That doesn't work either. Sorry.

Dear david f,

The link to Stanford Uni works, it is certainly a serious source. It sees entanglement as “a physical resource like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems.”. This would seem to make the measurment of the speed of entanglement meaningless, instantaneity being built into its definition.

Since you are specialist in QM, am I right assuming the mainstream opinion about entanglement being that it is instantaneous (provided you suitably see it embedded in space and time)? Would you endorse that as a mainstream opinion among physicists?

Dear davidf,

Shouldn't that have read;

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

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

Dear George,

I am not a specialist in QM having last borne the title of physicist in 1950. I just read popular science accounts of physics and not the journals. However, I cannot believe in instantaneous transmission of anything although I see no reason that the speed of light must be a limit except for certain phenomena. I feel we do not as yet have the tools to measure the speeds involved in quantum entanglements. I feel there is something involved similar to the 500 ms delay that we have built into our consciousness. Between applying a stimulus to the brain and conscious detection incorporated many millisecond delay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments However, our brain apparently backdates the conscious response so we have the impression of no delay. Although the ‘instantaneous transmission’ is detected by instruments I feel there is a somewhat analogous process going on.

In 1948 Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir predicted that there would be a force pushing two metal plates together as the quantum vacuum energy would be greater outside the plates than between them. This was a very feeble force, and its existence was not confirmed until1996. It was measurable when the plates were closer than a hair breadth. I feel something analogous will take place with quantum entanglement. I don’t know the mainstream opinion among physicists, and I could be wrong.

Dear csteele,

It should read;

http://www.quantum.unvie.ac.at/ is left and real.

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

The added i makes http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/ imaginary.

Carl Gauss was the smart fellow who thought of imaginary numbers and congruences. There are some enjoyable number theory problems in Beiler’s ‘Recreations in the Theory of Numbers.”

Guess that’s my four posts for the day.

David f,

You get eight posts a day per thread in the general section.

: )

.

Dear George,

.

I note that my "infinitely small" and David's "very feeble force" and "closer than a hair breadth" seem to be at the same end of the scale at which David suspects quantum entanglement may possibly take place.

.

Dear csteel and david f.,

I could not access any of your" quantum.univie" links.

.