Without answering what's the physical reality of the Schrodinger wave function, it's not possible to explain the mechanism of spooky action. This effect is independent of non-relativistic or relativistic quantum mechanics.

Nature maintains conservation laws even in the absence of exchange interactions, which results in the spooky action. Further, it's not at all the transmission of any information.

Without answering what's the physical reality of the Schrodinger wave function, it's not possible to explain the mechanism of spooky action. This effect is independent of non-relativistic or relativistic quantum mechanics.

Nature maintains conservation laws even in the absence of exchange interactions, which results in the spooky action. Further, it's not at all the transmission of any information.

To start with, the question has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Imagine an electromagnetic pulse sent in all directions. The moment of its arrival to a point at a one light year distance will be perfectly correlated with its arrival at all such points (ie, a whole sphere).

The answer to the question is, "Correlation does not imply transfer of information between the correlated points." In my example, transfer of information happens between the source and points on the expanding wavefront. There is no transfer of information between points on the wavefront.

To add, the no-faster-than-light limit only applies to processes transferring information. Standard example: a light spot from a rotating laser on the Moon surface can travel faster than light without violating relativity.

Quantum correlation itself is not able to transmit information.

The distant measurement have to be considered as non-selective measurement, i.e. the measurement with unknown result.

See e.g. M. G. Ivanov, On uniqueness of quantum measurement theory, 2015 (Published online) , 8 pp., arXiv:1508.05760

Mikhail G. Ivanov

Fully agree with you. When hearing all this bullshit - pardon my French - about quantum nonlocality, I always ask a simple question: "How do you know there was no power outage at the distant measurement point? Or it was not destroyed by a meteorite? Or a technician there did not get drunk and screwed up everything he could? Or whatever?"

Thank you Roumen Tsekov , L. I. Plimak, Mikhail G. Ivanov , N. Gurappa , Sydney Ernest Grimm

Entangled particles where entangled a priori, and do not involve any a posteriori transmission of information.

I tend to agree with Ed Gerck. This was the conclusion that was first derived from the E. P. R. experiment that simultaneously measured photons that were separated by a large distance. It was necessary for Bohr to introduce the idea of instantaneous transfer of data between photons within the same probability field to save the concept of remote entanglement and his theory in general. Later, the Bell Theorem experiments seemed to support the Bohr interpretation that photons remained abstract sets of probabilities until actualized. However, it now seems that the malleable nature of photon symmetries and the effects of measuring apparatus were responsible for the results. R. Wiegher demonstrated that the same results can be achieved using photons from independent sources. R. Penrose showed that when multiple entangle particles actualize in different time frames the math of remote entanglement becomes self contradictory. I have posted some tertiary experiments on this site ( "Experimental Determination of Photon Interference Point," "Anomalous Photon Interference", "Polarity and Photon Interference" ) which if confirmed would contradict the Bohr interpretation of the double slit experiment. There are also a few historic experiments that seem to contradict the Bohr interpretation which, unfortunately, were generally disregarded as unexplained anomalies. If the Bohr theory proves to be incorrect then, without any confirming experiments, there is not justification for accepting the concepts of remote entanglement and instantaneous data transmission. Extreme claims require extreme proof.

Thanks Barry Fleagle , Ed Gerck !

• Dear Barry Fleagle - Does it mean that the entanglement - instantaneous correlation does not always work as claimed based on recent experimental results?

My current, possibly biased, opinion is that there is no reason or experimental evidence for the existence of remote entanglement or instantaneous correlation. Groups of photons or particles are obviously entangled at the time of their generation. While some of their original properties continue until they engage with other phenomena they are no longer entangled after the generating event. This view was held by Einstein and other giants. As I mentioned the only experiments that claimed to support remote entanglement involve the Bell Theorem experiments. Others will debate this, but it now seems that the experiments only prove the complex nature of photons, oscillations of secondary symmetries, and the effect of measuring apparatus. Based on my own research with double and single slit interference as well as that by others I have arrived at the conclusion that the Bohr explanation, in which light only exist as an abstract probability field until an interaction actualizes it, is incorrect. If you can find it, you may want to view the late Sidney Coleman's video lecture at Harvard, "Quantum Physics in Your Face". I suspect that Bohr's view of reality as abstract mathematical probabilities may ultimately be close to truth; but I also suspect that photons and other observed phenomena are at the level of complexity where there behavior and properties become deterministic.

Thank you for the reply Barry Fleagle !

My few cents worth. The entire point of Bell's Theorem is to show that in general it is mathematically impossible to reproduce the correlations found in entangled states by means of local encoding at the common source of the particles. Einstein's hope was that it would be possible to explain quantum correlations in terms of what one might call "quantum DNA" (hidden variables), some sort of possibly very complex machinery built into each particle that could be programmed to make the particles behave according to the rules of quantum mechanics, just as heredity can explain similarities between siblings. In 1935 this was a very reasonable suggestion, but in 1964 Bell showed that it conflicts with the actual predictions of quantum mechanics. By now there is abundant experimental confirmation of Bell's result. There is no quantum DNA. Bell himself stated that because of his theorem "maybe there must be something happening faster than light, although it pains me even to say that much." Personally, I do not see why anyone should be "pained" by such a momentous and exciting result. It opens a door to new physics, and we should not be afraid to go through that door.

This recent work stengthens Kent A. Peacock opinion: Preprint Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world

To Arye Friedman --- many thanks for that reference.

The entanglements are no more a secret. Consider the polarization singlet (|x>A |x>B + |y>A |y>B). One should not seek the explanation of the correlations by asking why the particle B is found with polarization x when the particle A is found with polarization x. One should notice that that wave-function has amlitude of probability ZERO, for the combination |x>A |y>B. That means, when the particle A responds x, no wave-packet |y> impinges on the detectors of particle B.

There are no faster-than-light signals, the amplitudes of probability is the wave-function handle the wave-packets of the two particles despite the distances.

Entanglement is a feature of quantum mechanics that requires an explanation as to how it operates. Similarly the collapse of the wave function is confusing or perhaps baffling its operation!

Well, I have developed a theory of Time that focusses on the moment "Now", which explains both of these features and more of quantum mechanics!

The concept is simple and yet its implications are profound!

I have attached the first 17 pages of my paper on Time for your consideration.

Thank you for your valuable responses - Arye Friedman , Glenn Dangerfield , Kent A. Peacock , Sofia D. Wechsler

@Lalitha Nallamothula:

Entangled particles are corellated from the beginning of their origin. So there is no action at a distance needed to explain polarization measurement results. The problem is Bell's Theorem. After Bell's assertion measurement results on entangled photons or electrons show correlations that cannot be explained with local realistic models. As Bell has only ruled out non-contextual models a contextual model with hidden variables would refute his theorem. Such a model is presented able to explain the spin measurement results with entangled photons or electrons on

Article On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem

Greetings, Lalitha. I noticed in your bio that you are interested in quantum computing. You may want to google "On-demand, photonic entangled Synthesizer". Thamarasee Jeewandara, of the Interdisciplinary Department of Applied Physics and Engineering in Japan, has produced entangled clusters of photons with "quantum memory for entangled continuous variable states". This could lead to a "universal quantum computer by including a programable displacement operator".

As for the current topic, the presence of quantum memory calls into question the Bohr model in which symmetries randomly occur from abstract probabilities, and only after actualization, as well as the accompanying principle of remote entanglement. My own heretical view is that the photon is complex and oscillates between the sigma properties ( hidden variables if you like ). Of course, this violates the Theory of Relativity since photons are supposedly frozen in time and would not be able to undergo such changes. However, neutrinos which undergo change in flavor while traveling at the speed of light have already brought that restriction into question [ it's not every day that I get to question the concepts of Einstein and Bohr together ].

Thank you @Barry Fleagle! That is very interesting! I shall read on  "On-demand, photonic entangled Synthesizer".

This is an interesting question that is buried in a number of assertions. First, consider why you think information is immediately transferred? There is a lot of arm waving that the wave function collapses instantaneously, but that is merely an assertion. The next assertion is that the wave is a superposition of the two states and one is chosen at measurement. That is merely an assertion made by the Copenhagen group for some mystical reason best known to themselves because there is absolutely no evidence for it. There is an argument that if a theory cannot be tested, it is not scientific. It is impossible to know what the spin, say, of a particle is until you measure it, but that does not mean there was no spin determined in the first place. If the spin was determined at particle creation, you must still get the same results as you do.

The usual answer to this is that there are violations of Bell's inequalities, therefore the effect must be non-local. Exactly where does what follow "therefore" come from? The mathematical derivation of the inequalities is basic set theory. In my ebook "Guidance Waves" I devote a chapter to this and derive an inequality in three lines. The only assumptions required are that the measurements can be listed algebraically, and the associated law of sets applies. If it did not, then mathematics cannot be used in physics.

When we come to the violations of Bell's inequalities b y the rotating polariser experiments, what I show is that any wave that follows the Malus law (which states the law of conservation of energy) must give the results obtained, yet the law of conservation of energy should give results that follow Bell's inequalities. So what has gone wrong? The answer is NOT experimental loopholes but simple faulty logic. The spin relationships depend on the law of conservation of angular momentum - if that did not apply there could be no correlation. Bell's inequalities require three independent sets of measurements that can have plus or minus results, and the number of plus and minus measurements equals the total measurement, i.e. the probability of one measurement is one. So, what do we have? In the experiment, unless the source is polarised (in which case the results will comply with the inequalities) since the pairs can be polarised in any direction, all measurements will be the same. Accordingly, you have to ensure that at the second detector, only the particles that were entangled with one at the first are actually counted, which with Aspect was done by ensuring it had to arrive withing 19 ns of the first one. But if you do that the first detector has, perforce, a value of one (it means that pair must be counted) and it is not a variable. The next problem is the second pair is obtained by rotating the first configuration through 22.5 degrees. It actually gets the same values as the first one, as required by Nöther's theorem, and from that theorem they cannot be considered as fresh values. They simply do not have enough values to put into the inequalities, and the assertions that the inequalities are violated is more a demonstration of the inability to use proper logic when you have decided what the results must be.

There are two further interesting observations. The first is these sort of experiments re perhaps the most convincing examples of wave particle duality. The second is that by asserting that rotating the equipment gets new values asserts that there is a fixed background that over-rides Nöther's theorem, and also voids relativity. This is one of the points where both relativity and QM cannot both be right. I back relativity in this case.

All: Due to difficulties in the current format used by RG questions, well-known, my reply is at the new version in:

Preprint A Quantum Mechanical View of Reality or, can the Maxwell equ...

Thank you for your valuable inputs! Ed Gerck and Ian Miller

First and last is the experimental observation. Information seems to be transmitted faster than light. The STOE suggests this is related to the same type observation of the planets seeming to react to the position of other planets and he Sun instantaneously. The speed of gravity (>10^7 c) was measured by van Flandern by noting the Sun's apparent position compared to its (gravity) effective position. This also has the same relation to the quantum eraser experiment.

Any better input than Wikipedia please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

The question is a copy-paste of above link...

Thanks for your inputs John Hodge ! It is interesting.

Dear Demetris Christopoulos,

After reading about Quantum entanglement online, I got curious and wanted to understand more on this topic. Hence the discussion. Purpose of this discussion is to understand the different opinions, ideas, any new advancements, test results, exchange of informative materials on this topic.

Thank you!

I would like to at least “open the door” referred to by Kent Peacock april30.

All the information we can transmit or be aware of is carried by particles, from radio or the hands of a clock to smoke signals! As such it is limited in speed to c, the velocity of light by the special theory.

But, does such a limit apply to other information such as the quantum numbers that define a wave function?

I think not!

If “it takes time for the present to turn into the past”, a small slice of space opens up down which the information can slide ‘’ sideways’’ as far as it likes within this Time Channel! That is effectively instantaneously!

Thus the “Time Channel” theory allows the entangled particles to communicate instantaneously!

(See the attachment earlier)

@ Lalitha Nallamothula

You are not alone in all aspects. Having astonished me is that most scientists have even given up to looking for a simple rightful explanation for Quantum Physics - but not you! It is not me neither!

1) Professor Thompson, Caroline H. (she was a professor of University of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom before) indicated in : Most experiments for Bell-test required certain free-will (e.g. non-fair sampling) subtraction changes resulted that the outcome can be explained realistically into ones that require FTL (Faster-Than-Light) quantum magic. This free-will (e.g. non-fair sampling) agreement is spurious, a result of the experimenters’ decisions, yet faith in theory has left it almost unchallenged

2) There is no mention in published papers of the assumptions behind the adjustment, and insufficient information given for the reader to work out what the unadjusted data was. What the very considerable change it is. That is why Prof. Thompson indicated that ... Once removing the free-well (e.g. non-fair sampling) subtraction changes in Aspect's original test results, anyone can easily formulate the Aspect’s test results by using simply the Einstein’s local-realism theorem together with Malus’ law so as to get the complete description of Bell-test against "Entangled" pairs of photons.

3) Citations, ”The tangled methods of quantum entanglement experiments." Published in “Accountability in Research”6.4 (1999): 311-332.

Mickey Ken , Lalitha Nallamothula - The critical question is, are Bell's Inequalities really violated? My argument is, no they are not, and th results are exactly what you predict from wave particle duality, but a wave is perfectly causal and it complies with the conservation laws, as does the Schrödinger equation. If you argue that Bell's Inequalities are violated, you also argue that the Schrödinger equation, as originally formulated, is not valid. Part of the trouble is when you do an experiment with polarised photons, prior to the initial sorting with a polarising filter the photons do NOT exist as two polarisations; they exist with a uniform background in every orientation, and polarising filters sort these according to wave probability rules. If you look at the details of the experiments you often see an interpretation that focuses on avoiding these details. All polarised waves must follow the Malus law, because that is form the law of conservation of energy, or probability, takes. Therefore, if the results follow the Malus law and they seem to violate the Inequalities, there is a mistake somewhere in the system.

To Ian Miller: there is abundant evidence that Bell's Inequalities are violated; that is not in question by now. (It was in question before about 1980.) Violation of Bell's Inequalities has been confirmed by many experimenters, as reported in many published papers. This result is fully consistent with the Schrödinger Equation, and no conservation laws are violated; in fact, the quantum prediction expresses the conservation of angular momentum. It can be shown that the correlation predicted by quantum mechanics actually follows from a version of Malus's Law; it is this law that leads to the violation of the inequalities. (See "The Price of Locality", in Tim Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity.) What is violated is local realism---the notion that the observed behavior could be explained by "quantum DNA". Another way to express this is that quantum mechanics violates set theory, in the specific sense that the entangled particles cannot have existed in definite combinations of spin states before the experiment was performed. So the polaroids do not sort particles with pre-existent states. Then precisely what do they do to the particles? That is the thing that still is a matter of debate!

If quantum mechanics violates set theory, then you cannot use mathematics with it. If the associative law of sets does to apply, then all addition, multiplication, subtraction and division cannot be used because you have conceded the foundation does not apply.

When you say that there is "abundant evidence that Bell's Inequalities are violated", what is it? As an example, take the rotating polariser experiment, Three determinations are made that have to be independent. One (B+C-) is where the apparatus is exactly the same configuration as (A+B-), except it is rotated by 22.5 degrees. Exactly how does rotating the apparatus create two new variables? That violates Nöther's theorem, and violates the law of conservation of angular momentum

Bell's inequality has been misinterpreted in this thread - see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5z_zeZP60

Tim Maudlin "What Bell did"

John's link is a good one, and should be viewed. My view is that what seems to be demonstrated is the formal state vector operational method of quantum mechanics is flawed, in the same way that Schrödinger's cat demonstrated an obvious flaw (the refusal to accept factorisation). The original Schrödinger equation is as factorable as classical mechanics, and as I show in my ebook, "The Covalent Bond from Guidance Waves", provided you retain the quantisation of action per period, factorisation makes the calculation of chemical bond properties so much easier, and without the need for a batch of validation constants, that are essentially empirical corrections.

The following experimental study Article Imaging Bell-type nonlocal behavior

Acceptance of the non-local behaviour of the quantum world - as illustrated by the elegant experiments of type@Ayre Friedman - requires belief that information can flow at faster than the speed of light! Something normally considered impossible.

But the information that is limited to the speed of light is carried by particles - be they mass less photons or mass particles like leptons. In fact all the information which we can control is carried by particles, let's call this Einstein information. So all Einstein information is speed limited ...QED!

But I believe that there is non-Einstein information that is not transmitted by particles. Take for example the information that travels within the wave function of an electron in, say an S2 orbital.

Within this wave function there needs to be some information flow to keep the orbital intact. Otherwise what would prevent the electron deciding to go into a lower, occupied, S1 orbital? There needs to be some control mechanisms that must communicate within the wave function at faster than the speed of light!

Once such an information flow is accepted, say within the wave function of a superposed entangled pair, then the non-local aspects of entanglement make perfect sense!

Why does there need to be an information flow to keep an electron in a stationary state? All you require is a stationary wave. And I cannot see how you can say that once information flow is accepted between the entities in an entangled pair that it makes perfect sense. The whole point of Einstein's EPR objection is that unless relativity is wrong, information cannot flow at faster than light speed. You can't say it makes perfect sense merely by asserting that the problem doesn't exist, surely.

The speed limit applies to signals that human instruments can directly detect such as electromagnetic signals and light. That an ether-like medium exists seems to be required. But this medium is not able to be detected directly. So, the medium directs particles (as in General Relativity's space).

And this medium supports wave action and, therefore, resonances can develop.

The EPR and Bell needs to be better understood because traditional thought gets them wrong. See Tim Maudlin's video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5z_zeZP60&t=108s

I cannot deny the presence of a medium since my interpretation of quantum mechanics, like that of de Broglie and Bohm, assumes there is a wave that causes the effects noted in the two-slit experiment and if so, something has to oscillate. If you assume something is oscillating, then perforce the polarization of the oscillation cannot be determined by observation because the oscillation is there whether it is observed or not. Again, if so, there is no need to send a signal because if it were set at creation, it always is that, and the entangled nature is part of the creation conservation situation. The probabilistic part is now, you did not know until observation.

My further argument is there is no set of observations that violate the wave nature of the motion, because if there were they would violate the Schrödinger equation, and I have never seen any claim for that. The so-called violations of Bell's inequalities are really only there provided you accept the state vector formalism that sets an absolute background and thus permits the assumption of new "variables" that are in contradiction to the principles of relativity, which is why you later come up with something that appears to violate relativity. In a sense, Bell's argument is very similar to the Schrödinger cat paradox - you get the violations because you assume them in the first place. The issue is in the logic of the analysis. If you assume the principle of relativity, for example, when you rotate the polarizing filters but keep the angle between them constant, you do not get two new variables but merely repeat experiment number 1, in accord with Nöther's theorem. I defy anyone to come up with some observation that violates classical wave theory and the Malus law, because that would violate the law of conservation of energy as well, and would give real differences to the particle nature of motion. Everyone's response is exactly the same as Bohr's to the cat experiment - take the mystical interpretation rather than question the state vector logic.

In modern Quantum Field Theory, it is the oscillation of the various fields that create the particles : such as the oscillations in the electromagnetic field that creates the photon.

My question is : How can a photon be created without there being some information traveling faster than the speed of light to enable the whole photon to be "constructed" ? And perhaps more importantly , how can it remain part of an extensive electromagnetic field that may be 1000 light years across? How can it keep itself a part of the expanding spherical wavefront, with the correct phase etc over such large time and distance scales with some internal mechanism to keep it "in order"?

I believe this mechanism is the ability of the photon to communicate within itself instantaneously throughout its entirety.

Such information is not bound by Einstein's speed limitation as it is not carried by particles which all the information we can transmit is limited to!

Time Channel Theory, as described in my attachment to my first comment, describes such a process where the non-Einstein information can travel through out the wave function instantaneously. With this ability to communicate within itself instantaneously, a photon , or an electron, can readily travel through both slits of a classic or delayed choice two slit experiment and then instantaneously manifest itself where it is allowed to by the wave nature of its wave function. Thus appearing as though it were a particle rather than a wave!

Similarly, if two entangled particles are in fact one combined wave function with one undefined quantum number, than the instantaneous information flow within the wave function can readily explain how the resulting 2nd measured particle has the appropriate response to a measurement made on the 1st!

Something that causes an effect elsewhere instantaneously is considered non-local. My question to anyone is how can non-locality be reconciled with the requirement for Lorentz invariance?

Lorentz invariance is not an issue because: We are considering the situation where the time within the one wave function is being set at the same time throughout the wave function. And just as the time in a local inertial frame is set in relation to the direction of travel, there is no reason that this time could or should be set any differently within a wave function. Similarly the length contraction will also apply to the wave function, as will the time dilation.

In other words, the wave function gets itself sorted relativistically be reference to the space through which it is travelling and will thus exhibit the required time dilation etc required, as when a muon "lives longer" than it should when it is travelling at high speed through the upper atmosphere from a cosmic collision!

How can a wave function show the time dilation effects of Einstein's relativity without being Lorentz invariant? I can't see how that can happen when the time dilation effect and the length contract rely on Lorentz transforms

Sorry, bad choice of words!

The non-locality is not relevant as the wave function is Lorentz invariant as illustrated!

If the wave function is non-local, as it must be if entangled particles can be any distance away, (a), how can it be irrelevant, and (b) how can it be Lorentz invariant. You can't show it just by assertion.

Information must be able to be transmitted by something other than particles. What exists must be able to exist. Just because popular models don't explain entanglement, doesn't mean an observation cannot happen.

Took time to do some reading. Trying to interpret the meaning of the above replies:

Dear John Hodge , Am I interpreting your above reply correctly? 1. There must an undetected medium which is imposing the speed limit? 2. We do not yet have the ability/technology to make the observation/measurement to confirm the medium's existence?

Dear Glenn Dangerfield , "I believe this mechanism is the ability of the photon to communicate within itself instantaneously throughout its entirety. " Does this statement imply that the photon is self aware at all times?

Dear Ian Miller , Do you mean to say that it is the people performing the experiment with limitation of conscious assumptions (not considering all the variables) that lead to Bell's inequality but there could be other variables that they could be missing? I mean, do you imply that it is from our frame of reference, the Bell's inequality exists, but there could be other frames of reference?

Thanks in advance!

Dear Lalitha Nallamothula

No. I am saying that these experiments are not interpreted properly, and there tends to be logic mistakes in the workup. As an example, take the rotating polariser experiment, and assume the form A+B- + B+C- ≥ A+C- (That is the simplest form of a Bell Inequality and you can derive it from set theory in about three lines. The only way it could be violated is if the associated law of sets fails. You might also note it says nothing about non-locality. However, if you read Bell's original article on washing socks, you see that for any variable, the sum of the plus and minus scores must equal 1 (that is you measure each item just once) and that A, B and C must involve distinctly different situations.

Now, if you look at the average rotating polariser experiment, you will see that B+C- is exactly the same as A+B-, but with the whole equipment rotated through 22.5 degrees. As long as the source has random polarisation, they are not two new variables or a new determination. The concept violates relativity (because if the source is random, the second determination is in the frame of reference of the first because it is only counted if it arrives within a given time frame of the first) and it violates Nöther's theorem, or the conservation of angular momentum. So what I am saying is the experiment is not valid beaus there are not enough true variables measured to put into a Bell inequality. The problem here may be because quantum mechanics, and the background maths tends to be derived from state vectors, actually assumes a fixed background, and I think that is wrong. That assumption is what makes quantum mechanics incompatible with relativity, but in this case the experiments are usually conducted to show the source is random.

Yes, in the sense that the photon has the same quantum numbers available to it at all locations within itself at all times. And, when they change this change is communicated every where within the wave function of the photon instantaneously.

This set of quantum numbers is what defines the photon, and what influence the interactions it can undertake.

I would not use the words 'being self aware" as this implies a consciousness to the inanimate photon!

Lalitha Nallamothula

your 1. not necessarily "must be". The observation by actual experiments is that particles have an upper limit of c in any medium such as glass, water, vacuum. (This is more like Lorentz ether theory (LET) than special relativity.)

Your 2. Our measuring instruments detect particle effects. Therefore, any medium like an ether or the STOE plenum can be detected only through its effect on particles. We do have the instruments and have done the experiments to provide data to measure the speed of particles in the vacuum as well as in glass and water. T. van Flandern has measured the speed of gravity at over 10^7 times the speed of light. I ignore "thought experiments" because they reflect the model used to define them. If a measurement/experiment is done, the result must have an explanation. If a model of the experiment suggests another result, the model is wrong. Today, observations reject the models in cosmology and in models of the small (Quantum mechanics). Cosmology observations reject Quantum models and quantum observations reject Cosmology models. But the issue is more of comparison between models. It's a case of better not one of being complete

The entangled experiments done at different locations are a single entity. They are not spatially separated as in classical physics. There is no need for signalling of any kind. No need for any kind of interaction between entangled things. Real particles moving in space time have an upper speed limit given by special theory of relativity. But quantum mechanics does not describe things moving in space time. That is classical physics.

Thomas, the first term in the equation that Schrödinger published was a Laplacian operator, and for that matter, that equation can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism provided you assume the phase is determined by quantised action (which is the real difference between classical and quantum mechanics). The Laplacian considers changes of position with respect to time, so the spatial conditions of classical physics remain. It is true that the state vector formalism seems to have introduced non-spatial non-separation, but that is a completely fresh assumption and comes from nowhere other than assertion. (I am ready to be persuaded otherwise on that as long as someone can give a physical explanation, nd not a circular argument with long-winded operator mathematics.) Note that Einstein in the EPR paper argued that a signal was required, and if nothing else, Einstein understood relativity, and he was good enough to follow other physical arguments. He may have been wrong, but to show he was wrong you have to show the physical argument, and not merely assert it is so.

As Lalitha Nallamothula stated in her question, there is no signaling between entangled particles. Physics is an empirical science and to show that Einstein was wrong, we must do the experiments. No superluminal transmission is demonstrated in real experiments done by Aspect and other later experimentalists. Please look at those experiments. Unfortunately, there is no classical explanation for the results of those experiments. We invented quantum mechanics because classical physics does not work on the atomic level. For example, does the Laplacian, or any classical theory, predict the stability of atoms? How does the position of an atomic electron change with respect to time?

Then look at the experiments. There are none that would not give the same results if the spins, etc, were determined at creation. It is a pure assumption by Copenhagen that they are determined by observation. As I explained, or tried to, Aspect et al have merely demonstrated at a truly marvellous level wave particle duality. They have NOT demonstrated violations of Bell's inequalities, because they have not determined sufficient truly independent measurements. Not only hat, but if they had discovered violations, there is nothing in the inequality to indicate that non-locality follows; merely that mathematics were not followed. That of course, means something was wrong, but it does not say what.

Article Cumulative quantum mechanics (CQM). Part I: Prerequisites an...

It is very sad to watch how the common bull..it about "quantum nonlocality" again and again makes people confused. Four basic points are to be well understood and learnt by heart:

1. Unlike cause-effect phenomena, correlations do not imply transfer of information and, ipso facto, are not subject to causality laws. Instantaneous correlations across space-like intervals are allowed in classical as well as in quantum mechanics.

2. Bell's argument uses nonlocality as reductio ad absurdum: "There exist phenomena in quantum mechanics which, in order to be explained within classical mechanics and classical probability laws, would invariably require nonlocal interaction." There is not a word in this statement about "quantum nonlocality".

3. Observation should not be confused with inference. Causality laws apply only to observation. So, in the EPR arrangement, by registering a particle with spin up, I may infer that the second observer has simultaneously observed a particle with spin down. However, in no way have I observed the second particle.

4. Unlike correlations themselves, ways correlations develop are subject to causality laws. When discussing an experiment, one also has to include cause-effect chains in the way an observer learned about the experimental arrangement as a whole. Laws of quantum mechanics which one uses to describe the experiment are also part of the cause-effect chains, because they implicitly contain information based on previous experiments. Taking all these cause-effect chains into account eliminates all paradoxes. Vice versa, disregarding some of them may produce scores of paradoxes.

Hope this helps

L. I. Plimak

Good point. the "sock" example is that if you suddenly observe the color of a man's sock on the right foot, You are very confident of the color of the sock on the left foot.

So, a valid experiment should include the reason/support for the causality. Simple correlation is insufficient.

Example: you hear a sound (say a band playing) coming from a container but have no indication of a band. Other than an hallucination, what could its cause be. If at the same time you see a band playing on TV that seems coordinated with sound that is playing several thousand miles away, then somehow the sound of the band traveled many times the speed of sound. Is this different than the problem?

No. In this example we expect we have characterized the different medium of the link. Well, we just need a different medium (ether, plenum, etc.) to carry the information. SR should be stated like Lorentz suggest in LET - the speed of light is the fastest MATTER can travel in any medium.

A minor comment on socks. In Bell's paper, he mentioned Bertlmann liked to wear different coloured socks. Accordingly, you cannot be confident unless you know for sure that the relationship you expect actually applies. In the case of spins, a conservation law generates the correlation, and further, if you found it did not apply you would conclude they were not entangled. Think bout that before you invoke "faster than light signals".