Patrick Reany
20 April 2023
Patrick: Can you explain by what subtle reasoning physicists use to claim that spooky action
at a distance during the measurement of entangled particles does not violate the special theory
of relativity?
BingChat: According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action
at a distance violates the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information1.
However, physicists use subtle reasoning to claim that spooky action at a distance during
the measurement of entangled particles does not violate the special theory of relativity2.The key point is that entangled particles do not carry information3. The entangled particles
are in a superposition of states until they are measured3. When one particle is measured,
it collapses into one state and the other particle collapses into the opposite state3. The
measurement of one particle does not determine the state of the other particle3. Therefore,
there is no information transfer between the particles3.I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Reference #1: Action at a distance from Wikipedia.
Reference #2: https://www.livescience.com/56076-entangled-particles-remain-spooky.html
Reference #3: https://theconversation.com/what-is-quantum-entanglement-a-physicist
-explains-the-science-of-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-191927
Patrick: As I see it, there are two ways to deal with this conflict. First, and mostly popular with
today's physicists, is to insist that the process of quantum entanglement measurement lies
somehow outside of the domain of special relativity (hence, no violation of it). The second,
and unpopular way, is to admit that quantum entanglement measurement admits to being
a rare type of exception within the domain of special relativity. My problem with either of
these means of dealing with this problem is that they seem to relegate the solution to pure
semantics, i.e., how does one define such relevant terms like 'signal', 'communication',
'action at a distance', and perhaps others. So, depending on how one defines those terms,
one can find a resolution to the problem of whether or not quantum entanglement measurement
really does violate special relativity or not. Or, am I wrong about this? Is this really more
than a mere semantic issue?BingChat: You are correct that there is a semantic issue in defining terms like 'signal',
'communication', and 'action at a distance'. However, physicists have been able to show that
quantum entanglement does not violate special relativity.The key point is that entangled particles do not carry information. The entangled
particles are in a superposition of states until they are measured. When one particle
is measured, it collapses into one state and the other particle collapses into the opposite
state. The measurement of one particle does not determine the state of the other particle.
Therefore, there is no information transfer between the particles.I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Afterthoughts: Apparently I left out the magic term from my list: 'information', though I
don't think it would have mattered. Of course BingChat is defending the majority view, as
I would expect it to. The problem I have with its reply is that the claim that 'entangled
particles do not carry information' seems a bit glib and ill-defined. What exactly does
that claim how to do with the special theory of relativity, per se, and technically?One last question to BingChat: Do entangled particles carry anything?
BingChat: Entangled particles do not carry information. The entangled particles are in a
superposition of states until they are measured. When one particle is measured,
it collapses into one state and the other particle collapses into the opposite state.
The measurement of one particle does not determine the state of the other particle.
Therefore, there is no information transfer between the particles.I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Well, I see we have a long way to go to resolve all these semantic issues. For example,
is BingChat claiming that entangled particles carry (send) something between them?
21 April 2023: How do we know that entangled particles do not carry information?
I'm continuing the conversation the next day.
Okay, it's time to really challenge BingChat!
Patrick: I have a thought experiment to ask you about on quantum entanglement.
BingChat: Sure! I’m happy to help you with that. What’s your thought experimentPatrick: Alice, in her physics lab on Alpha Centauri, is to perform a series of 1000 measurements of
on quantum entanglement?
pairs of entangled electrons (for spin orientations). Every time she makes a measurement, she records a
zero for spin up and a 1 for spin down. In Bob's lab is the other half of the 1000 pairs of entangled
electrons. He has decided to use the results of Alice making measurements on the electrons at her
location as a means of forming a list of 1000 random zeros and ones (obtaining a 0 for each of her 1's,
and a 1 for each of her 0's). Now, once the 1000 measurements has been completed, Alice has, in effect
send Bob what he wanted: a list of random zeros and ones, 1000 binary digits long. That list constitutes
information sent faster than light between the two star systems. So I ask, has Alice succeeded in sending
superluminal 'information' to Bob by means of quantum entanglement measurements?BingChat: Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two particles can become entangled
and share a quantum state such that the state of each particle cannot be described independently
of the other1. Recent experiments have shown that the quantum entanglement information transfer
occurs at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light2. However, it is important to note
that even with quantum teleportation and the existence of entangled quantum states, faster-than-light
communication still remains impossible3.In your thought experiment, Alice has not succeeded in sending superluminal 'information'
to Bob by means of quantum entanglement measurements3. The reason for this is that Alice
cannot control which measurement outcome she will get when she measures her electron's spin
orientation. Therefore, she cannot use this method to send any specific message to Bob4. Instead,
Bob will receive a list of random zeros and ones which he can use for cryptographic purposes4.
My comment: The fact that Alice could not effect the outcome of any of the measurements is a key
ingredient to the paradoxical nature of the thought experiment. For comparison, let's set up an even
simpler thought experiment: If I had a list of 1000 random zeros and ones on a piece of paper and
handed it to my coworker in the next room (on his or her request), would I not be transferring
information to him or her? And if so, why is this list sent from Alice to Bob any different? Maybe
this is at the heart of the question. Why is randomnesss always the opposite of information? Maybe
in some cases, it isn't!Patrick: If I had a list of 1000 random zeros and ones on a piece of paper and handed it to
my coworker in the next room (on his or her request), would I not be transferring information
to him or her?
BingChat: Yes, you would be transferring information to your coworker in the next room.
However, this is not superluminal 'information' transfer as it is limited by the speed
of light. In contrast, quantum entanglement information transfer occurs at least 10,000 times
faster than the speed of light.In your thought experiment with Alice and Bob, Alice has not succeeded in sending superluminal
'information' to Bob by means of quantum entanglement measurements. The reason for this is that
Alice cannot control which measurement outcome she will get when she measures her electron's spin
orientation. Therefore, she cannot use this method to send any specific message to Bob. Instead,
Bob will receive a list of random zeros and ones which he can use for cryptographic purposes.
My comment: Well, I see three possibilities at BingChat's reply. First, it's just being stubborn.
Seccond, it simply missed the point I was trying to make (which a human might have also have missed).
Third, I could just be wrong.Now, I'm quite willing to be convinced that BingChat and the majority of physicists are right that quantum
entanglement measurement is not a violation of special relativity because no 'information' is being sent,
but I have to be convinced by a convincing argument. So far, I haven't been given a convincing argument,
either by BingChat or in the literature. But I've only just begun to research this topic. Maybe someday
I'll find such an argument. But I don't understand what the big deal is. Don't disant galaxies move faster
than the speed of light? Doesn't Feyman's sum-over-all-paths electrodynamics employ superluminal
paths of integration?The way I see it so far, whether or not quantum entanglement measurement is a violation of special relativity
is more a matter of personal taste and semantics than 'reality'. What I feel the argument really comes
down to is 'Spooky semantics at a distance'!Okay, now for my scoring of BingChat's performance at facts and reasoning: I give it five points out
of five! After all, it was no more stubborn and prejudiced than a typical human being would be on
this same topic.