Science Einstein wrong, spooky action at distance is real - One step closer to the warp drive

I am admittedly trying to figure out what all they are talking about here, so I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me, but the basic gestalt I am gathering is that this test proves that photons can become entangled at a distance, and that the act of measuring them effects their behavior. Further, the "action" that occurs is transmitted through the quantum entanglement at a speed faster then light. In order to prove this they had to add the human element of "free will" into the procedure, as even a computerized random number generator would be manipulated by the phenomenon. Spooky stuff.

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/einsteins-principle-local-realism-big-bell-test-05998.html

Global Experiment Challenges Einstein’s Principle of Local Realism: BIG Bell Test

A Bell test, named for the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell, is a randomized trial that compares observations against the philosophical worldview of local realism, in which the properties of the physical world are independent of our observation of them and no signal travels faster than light. On November 30, 2016, more than 100,000 people contributed to the so-called BIG Bell Test. Using internet-connected devices, volunteers generated more than 90 million binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to 12 labs, where experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles and superconducting devices. The results are reported in the journal Nature.

The BIG Bell Test was an incredibly challenging and ambitious project,” said Dr. Carlos Abellán, a researcher at the Institut de Ciencies Fotoniques at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology in Spain.

“It sounded impossibly difficult on day zero, but became a reality through the efforts of dozens of passionate scientists, science communicators, journalists and media, and especially the tens of thousands of people that contributed to the experiment during November 30, 2016.”

In a Bell test, pairs of entangled particles such as photons are generated and sent to different locations, where particle properties such as the photons’ colors or time of arrival are measured.

If the measurement results tend to agree, regardless of which properties we choose to measure, it implies something very surprising: either the measurement of one particle instantly affects the other particle (despite being far away), or even stranger, the properties never really existed, but rather were created by the measurement itself.

Either possibility contradicts local realism, Einstein’s worldview of a universe independent of our observations, in which no influence can travel faster than light.

The BIG Bell Test asked volunteers to choose the measurements, in order to close the so-called ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’ — the possibility that the particles themselves influence the choice of measurement. Such influence, if it existed, would invalidate the test; it would be like allowing students to write their own exam questions.

This loophole cannot be closed by choosing with dice or random number generators, because there is always the possibility that these physical systems are coordinated with the entangled particles.

Human choices introduce the element of free will, by which people can choose independently of whatever the particles might be doing.

The BIG Bell Test participants contributed unpredictable sequences of zeros and ones (bits) through an online video game.

The bits were routed to state-of-the-art experiments in Brisbane, Shanghai, Vienna, Rome, Munich, Zurich, Nice, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Concepción Chile and Boulder Colorado, where they were used to set the angles of polarizers and other laboratory elements to determine how entangled particles were measured.

The participants contributed with 97,347,490 bits, making possible a strong test of local realism, as well as other experiments on realism in quantum mechanics.

The obtained results strongly disagree Einstein’s worldview, close the freedom-of-choice loophole for the first time, and demonstrate several new methods in the study of entanglement and local realism.

Each of the 12 labs carried out a different experiment, to test local realism in different physical systems and to test other concepts related to realism.

“Our team explores the Bell’s inequality with partial perfect randomness input,” said researchers from the CAS Center for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Center in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics at the University of Science and Technology of China (CAS-USTC).

“Analyzing the random numbers contributed by the volunteers, we may find the human random number are not perfectly random, and tend to produce patterns. However, the human generated randomness is highly attractive because of the element of human free will.”

“True randomness, which is not controlled by hidden variables, exists in between the human choices. Remarkably, it is able to say how well the hidden variable would have to control the human choices.”

“This is made possible by using a special type of Bell inequality, the measurement dependent local (MDL) inequality.”

In the experiment, a 780 nm pump laser focused on a periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate (PPKTP) crystal to create photon pairs at 1560 nm via spontaneous parametric down conversion. The down-converted photon pairs interfere at the polarizing beam splitter (PBS) in a Sagnac based setup to create entangled pairs.

The entangled state is adjusted to be a special non-maximum entangled state for the inequality.

“The photon pairs are then sent to two measurement stations that are 90 m away for measurement. This spatial separation makes sure the measurement in Alice’s lab will not affect that in Bob’s lab, and vice versa,” the scientists said.

“The random numbers contributed by the participants control the Pockels cell to set the measurement basis for each pair of photons.”

“The photons are finally detected with superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors.”

The violation of the MDL Bell inequality gives the bound of the input human randomness to rule out local realism. With around 80 Mb random numbers contributed by the volunteers, the MDL Bell inequality violation is decided to be l = 0.10 ± 0.05.

“Although there are numerous Bell test experiments, the ‘free will’ loophole is still not closed,” said Professor Jian-Wei Pan, a researcher at CAS-USTC.

“This experiment is a very interesting and important try. In the future, with the help of space station, one may close both ‘collapse locality’ and ‘free will’ loopholes in one experiment.”
 
You start running into some problems with determinism when you realize that the universe could very easily be splitting off all the time.

Or if (granted, key word if) true random number generators exist.

All you need is one, really. Just one.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this nothing we already didn't know? We already know that entangled particles can communicate faster than light, but what you can't do with that is use it to send usable information. So FTL travel and communication is still impossible under the laws of the universe.
Not according to Quantum Teleportation and the experiments the Chinese have been doing.
 
Okay, here goes, tried to make this approachable. The only thing to know is a bit about vectors, but even then, in this case, you can just consider them like sequences of numbers.

In quantum mechanics, you represent the state of particles as vectors, for example [1 0] or [0 1]. You can imagine the first vector as denoting the state of a particle which has an "up" spin of 1, and a "down" spin of 0, and the second vector denoting the state of a particle with an "up" spin of 0, and a "down" spin of 1. You can also relate the state [1 1] as a particle with "simultaneous" up and down spins of 1 (which you may have heard about in certain articles, but this is a digression, doesn't matter much for entanglement).

You represent the state of a multi-particle system as a tensor product: for example [0 1] ⊗ [1 0] = [0[1 0] 1[1 0]] = [0 0 1 0] for an example two-particle system, for which the first particle has state [0 1] and the second has state [1 0].

What makes entanglement interesting, is that the state of two entangled particles cannot be written as a tensor product of two individual states. The most entangled state, for example, is [1/√2 0 0 1/√2]. There are no two states [a b], [c d] such that [a b] ⊗ [c d] = [a[c d] b[c d]] = [ac ad bc bd] = [1/√2 0 0 1/√2].

This is why we call this entangled two-particle state "inseparable": because you cannot describe it as the state of each of its individual particles, you can only describe it in terms of the system, which may offer some intuition into why the particles are able to affect each other in an "instantaneous" fashion.


The reason one (currently) cannot use this to send instantaneous information is that when we measure our [1/√2 0 0 1/√2] entangled state, we collapse it (turn it into) with probability 1/2 to the [1 0 0 0] state, and probability 1/2 to the [0 0 0 1] state. Nature basically flips a coin and gives us one of the two states back with equal probability. Once we have collapsed the state, our measurements will only give us whatever that first result was (hence the name collapse), but any measurements performed on the entangled particle by my buddy on Mars will also give them that same state.

The problem is two-fold: first of all, my buddy on Mars may measure his particle and see the result [0 0 0 1] (example), but he has no idea whether he got the result because I collapsed the entangled state with my own measurement, or whether he just got it by himself collapsing the state and nature giving him that result. And even if I tried to circumvent that by agreeing with my buddy: "I'll collapse the state in exactly two months, you measure it right after, that way we're certain I'm collapsing it and you're measuring the aftermath", there's still no way for me to control which result nature is going to give me, and by proxy to him.

The only thing we can do is verify the effect of entanglement and confirm its existence by sharing our observations (which is what all of the past experiments have been doing), later when my buddy takes the shuttle back to earth.


There are quite a few oversimplifications here and there, but I think that explains the gist of it, from the mathematical side anyways. It's not easy material, but I hope it helped your understanding in some way!

This is why I come here. People here know things. I didn't understand a word of the math, but I am glad there are people like you who do. Good analogies though.
 
You start running into some problems with determinism when you realize that the universe could very easily be splitting off all the time.

Anyone who doesn't believe in free will is an absolute retard and a huge edgelord. There I contributed.


That said, this was another interesting experiment. Keep at it I guess, although I doubt anything good will come of scientific progress in these areas in the next 5,000 years. Once we succeed, we'll have to deal with all of the social problems and wars that monkeys aren't equipped to solve. Assuming we don't end up living in a totalitarian nightmare state (there is a 99% chance we will.) I don't think space travel is worth it, or answering these larger questions. Sorry fedoras.
 
Holy shit! This is pretty cool if accurate. A faster then light communication? Does it mean that all photons are connected somehow? This is interesting!

They just proved magic (a scientific advance signifcantly beyond our current understanding) is possible, maaaan! Babylon 5 style Technomages are the future, wuwu!
 
Not according to Quantum Teleportation and the experiments the Chinese have been doing.

Quoting post from earlier in thread since it explains it better than I could.
The reason one (currently) cannot use this to send instantaneous information is that when we measure our [1/√2 0 0 1/√2] entangled state, we collapse it (turn it into) with probability 1/2 to the [1 0 0 0] state, and probability 1/2 to the [0 0 0 1] state. Nature basically flips a coin and gives us one of the two states back with equal probability. Once we have collapsed the state, our measurements will only give us whatever that first result was (hence the name collapse), but any measurements performed on the entangled particle by my buddy on Mars will also give them that same state.

The problem is two-fold: first of all, my buddy on Mars may measure his particle and see the result [0 0 0 1] (example), but he has no idea whether he got the result because I collapsed the entangled state with my own measurement, or whether he just got it by himself collapsing the state and nature giving him that result. And even if I tried to circumvent that by agreeing with my buddy: "I'll collapse the state in exactly two months, you measure it right after, that way we're certain I'm collapsing it and you're measuring the aftermath", there's still no way for me to control which result nature is going to give me, and by proxy to him.

The only thing we can do is verify the effect of entanglement and confirm its existence by sharing our observations (which is what all of the past experiments have been doing), later when my buddy takes the shuttle back to earth.

Although someone can use this to send information, the information is gibberish and meaningless to the person on the other end therefore not usuable. So an FTL telegraph or other communication system is still impossible, unless this is no longer true for some reason.
 
Although someone can use this to send information, the information is gibberish and meaningless to the person on the other end therefore not usuable. So an FTL telegraph or other communication system is still impossible, unless this is no longer true for some reason.

When Michael Faraday was done giving a demonstration on how he could use a generated electromagnetic field using copper and a lodestone to force a compass to move its pin away from magnetic north, someone in the audience asked him "What use is this?" To which he responded "What is the use of an infant?”
 
I'm guessing that a distant species merely being able to tell that some other species somewhere else far away in the universe is experimenting with quantum entanglement does not mean they'd have any way of telling where in the universe that research is taking place let alone would it give them a way to travel to Earth. And I'd imagine that there are probably thousands of other species scattered across the universe that are at around the same development level as humans who are concurrently discovering how to do things with quantum entanglement at about the same time, so one more species (ours) joining the quantum entanglement experiment party probably isn't that big a deal.
What if the torus universe theory is right?
Well I guess that would raise a lot of questions.
 
@FreeHugs has given the accurate description on page 4. None of this shit is really new. Obviously it was known in Einstein's time if he was able to comment on the phenomena and coin the term for it. It reminds my of media sources talking about the "GOD PARTICLE" being discovered when in fact this had been a very well developed theory of physics since the 60's. It's not really a discovery so much as experimental validation, which is very rare in the world of theoretical physics these days.
Fact of the matter is you still can't decode anything with this process and it still requires the particle to by physically moved first. That's the whole problem with quantum computing. It might be instantaneous but you have to physically move the particles you are reading, which defeats the whole purpose. Google quantum buses and you'll see how silly the proposition is.
 
This is very interesting, but yeah it has been already theorised and China even tried to make a coder satellite with it. No more word on it from China , but others may know if it succeeded or not.


Long winded and above me, what do you science kiwis think about it?

Since all the good 40k memes are in, let me post this one:
return-of-the-illusive-man.png
 
Quoting post from earlier in thread since it explains it better than I could.


Although someone can use this to send information, the information is gibberish and meaningless to the person on the other end therefore not usuable. So an FTL telegraph or other communication system is still impossible, unless this is no longer true for some reason.
Actually they did a poor job explaining it, but it was an attempt. People really need to do some research into these experiments.

This is very interesting, but yeah it has been already theorised and China even tried to make a coder satellite with it. No more word on it from China , but others may know if it succeeded or not.


Long winded and above me, what do you science kiwis think about it?

Since all the good 40k memes are in, let me post this one:
return-of-the-illusive-man.png
It was successful, not the first time we've done this either, this was just a greater distance.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/sc...-successfully-teleported-a-particle-to-space/
Also, is this talking about Bell's theorium?
 
Last edited:
There is a theory that the reason why the speed of light is violated is due a micro-wormhole being created by the quantum entanglement.

Actually they did a poor job explaining it, but it was an attempt. People really need to do some research into these experiments.


This Youtube video has a good explanation on the topic.
 
If free will is physically based, then it's not free will. Unless you don't believe in a deterministic universe.
That's interesting. I think, and it's difficult to put this without sounding both like a wanker and like someone trying to sound like a wanker, that humans are pretty determinist creatures. However, that comes with caveats. Whilst I think all our behaviour, actions and choices have a biological basis that biological basis is shaped as much by external events as DNA and most importantly our evolution has taken us to a point where we can turn things over in our mind, and ruminate, and imagine and worry and read Amazon reviews because us having some level of autonomy to interact with the changes of our world makes us better hosts for genes which want to replicate. So I think we have some degree of free will over the longer term, for decisions we mull over and research and ask others about, but less so for quick decisions. I don't think we are organisms which are just bundles of instinctive behaviours, although we are certainly that as well, but I think that our ability to use of autonony is biologically constrained.

I don't know, I don't like thinking about it and I need to be studying yet I'm on the farms which is a poor choice but one which I shall blame on my lack of free will.
 
That's interesting. I think, and it's difficult to put this without sounding both like a wanker and like someone trying to sound like a wanker, that humans are pretty determinist creatures. However, that comes with caveats. Whilst I think all our behaviour, actions and choices have a biological basis that biological basis is shaped as much by external events as DNA and most importantly our evolution has taken us to a point where we can turn things over in our mind, and ruminate, and imagine and worry and read Amazon reviews because us having some level of autonomy to interact with the changes of our world makes us better hosts for genes which want to replicate. So I think we have some degree of free will over the longer term, for decisions we mull over and research and ask others about, but less so for quick decisions. I don't think we are organisms which are just bundles of instinctive behaviours, although we are certainly that as well, but I think that our ability to use of autonony is biologically constrained.

I don't know, I don't like thinking about it and I need to be studying yet I'm on the farms which is a poor choice but one which I shall blame on my lack of free will.
But that rumination is a result of physical processes. Reading inputs from the senses (eyes, ears, feel). Neurons firing. All of which have a deterministic basis.

If you have deterministic process foo, and deterministic process bar, and you chain them together with a deterministic input, "foo(bar(deterministic_input))", the end result is deterministic. It doesn't matter how tall the stack gets, non-determinism can't sneak in anywhere but at the bottom.

So the question becomes "are the processes in the human body deterministic?" and are the inputs, our universe, deterministic?

I think that seems to be the case for both, but ultimately we can never know for certain.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary
Back