above, as the phrases can mean different things to different people. "Unambiguous"? All the experiments I reference are pretty unambiguous. Large separations? There have been some pretty large separations, how large is large? Recent experiments are referenced, but a number of key ones are omitted. For example:

1. Swapping of entanglement - the entangled photons never interact.
2. Creation of entangled pairs from independent (separated) sources.
 
  • #3
zonde
Gold Member
2,941
213
In most popular explanations of entanglement, the quantum information of an entangled two-particle system changes without regard to the distance between the two particles. The following paper seems (to my unprofessional eye) to be questioning this interpretation
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0F80EA03E4D8CAB4F8DD5C7AEB9F07B3/S0033583516000111a.pdf/quantum_entanglement_facts_and_fiction_how_wrong_was_einstein_after_all.pdf
As it was published in Cambridge Press, I presume that it has some merit, but perhaps an eye better trained than mine could glance at it and hazard a judgement as to the validity of the author's doubts? Thanks.
The paper is suggesting that there might be subluminal interaction responsible for entanglement.
But the paper was outdated at the moment of publication. There were three loophole free experiment results published in 2015:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190
 
  • #4
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,400
130
Thanks, zonde and DrChinese. I can therefore shelve the paper into "at best of historical interest".
 

Related Threads on Validity of a paper on the standard conclusions from Bell, etc

Replies
5
Views
826
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
798
  • Last Post
5
Replies
102
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
856
Replies
2
Views
604
Top