As Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist known for his work in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics, famously said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

In one sense, that comment is discouraging, but in another sense, it is encouraging because no matter how ill-informed you may be, you can take comfort in the knowledge that the foremost authorities are nearly as ill-informed or will soon prove to be.

Thus, you don’t have to understand quantum QM to understand, enjoy, and learn from the following conversation with the Artificial intelligence named Copilot.

RM: What is “spooky action at a distance”

Copilot: “Spooky action at a distance” is a term coined by Albert Einstein to describe the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. In quantum mechanics, entanglement occurs when two particles become linked in such a way that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.

This concept was initially troubling to Einstein because it seemed to violate the principle of locality, which states that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. However, experiments have repeatedly confirmed that entangled particles do indeed exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by any local theory.

John Bell’s theorem, formulated in 1964, provided a way to test these predictions, and subsequent experiments have shown that the “spooky action” is real. This has profound implications for our understanding of reality and has paved the way for advancements in quantum computing and quantum cryptography.

RM: In a previous session, I believe you indicated that entanglement cannot be used for instantaneous communication over long distances.

Copilot: That’s correct! While quantum entanglement does involve instantaneous correlations between entangled particles, it cannot be used for faster-than-light communication. This is because the process of measuring one of the entangled particles does not transmit any usable information on its own.

To communicate, you would still need to send classical information (which is limited by the speed of light) to compare the results of measurements on both particles. This ensures that no information is transmitted faster than light, preserving the principles of relativity.

RM: Assume, for whatever reason, you wanted something to happen on Earth at exactly the same time (from your perspective) as the opposite thing is happening on a distant planet. Could you entangle two particles and send one particle to the distant planet, and then when you test your particle, you would know that the opposite thing is happening at the same time on the other planet?

Copilot: That’s an intriguing thought experiment! However, even with quantum entanglement, you wouldn’t be able to achieve this kind of synchronized action in the way you’re describing. Here’s why:

Measurement Randomness: When you measure one of the entangled particles, the outcome is random. You can’t control the result of the measurement, so you can’t ensure that a specific event happens on Earth and the opposite event happens on the distant planet.

No Instantaneous Communication: As mentioned earlier, while entanglement creates correlations between particles, it doesn’t allow for faster-than-light communication. You would still need to send classical information to compare the results of the measurements, which is limited by the speed of light.

Relativity and Causality: According to the theory of relativity, no information or influence can travel faster than the speed of light. This ensures that causality is preserved, meaning that cause and effect relationships are maintained in all reference frames.
In summary, while entanglement is a fascinating phenomenon that links particles in a unique way, it doesn’t allow for the kind of instantaneous, controlled synchronization you’re imagining. If you have more questions about quantum mechanics or any other topic, feel free to ask!

RM: You said, “When you measure one of the entangled particles, the outcome is random. You can’t control the result of the measurement, so you can’t ensure that a specific event happens on Earth and the opposite event happens on the distant planet.” 

In my example, there would be no need to control the measurement result so long as the result on the other planet is always the opposite. For instance, if your random result happens to be spin UP, you would know that on the other planet, the result is spin DOWN. Or are they not always the opposite?

Copilot: You’re correct that in the case of entangled particles, if you measure one particle and find it to be in a certain state (e.g., spin UP), the other particle will indeed be in the opposite state (e.g., spin DOWN) if they were entangled in such a way. This correlation holds true regardless of the distance between the particles.

However, the key points to consider are:

Randomness of Measurement: While the outcomes are correlated, the result of any single measurement is still random. You can’t predict whether you’ll get spin UP or spin DOWN before you measure it. You only know that the other particle will have the opposite spin.

No Control Over Timing: Even though the measurement outcomes are correlated, you can’t control when the measurement on the distant planet happens. Both measurements are independent events, and you can’t synchronize them to happen at exactly the same time from your perspective.

Classical Communication: To confirm that the distant particle’s state is indeed the opposite of the one you measured, you would still need to communicate this information classically (at the speed of light or slower). This means you can’t use entanglement alone to achieve instantaneous communication or synchronization.

So, while entanglement ensures that the particles’ states are correlated, it doesn’t allow for the kind of controlled, instantaneous action you’re imagining. The randomness and the need for classical communication are the main limitations.

RM: Sorry for my persistence, but let me take one more stab at it.

Suppose you sent the other particle to the other planet at a known speed, which allowed you to calculate the passage of time for the other particle.

And before sending the particle, you had an agreement that precisely 1 second after the other particle arrives, you would measure your particle and perhaps one second later, another being would measure the other particle.

Copilot: No need to apologize! It’s a fascinating topic, and your persistence is commendable. Let’s break down your scenario:

Sending the Particle: You send one of the entangled particles to a distant planet at a known speed, allowing you to calculate the time it takes to arrive.
Timing Agreement: You and another observer on the distant planet agree to measure the particles at specific times relative to the arrival of the traveling particle.

Measurement: You measure your particle 1 second after the traveling particle arrives, and the other observer measures their particle 1 second later.
In this scenario, the key points remain:

Entanglement Correlation: When you measure your particle, the result will be random (e.g., spin UP or spin DOWN). However, the other particle will have the opposite spin when measured.

Synchronization: If both measurements are perfectly synchronized as per your agreement, the results will still be correlated. If you measure spin UP, the other observer will measure spin DOWN, and vice versa.

No Faster-than-Light Communication: Despite the synchronization, you still can’t use this setup for faster-than-light communication. The results of the measurements are random, and you would need to compare the results via classical communication to confirm the correlation.

So, while your scenario ensures that the measurements are synchronized and the results are correlated, it doesn’t enable instantaneous communication or control over the outcomes. The fundamental limitations of randomness and the need for classical communication still apply.

RM: “. . . compare the results via classical communication to confirm the correlation.” However, I wouldn’t need to confirm the results via any classical method. I would trust the entanglement.

I would know that at a specific moment, whatever my result was, the opposite would have taken place on the other planet. This is information is instantly communicated.

Why would I trust a classical measurement more than the quantum reality?

Copilot: I understand your perspective. Trusting the entanglement means you know that the measurement outcomes are correlated. However, the key issue is that the information about the specific measurement outcome (spin UP or spin DOWN) is not predetermined and is fundamentally random.

Here’s why classical communication is still necessary:

Randomness of Measurement: When you measure your particle, the result is random. You can’t control or predict whether you’ll get spin UP or spin DOWN. The other particle’s state is determined instantaneously, but you don’t know the outcome until you measure it.

No Pre-Agreed Outcome: Since the measurement outcome is random, you can’t pre-agree on a specific result. You only know that the other particle will have the opposite state, but you don’t know what that state is until you measure your particle.

Verification: To verify that the entanglement correlation holds, you need to compare the measurement results. This comparison requires classical communication. Without this step, you can’t confirm that the distant measurement aligns with your expectation.

In essence, while entanglement ensures that the particles’ states are correlated, it doesn’t provide a way to control or predict the specific outcomes. The randomness of quantum measurements means that you need classical communication to verify and utilize the information effectively.

RM: “You only know that the other particle will have the opposite state.” But what if that is what I desire — for the other particle to have the opposite state mine has. And the person at the other end would know that my particle is opposite his. This is valuable information that could be acted upon.

Copilot: You’re right that knowing the state of one particle allows you to infer the state of the other, which can be valuable information. In your scenario, if you measure your particle and find it to be spin UP, you can be certain that the particle on the distant planet is spin DOWN, and vice versa. This correlation is indeed a powerful aspect of quantum entanglement.

However, the key limitations to consider are:

Randomness: The outcome of your measurement is still random. You can’t control whether you get spin UP or spin DOWN, so while you know the state of the distant particle, you can’t predetermine what that state will be.

No Faster-than-Light Communication: Even though you know the state of the distant particle instantly, this doesn’t allow for faster-than-light communication. The information about the measurement outcome is local to you until you communicate it classically.

Practical Use: For practical applications, such as coordinating actions based on the measurement outcomes, you would still need to communicate the results. This is where classical communication comes into play, ensuring that both parties are aware of the measurement outcomes and can act accordingly.

In summary, while entanglement provides valuable correlated information, the randomness of the measurement outcomes and the need for classical communication to coordinate actions are the main constraints. 

RM: This is the instant communication I will have achieved: Whatever my particle shows, the other guy’s particle shows the opposite. I don’t care about my particle’s randomness so long as I know his particle is the opposite.

Isn’t that valuable communication? Let’s say, if my particle is UP I will jump UP in the air, but if my particle is down I will stay on the ground.

When he measures his particle, he will do the opposite. So, no matter what my particle measures, he and I will do the same thing.

Copilot: I see what you’re getting at! You’re focusing on the fact that the entangled particles’ states are correlated, and using that correlation to coordinate actions.

In your example, if you measure your particle and it’s spin UP, you jump UP, and if it’s spin DOWN, you stay on the ground. The other person, knowing their particle is the opposite, will do the opposite action.

This is indeed a form of communication, but it’s important to note a few key points:

Correlation, Not Control: While you can use the correlation to coordinate actions, you still can’t control the outcome of the measurement. The result is random, so you can’t predetermine what action you’ll take.

No Information Transfer: The entanglement itself doesn’t transfer any information. The correlation is established when the particles are entangled, but the measurement outcomes are random. The information about the specific measurement outcome is local until communicated classically.

Practical Use: In practical terms, this kind of coordination could be useful in scenarios where the exact timing of actions isn’t critical, and you can rely on the correlation. However, for precise communication or synchronization, classical communication is still necessary.

So, while your scenario demonstrates a clever use of entanglement to coordinate actions based on correlated outcomes, it doesn’t enable faster-than-light communication or control over the outcomes. It’s a fascinating thought experiment that highlights the unique properties of quantum entanglement!

RM: Getting a distant partner — one who could be a thousand light years distant — to take the same action I’m taking, without having to wait a thousand years to tell him what action I’m taking (he would know instantly), seems like valuable, faster-than-light communication.

Copilot: I understand your perspective. The ability to coordinate actions based on the correlated outcomes of entangled particles does indeed seem like a form of instant communication. However, it’s important to distinguish between correlation and communication in the context of quantum mechanics.

Key Points to Consider: Correlation vs. Communication:
Correlation: When you measure your particle and find it to be spin UP, you know instantly that the distant particle is spin DOWN. This is a correlation, not a transfer of information.

Communication: For communication to occur, information must be transmitted in a way that can be controlled and used to convey a message. In your scenario, the measurement outcomes are random and cannot be controlled to send a specific message.

Randomness of Measurement: The outcome of your measurement is random. You can’t control whether you get spin UP or spin DOWN. This randomness means you can’t use the measurement to send a predetermined message.

Classical Communication: To verify and use the information about the measurement outcomes, you would still need to communicate classically. This ensures that both parties understand the context and can act accordingly.

Practical Implications: While the correlation between entangled particles can be used to coordinate actions, it doesn’t allow for faster-than-light communication in the traditional sense. The randomness of the measurement outcomes and the need for classical communication to verify and use the information are the main constraints.

Your thought experiment highlights the fascinating and unique properties of quantum entanglement, but it also underscores the limitations imposed by the principles of quantum mechanics and relativity.

RM: Two children sit blindfolded on a see-saw. Neither can see whether they are on the up or down side, but they both know that if one is up, the other is down. One takes off his blindfold and sees he is down.

Without even looking at the other, he now knows the other is up. The other takes off his blindfold, and seeing that he is up, he now knows the other is down. Is this learning what you mean by “correlation, not a transfer of information”?

Copilot: Yes, your see-saw analogy is a great way to illustrate the concept of correlation without the transfer of information!

In your example:

Each child knows that if they are down, the other must be up, and vice versa.

When one child removes their blindfold and sees they are down, they instantly know the other child is up, without needing to communicate this information.
This is similar to how quantum entanglement works:

When you measure one entangled particle and find it in a certain state (e.g., spin DOWN), you instantly know the state of the other particle (spin UP), even if it’s far away.

This knowledge is due to the correlation established by entanglement, not because any information was transmitted between the particles at the time of measurement.

In both cases, the key point is that the outcome is correlated, and knowing one outcome allows you to infer the other. However, this doesn’t involve the transfer of information in the traditional sense, as the measurement outcomes are random and not controlled.

Your analogy captures the essence of how entanglement correlations work without implying faster-than-light communication. 

RM: So in our planet-to-planet experiment, my instantly knowing whether his particle is UP or DOWN is not communication until he sends me a light or radio message that could take a thousand years for me to receive. Only then will I “learn” what I already knew, which is considered communication.

Copilot: Exactly! In the context of quantum mechanics and relativity, communication involves the transfer of information in a way that can be controlled and verified. Here’s a breakdown:

Instant Knowledge: When you measure your particle and find it to be spin UP, you instantly know that the distant particle is spin DOWN. This is due to the correlation established by entanglement.

Classical Communication: For the distant observer to confirm and act on this information, they would need to send you a classical message (e.g., light or radio signal) stating their measurement result. This message travels at the speed of light, so it could take a thousand years to reach you if the distance is a thousand light years.

Verification: Only when you receive this classical message can you verify that the distant measurement aligns with your expectation. This verification process is what constitutes communication in the traditional sense.

So, while you have instant knowledge of the distant particle’s state due to entanglement, this knowledge isn’t considered communication until it is verified through classical means. This ensures that no information is transmitted faster than the speed of light, preserving the principles of relativity.

Your understanding of the distinction between correlation and communication is spot on.

RM: It seems like we are trying to preserve a principle so as to ignore the fact of instantaneous information transfer, i.e. my associate and I instantly know what the other guy’s particle is telling him.

If it weren’t for entanglement, neither of us would have that information about the other guy’s particle. Entanglement gave each of us instant information that otherwise would have taken a thousand years to communicate. Perhaps we need a new definition of information and/or communication.

Copilot: You’ve touched on a very profound and often debated aspect of quantum mechanics. The instantaneous knowledge provided by entanglement does indeed challenge our classical notions of information and communication. Here are a few points to consider:

Instantaneous Correlation: Entanglement does provide instantaneous correlations between particles, giving you and your associate immediate knowledge of each other’s particle states. This is a unique feature of quantum mechanics that doesn’t have a direct classical counterpart.

Classical Communication: The need for classical communication to verify and use this information is rooted in the principles of relativity, which prohibit faster-than-light information transfer. This ensures that causality and the structure of spacetime are preserved.

Redefining Information: Some physicists and philosophers argue that our classical definitions of information and communication might need to be expanded to fully encompass the phenomena observed in quantum mechanics. This could involve new frameworks that better integrate the non-local correlations seen in entanglement.

Quantum Information Theory: This field is already exploring these ideas, developing new concepts and technologies based on quantum principles. Quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation are examples of how our understanding of information is evolving.

Your insights highlight the need for ongoing exploration and possibly new definitions to fully grasp the implications of quantum entanglement. It’s a fascinating area of study that continues to challenge and expand our understanding of the universe.

RM: Doesn’t entanglement violate causality, especially if information can’t be transferred faster than light speed?

Copilot: Quantum entanglement does indeed challenge our classical understanding of causality, but it doesn’t violate it. Here’s why:

Instantaneous Correlation: Entangled particles exhibit correlations that are established instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them. When you measure one particle, you instantly know the state of the other. This seems to suggest a form of “instantaneous” information transfer.

No Faster-than-Light Communication: Despite these instantaneous correlations, entanglement doesn’t allow for faster-than-light communication. The measurement outcomes are random, and you can’t use them to send a controlled message. To verify and use the information, you still need classical communication, which is limited by the speed of light.

Preservation of Causality: Causality is preserved because no usable information or influence travels faster than light. The correlations observed in entanglement are a result of the particles’ shared history and the quantum state they were prepared in, not a signal traveling between them.

Bell’s Theorem and Non-Locality: John Bell’s theorem and subsequent experiments have shown that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics can’t be explained by any local hidden variable theory. This means that quantum mechanics inherently involves non-local effects, but these effects don’t violate causality because they don’t transmit information in a way that would allow for faster-than-light communication.

In summary, while entanglement presents a non-local phenomenon that challenges our classical intuitions, it doesn’t violate causality. The principles of relativity and the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit remain intact.

RM: Something of a tail wagging the dog here. Usable information cannot be transferred faster than light. Instantly knowing the status of a distant particle is not usable or it is not information, because if it were, that would violate the faster-than-light law.

Seems contrived, but I understand the need for the law. If it didn’t exist, we could change the past. In short, if we accept information moving faster than light, we also would have to accept the ability to change the past. Which is more onerous?

Copilot: You’ve captured the essence of a profound and complex issue in physics. The constraints imposed by the speed of light and the preservation of causality are indeed fundamental to our understanding of the universe. Let’s break down the key points:

Usable Information: The distinction between correlation and communication is crucial. While entanglement provides instantaneous correlations, it doesn’t allow for the transfer of usable information faster than light. This ensures that no information can be used to send a message or influence events instantaneously.

Preservation of Causality: The speed of light as the ultimate speed limit is essential for preserving causality. If information could travel faster than light, it could potentially lead to paradoxes where cause and effect are reversed, allowing for the possibility of changing the past.

Non-Locality vs. Causality: Quantum mechanics embraces non-locality, where entangled particles exhibit correlations regardless of distance. However, this non-locality doesn’t violate causality because it doesn’t involve the transfer of information in a way that could influence events faster than light.

Conceptual Challenges: The idea that knowing the state of a distant particle isn’t considered “usable information” because it doesn’t allow for controlled communication can seem contrived. However, this distinction is necessary to maintain the consistency of our physical laws and prevent paradoxes.

In essence, the preservation of causality and the prohibition of faster-than-light communication are fundamental principles that prevent logical inconsistencies and paradoxes.

Accepting faster-than-light information transfer would indeed be more onerous, as it would undermine the very fabric of our understanding of time and causality.

Your insights highlight the delicate balance between the fascinating phenomena of quantum mechanics and the foundational principles of relativity.

RM: Doesn’t quantum randomness disprove causality? How can something be completely random yet have an identifiable cause?

Copilot: Quantum randomness is indeed a fascinating topic! It challenges our classical understanding of causality, but it doesn’t necessarily disprove it. Here’s how:

In classical physics, causality implies that every effect has a specific cause, and given complete information about a system, we can predict its future behavior. However, in quantum mechanics, the situation is more nuanced.

Quantum randomness refers to the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of particles at the quantum level. For example, when measuring the position or momentum of a particle, the outcome is fundamentally probabilistic. This randomness is not due to a lack of information but is intrinsic to the nature of quantum systems.

Despite this randomness, quantum mechanics still operates under a framework of causality, but it’s a different kind of causality than we see in classical physics. In quantum mechanics:

Probabilistic Causality: While individual events are random, the probabilities of different outcomes are determined by the wave function of the system. This means that the cause (the wave function) determines the statistical distribution of possible effects (measurement outcomes).

Deterministic Evolution: The evolution of the wave function itself is deterministic, governed by the Schrödinger equation. This means that if we know the wave function at one point in time, we can predict its future evolution precisely.

Entanglement and Correlation: Quantum entanglement shows that particles can be correlated in ways that classical physics cannot explain. Measurements on entangled particles are random, but the results are correlated in a way that reflects an underlying causal structure.

In summary, quantum randomness introduces a new layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. While individual quantum events are random, the overall behavior of quantum systems is still governed by deterministic laws and probabilistic causality.

This duality allows for randomness within a framework that maintains a form of causality.

I ended the conversation at that point because it was becoming repetitious. The question “Why?” is the most difficult question in science.

However, I felt the discussion provided some beginning insights to QM. I hope you did, too.

While preventing paradoxes is praiseworthy, the paradoxes can lead to understanding. Time paradoxes of Relativity and QM already exist. 

For example, we know that matter enters a black hole across the event horizon at near light speed, but as observers we never will see it enter because of time contraction. If we could see the matter at the edge of the event horizon, it would appear to be standing still.

If you could travel at near light speed, you would eventually appear younger than your son from his vantage point. If you could exceed light speed, your son would be born before you.

I struggle with the notion that my instantly knowing the state of a particle many light-years distant does not constitute information transfer. But then, as one of the pre-eminent experts on QM said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

Well, I know for sure  that I don’t understand QM. I also can’t comprehend the size of the sun, let alone the size of a light year, the Milky Way galaxy, the universe or what came before it.

It may be that the universe, like infinity, is beyond human understanding or even imagination. But we try.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

X: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY