Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einsteins special theory of relativity

David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen | Scientific Amereican | February 18, 2009



Our intuition, going back forever, is that to move, say, a rock, one has to touch that rock, or touch a stick that touches the rock, or give an order that travels via vibrations through the air to the ear of a man with a stick that can then push the rockor some such sequence. This intuition, more generally, is that things can only directly affect other things that are right next to them. If A affects B without being right next to it, then the effect in question must be indirectthe effect in question must be something that gets transmitted by means of a chain of events in which each event brings about the next one directly, in a manner that smoothly spans the distance from A to B. Every time we think we can come up with an exception to this intuitionsay, flipping a switch that turns on city street lights (but then we realize that this happens through wires) or listening to a BBC radio broadcast (but then we realize that radio waves propagate through the air)it turns out that we have not, in fact, thought of an exception. Not, that is, in our everyday experience of the world.

We term this intuition locality.

Quantum mechanics has upended many an intuition, but none deeper than this one. And this particular upending carries with it a threat, as yet unresolved, to special relativitya foundation stone of our 21st-century physicshttp://synchrospace.com/wordpress/

By the way Anon, which of these areticles claimed that Einstein got relativity wrong?
***********************************

relativity is wrong on issues like ether, because people like you who support relativity cannot give direct answer to whether ether exist "yes" or "no".

cinci: "By the way Anon, which of these areticles (sic) claimed that Einstein got relativity wrong?"

Jose: It's logic, cinci: Either one or the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. Shesh. You profess to be logical?

Jose: It's logic, cinci: Either one or the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. Shesh. You profess to be logical?

cinci: Maybe you'd like to give a logical explanation of this sentence.

Neither article says Einstein is wrong. They say he "may" be wrong. When somebody can give as clear an explanation of entanglement as they can of relativity, get back to me. Right now the supposed violation of relativity is based on the interpretation of a statistical experiment. They claim to have eliminated the possibility of hidden variables in QM, but have they? You can interpret entanglement as proof of hidden variables and that would support relativity and Eisntein's argument against QM's interpretation. The argument that relativity is violated is based on the passage of some sort of signal that nobody can tell you the nature of. I can give you plenty of examples of experiments with light and gravity that support relativity. Can you cite a single experiment that has deteced this QM signal?
*************************************

Such a title sells better:

"Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity"

because it involves people, fear, conflict.

Reading the paper and more information from any textbook or from (1,2) would lead to a more correct tile:

"Quantum entanglement does not violate Special Relativity."


(1)http://www.canal-u.tv/canalu/producteurs/science_en_cours/dossier_programmes/les_nanotechnologies/points_de_vue/alain_aspect

(2)http://www.canal-u.tv/producteurs/universite_de_tous_les_savoirs/dossier_programmes/les_conferences_de_l_annee_2000/des_particules_a_l_antimatiere_la_matiere_et_son_organisation/les_tests_et_effets_de_la_physique_quantique

>>When somebody can give as clear an explanation of entanglement as they can of relativity

no one can give a clear explanation of relativity; some say this some say that.

from
http://www.canal-u.tv/canalu/producteurs/science_en_cours/dossier_programmes/les_nanotechnologies/points_de_vue/alain_aspect

Quantum mechanics dates from the early 20 century. In 1935, Albert Einstein shows that the laws of quantum mechanics allow the formation of intertwined. Two photons, for example, which interacts with each other in the past and then moved away from one another, retain the possibility to exchange information. Any change to a property of a photon is immediately transmitted to the other photon. It is quantum entanglement. For Einstein, no information can be transmitted faster than light, and therefore the quantum formalism must be rejected. Niels Bohr denies that position.

But no experience at that time able to prove the existence or absence of entanglement (or non-locality).

In 1964, physicist John Bell showed that the views of Einstein and Bohr lead to different predictions and it formalizes the result by the famous Bell inequalities. Alain Aspect and his team (Philippe Grangier, Gérard Roger and Jean Dalibard) will succeed in making a source generating pairs of entangled photons, then study their properties. The results obtained (1982) violate the Bell inequalities, meaning that quantum physics to reason. There are indeed many intertwined pairs of particles, ie particles whose properties remain connected regardless of distance. The same two particles separated by several kilometers behave as a single system.

These phenomena have applications in the field of cryptography and computer science (quantum computer).


--- sounds clear enough to me - E got it wrong again.

from

http://www.canal-u.tv/producteurs/universite_de_tous_les_savoirs/dossier_programmes/les_conferences_de_l_annee_2000/des_particules_a_l_antimatiere_la_matiere_et_son_organisation/les_tests_et_effets_de_la_physique_quantique

The tests and the effects of quantum physics
Since its emergence in the 1920s, Quantum Mechanics has stopped physicists call the non-intuitive nature of many of its predictions. We know the intensity of the debate between Bohr and Einstein on this question. The essential character of quantum mechanics at the microscopic level is quickly evident, as this theory provides a coherent description of the structure of matter. However, a doubt could exist on the validity of macroscopic predictions amazing as the wave particle duality, or the correlation distance between particles intertwined. After the publication of Bell inequalities, in 1965, we realized that the predictions of quantum mechanics on distance correlations were inconsistent with the vision of the world (local realism) advocated by Einstein, and it became possible to settle this conflict through experimental tests. The experiences of the last two decades, with pairs of correlated photons have confirmed beyond doubt the correctness of the quantum predictions, and thus the need to give up some images more intuitive advocated by Einstein. These very fundamental work today result in unexpected applications: quantum cryptography, quantum computer ...

cinci: When somebody can give as clear an explanation of entanglement as they can of relativity

Anon: no one can give a clear explanation of relativity; some say this some say that.

cinci: Yes, and it's possible the "some who say this and some say that" are both correct and you just don't understand.

In the case of entanglement, the people who know most about it will tell you they can't explain it.
**********************************************

--- sounds clear enough to me - E got it wrong again.

You misunderstood the story and the history.
The EPR paradox was precisely one of the Einstein Gedanken experiment that were actually performed later by A Aspect and other. Einstein did not contradict the expected outcome of this experiment, he just stressed how much they are disturbing. Today they are still disturbing although we got acustomed to it.

Read the story from first hand references (1).
Like for your problems with relativity, this will spare you a lot of time and frustration.


(1) Quantum Theory and Measurement,http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Physics/dp/0691083169/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237646599&sr=8-2

obviously you can not understand these things, here is the article again for you; try to read it properly this time:

from
http://www.canal-u.tv/canalu/producteurs/science_en_cours/dossier_programmes/les_nanotechnologies/points_de_vue/alain_aspect

Quantum mechanics dates from the early 20 century. In 1935, Albert Einstein shows that the laws of quantum mechanics allow the formation of intertwined. Two photons, for example, which interacts with each other in the past and then moved away from one another, retain the possibility to exchange information. Any change to a property of a photon is immediately transmitted to the other photon. It is quantum entanglement. For Einstein, no information can be transmitted faster than light, and therefore the quantum formalism must be rejected. Niels Bohr denies that position.

But no experience at that time able to prove the existence or absence of entanglement (or non-locality).

In 1964, physicist John Bell showed that the views of Einstein and Bohr lead to different predictions and it formalizes the result by the famous Bell inequalities. Alain Aspect and his team (Philippe Grangier, Gérard Roger and Jean Dalibard) will succeed in making a source generating pairs of entangled photons, then study their properties. The results obtained (1982) violate the Bell inequalities, meaning that quantum physics to reason. There are indeed many intertwined pairs of particles, ie particles whose properties remain connected regardless of distance. The same two particles separated by several kilometers behave as a single system.

These phenomena have applications in the field of cryptography and computer science (quantum computer).


--- sounds clear enough to me - E got it wrong again.

Anon: Quantum mechanics dates from the early 20 century. In 1935, Albert Einstein shows that the laws of quantum mechanics allow the formation of intertwined. Two photons, for example, which interacts with each other in the past and then moved away from one another, retain the possibility to exchange information. Any change to a property of a photon is immediately transmitted to the other photon. It is quantum entanglement. For Einstein, no information can be transmitted faster than light, and therefore the quantum formalism must be rejected. Niels Bohr denies that position.

But no experience at that time able to prove the existence or absence of entanglement (or non-locality).

In 1964, physicist John Bell showed that the views of Einstein and Bohr lead to different predictions and it formalizes the result by the famous Bell inequalities. Alain Aspect and his team (Philippe Grangier, Gérard Roger and Jean Dalibard) will succeed in making a source generating pairs of entangled photons, then study their properties. The results obtained (1982) violate the Bell inequalities, meaning that quantum physics to reason. There are indeed many intertwined pairs of particles, ie particles whose properties remain connected regardless of distance. The same two particles separated by several kilometers behave as a single system.

These phenomena have applications in the field of cryptography and computer science (quantum computer).


--- sounds clear enough to me - E got it wrong again.

cinci: Eisntein's initial development of SR and GR don't deal with information transmittal but only light. Nobody has shown that the entanglement process involves light. So that part of Einstein's theories are not challenged.

I don't know when it was decided that ftl information trasmittal was part of relativity but it has been stated and if that idea is correct, then there does appear to be challenge from that. But from what I have read, you can't use entanglement to send messages faster than light. So it's not clear that the information part of the theory is wrong either.

The problem, as I understand it, is that you can't decide what the particle at one end is going to be before you look at it. When you do look at it you know that it's sister particle has a particular property and that can be identified immediately after you idetify yours. But you can't pick the value. So, it's an interesting property of matter, but it doesn't transmit information for you.

The whole thing is based on an interpretation that says you can't know the entangled property of such a particle until you look at it and that it is just as likely to be one way or the other for the entangled property. So if you're going to try to prove relativity is wrong here, you have to believe QM is a correc theory. Do you?
*********************************

Bohr believed QM was correct and he won over E.

As to the rest of what you were saying cinci- it was your usual standard of being wrong.

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

ether means ether; what does it mean to you that is the question

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

I asked you; so you don't know?

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper you did not find me). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?

cinci: You made the statement and referenced the same paper I had posted to you. Here is the same paper but perhaps on a different site: http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (which you falsely keep claiming you found, when I was aware of that paper long ago). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper? I answered it as ether is ether. So the question is waiting on you; you are stuck you cant answer.

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (which you falsely keep claiming you found, when I was aware of that paper long ago). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper? I answered it as ether is ether. So the question is waiting on you; you are stuck you cant answer.

Anon, you found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper I found for you). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?
**********************************

Since you two are stuck in a mobius loop, I will break the belt. Anonymous wins. Sorry, cinci, majority rules in democracy physics.

Jose: Since you two are stuck in a mobius loop, I will break the belt. Anonymous wins. Sorry, cinci, majority rules in democracy physics.

cinci: Wins what? He can't answer a simple question.

And as far as I know, nobody elected you king. When I want you to have an opinion, I'll give you one.
**********************

cinci: Wins what? He can't answer a simple question.

And as far as I know, nobody elected you king. When I want you to have an opinion, I'll give you one.

Jose: "As far as I know": Yes , Cinci, as far as you know. That ain't far. I am not the king, I am the Czar. I don't have opinions. I just state the truth. Your opinion is based upon the ether that you don't believe in. If I do ever have an opinion, I'll be sure and jam it down your throat.

Jose: "As far as I know": Yes , Cinci, as far as you know. That ain't far. I am not the king, I am the Czar. I don't have opinions. I just state the truth. Your opinion is based upon the ether that you don't believe in. If I do ever have an opinion, I'll be sure and jam it down your throat.

cinci: "Truth" is the province of religion. Being a Czar would put you in the dogma business. So now we know where you are.

Science deals with theories.

If you want to jam an opinion down my throat, give me your best Dingle analysis showing relativity is wrong and we'll see who does the jamming. So far, you're all hat and no cattle even if it is a Czar's hat.
****************************************

both twins are simultaneously younger and older than each other; relativity thus nonsense

Anonymous:
"both twins are simultaneously younger and older than each other; relativity thus nonsense"

Lal:
This experiment was carried with atomic clocks and where totally unambiguous.
The result agreed with SR.
Anonymous has really elementary problems with reasoning.

no they were bodged; claims made beyond their ability to measure

The results of the HK experiment were so tampered with that it could be considered fraudulent.http://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeating.htm

Web designers are not physicists.

if web designers did physics they would do better job than physicists who make a mess of it