-3
$\begingroup$

I have a theory on how Quantum-entangled particles send information to each other at faster than the speed of light.

Could it be that they are using the Higgs field, each particle when entagled contains and or uses a Higgs bossom particle to send the information to each other when you attempt to measure them?

Higgs particles have no mass, so in theory they can travel faster than the speed of light through the Higgs field.

Am I on to something here...Will I win a noble prise for my discovery ;-), or am I way off track?

Thanks for reading.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No. The two things have noting to do with each other. $\endgroup$ Oct 28, 2016 at 16:37

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

There isn't necessarily any need for entangled particles to communicate at all, that requirement stems from a way of thinking called "local realism" (that each particle has its own attributes that it carries around with it, and require some kind of exchange of communication to respond to the attributes of other particles). We use local realism in classical situations because it seems to work, not because it has to work. In the quantum domain, one simple resolution of the entanglement quandary is simply to drop local realism. Then there's no need for "communication" between the particles at all, the system is thought of a single thing.

Incidentally, there is plenty of precedence for having to think of systems holistically, without communication between particles. A stark example is a white dwarf star, in which the structure of some 10^57 electrons is governed by the Pauli exclusion principle. This says no two electrons are allowed in the same state, and this is essentially an entanglement phenomenon. What "communication" allows fermions to obey the PEP? Probably none-- it's likely a holistic feature of the system, not requiring communication between distinguishable parts because the whole reason you have a PEP is that the parts are indistinguishable. Not all entanglement is between indistinguishable particles, but if you have one type of entanglement for which communication would not make much sense, it isn't a stretch to extend that to all forms of entanglement.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that the concept of "non-locality" addresses anything it just rewords the problem. Changes of the system still propagate to different points of time faster than the speed of light. Since how the system changes i dependent on the measurements i think it's perfectly fine to say that there is some level of communication at play. $\endgroup$
    – Yogi DMT
    Oct 28, 2016 at 17:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One cannot say that changes in a system must "propagate", that's the point of rejecting local realism. If there is not a concept of local realism, there is also not a concept of changes in a system that "propagate." A Bell state is not a description of a system made up of parts, it is just a description of a system, period. It is the same for the wave function of a neutral helium atom, that is also not a description of parts of a system, so there is no need for "propagation" between parts that are not in the description in the first place. $\endgroup$
    – Ken G
    Oct 28, 2016 at 20:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So what I'm saying is, how does the Pauli exclusion principle require "communication" or "propagation" of anything between the electrons in a neutral helium atom? Does one electron say "I'm already in this state, so you cannot be?" No, that would make no sense, because the whole reason we have a PEP is the electrons do not have any such individual identity in the first place. The proof of the PEP has nothing to do with either communication or propagation between electrons, it has to do with rejecting the very idea that the electrons have individual identities as parts of that whole. $\endgroup$
    – Ken G
    Oct 28, 2016 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ @KenG Maybe my wording wasn't the best my point was that an action that happened at point A was in some way communicated to point B, calling communication, travel, whatever, i don't feel like any of these theories disprove that. $\endgroup$
    – Yogi DMT
    Nov 1, 2016 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ It certainly isn't disproved, but it's also not required. It stems from a picture that a whole can be broken down into locally confined parts, but systems like white dwarfs don't seem to be well treated that way-- it would require an awful lot of "communication" between 10^57 indistinguishable electrons! $\endgroup$
    – Ken G
    Nov 1, 2016 at 20:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.