Entanglement, state swapping and bending time. Thought experiment.

We believe that the collapse of quantum entanglement is temporally non-local. The "final" states of these systems are either predetermined, existing forward and backward in time after collapse, or they operate completely independent of time. Could we take one half of an entangled system and submit it to the influence of time dilation relative to the other half? And if so, would the partner particle still collapse instantly, thus occurring either forward or backward in time in accordance with whatever change in time has occurred?

The experiment isn't really groundbreaking. We could use two systems that swap entanglement at a third point that is in the past.

System 1 has a particle on earth [P1], and a particle on an orbiting satellite [P2] which is .001 second behind us.

System 2 also has a particle on earth [P4] and a particle on the aforementioned satellite [P3]. If we collapse P1, P2 will collapse .001 second in the past relative to us.

Its state is then swapped with P3, and P3 collapses. P4 back on earth should collapse instantly, which would be .001 second before the first particle was collapsed.

So P1 is collapsed. P2 [subject to .001 second time dilation] simultaneously collapses. P2's entanglement is then swapped with P3 [also .001 second in the past], which then collapses P4 [present]. If time dilation is influencing P2 and P3 relative to P1 and P4, and because these event occur instantly independent of time, will P4 collapse before P1?

Hopefully that makes sense. I know that there are a ton of barriers to actually doing this, but this is just hypothetical. A thought experiment, I guess.

I thought that non-locality was already proven?

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

Hmmmmm. I am going to have to think on this one a while. Lot's of distractions now, but I will try to get back to You on this later. Just marking My spot......

Syx.

a reply to: SyxPak
There's a button that says "subscribe" that works well for that.

a reply to: Phage

I just wrote something pertaining to another thread. Forgive the idiosity of that please. I am a bit mind rattled at the moment.
Thank You for the information Phage. I appreciate it!!

Thanx again Phage. Syx.

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

Retro-causality really seems to make for big messes, doesn't it. And there's really no one who can answer your questions about what would happen, because I seriously don't think anyone knows. But it really appears to be there. If you look at this mess of an experiment, (I had to read it like 5 times, slowly before I got it) retro-causality seems to be the simplest explanation: en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, the wave pattern, or slit pattern appears based on what happens later in the path of light. So what happens down the road dictates what happened in the past. Its get's super absurd when you imagine a super large version of the same experiment, so that optical splitters a and b are replaced with optical switches a human controls. are his choices pre-determined by the wave/slit pattern, or do his free will choices simply effect the past?

Many worlds interpretation, man. That's the way to go. To make a choice is to move to a very similar parallel universe, where both the events that followed and the events that preceded have changed slightly as a ramification of your choice.

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

I don't think time dilation even applies. No information is actually "travelling". We are talking about that "spooky action at a distance" Einstein was creeped out by.

It's instantaneous, I thought, regardless of space and time.

what if they all collapse at the same time???? and time has no meaning

I always think of these systems as just nodal entities on really long waves that stay in a shared resonance.
Over extremely long distances that might look like two atomic clocks that have been synchronized.

The early Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics did not have causality issues.
Probably are more convenient theories that can be used for specific situations.

I'm pretty sure the experience of free falling into a black hole would be enlightening but as Einstein said some physics is difficult to prove in a terrestrial lab.

How would we know??

a reply to: DaRAGE

It is.

"It's instantaneous, I thought, regardless of space and time." Yeah. Even particles that never coexisted in time can entangle. This post is just a way to try and reconcile all this crazy mambo jumbo with a real world example.
Part of me, though, hopes that one day we can actually do this experiment. This would allow for communication through time. A series of waves are collapsed, and we pick which states we want to swap and send back (according to a simple binary language system of up and down spins). Entanglement swapping doesn't allow us to dictate the result of a collapse, but it allows us to pick a solved collapse to swap with a second system. Then, using the method above, this information can be sent through time.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
I thought that non-locality was already proven?

Only if you subscribe to the Copenhagen or similar interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the "Many Worlds" interpretation, the explanations are fully local, but that interpretation isn't too popular by real physicists, though it's popular in Sci-Fi.

originally posted by: Cuervo
I don't think time dilation even applies. No information is actually "travelling". We are talking about that "spooky action at a distance" Einstein was creeped out by.

If the entangled particles were photons the time dilation wouldn't apply, but it would to particles with rest mass.

It's instantaneous, I thought, regardless of space and time.

"Instantaneous" might depend on your reference frame. Events which are simultaneous in one reference frame may not be simultaneous in another.

We can get events in reverse sequence just by changing reference frames as this animation shows (no entanglement needed for this):

Relativity of simultaneity

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

Note the events are simultaneous in only one reference frame. So time dilation applies in this context, but it won't change the result of an entanglement experiment as far as I know, the correlation will still be present if the particles are entangled.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
How has that been represented in entanglement? It was my understanding that mainstream minds agree that the collapse of an entangled system occurs outside of time. True temporal non-locality.

a reply to: Cuervo
That is exactly why it works. It doesn't travel. The partner particle instantly and independent of relative space and time will collapse when its opposite does. That's the underlying principle of the entire experiment. We already know that a collapse is set forward and backward in time, so this experiment is already validated to some extent. The trick is being to go forward or backward in time, which so far as we know is only achievable via time dilation. So by slowing the time of one half of each system, we effectively travel into the future relative to those systems meaning that the entanglement and subsequent collapse of the second system must occur before the first system is measured.

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh... NOW I get it. Awesome idea, carry on.

originally posted by: LeviWardrobe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
How has that been represented in entanglement? It was my understanding that mainstream minds agree that the collapse of an entangled system occurs outside of time. True temporal non-locality.

The mainstream minds that believe in Copenhagen interpretation, which may be the most popular interpretation, say it's non-local, but as the video "Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols" in this thread OP points out, it's not exactly a mainstream consensus, and the physicist making the video prefers "Many Worlds" interpretation though he admits he's in the minority, while pointing our that no interpretation got over 50% in the survey:

Ask any question you want about Physics

This explains why quantum entanglement is local in the many worlds interpretation:

Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics

Bell's theorem depends crucially on counterfactual reasoning, and is mistakenly interpreted as ruling out a local explanation for the correlations which can be observed between the results of measurements performed on spatially-separated quantum systems. But in fact the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, in the Heisenberg picture, provides an alternative local explanation for such correlations. Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many local copies of experimental systems and the observers who measure their properties. Transformations of the Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding to the properties of these systems and observers, induced by measurement interactions, "label" each copy and provide the mechanism which, e.g., ensures that each copy of one of the observers in an EPRB or GHZM experiment will only interact with the "correct" copy of the other observer(s). The conceptual problem of nonlocality is thus replaced with a conceptual problem of proliferating labels, as correlated systems and observers undergo measurement-type interactions with newly-encountered objects and instruments; it is suggested that this problem may be resolved by considering quantum field theory rather than the quantum mechanics of particles.

a reply to: LeviWardrobe The different interpretations don't effect experimental results being true or not. The Copenhagen says of entanglement if you collapsed one, then the other was collapsed at the same time through spooky action at a distance. Many worlds says when you observe one ("collapse" in copenhagen) you split into a universe where both it, and the entangled one, shared correlated states, but there is no collapse. All the results are the same whatever interpretation you choose.

a reply to: tridentblue

I'm not familiar with the many worlds interpretation. Thanks for the explanation!

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

To expand on that. Many Worlds deny collapse. The Wave theoretically has to go somewhere.

well i believe that time is not relevent and is a man made concept ,and the laws of the universe do not conform to man,but more like man conforms to the universe,,so all would act at the same time as time is just in your head but to elaborate further different galaxies have different times according to mans measure of time and the solar day,,so in my void of a brain ,,all things are connected and time is irrelevent so maybe distance is not relative also as all things are connected in a instant. so i find this more interesting for warp drives then for communication