4 ms·
I had assumed it is by definition instant? Surely anything else would imply a mechanism with additional complexity and indirectly void the entire concept. Dela
by Havoc 2y ago
I had assumed it is by definition instant?
Surely anything else would imply a mechanism with additional complexity and indirectly void the entire concept. Delayed entanglement effect doesn't quite have the same cleanness for lack of better word
- bl0rg 2y agoReality doesn't necessarily agree with its model though, so it makes sense to verify?
- nickpsecurity 2y agoWe model reality incorrectly all the time. A lot of math was wrong, too. So, it’s always good to test the models. In security, we also tested in normal, abnormal, and hostile environments.
- he0001 2y agoEinstein’s relativity theory is a model that is quite fundamental, are there wrong parts of it as well? Asking not as challenge, more out of interest.
- ThrowAaaaway 2y agoYes, of course, 100 year old theories start to crack, because of all new data discovered recently, but we are far from a new theory to take it place. Pilot wate theory is slowly move in, for example. In 20-50 years it may predict reality better in some cases than existing theories.
- coupdejarnac 2y agoThis seems to come up in every discussion of quantum entanglement. It doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. Information can't travel faster than c. No need to worry about Trisolarans.
- ziofill 2y agoIf "it" = information, then sure. But the collapse of the quantum state is instantaneous.
- Filligree 2y agoOnly in theories where it collapses, and nobody seriously thinks Copenhagen is correct these days.
- seanw444 2y agoI thought information could only travel as fast as light because that was fastest medium we're currently aware of that can carry information. But that doesn't necessarily preclude other, faster mediums from existing, no?
- krapp 2y agoNo. It's an absolute, inviolable, universal limit on any and all interactions in the universe. It was recently confirmed that even gravitational waves are limited to the speed of light. This (and the Fermi Paradox) are the strongest evidence that faster than light travel or communication of any kind is impossible. We just call it the "speed of light" because it's the speed that massless particles (like photons) travel at in a vacuum.
- ThrowAaaaway 2y agoOk, but why?
- cyberax 2y agoNot quite. There are two speeds in relativity: the maximum speed and non-maximum speeds (i.e. everything else). It just so happens that light travels at the maximum speed. Supra-luminal signals will almost necessarily imply that it's possible to violate causality by arranging a series of supra-luminal communications. Not every supra-luminal communication violates causality, but it's hard to think of a way to build a consistent theory that would both preclude causality violations and permit at least some supra-luminal signaling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- contravariant 2y agoWell you could imagine seeing a process that causes entanglement and just trying to halt this process somehow. Before a certain time you would simply see no entanglement at all and after some time you wouldn't see any effect on the entanglement. In between something might happen, but what exactly is a bit hard to tell. None of this is beyond current models though, so I imagine you could predict the results quite well if the calculations were feasible. And if that can be done then that's probably exactly what they did.
- mr_toad 2y agoThe simulations are investigating how long quantum entanglements take to form, not how long it takes for non-local action / pilot wave / wave function collapse (if you subscribe to these views of QM) to propagate. (There is a theory in which non-local variables propagate at superluminal speeds, but not instantaneously, but this is a whole other matter).
- deepfriedchokes 2y agoMight I ask, what is this theory of superluminal non-local variables? I would love to read more about it.
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoWhat does instant mean in a relativistic universe? Does it imply there is a simultaneous now for both entangled things?
- loa_in_ 2y agoIt would imply faster than light communication between particles, but as someone else said, models are only models. Faster than light communication is impossible for us to achieve, no reason to assume there's not a way that's inaccessible to us.
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoIt's not the speed I am interested in; it's that relativity says there is no such thing as a simultaneous now (for things in different reference frames anyway).
- zacmps 2y agoSight correction, at least in my understanding (physics major but only undergrad) this explicitly isn't communication. It's not possible to use entanglement to transmit information faster than light, even though the entanglement itself could be simultaneous.
- gpsx 2y agoIt looks like they measured the time of the process where the entanglement occurred, not a time of entanglement itself. I guess they can use this to put an upper bound on the time for entanglement, which is a valid thing to do for an instantaneous process.