4 ms·
Yes, the Times article does say this. (copied from my response to a similar comment above): But since the 1970s, a series of precise experiments by physicists
by finnh 11y ago
Yes, the Times article does say this.
(copied from my response to a similar comment above):
But since the 1970s, a series of precise experiments by physicists are increasingly erasing doubt — alternative explanations that are referred to as loopholes — that two previously entangled particles, even if separated by the width of the universe, could instantly communicate.
- tgflynn 11y agoThe problem is with the usage of the word "communicate". Normally communication would mean "transmit information". Quantum entanglement does not allow this. With entangled particles a measurement on one instantly changes the statistical behavior of the other. However there's no way to see this effect until you compare the statistics between the two particles (which probably requires an ensemble of particle pairs to be measured, not just one), so you can't actually use the effect to transmit information. I don't think there's a good English word for the concept of an influence that isn't causal and doesn't transmit information. That's why it's often called "spooky action at a distance" and why attempts to describe it with simple English sentences are likely to lead to confusion.
- duaneb 11y agoYea, communicate is the wrong word. Perhaps "could continue to share state" would be better, but perhaps that would be confusing to the non-quantum-inclined audience.
- snowwrestler 11y agoThat is a different quote, which means a different thing. The quotes you posted above refer to human communications, and don't mention FTL. That's what I responded to. The quote you posted now, is clearly referring to the fact that the particles both react to one measurement instantly, regardless of difference. It makes no mention of people communicating with one another FTL. Edit: I agree with tgflynn that the Times just overloaded the word "communicate."