Entanglement and reference frames

Greetings!

I am having trouble finding an answer to a question:

Two entangle photons are generated. One is fired into a detector to detect state and the other is allowed to travel a large distance and then interacts with something.

From the perspective of the entangled photons, does one event happen before the other or is this a single instantaneous transaction?

From the perspective of the entangled photons, what occurs first? Arrival at the local detector or arrival at the remote target?

Colby

Hi Colby,

According to the current theory entanglement is true "action at a distance" and therefore instantaneous. Collapsing the superposition of states on one photon of a polarization pair and "reading" it's state... instantly determines (collapses the states to one) the state of the other photon. What you can't do is predetermine the value of that state before you collapse it so you might be able to send a message (faster than light).

This was stated in "Bells Theorem" and experiments proved that this indeed happened and quantum encryption is one practical consequence of this already in use.

Or so they say....

As a matter of interest you might find the current discussion over here interesting....
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories ->Perceptions and Probability Waves
About “The Aharonov-Bohm effect”.

You might also want to look at this page...
How Quantum Entanglement Works

Cheers

I'll admit, I've never quite understood why it's called "action at a distance". Maybe someone can clear it up for me? I'm not sure I can put into words what it is that remains unclear about the situation...

When we talk about the "collapse" of the wave function, is there really a physical difference between what is happening before and what is happening after, or is it really just a fancy way of saying "we don't know", or "it doesn't matter", about the situation before the collapse? I mean, in the case of the entangled photons, it's not like we don't know anything. Conservation of mass/energy/momentum/etc. dictates that there must be a certain relationship between the states of the photons, even if we don't know the exact state, so we have some information. But this doesn't come from the photons themselves really. It comes from the fact that we know they came from one photon to start with. (On a side note, is the polarization relation just a result of the conservation laws, or a separate phenomenon?)

*Sigh* Not having an education on the matter, it's very hard for me to put this into words. I worry that I'll use terms that can be mistaken to mean something I don't intend them to...

This is how I've always thought of it: The reason that both situations can collapse instantaneously is that although there are two "branches" (the two photons, in the linked page), it is still just one "system", the branches connected at the starting point (where the photon splits). And this one system would be governed by one, albeit more complex, wave function. And so, since it is really just one system, it would have to collapse all at once. No communication is necessary, because all the information about the whole system from start to finish is contained in each of the photons, due to conservation of energy/information.

Am I missing something? Do I have something totally wrong? Or is this all entanglement is? I'll admit, the reason I feel like I'm missing something is that this just doesn't seem "spooky" to me at all. It just makes sense. And I always worry that when things make sense too easily that it's because I've missed something.

I don't know. It would be really nice to get some input. Good Elf, you've been able to nearly read my mind before in a similar situation when I was new to the board. Maybe you can do it again.

Thanks in advance to whomever answers.

Waterbreath, I have the same nagging feeling.. I always picture entangled particles as two colored balls (one red, one white) that are put in seperate brown packages. One is sent to europe, one to the US. The US recipient knows there could be a red or white ball in the box, but he won't know the actual color of the ball until he opens the box. When he opens the box, he sees the color of the ball (measurement) and he instantly knows the color of the ball in the other box. ooooh spooky action at a distance!!

Ok, now if someone with a physics degree could explain why I am wrong with that very classical analogy, I'd be very happy

Well, I think I recovered part of the knowledge I had lost track of that caused this too seem "too simple".

It was the two-slit experiment for a single electron. A single electron created an interference pattern with itself. What this means is not that we don't know which slit the electron passed through. It means that the electron actually passed through both slits. And the mind-bending part is that, if you try to determine which slit it passes through, it will not do that anymore. It will only pass through one slit.

I think it is a mistake to talk about "before" or "after" the wave collapse, as I did in my last post. I've always more thought of it in terms of this: If the electron can pass through both slits, and arrive at the same place, then it will. If it can't, then it won't. So then the question we're left with is how does it know if it can or can't? When does it find out and make the "choice" to go through one or the other? It seems to me that this point in time would be when the wave collapse happens, not at observation. What effect that viewpoint would have on the whole situation, I don't know.

I don't know. The whole thing arises out of the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity, everything is localized in space and time. In quantum mechanics, it's not. It seems that most people had gotten somewhat comfortable with things being non-localized in space, though I don't know if the two models had really been resolved with each other in that respect. But then the two-slit experiment in time showed up, and proved that events are also non-localized in time! How does that work with relativity???

One of these days... One of these days I'm going to get a bunch textbooks and start reading. The gap between where my college physics stopped (relativity, and "concepts" of quantum mechanics without math) is just too large. I need to fill it in, or my head is going to cave in.

Hi,

In my opinion, the electron in the two slit experiment always goes through both slits (or its extended fields do). If there is a detector in the path this collapses the two slit superposition to a single state so that it appears that the electron only went through one slit.

Also, in my opinion, entangled photons are connected by a vacuum vector spin field, which allows almost instantaneous transmission of the measurement signal to the second photon.

z

Could someone please tell me what if any the gravitational aspects of quarks are??? email ryanfull16@hotmail.com

Hello, Ryan -

There are no gravitational aspects to quarks. Neutrons and protons are baryons, made of three quarks each: p = uud (up up down) and n = udd. u = 2e/3, d = -e/3. They don't exist outside the nucleus unless under very specific circumstances. The other 4 quarks - top, bottom, charm, strange - aren't associated w/ "regular" matter.

hey, all

I'm just dying to bounce my ideas w/r/t entanglement off of all of you, but they're not done yet. I haven't finished the math for my "explanation". I value your input and believe this would be a good forum to discuss it before I roll over to one of the faculty members here! Nothing too fancy mind you, but I'm pretty happy w/ the creative thoughts I get while in the can in the mornings!

Spukhafte Fernwirkungen is curious b/z the change in state b/t the two photons occurs faster than ©. These experiments were carefully done @ CERN like a decade ago or so. The critical difference b/t the Guest's concept of the 2 billiard balls and the CERN experiment is that the two daughter photons were produced from a single photon. Knowing the spin states of the photons is irrelevant, since the change in state occurs faster than ©, given the distance b/t the 2 photons was about 12 kilometers in the experiment. As WB, the Goodly Elvish One mentioned, the famous Bell's inequality still stands, but if I have anything to do w/ it, perhaps knock a tiny piece out of its armor!

-ss

Hi Ryan, Gadfly et al,

Sorry... never e-mail an unregistered guest. No protection for either of us.

This is an interesting post since I had a contribution in March this year. I was reading my post and I didn't even recognize it was mine.

First thing... If you want to just know the masses of Quarks then here it is
Quark Masses and Charges
The quark is confined by its mass (see below). You can never find "just one quark", if you suddenly had one... "God" would give you others "for free"... he he he!

Because of this aspect it will not be possible to test just a single quarks mass without some "subdefuge".

Now comes my little "thinky" on quarks...
For most things there are three quarks to make a particle with integer charge. Just have a look at the comment this author has made about the mass of a proton and the "individual" masses of the component quarks. You can see that the mass is way "off". This is down to "interactions". Interactions are causing the "mass" of the particle in the main. There are "standard answers" and there is my answer... you just know what you are going to get here.

I am a "great believer" in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. In particular the Principle of Equivalence (acceleration version).

I am of the "opinion" that this principle has a non-trivial corollary. This explains the reason why light is affected by Gravity and that it behaves as a wave and is subject to natural spreading... whereas particles with mass are confined to the region of the particle. A thread deals with this concept...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
Space-time curvature and indeed curvature in "higher dimensions" in String Theory (more influential) is the "direct" result of acceleration which is the same as "gravity" and this is a profound (if not subtle) point. The corollary says that the curvature of that "stuff" is not the result of mass but is the result of "pure" acceleration alone. Mass itself is the result of "intrinsic" (internal) acceleration and Gravity is the result of "extrinsic" (external) acceleration. So we can see and "measure" gravity as a "lumped effect" of all curvatures from "mass" and "dynamic accelerations" such as being in an accelerating rocket ship. In the end this is only the sum total acceleration of gravity and the curvature it produces and the acceleration due to the rocket motors. They are indistinguishable.

To this point mass is interpreted as "something which curves space-time". I say space-time is curved by acceleration and mass is what we measure as the "source" in many cases. By pure prejudice we distinguish accelerations from the two sources as different because in the one case we can "see" the accelerations and in the other case we cannot "see" the accelerations. The other point is the accelerations due to mass "remain" through time whereas the accelerations due to a rocket will "disappear" when the rocket motor cuts.

I would like to point out acceleration is "not conserved" but mass is. Once you have mass you have a permanent source of acceleration as a "source".

How does this spin work? If there are "higher spatial dimensions" into which objects may fall, then these are also higher dimensions into which things can accelerate as well. We "see" only three spatial dimensions. We KNOW particles under our observation are not accelerating in an obvious fashion. So what am I talking about?

Consider a person drops vertically from the top of a skyscraper (to a special mat) in such a way that he maintains an equidistant distance from two adjacent walls at right angles to each other. Continuous measurement would indicate the parameters x and y as constant in time but the parameter z is increasing by the rate of
z = 1/2*a*t.

He would be "fixed" in the x,y plane but accelerating in the dimension perpendicular to the other two. Now consider the existence of "higher dimensions"... Uberspace.... not any of those 3 dimensions spoken of in Space-time. Let us accelerate into one or more of them... What you would find is a relative acceleration of the particle without any of the x,y,z distances in our world changing. Still this is acceleration and results in curvature the same as it would for you in a rocket. It is "traveling" nowhere in 3 dimensions but is accelerating. The result will be a self-curvature we call mass which appears that it cannot be simply removed by "extrinsic" accelerations. This curvature contributes to any existing curvature found in your region of space.

Light is massless and does not curve space-time but light will respond to the curvature of space-time. Light is also the carrier of exchange force for our Universe and has infinite range. Light propagates as a wave and thus "spreads".
Electromagnetic equipotentials being spawned and propagating at the speed of light.



This picture is an animated cross-section of the tori being spawned as the field lines cross. This is as close to "seeing" what those higher dimensional radiation patterns in the "Uberspace" look like (electromagnetic branes) is this "shadow on the wall" of "space-time". If you plotted the electric potential as a two dimensional function of distance from source you would have the familiar propagating sine wave. That "picture" does not convey it's true relationships in three dimensional space, whereas the image above does convey the true physical "shape" of electromagnetism as a "slice". . It does not show the magnetic field lines running at right angles through these loops as "concentric circles". Photons have about the same dimensional size as a single wavelength of their radiation (initially in all three dimensions). Photons also propagate using Bose-Einstein Statistics... this means billions of them can exist in the same spot at the same time all interfering and crossing each others paths at the same time without any losses or without being "seen". What you see in this picture is the nett result of that process. Though each photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation the individual packets "spread" in the orthogonal spherical "surface" as "individual" spherically curved circular patches a wavelength thick.It is a well known result that only curved surface waves like these are able to carry energy, all talk of "plane waves" in Electromagnetism are a "nonsense".

You get a curved "pancake" that gets only bigger with time... this picture shows what is happening to the "swarm" of photons being emitted in it exhibits that toroidal symmetry. The magnetic field lines run "completely" around the "source" connecting all photons together in a perpendicular direction as a "magnetic lines of force", threading the tori. The electric field lines do not "link up" individually... magnetically they are linked... in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The individual photons are potentially nearly as big as half of each of these tori and retain the inverse square law relationship. Transverse propagation velocities are "infinite" but "snipping" that magnetic thread "sets" any photon directly linked to it and thus is the reason for Bells relationships - the rationale for this thread in the first place. Entanglement becomes a property of the creation of two oppositely propagating photons linked with that magnetic "thread". A conservative relationship in the "curl" of magnetic fields.

If the "index" of this radiation "field" were more or less than "2" by even the slightest amount, the energy entering one concentric "escribed" spherical shell would not exit through a second larger "escribed" spherical shell. The energy would build up "indefinitely" and the field would become wholly evanescent.... an inductive field unable to propagate away. If this relationship is maintained exactly it is a "radiating" field and energy leaves the source and travels outwards at the speed of light. Affinely connected space-time ensures that small irregularities are "ignored".

What has mass got to do with this? Lets say the "emitted photons" had mass. This picture above would look much the same but because of the influence of the curvature of dimensional space the energy of the photons would be left behind in successive shells because the surface area of the "escribed" sphere is...
A = 4r
and (through dimensional deformation) the "volume" exceeds...
4/3r
This mismatch means the photon could not spread any more since after a certain range almost all the energy is to be found in an "inner" volume closer to the source. This influence is not "compelling" in our three dimensions because of the terrific "tension" in our relatively flat space-time... But in the "Uberspace" of six extra dimensions which are "petal" dimensions and all curled up... the requirements for curvature are much easier. Photons "blow bubbles" in this space with a simple linear relationship E = hf. Where h is a unit of impulse and f is the frequency... a scaling multiplier for the energy.
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?

In six dimensions it is possible to spin in three planes simultaneously without "disruption". In our three spatial dimensions, spin is only in one plane (two dimensional - any plane). There is an extra dimension in which you have that extra degree of freedom for spin. So a particle can have spin in up to three separate planes without being seen in our three dimensions (where there can be only one extra spin). In that sense there is no free choice in this "Uberspace" spin as there is in our space-time with one free dimension... all six dimensions are "used up" (no further degrees of freedom in six dimensions just "combinations", quanta of "spin"). This spin is coming from the intrinsic spin of the brane of our Universe. Everything has it... and it causes "quantum effects". This linking spin in photons can and does lead to quantum entanglement as noted.

This principle confines the quark as well as the force carriers for quarks. That is where the tie in comes from. We see that mass is not a scaler as all of human physics has hitherto suggested but is an "interaction" through acceleration of the three quarks in that proton... brane to brane as they spin near the speed of light. Mass is clearly a four tensor and this could be rotated in the nine dimensions to point out of the "plane" of our three spatial dimensions. In that case without affecting the mass of a particle it could obtain "freedom" to move in our three-dimensional space while anchored in higher dimensional spaces. This acceleration in higher dimensions (interpreted as mass) would be identified with particle spin which is the principal cause of the two most important quantum numbers. Our Universe and any "spawned" branes, would incorporate the spin in those six curled up dimensions. We are not able to notice this spin in our "bulk" 3D + T dimensions because of the incredible size of our universe. Assuming it to be 15 Billion Light years "across" would only need to rotate once every 500 billion years for the periphery to be traveling at near the speed of light. This is a far "too simplistic" view of our "closed" Universe but the maths has some validity. However in a much smaller "brane" attached and having the same internal "spin" would externally spin near the speed of light and exhibit a frequency depending on it's apparent dimensions. This assumes a supersymmetry in all those dimensions and in the "bulk" and Ed Witten's T-Duality of strings.

I now call your attention to an interesting paper on how a topological photon could be a electron (or visa versa).
Did you catch the article on the topological photon that "simulates" an electron. Apeman had this post which really caught my attention...
Electron is close-looped photon?
Here is the actual paper...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
So this discussion should be in the light of that material. With a little "topological" imagination you will guess where that 1/3 or 2/3 electric charge comes from, and especially where the "3" comes from too.

The paper does not utilize the higher dimensional spin concept and works with "simple" stringless theories, still it is excellent. Be aware that an electron is made up of two quarks and a proton is made up of three. There are differences. It may be that you would like to consider the "quark" as a "representation" of a newly created dimensional entity. We know they spin, and we know they have some mass, but it just does not "add up" unless mass is something a bit more subtle than just a "scaler" quantity. This paper also offers an "excuse" for the origin of charge but it is not complete. If you want to know what I think about the real "essence" of charge may be look here...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?

There is obviously a lot more to this story but you could hunt it out for your own amusement.
All Good Elf's posts
You would need to log in to the forum for this "service".

Cheers

Good Elf

How Quantum Entanglement Works is an excellent reference.

Hi Gadfly,

This is a "Good Elf" version of the Universe... he he he! "Almost" all my own work.

I will have a read of your submission but I am sure it will not contain special "Good Elf" tidbits.

I am actually still polishing it up a tad. Calling back in 1/2 an hour might have a better looking presentation.
Distilled "elvan" wisdom ... he he he!

Cheers

Good thread.

Philip notes content of thread.

Only notations is that C as expressed as light is universal; so therefor corospondant to both ambient conditions, which affact C at its travel.

Hi Philip and Gadfly,

Phillip... I am pretty happy with the way this idea is progressing. I have looked into the idea of refractive media and it is "easy enough" to incorporate. You can find this in some of my older posts...
All Good Elf's Posts
I am afraid you would all go to sleep if I was to become even more wordier than what I have here.
Wisdom?

The truth is people have a "threshold" where there is a trade off between what they wish to know and the time they are prepared to invest in it. I have to keep it "relatively" short because you would all "nod off" or "sod off"... he he he!

Most people who read this stuff will not be able to decide if "the elf" is a "straight shooter" or just "joshing them about". Most probably will not invest the time. What I guarantee you is the distilled "wisdom of the elves"... he he he! You will not find this elsewhere and it is mostly my attempt to incorporate string theory into mainstream physics. If you read between these lines (here, above and elsewhere in my "trace") you will find some "juicy" applications there and it is all testable and provable. If you want maths rather than understanding - - - it already exists in many physics books. What is here is a symmetry theory as well as the rudimentary concept of a completely "geometric" understanding of the Universe without particles and quanta are a natural part of that realm.

Read this as "insight" not an attempt to show just how cleaver I am at Maths (cause elves are not that cleaver at that at all).

Only elves would be game enough to say these things. That proves I am an Elf doesn't it?

PS: Hang on a bit and I will give you a reference to "incorporate" all that optical stuff into this theory...

Jian Qi Shen's Original Paper

This add all those bits (in lesser dimensions) to "Classical" wave theory and draws them into Quantum Physics via analogy. Catch the bit about "optical anti-matter" of Pendry.
Reversing Light : Negative Refraction... Pendry
Reversing Light: Negative Refraction...John B. Pendry and David R. Smith
The other aspects are those that relate to Bohmian Mechanics as to the way its relates to normal spaces via a configuration space. This is a very developed theory and is internally consistent.
Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Physics: David Bohm
If you want a couple more references to that stuff I can supply them. That actually is nothing to do with me and what I am doing. Every theory needs extra dimensions to properly describe what quanta are doing. It is a fact that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be expressed in purely Classical Electromagnetic Terms. I have previously indicated where this was possible (many months ago).

Here is a full text reference on-line that may assist in the more general points (reference only)
The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?

Another possible "alternative" paradigm would be Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber theory of Advanced and Retarded Potentials (Nobel Prize), though not advanced at this stage to the appropriate level of development to be incorporated into my idea... still it is possible if it was taken seriously. Brilliant stuff there. You need to widen the concept of "Time".
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
Advanced and Retarded Potentials
or this...
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics John G. Cramer

Cheers

I believe, You have seen video or animation in my submission list already, where Iam explaining it.

Hi Zephir,

This image is nothing new... I got it off the web where they have been for years. I do not think this is your image as far as I know. This image is not the basis of my theory and exposition... the real branes have no pictures that can indicate what they look like other than an "impulse" in the higher spaces and greater numbers of dimensions subject to global spin. I admit that I do not have a Web Page and I use other peoples images as they are only illustrations. That is the best I can do. The analogy is just that.... I am actually discussing "higher dimensional" objects and these behave unlike ordinary objects. For instance they can penetrate a wall for instance provided certain criteria are met. They spin in unseen dimensions. Bosons are invisible and have fermionic partners and strings reside on the surface of branes and are representations holographically of the interiors of the branes (Witten and others). Your ideas are somewhat superficially similar but are basically different (I think). Correct this if I am wrong.

Your models do not discuss higher dimensional spin, they appear "fluidic" in nature and they "invoke" the concept of "ether"... I believe that these higher dimensions are critical and necessary for any physical spin that should satisfy quantum spin properties. My variant theory is a symmetry theory and uses supersymmetry not supergravity. Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles", it is a "pseudo-property" of the frame of reference. In fact my theory has no particles whatsoever and does not utilize them for forces other than in some concepts regarding photons (which I do not regard as true "particles" either). In that one respect I think it is similar to your theory. The T-Duality arises from the Holographic principle. An all pervasive "fluid" would spoil that idea at it's base. My theory, at it's base" is pretty much standard Special and General Relativity in extended dimensions with Bohmian Mechanics thrown in for good measure to tell us where the quanta go when you are not seeing them. I feel compelled to describe that aspect of how it melds into the quantum postulates, usurps them, and the fact that there is no Planck Length or Planck Time.

These pictures show electric field lines of propagating waves from dipole antennas. That has nothing to do with your theory as far as I know. I believe it is some kind of "ether" theory. I am not big on "ether" theories. If you have a point to make please do... just do not refer me to all your submissions, I need to see what your specific point is. Honestly Zephir, I respect what you are trying to do... I only wish I understood it from my point of view. I can't read Czechoslovakian. As you can see I hide nothing of these matters, my ideas are a public record and I only hope others can benefit. I always cite any sources I use (not the illustrations the address can be obtained from the properties) and never plagiarize other than properly referenced quotes. I write everything else and I use only my own ideas except when I see a really good one and like any "true" scientist I "absorb" it but I give the reference and the paper can usually be downloaded in it's entirety.

I have seen one animation of yours which is quite good (I think). It appeared to be Special Relativity related and showed what appeared to be retarded potentials. There was another one that accompanied it... I could not quite understand, but neither had any explanation. At the time I did ask but you did not reply. There are too many threads on too many topics, I often visit a thread and see what I have written because I have forgotten the entire matter.. Without your explanation in some of your threads I am unable to account for what you are trying to point out. I have seen a number of interesting animations but I am unable to make any conclusions from them. It is probable that I am not thinking along your lines. I am "warming" to the idea of "branes" behaving like "bubbles" from a certain point of view. The bubble analogy is necessary because bubbles are cavities and are "inside out". This ties into the Fourier ideas I am trying to incorporate into this concept of reciprocal space, reciprocal time (frequency) as a parameterization in the local domains. In other ways this analogy is totally inadequate being lower dimensional. I am still thinking about all that.

I wish you could put your points the same way I put my points. These things I have been saying for as long as I have been on this forum. I have made over a thousand recorded submissions and that is "after" the loss of all my previous posts in December last year. The ideas are under continuous development though. You do good work but I cannot comment until you clarify some of your points. Honest... I don't quite "get it" yet!

As for my ideas I am the only one I know with this kind of theory and I am committed to it because I think it has the "right stuff". If not... I have allowed it to be "testable" from the bottom up unlike "other" more standard String Theories which cannot be presently tested. As such I am often the only one actually defending it too. Any criticism I deal with quite seriously except when it is an "ad hominem" attack on me personally. None of us have time to deal with that sort of thing so it is a problem.

What I will say is this that when you said this you were dead right...

I am still not keen on "ether" though.

Cheers