Talk:Action at a distance
in QM, are you referring to entanglement experiments? These provide indeed a interesting non-locality but one should specify it a little bit for the readers that - as far as i understand - information (or action) can not be transmitted with speeds higher than normal (for the system). Entanglement results in correlation, not in the possibility to modulate what the other person sees (quantum cryptography usually need a 'classical' channel).
--Stitch75 22:24, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
- Non-locality appears in QM in entanglement experiments, the slit-lamp experiment, and perhaps others. I doubt your claim about the limit on speeds is fully settled yet.--Andy Schlafly 23:16, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
- I am aware of entanglement; i am working on quantum mechanics. I can assure you, in the current commonly accepted interpretation (which i am testing in my work and from which you borrow the expressions and to which you obviously refer to) entanglement does not provide a speedup of information transfer. This is settled. However, if the common interpretation can be unified info another theory (which explains why we observe the relativity and the QM we find in experiments) remains indeed to be seen, but it is beyond my intellectual capacity to write anything about this. An excellent easy to read book about modern Physics and scientists running in one direction (especially string theory) is "Trouble with Physics" written by Lee Smolin.
- It remains to be seen whether quantum entanglement transfers information instantaneously; there is no reason under quantum mechanics to doubt that possibility. The theory of relativity rejects any instantaneous action-at-a-distance, whether there is a transfer of information or not, and hence its fundamental conflict with QM.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
- If i may ask, how do you transfer information trough entanglement alone? --Stitch75 00:45, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
I think it is slightly misleading to claim that Newtonian gravity and electrostatics are non-local theories since although, when they were originally formulated, they were implcitly believed to be such, they have now both been superceded by more comprehensive theories (General Relativity and Electromagnetism respectively) which support locality. PBowler 14:29, 2 October 2009 (GMT + 1)
- There's no disputing that Newtonian gravity and electrostatics are non-local theories, whether they've been supplanted or not. Note, by the way, that attempts to conform General Relativity to locality, such as by finding gravitons, have been unsuccessfully despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars looking.--Andy Schlafly 10:03, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
- Since Electrostatics as well as Newtonian gravity deal with the underlying fields in a non-time dependent instantaneous manner. The fact that a changing electrical field in not described by this theory is something i can demonstrate in a lab course experiment with material costs of less than $2000 (nowadays). And yes, the experiments where you can show that are the ones who lead to the Maxwell equations, which lead to relativity, so i am not sure i can follow your arguing. Moreover, as far as i am aware, right now people are trying to detect gravitational waves, not gravitons. (which gives you actually the additional point that detecting general relativity alone is already quite expensive. Detecting gravitons experimentally will be out of reach for us for a long time). --Stitch75 00:45, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
- Stitch, you're clueless. Maybe if you spend less time on useless talk, talk, talk, you could spend time translating the Bible, which really does "miracles" for us. Get it? I know that when I translate the Bible I feel a lot more soothed and I gain a lot more insights. --WilliamMoran 14:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)