Just for interest sake.

Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’: At least 10,000 times faster than light.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150207-chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light

Well, as its stands, the Chinese do not seem to be the first ones. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/edsumm/e080814-10.html (Publication date 2008) and http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13 which concludes with perhaps the only enlightening comment on this quantum weirdness:

“Theoretical physicist Terence Rudolph of Imperial College London, author of a commentary on the new paper, says that putting bounds on faster-than-light entanglement is useful for researchers trying to imagine theories that might extend beyond quantum mechanics.



What might such a theory look like? Rudolph says we're probably stuck with instantaneous entanglement, which seems impossible to us because we're stuck in everyday space and time. ‘We need to understand how quantum mechanics sees space and time," he says. "I think there's probably much deeper issues.’”

.

Dear csteele and George,

.

If you are talking about two particles in space where space means where there is nothing then nothing separates the two particles and if nothing separates the two particles then they touch each other.

If, however, space means not where there is nothing but where there is only an infinitely small quantity of matter then the distance that separates the two particles is infinitely small.

Perhaps these considerations may slow down the calculations a bit and help the "spooky action" respect the speed limit.

.

Dear Banjo,

I don’t know how to translate what you wrote into the language of quantum physics, the only theory, as far as I know, that tackled and tried to explain the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (spooky action at distance).

Irrespective of that, I do not know what “infinitely small” (quantity, distance) means.

I don’t think we can solve here the question of how to measure entanglement in order to decide whether it is instantaneous or associated with a finite speed, equal or not to that of light.

Dear Banjo, George et al,

Was at Rainbow Beach enjoying the ocean without access to net. Nyet to net. Just talk, beach, reading, writing, eating and sleeping.

Read "25 Big Ideas" while I was there. Pages 133-138 described developments in quantum entanglement.

"25 Big Ideas" mentions http://www.quantum.unvie.ac.at/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/ as sites with info on quantum entanglement.

Dear csteele et al.,

http://www.quantum.unvie.ac.at/ is wrong.

http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/ is right.