time travel using entanglement

@metal-brain said
Lemon lime did not say "as if".

Nothing is instantaneous.

He said "as though" which is close enough.

@metal-brain said
Lemon lime did not say "as if".

Nothing is instantaneous.

What I said was "as though the two are physically connected".

There's no perfect way of saying it, but "as though" and "as if" pretty much mean the same thing. There is zero time delay between cause and effect ( or as DT said, "correlation" ), and "instantaneous" is the best term for describing zero time delay.
I'm not claiming to understand how this works, because I don't. Entangled particles behaving as though the space between them doesn't exist doesn't mean the space between them doesn't exist... but then again, maybe for entangled particles the space we perceive between them doesn't exist.


spooky, eh?

@lemon-lime said
What I said was "as though the two are physically connected".

There's no perfect way of saying it, but "as though" and "as if" pretty much mean the same thing. There is zero time delay between cause and effect ( or as DT said, "correlation" ), and "instantaneous" is the best term for describing zero time delay.
I'm not claiming to understand how this works, beca ...[text shortened]... ngled[/i] particles the space we perceive between them doesn't exist.


spooky, eh?

The distinction between "cause and effect" and "correlation" is crucial here, because as it turns out you can't actually violate causality using entanglement even though it is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

@kazetnagorra said
The distinction between "cause and effect" and "correlation" is crucial here, because as it turns out you can't actually violate causality using entanglement even though it is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Okay, ya got me there. I'm undoubtedly using 'causality' in the wrong way, but this is because I'm wondering how entanglement works. There doesn't appear to be any physical link (transmission or exchange of information) so all we really have is evidence (correlation) to show the particles are indeed 'entangled'.
But in spite of there being no physical link, the word 'entanglement' suggests they (the particles) are linked in some way. If we are looking at particles not entangled we see no evidence of influence between the two (no correlation suggesting entanglement).

It's for this reason I'm wondering if there might be something about the space separating entangled particles we don't yet know.
It's as though (or as if) the space we see between those particles has become null and void... and by this I'm suggesting maybe, from the particles pov, there is no separation.

@deepthought said
He said "as though" which is close enough.

No, he did not say that either.

@metal-brain said
No, he did not say that either.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/time-travel-using-entanglement.183915/page-5

"Two entangled particles behave as though they are side by side and physically connected. It's like you turning the door knob of your front door, and as you do so the door knob on the house across the street turns, as though the two are physically connected. " (lemon lime quote. My emphasis)

@lemon-lime said
Okay, ya got me there. I'm undoubtedly using 'causality' in the wrong way, but this is because I'm wondering how entanglement works. There doesn't appear to be any physical link (transmission or exchange of information) so all we really have is evidence (correlation) to show the particles are indeed 'entangled'.
But in spite of there being no physical link, the wor ...[text shortened]... e null and void... and by this I'm suggesting maybe, from the particles pov, there is no separation.

There are some speculative ideas that space-time could be an emergent phenomenon. This roughly translates into ordinary language as the distance between objects we observe is due to the strength of the coupling between them. We could go on to speculate that entanglement in this type of picture sort of involves the effective distance associated with one quantity being out of kilter with the effective distance due to the other quantity. In the EPR experiment this would be the energy of the photons and the spin. Take this with a pinch of salt as it's something I thought of as I was typing so it shouldn't to be taken too seriously.

@humy said
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/time-travel-using-entanglement.183915/page-5

"Two entangled particles behave as though they are side by side and physically connected. It's like you turning the door knob of your front door, and as you do so the door knob on the house across the street turns, as though the two are physically connected. " (lemon lime quote. My emphasis)

Wrong context. He did NOT say "as though instantaneous". The quote you are pointing to does not say instantaneous at all.

As though physically connected is what he said, NOT as though instantaneous.

@deepthought said
There are some speculative ideas that space-time could be an emergent phenomenon. This roughly translates into ordinary language as the distance between objects we observe is due to the strength of the coupling between them. We could go on to speculate that entanglement in this type of picture sort of involves the effective distance associated with one quantity being ou ...[text shortened]... ch of salt as it's something I thought of as I was typing so it shouldn't to be taken too seriously.

"Take this with a pinch of salt"

Same here, because at this point all I can do is spitball. Such as, maybe there is a line of infuence or information instantaneously imparted through a non-spatial 5th dimensional plane... a shortcut through space, if you will.

And that's not the craziest idea I've come up with today. I have a few more, but I'll keep them under my 🎩 for the time being.

@metal-brain said
Wrong context. He did NOT say "as though instantaneous".

"as though" was said and "as though instantaneous" was implied.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/implied

You are just stupidly angrily arguing the toss over trivial sematic to try in vain to show you have intellectual superiority and you don't even have any intellectual superiority nor science credentials nor any better understanding of any part of science than the scientists and science experts here nor in fact even over most laypeople. You fool nobody here and are just making yourself look completely stupid to all here.

@lemon-lime said
Okay, ya got me there. I'm undoubtedly using 'causality' in the wrong way, but this is because I'm wondering how entanglement works. There doesn't appear to be any physical link (transmission or exchange of information) so all we really have is evidence (correlation) to show the particles are indeed 'entangled'.
But in spite of there being no physical link, the wor ...[text shortened]... e null and void... and by this I'm suggesting maybe, from the particles pov, there is no separation.

In terms of the mathematical formalism, it is clear how entanglement works and we understand it pretty well from that perspective - as I mentioned, it easily emerges from any many-body description of quantum mechanics. Historically, it was thought (by Einstein et al.) that entanglement could violate causality, but we now know that it doesn't. It may sound "spooky" but really there is no paradox to resolve here anymore.

@kazetnagorra said
In terms of the mathematical formalism, it is clear how entanglement works and we understand it pretty well from that perspective - as I mentioned, it easily emerges from any many-body description of quantum mechanics. Historically, it was thought (by Einstein et al.) that entanglement could violate causality, but we now know that it doesn't. It may sound "spooky" but really there is no paradox to resolve here anymore.

Okay, so how about this crazy idea...

When two particles become entangled ( "after a time of mutual influence" ) do they become synchronized, so that the action of one will always match the action of the other?
( no need for causality )

@lemon-lime said
Okay, so how about this crazy idea...

When two particles become entangled ( "after a time of mutual influence" ) do they become synchronized, so that the action of one will always match the action of the other?
( no need for causality )

I am not an expert on that but, if I understand it correctly, I think the answer is yes although you may make it a better question if you replace the word "action" above with "states" and replace "synchronized" with something like "locked together in terms of what states they will end up being in from a single future interaction with the external world just at the moment they will cease to be entangled".

@metal-brain said
He did NOT say "as though instantaneous".

It was implied by the context. You are STILL pointlessly arguing the toss over pointless semantics and making no point.