1

Space-time from Quantum Entanglement

DRAFT

Richard Bradford and Gordon Rogers

Abstract 20110424

A basis for the Lorentz group derives from quantum entanglement and the associated basic measures from first principles. A
four-space manifold generates and decomposes into a related one time and three space domains from this basis. That
simultaneity and frame independence are necessary and sufficient conditions demonstrates over all space with local special
cases generating the general condition of arbitrary event ordering globally. The material is presented in reverse order of its
development as this allows for the presentation of the most significant of the findings first. For thorough systematic
development, chapters read in reverse order.

Correspond at
entanglementandspacetime@gmail.com
 2

Chapter 1: A Space-Time and Quantum Entanglement in a General Manifold.

Assume there are a manifold and any pair of quantum-entangled points on the manifold. Given no violations of the rules of
quantum mechanics for entangled points, there is a law conservation law of probable outcomes for the joint relative
measurements of a particular attribute. This conservation law implies symmetry that all pairs of points on a manifold are
equivalent for the description of the connected entanglement. As a result, the link between arbitrary points is simultaneous.

Let two points in the manifold be entangled and labeled A and B. The entangled state is a quantum connection between A and
B and requires a quantum medium to enable the connection. Starting from A the point infinitsesimally close to A is
simultaneously entangled and connected to point A and iteratevly on to point B. Then, there is a path from A to B where its
points contained are entangled and simultaneously connected along with points A and B. The actual paths of the simultaneous
entanglement link between two points are not known, however. Thus, all paths from one end point to the other in the manifold
are necessary to describe the entanglement connection between points A and B and the points in the paths within. The paths
are all equivalent since the quantum entanglement outcomes are the same for any pair of points. Define a general quantum
field as all entanglement paths connecting two arbitrary entangled points on a manifold.

There is necessarily a third point, O, where entanglement of points along with their paths originate. Consider two points that
are infinitesimally close to O and each other. They are then simultaneously entangled and connected to each other and to O.
The iterative process continues to point A and likewise to point B. The general quantum field links the points A, B, and O
together along with points contained in the paths. There are quantum entanglement paths that connect A to B through O.
Define this as a Type I quantum bundle. Also, there are quantum entanglement paths connecting points A and B that do not
pass through O. Define these as a Type II quantum bundle. Given a manifold with a general quantum field and an entanglement
origination point O for pair wise entanglement of two points, the two types of quantum bundles and their relationship with O
exist. Thus, the entire general quantum field is composed of the sum of the Type I and II quantum bundles.

Ways of connecting entanglement to points on the Type I quantum bundle together pair wise using Type I and II quantum
bundles introduces sets of connections. All possible entanglement paths of the Type I and II quantum bundles are similar to all
possible paths for a particle wave function in quantum field theory as given by Feynman and so has cardinality C, the
continuum. If C paths connect two points, then there is C number of possible ways of connections. If one point connects to C
number of points using one path, the number of ways is again C. If one point connects to C number of points with C number of
paths, the set of connections is CXC = C2 and so on. The order of the connection is the number of cross products.

Connections of points in Figure 1.2 illustrates by an example the number of quantum connections depends on the number of
paths and points involved. As shown, there are two paths in the Type II quantum bundle that links together two points on OA,
A1 and A2, to two points, B 1 and B2, on OB on the Type I quantum bundle giving a total of 2X2X2 = 2 3 = 8 possible ways to link the
two pairs of points with two paths. The order is three. The two pairs of points are also auto linked together by the two paths of
the Type I quantum bundle since they were all connected by their origination from O. The total order is represented as 2 3+2.
Thus the general quantum bundle has order 3 plus order 1. This is a special case and in other cases the number of connections
by unequal numbers of points and paths leads to different a form not of m n+n such as three paths of Type II quantum bundle
connecting two points on OA to two points on OB, which is 3X2X2. Connecting three points to two points with three paths is
3X3X2. They are third order, however. In the limit as the number of points and paths of Type II connections on the Type I
bundle approach C, it is ultimately independent of the numbers of points and paths possibly not equal to each other. It is given
as CXCXC = C3 which is third order. On the Type I bundle the limit is C paths auto connecting C points through O. The total order
is C3+C.

Figure 1.3 again illustrates the topology of the Type I and II quantum bundles. The paths of the Type I quantum bundle pass
through O while the paths of the Type II quantum bundle do not. Figure 1.3 also shows that a one-dimensional manifold would
be degenerate.

A Type II quantum bundle that connects two point wise entangled points on OA and OB is a quantum connection with all
entanglement paths not through O and contains C connections. Given any arbitrary locations of A and B, there is C numbers of
possible points on all possible curves on OA and C for OB for the Type II quantum bundle to connect. Connecting a point on OA
 3

with C number of points on OB with the Type II bundle is CXC. To connect all the C number of points on OA to all C number of
points on OB, the number of connections with a Type II quantum bundle for arbitrary points on OA and OB is CXCXC = C3. This
would be an order 3 connection on the manifold. In addition, there is C numbers of paths in the Type I quantum bundle that
auto connects C number of points on OA and OB since they all originated at O. The total order of connections on the manifold is
Type I + Type II or an order three plus order one connection and represented as C + C 3 since they are of a distinct type. These
distinct quantum connections apply to all manifolds that have dimension greater than one.

Below is Table 1 that compares dimensions of manifolds to the orders of the Type I and II quantum bundle connections for
arbitrary points A and B.

Dimension of Manifold Order of OA + OB Type I Order to connect OA to OB Type II Comment

st 1 3 rd 3
2 1 order or C C or 3 order C+C Order Connection
3 1st order or C1 C3 or 3rd order C+C3 Order Connection
4 1st order or C1 C3 or 3rd order C+C3 Order Connection
5 1st order or C1 C3 or 3rd order C+C3 Order Connection
Table 1.

As seen in Table 1 any manifold of dimension greater than one has an order three plus an order one connection. Each set of
entanglement connections represents a degree of freedom and has a mapping onto another distinct manifold. The third order
plus first order entanglement connection then has four degrees of freedom and maps onto a four-dimensional manifold. The
Type I quantum bundle + Type II quantum bundle gives four dimensions. All quantum-entangled connections of entangled
points contained in the quantum field generate a four-dimensional manifold.

Below, a two-dimensional manifold has a 3 rd order connection where each color represents a connection. Each order of
connection represents a degree of freedom. Each degree of freedom is mapped to another manifold and becomes a dimension.
Here it is 3.

R1
R1
R1
Manifold with third Each connection equals a degree
order connections of freedom and is mapped to a
dimension

Figure1.1
 4

Ways of connecting points on Type I Quantum Bundle with Type I and II quantum Bundles:

Two paths of the Type II Quantum Bundle connect two points, B1 and B2 on OB to A1 and A 2 on two paths of
OA. The number of ways to connect the points is 2 3=8. The Points B1 and B2 auto connect to A1 and A2 by
two paths of Type I. The total number of ways to connect this set is 2 3+2 =10

Figure 1.2
 5

Type II quantum bundle do not

pass through O

Type I quantum Bundles pass through O

Resolution of the General Quantum Bundle into Type I and II Quantum Bundles
for AOB path sets. The General Quantum Bundle equals Type I plus Type II

Figure 1.3.

What does the Type I and II quntum bundles along with their connections mean in the four-dimensional manifold?

The Type I and II quantum bundles are equivalent in terms of describing point entanglement. The Type I quantum bundle is
distinct from the Type II quantum bundle in that the Type I bundle was associated with a single degree of freedom or one
dimension, while the Type II bundle had three. The three degrees of freedom or dimensions involve the simultaneous quantum
point-wise entanglement on the Type I quantum bundle and forms a subgroup of the four-dimensional manifold. The one
degree of freedom of the Type I quantum bundle involve simultaneous quantum connections of its points with each other and
O forms its own subgroup. Both bundles are interconnected however. Let the subgroup of the Type II quantum bundle with
three dimensions be known as space and the Type I quantum subgroup of one dimension be known as time. The manifold is
space-time and points within are events.

To see the relationships induced by the Type I and II quantum bundles work in the local tangent space at event O on the general
manifold. The general manifold is affine and has curvature defined with affine geodesics. The tangent space has a flat affine
curvature. There a quantum entanglement field exists. Thus, there is a Type I quantum bundle through event O and a Type II
quantum bundle that connects events together on the Type I quantum bundle. The events in the tangent space-time have four
unique coordinates x1, x2, x3, x4. The coordinates are parameters with no metric units attached and the value of the coordinates
are equivalent to sets of elements given in set theory. Define a coordinate system corresponding to the entanglement
connections defined above where one coordinate axis is time and the other three axes are space. The orientation of the time
axis is such that its positive direction, in order to sequence the emission and detection events, is between the detectors or OA
and OB and in the direction of A and B from O as measured by a perpendicular segment to the time axis at O. The coordinate
axes originate at event O.
 6

All entangled events connect simultaneously by the quantum field. Due to the simultaneous nature of the Type II quantum
bundle, any event wise connection on the Type I quantum bundle co-exists simultaneously in a three-dimensional space slice
with a common time coordinate. This implies that one of the events of the pair wise connection has all of the same spatial
coordinates associated with a common time coordinate, as does the other event on the Type I bundle. One time coordinate
equaling another means they have the same cardinality of their sets of elements. Place the common time onto the given
coordinate system and define the two events in the pair wise connection as simultaneous with respect to the given coordinate
system. Other quantum simultaneous event wise connections on the Type I quantum bundle exist where each event of the pair
wise connection have a common simultaneous space each with the same common time coordinate but the common time
coordinates differs with the different simultaneous connections with respect to the given coordinate system. In fact, there is
infinite number of event wise connections that fit the definition of being simultaneous with respect to the coordinate system.
The entire infinite set accounts for all of the events in the tangent space-time and the organization of the events in this fashion
is a frame of reference.

Consider an event wise connection where one of the events is not the same but the other event is the same as one given above.
Clearly, the connection is different from the one above, which was simultaneous with respect to the coordinate system. Since
the connection is different, this implies that the time and spatial coordinates of the events in the tangent space-time are
reorganized otherwise there would be no distinction from the organization brought on by the former connection. For one event
in the pair wise new connection, assign spatial coordinates associated with a common time coordinate and do the same for the
other event but this time having spatial coordinates with a different common time coordinate. Take the difference in the
common time coordinates and make it a constant. All other spaces with the same constant common time differences define the
same relationship and present a reorganization of the events in the tangent space-time. There are infinite number of constants
and, thus, an infinite number of ways to organize the events in the tangent space-time.

The new organization of the tangent space-time brought on by a different type of quantum connection of events on the Type I
bundle leads to the events occurring at two different time coordinates and having two different associated spaces. Since the
new event wise connection is quantum simultaneous, there exists a simultaneous co-existence in space with a common time
coordinate. The frame of reference defined above for simultaneous events with respect to the former coordinate system lead
to the organization of the coordinates of the events in the former tangent space-time. Now that there is a new quantum
connection and requires a reorganization of events in the former tangent space-time, the requirement of having one space with
a common time associated with the different quantum connection must occur in a different coordinate system. Thus, what
occurs at two different times and associated spaces with respect to one coordinate system occurs at one common time and
space in another coordinate system. The totality of spaces with a constant difference of their common time coordinate in the
former coordinate system would then define a frame of reference in another coordinate system. Since the two coordinate
systems link in this manner, there exists a transformation of time and spatial coordinates from one frame of reference to the
other and back. In addition, since the organization of coordinates in a frame of reference has no preference, there is no notion
of absolute simultaneity with respect to any coordinate system and thus, no preferred frame of reference. All frames of
reference are, then, equivalent in describing events in the tangent space-time.

Figure 1.4 illustrates the definition of simultaneity of two events and that a new connection of events establishes two time
coordinates and spaces but at the same time defines another simultaneous space with a common time in another coordinate
system. The actual orientation of the new time and space axis is would be found by a transformation relation at this point.

Since the space-time parameterized with time and space coordinates, there is then the concept of speed of the entangled
particles. This implies that the entangled particles have space coordinates that can change with time.

Consider OA and OB diametrically opposed. The Type II and Type I quantum bundles merge. All distinct spaces that previously
existed at different times or spaces that existed at the same time on a time axis merge into one space that exists simultaneously
at one time. Since there is then no distinction that existed prior at different times on a time axis the notion of those spaces
being simultaneous at one time on another time axis is lost. In addition, all spaces that existed simultaneously at each time
coordinate on a given axis collapses to a simultaneous space at only one time coordinate. The entangled particles at any
location in space diametrically opposed exist simultaneously with their emission and quantum entanglement measurement link.
In terms of speed, a displacement in space at one time instant gives infinite speed. The description above of merged spaces at
 7

one time coordinate leads to a breakdown of the distinct frames of reference having the transformations developed above.
Given above that all distinct frames of reference equivalently described by quantum-bundles, this special case would then be a
limiting and not equal to relation in order to preserve the distinct frames of references and the transformations associated with
them. Thus, in order to preserve differentiation and the associated structure of frames of reference in the tangent space-time
introduce a finite parameter that measures the amount that OA is not diametrically opposed to OB. Since the quantum particles
follow paths to A and B from O that allow space and time coordinates to vary and different frames of reference to exist implies
no particle can exceed a limiting speed. The parameter and speed is unique by logical arguments i.e. if the speeds are different,
then the greater speed is in violation. Thus, the speed is unique. In the diametrically opposed case, the speed is infinite for
particles in space-time. Therefore, in the limit of approach to diametric opposition of A and B from O the space-time would
transition from one that has different frames of reference with transformed time and space relationships into a special case of
spaces merged existing at one time.

The other extreme is the case where OA and OB merge. Again, the Type II and Type I quantum bundles merge. In this case,
however, the time parameters on an entire time axis present. All the spaces that exist together simultaneously or at different
times on the time axis merge into a set of simultaneous merged spaces at each instant of time. The association of spaces
occurring at two different times on the time axis preserves, however. The result is conservation of the transformation
relationship to another frame of reference. Here the motion of the entangled particles is rest would lead them to the detector
along the time axis while conserving the structure of different space-time frames of viewpoint developed above. Both
entangled particles at rest travel through time at the same rate. If that were not the case then there would be two-time axis
one for each particle but the space is four-dimensional however leading to one time axis. Thus, the particles at rest travel
through time at the same rate. The quantum bundles also merge in this case implying that the events all along the time axis are
simultaneous with each other. Since a transformed time axis can be primary, that time axis connects throughout
simultaneously.

The difference between the merge case and the diametrically opposed case in terms of the time parameter is that in the
merged case all time parameters presents at once establishing the space-time relationships whereas in the diametrically
opposed case the time parameters carry simultaneous spaces with it upon each increment of the time parameter. That
relationship is unchanging so the connection between space and time is unchanging and the structure of the space-time with
interrelated space and time relationships developed above no longer holds. The general case is the establishment of the
different frames of reference with transformations of space and time as opposed to a time parameters given for each
simultaneous space.

The two extremes of the Type I and Type II quantum bundles represent the two quantum simultaneous connections. One is
where the all spaces at one time are connected quantum simultaneously and the other represents a quantum simultaneous
temporal connection. This establishes a quantum entanglement basis set have a null tetrad structure. The space-time with the
quantum entanglement basis generates the relationships between different frames of reference with its null tetrad.

In summary, the existence of a quantum field with the topology of simultaneous connections of quantum-entangled particles
with Type I and II quantum bundles is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a Lorentz-type space-time group.

Figure 1.5 and 1.6 illustrates the loss of frames of reference when OA becomes diametrically opposed to OB that leads to a
parameter, which measures the amount of OA not diametrically opposed to OB. This implies the equivalence of frames of
reference. This leads to a finite upper speed for quantum particles where there is a change in the spatial coordinate with
respect to the time coordinate. The parameter is unique because of logical arguments.
8
 9

Events a and b are connected quantum simultaneously. Given t1 and t2 are the same for spaces ◊a and
◊b, implies events a and b are simultaneous with respect to time. This represents an organization of all
event coordinates in the tangent Space-time. Events c and b form a different quantum simultaneous
connection. This implies that there exists a simultaneous space with a common time coordinate but on a
different time axis T’ because the new connection requires a different organization of events coordinates
with respect to the original coordinates. Events that are concurrent on T’ occur at two distinct time
coordinates of T. If T2-T1 is a constant, then a frame of reference in T’ and X’ is defined.

Figure 1.4

A B
O

Spaces with paired connections: All combinations are simultaneous at O. Space is simultaneous in
time. Special case of Frame of reference and collapse of the structure of reference frames.

Figure 1.5
 10

limiting motion

B
for entangled
Parameter

𝜆
suggests

particles
Finite
T
’
T

Maintaining distinct frames of reference introduces an angle between OA and OB, herein
called 𝜆. This necessarily finite parameter implies limiting motion rate for entangled
particles.
A

Figure 1.6
 11

Time

C
B A
Space
O

The ‘Entanglement Basis’ formed where AO and OB are

diametrically opposed in Space-time and OC and OD coincident.
The Type I and Type II Quantum Bundles are co- mingled and
establish a null tetrad basis set. The merge of OC and OD retain
all time and space relationships with simultaneity along the
time axis. OB and OA opposed gives simultaneity across space
at one time.

Chapter 2: A Space-Time Description of Quantum Entanglement.

Initially there are three assumptions for the discussion. The final assumptions follow after a correspondence between quantum
entanglements with the initial assumptions is established.

1. There exists a four-dimensional flat manifold where there is a three-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time
and all particles and observers trace by their events and world lines in the manifold.
2. The speed of light is the same for all local observers.
3. The particles in the manifold are quantum-entangled and follow quantum rules for entangled particles in determining
the probabilities for measurement outcomes at detectors.

As an example use quantum-entangled photons and the attribute to measure is polarization-using polarizers that can have any
relative orientation using two detectors. Assume there is an event O where a pair of quantum-entangled photons emitted.
 12

There is a pair of detectors where one is located at A and the other is located at B. Both detectors are at rest relative to O.
Assume that B is closer to O where one entangled photon reaches B first then the other reaches the detector at A. When the
detector at B makes a measurement of polarization on the incoming photon the other photon is simultaneously encoded or
correlated with the resulting information from the first measurement and then becomes untangled. The untangled photon
reaches its detector at A and it is measured. The result of the measurement outcome follows the rules of quantum mechanics
for entangled or correlated photons for all relative orientations of the polarizers. The outcome at detector A reflects by the
measurement of the first photon at some orientation of the polarizer at detector B when it was in an entangled state. The
process of non-entanglement is simultaneous on a space-like surface because the quantum rules for outcomes of either photon
when measured with any relative orientation of the detectors must result when the detectors are at an equal distance from the
source. That probability obeys a specific relation with the relative orientations of detectors measuring polarization of the
entangled photons and the probabilistic outcomes follow the same quantum rules as is readily shown using a time-like surface.
This then leads to the hypothesis that the transmission of quantum information occurs simultaneously in space-time and that
quantum entanglement is closely associated in the fact that there is a distinct time and space side of space-time.

In the paper, space-time diagram cases are when the detectors are at rest with respect to the emitter, when there are
observers in relative motion, and with detectors at unequal distances to illustrate quantum entanglement of two correlated
photons on space-like planes of simultaneity in space-time and an illustration of quantum entanglement on a time-like slice in
space-time. Lastly, the case where there are more than two quantum-entangled photons is considered. Consider the first case
where there are two detectors, A and B, at rest and are at equal distance from the emitter at event O. This is the stationary
frame. As shown in Figure 2.1, the quantum-entangled photons at each instant of time are on simultaneous space-like planes.
When the photons reach their respective detector, the result of a measurement on one occurs simultaneously with the
measurement result on the other since they are both on a simultaneous space-like plane at one instant of time. More
importantly, the results are simultaneous because of assumption 3 above. Ideally, what happens if they reach their detectors at
exactly the same time? Which one measured first? The answer is that they measure at the same time and the probabilities of
measurement results for each detector are by the quantum rules even if the polarizers have different relative orientation. The
simultaneous transmission of the quantum information links the two detectors and two photons. The probabilities of the
measurement outcomes are correct for both. Quantum uncertainties leads to fuzziness in space-time that could lead to a path
of equal distance to both detectors from event O and assuming both detectors are identical the measurement may also occur
at the same time. The probabilities of measurement outcomes conserve in that instance. The quantum uncertainties also
contain paths that have slight unequal distances or times to where the detectors are located. The rules of quantum mechanics
for entangled photons must still apply in these cases as well. More detail is later in the paper. In Figure 2.2, the perspective is
the space-like planes of simultaneity taken at each instant 1 thru 6 from Figure 2.1. There the two photons remain entangled or
connected starting at instant 2 at O thru instant 5 where measurement of both occurs. The photons entangle simultaneously at
each instant of time in space. The entanglement remains space-like as long as both photons untouched remain on the
successive space-like slices in space-time. The photons are space-like entangled.
 13

Time

6
A B5
4
3
Space
O 2
1

Space-time: stationary observer

Simultaneous detection at ‘A
and ‘B’ on ‘Card 5
Figure 2.1
 14

1 2 3

B
4 5 6

Figure 2.2
 15

Next, consider the entanglement of two photons from the perspective of a relatively moving observer. Two
entangled photons are emitted from O and a moving observer is looking at the process from his or hers
perspective. Detectors A and B are at equal distance from event O in the stationary frame. Assume that the
moving observer is moving toward detector A and away from detector B. Due to the relative motion toward A the
space and time axis of the moving observer are tilted toward each other and thus the space-like planes of
simultaneity of the moving observer are tilted compared to those of the stationary observer. This is the result of
the extra structure added to the space-time manifold locally by the constant speed of light for all observers. The
moving observer will see an entangled photon first measured at detector A and the quantum information
transmits on its plane of simultaneity to the other photon travelling towards detector B. That photon will then
untangle and placed into a correlated state with its partner at some event before it arrives at detector B. When the
untangled photon travels on and reaches B it has correlation with the result of the measurement of its entangled
partner when it was measured at A and at detector B the probabilities of its measurement results are correctly
given by the quantum rules for any relative orientation of detectors at B when it arrives. If the observer were
moving toward B, the space-like planes of simultaneity would tilt in the other direction with respect to the
stationary observer. As a result, the measurement of the entangled pair of photons occurs first at detector B. At
that event, the photon traveling toward detector A becomes untangled and correlated on a space-like plane of
simultaneity of the moving observer with the result of the measurement from B. The photon arrives at detector A
and the probable result of a measurement outcome there determined by the quantum rules for entangled
particles.

Which of these viewpoints is the correct one if A measured before B or B before A and different outcomes may
result at A or B depending on the relative orientation of the polarizers? The answer is that both viewpoints are
equally valid since the probabilities of measurement outcomes between them are by the same quantum rules for
entangled photons so it still obeys a conservation rule even though there are two different descriptions. As
mentioned above given a quantum uncertainty associated with the fuzziness of space-time this tie in with an
uncertainty associated with the measurement events. The conservation of probabilities must hold true and thus
are independent of space-time uncertainties.

Figure 2.3 illustrates the space-time diagram of a relatively moving observer. The space and time axis of the
moving observer tilt toward each other and make equal angles with the space and time axis of the stationary
observer. Its space-like planes of simultaneity are tilted with respect to the planes of simultaneity of the stationary
observer so what is simultaneous for the stationary observer is not simultaneous to the moving observer. In the
figure it is shown in the particular case on the space-like plane marked at time t=6 that the measurement of an
entangled photon at detector B occurs simultaneously with an event on the photon’s world line to detector A
according to the moving observer. At that event, they are simultaneously untangled. The untangled photon is then
in a correlated state and travels on to the detector A where its measurement of polarization occurs with the
correct quantum probabilities of the measurement outcome. Figure 2.4 illustrates the space-like surfaces of
simultaneity for the moving observer. At time t’=2 O emits two entangled photons. At t’=3, 4 the photons are
spatially entangled. At t’=5 one entangled photon is measured at detector B and becomes untangled with the
photon traveling toward detector A which is in a correlate state due to the measurement of the photon at B. At
t’=6 one photon not entangled but correlated travels on to detector B and is measured at t’=7. The correct
quantum probabilities of measurement results at B apply there. During the time the two photons entangle
together, they connect on space-like slices of simultaneity. The photons spatially entangle. At t’=6 there is only one
event from one photon and thus there is no longer an entanglement. The photon is in a correlated state however.
The quantum entanglement is space-like.
 16

Time Time’

Figure 2.3
7

7
…..............................……
0000000
66 B Space’
5A B
4
34
3
O 2 Space
1

Figure 2.3
 17

1 2 3

B
4 5 6 7

Figure 2.4
With respect to T’
 18

Next consider the case of two detectors one at event A the other at event B but are at an unequal distance from
the emitter at event O. The detector at B is closer to O. The observer is at rest with respect to both detectors. Here
the photon travelling toward detector B will be measured first and untangle with its partner at an event
simultaneous on a space-like plane with B on its world line to detector A. The photon then correlates with its
measured partner and will travel on to detector A. There the probabilities of measurement outcomes at detector A
given by the quantum rules for entangled photons. The space-time diagram is in Figure 2.5. Shown in Figure 2.6 are
the space-like slices of the planes of simultaneity. At time t=2 the entangled photon pair is emitted at event O. At
t=3 and t=4 the two photons are in an entangled state and both are connected together simultaneously on a
space-like plane. When measurement is made at detector B the photon is simultaneously untangled at t=five. At
t=six the one correlated photon reaches the detector at A where the correct probabilities of measurement
outcomes occur. Losing one photon event on its world line signals the end of the entanglement with its partner.
Note that Figure 2.6 is similar to Figure 2.4 for an observer moving in the direction of detector B when both
detectors are at equal distance from event O. If detector A in any direction is farther away from O than detector B
and both detectors at rest with respect to event O then there is a relatively moving observer that sees
simultaneous measurements at detector A and detector B. Likewise for detector B farther away than detector A.
Both descriptions are qualitatively the same.

All states of motion and all positions of detectors relative to any stationary observers are equivalent for describing
events and quantum measurements at the detectors for any relative orientation of polarizers at the detectors.
With assumption 3, leading to the space-like entanglement of photons and conservation of quantum rules for
entangled photons for all observers and positions of detectors imply the simultaneous connection of quantum
entangled particles on any space-like plane.
 19

0 1 2 3

A
4 5 6 7

Figure 2.6
 20

Consider now a slice of space-time taken parallel to the time axis in a stationary frame. The slice is composed of
the sum of all the space-like plane slices of simultaneity occurring throughout all instances of time. The one
simultaneous time-like slice then encompasses all observers, geometries of the locations of the detectors, and the
world lines of the entangled photons. The time-like slice then represents all the measurement events and world
lines of the quantum-entangled particles that from the perspective of the time-like slice occur simultaneously
throughout time.

Given that the emitter of entangled photons is at event O, a pair of entangled photons is emitted one toward
detector A and the other toward detector B. Assume that detector B is closer to a stationary observer at event O
than detector A. The world lines of the photons exist simultaneously in time for all the time the world lines exist in
this particular slice. The two photons entangled and their world lines connect simultaneously in time and to their
respective detectors. Thus, the entangled photons and detectors connect simultaneously throughout time as well
as space but the time viewpoint gives a direct connected representation of why the entangled particles give the
correct probabilities of the measurement outcomes and the conservation principle at the detectors for any relative
orientation of the polarizers. The assumption that the quantum rules apply for a time-like complete connection
between quantum-entangled photons and their measurements is a more natural one than that explicitly assumed
for a space-like quantum entanglement connection between two events. Figure 2.7 illustrates how the time-like
slice and how the world lines connect throughout time. The unbarred time and space axis represents a stationary
observer whereas the barred space and time axis represents a relatively moving observer. The space-like planes of
simultaneity of the moving observer is contained in the time-like slice of space-time. Figure 2.8 shows a
simultaneous time-like connection. The time-like connection illustrates the simultaneous continuous connection of
entanglement and of the detectors A and B together with event O where the entangled photons emitted. Here
there is a time-like connection.
 21

Time

Time’

A
2
Events A
and
Band all
Space’ B axes are
coplanar,
but are
shown in
B a Time-
’ like Wide
O 1 slice
Space
Figure 2.7
 22

A
A

B
B
O
O
Figure 2.8
 23

The above arguments also hold for three or more entangled particles or photons. There would still be space-like
planes of simultaneity at each instance of time to connect the entangled particles or photons. The detectors (more
than 2) could be equidistant from the emitter or all at unequal distances from the emitter. Observers in various
states of motion are equivalent for describing the occurrence. Instead of one time-like narrow slice through space-
time for two particles, there would be a time-like wider slice defined by the spatial locations of all entangled
particles. The time-like slice could actually encompass all of space-time. The time-like wide slice would then
connect together all of the simultaneous time-like connections from O to the entangled photons and detectors.
The detectors connect simultaneously in time and the quantum rules for entangled photons would naturally apply.
The time-like space-time slice mentioned above for two entangled particles is a special case of the time-like slice
for more than two entangled particles. Figure 2.9 illustrates the time-like wide slice. It is the sum of all space-like
planes of simultaneity and thus defined for all time. Four entangled photons emitted from event O and travel
toward detectors at A, B, C, and D.

Each space-like plane of simultaneity at an instant of time would give a space-like connection between all the
entangled particles or photons. All of the previous arguments would apply. In a space-like description, one photon
reaches detector B first where it is measured. The other photons untangle themselves on a space-like plane of
simultaneity and correlate with the result of the measurement result on the one photon at B. They travel on to
their respective detectors where the quantum rules for entangled photons give the correct probabilities for
measurement outcomes at the remaining detectors. . In Figure 2.9, there are three planes of space-like
simultaneity shown. At time t=one the photons are all entangled and traveling toward their respective detectors.
At t=two a measurement is performed at detector B and thus all photons are untangled simultaneously and are all
correlated with the measurement result at detector B. At t=three there are only three photon world lines cut by
the space-like plane. The photons are then in an untangled state and travel on to their respective detector where
they are measured and the results are given correctly by the quantum rules for entangled photons.

Figure 2.10 illustrates the time-like slice as a 2-D projective plane showing how all the world lines connect
simultaneously in time. Figure 2.10 also shows the space-like entanglement. At time t=two where all photons are
entangled and a measure on one of them at detector B is occurring and untangle after measurement occurs. At
t=three the remaining three photons carrying the information of the measurement at B are untangled and travel
on to their respective detectors where they measure. The measurement and subsequent disappearance of one
photon event on a space-like plane of simultaneity signals the end of entanglement between them all. The
remaining photons are in a correlated state with the measurement on the first one.
 24

Time-like Wide
Domain
Time

Space-like Slices: 1, 2,
C 3
A
D

00
B
2

1
Space
O

Figure 2.9
 25

C
A D

B
O B
1 2 3
Time-like 2-Dimensional Entangle Untangle
projection of Wide slice d d
with O, A, B, C, D
Entangled in time
Figure 2.10
 26

An entangled state can be described as a simultaneous connection in space-time through a space-like slice of
simultaneity at a given instant of time and/or a simultaneous connection through time as a time-like slice. These
are the descriptions of the simultaneous untangling of entangled particles or simultaneous measurement of
entangled particles as a space-like phenomenon and a direct link of entangled particles to each other and to their
detectors and thus a linking together of detectors as a time-like phenomenon. Both descriptions must lead to the
correct probabilities of measurement outcomes given by the quantum rules for entangled particles given by the
third assumption.

To have a space-like connection for entanglement from two events, which are the positions of the photons,
requires the assumption of having the correct probabilities of measurement outcomes when the quantum-
entangled particles measure at two detectors whereas it is a natural outcome from the time-like slice viewpoint
because both particles connect in their paths throughout time. Time-like slices slice in any number of ways to
obtain space-like planes of simultaneity for any observer or geometric location of detectors and likewise a time-
like slice builds out of summing space-like planes. Thus, time-like and space-like connections are on the same
footing but the time-like slice provides for a more natural description of assumption 3. Quantum entanglement
may then be responsible for distinguishing a time orientated direction and a three space orientation on a four-
dimensional flat manifold. The constancy of the speed of light gives space-time an additional structure for specific
geometric transforms for observers in relative motion. If the vacuum electrical characteristics change the constant
velocity of photons change but the description of space and time in terms of entanglement would remain the
same. Thus, quantum entanglement is more fundamental than the space-time structure given by any constant
finite speed. The generation of a space-time with the formation of a space and a distinct orientated time may then
occur from some sort of constituent universe building blocks each with some natural orientation or spin direction
that are initially amorphous by having quantum entanglement as a basic property in the primitive universe. The
spin direction alignment would then be a key to having a time direction. A locally constant velocity of any
magnitude of light would also be present since the vacuum state would exist in the primitive universe. Particles as
well as space-time constituents and vacuum fluctuations dependent upon the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are
also present and they all will conform to the quantum entanglement rules.

Assumption 1 above stated that there is a four-dimensional flat manifold with a distinct one-dimensional time and
three-dimensional space. The discussion that followed showed that quantum entanglement in space and time was
equivalent with the distinction in assumption 1. Quantum entanglement could be the reason for giving a purpose
to and reason for the distinction and so could actually be the cause. To go one natural step farther, quantum
entanglement could be the generator of a space-time from orient able building blocks of the universe. In terms of
the three assumptions at the beginning of the chapter and the discussion of quantum, entanglement related to the
1 + 3 dimensions on the manifold the number of assumptions is one.
Thus, the only assumption required is a four-dimensional flat manifold that contain paths of quantum-entangled
particles.

The view now is that there exists a four-dimensional flat manifold without any distinction as to the types of
dimensions and paths of entangled particles are traceable in the manifold. Due to the entanglement, three planes
must exist in order to slice through the paths of the particles in such a way that only two points in the case of two
entangled particles would exist on the plane in order to have entanglement simultaneity between the two points.
This would define all of the three planes of simultaneity on the manifold. On the other hand, there exists only one
plane, which contains the entire path of both particles required by the simultaneity of quantum entanglement.
Thus, a four-dimensional manifold divides into one plus three dimensions. Quantum entanglement demands that.
The distinction of a one-dimensional direction that includes the paths of both particles would be a result of a
 27

simultaneous connection of the pair of entangled particles. The need for the other three planes is that it provides
the other simultaneous point wise connections between a pair of entangled particles. Thus, quantum
entanglement provides a fundamental structure for distinguishing a one-dimension direction from the three other
dimensions. Quantum entanglement then constructs a space-time. Adding an observer independent propagation
that depends upon the properties of quantum vacuum adds structure to the manifold that determines how the
one dimension and the three dimensions are related.

Chapter 3 An Argument for the Simultaneous Transmission of Quantum Information.

The argument in this paper assumes that the quantum information of the measurement result on one photon,
which is one of a pair of entangled photons, transmitted to the other at a finite speed. This leads to an
instantaneous transmission as a way to solve the problems associated with a finite speed for transmission of
quantum information.

The rules of quantum mechanics for measurements on an entangled pair of photons must apply in all frames of
reference in Minkowski space-time. Consider an experiment where there is an emitter of two quantum-entangled
photons at an event O that travel to two detectors A and B that are stationary with respect to event O. When one
of the entangled photons has a measurement at its detector it will signal, the other photon the result of the
measurement so that the other photon acquires a particular correlated state. Once having a state, it will interact
with a polarizer at its detector and the result of the measurement has a determination given by the rules of
quantum probability for polarizer that has any relative orientation. For example, let the relative orientation of a
polarizer at the detectors be 90 degrees, one vertical at B and one horizontal at A and the result of the
measurement at B is up. Then the measurement result on B has transmitted to the other entangled photon and it
becomes down. The down photon by the rules of quantum probability has a 50% chance outcome to the left or
right by the horizontal polarizer at detector A. If the polarizer at detector A was vertical then there would 100%
chance of a down measurement. Even if the polarizer is relative, orientation changed at the last split second the
results still follow the rules of quantum mechanics even outside the light cone.

First, consider the case that quantum information travels at a finite speed. It has been cited that the finite speed of
quantum information is as low as 10,000*c to greater than 100,000*c. Let an approximate average of 50,000*c be
taken as the speed of transmission of quantum information. Away from event O where two entangled photons are
emitted there are two detectors A and B stationary with respect to event O. Detector B is 0.01 Light Years or
9.4608X1010km from event O and detector A is 0.01 Light Years plus 10 Light Seconds or 9.4611X10 10km away from
event O. If the entangled photons emitted in opposite directions, the distance between the detectors is
1.8922X1011km. After the two entangled photons emitted, one entangled photon reaches detector B first and
passes through a polarizer giving a particular state outcome there. The quantum information is transmitted out at
50,000*c or 1.5X1010km/s. It takes 12.6s for the quantum information to reach detector A from detector B. With
this particular experimental arrangement, the other photon reaches its detector A 2.6s before the quantum
information arrives. The photon arriving at detector A has not acquired a specific correlated state from the result
of the measurement of its entangled partner at detector B because the quantum information has not arrived.
Thus, the photon at detector A is random or no correlated state and could give a different out come from a
measurement there. For example, the two polarizers may be vertical, the photon measured at detector B is up,
the other photon traveling to detector A has not received the information yet, and it may measure as up as well.
This would not be a proper result by the quantum rules for entangled photons. Any similar experimental
arrangement could be set up to give results of this type regardless of any finite speed of transmission of quantum
information as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
 28

Time
50,000 C= ~1.5 e10km/sec
2.6 sec km/sec
Time B to A+~12.6 sec

Simultaneous

1/100L.Y + 10L.S. = 1/100L.Y=

9.4608e10 +10 L.S 9.4608 e10 km
km= 9.4611e10
~9.4611 e11km

Space
Distance B to A =
1.89221e11km
Figure 3.1
e17km
Having a finite speed for the transmission of quantum information can lead to difficulties as shown above. Next,
consider the case where the speed of quantum information depends upon the experimental arrangement of two
detectors A and B and an emitter of two entangled photons located at event O in a stationary Minkowski frame.
The two entangled photons emitted in opposite directions from event O. Let detector B be always at a constant
distance from event O given by c*t 1 where c is the speed of the photon (light) and t 1 is a given time interval.
Detector A on the other hand has a distance from event O that varies. The minimum distance that detector A will
be from event O is c*t 1. This will not affect the argument since only the relative positions of the detectors matter.
Each experimental configuration is initially static long enough so that the relative positions of all its parts are
known to each other by some kind of a quantum information transfer process. Then the experiment proceeds.

Assume that the information about the result of a measurement on one entangled photon at one detector
transmitted to the other detector when the other entangled photon arrives there to receive the information. Then
it placed into the proper correlated state and produced outcomes when measured by the rules of quantum
mechanics for entangled states. The two light like world lines one to detector B and the other to detector A form a
right angle at event O and 45 degree angles to the space and time axis on the Minkowski diagram. The hypotenuse
 29

then represents the world line of the transmission of the quantum information. When detector A is at the
minimum distance c*t1, both detectors A and B are on a space-like plane of simultaneity and the transmission
speed of quantum information becomes instantaneous but the present assumption is based on a finite speed.
Then the space-like plane is an asymptote. However, at that location the world line of quantum transmission is at
a 45-degree angle to both the light like world lines so the 45-degree angle is also an asymptote.

Now detector A increases its distance a small amount from event O from its minimum distance. The world line of
quantum transmission is no longer in the space-like plane of simultaneity but is space-like and thus has a finite but
large speed greater than c. The angle that it makes with the light like world line at detector A becomes less than 45
degrees. As the distance of detector A from event O approaches infinity the world line of quantum transmission
approaches 0 degrees with the light like world line to detector A and approaches parallel to the light like world
line. The speed of quantum transmission approaches c as a minimum. The world line of quantum transmission is
thus always space-like.

Time, t, is time beyond, t 1, of detector’s A minimum distance to event O or c*t 1. Thus as detector A moves farther
away from event O the extra distance is c*t. When detector A is farther away than detector B, the entangled
photon traveling to detector B measured there first at time t 1. This also is the time when the other photon reaches
detector’s A minimum distance. The quantum information is sent to detector A from detector B with the necessary
speed required so that it arrives there in time, t, when the photon arrives there in time, t. The distance to detector
A from detector B is then c*t1 – (-c*(t1+t)) = 2*c*t1+c*t. Thus, when the photon at detector B is measured the
speed of the quantum information needed to reach detector A when the other photon arrives is: V QI =
[2*c*t1+c*t]/t. When time, t, approaches 0, VQI approaches infinity and when t approaches infinity, V QI approaches
c as argued above. Figure3.2 illustrates the details of the experimental setup.
 30

Time

A ‘’’ t’’’

A ‘’ VQI t’’

A‘ t’
Ѳ(t)
Origin of t B
A t
45
MIN
1

Space
-C (t1 +t) -Ct1 Ct1
Ct1 is constant
VQI= [2Ct1 +Ct]/T

Figure 3.2

The geometry is in place from assuming that the speed of the quantum information depends upon the
experimental arrangement of the detectors and the emitter so that the quantum information arrives at the
detector when the entangled photon arrives after a measurement on its partner has occurred. Holding detector B
at a constant distance from event O, detector A moved while the experiment is in progress particularly shortly
before a measurement has occurred at detector B. Now that the relative positions of the detectors have changed
among themselves and with respect to event O, knowledge of the new configuration has to know amongst itself.
This requires some sort of quantum information transmission of its relative position from detector A to detector B
so that the speed of transmission of quantum information of the result of a measurement from detector B will be
correct so that the information arrives when the photon arrives at detector A.
 31

Consider an example. Detector B is 0.009 Light Years from event O. Detector A is originally at 0.011 Light Years
from O. One of the two photons emitted from event O travels to detector B. 100s prior to arriving at detector B,
detector A blown up. A new detector A is going to be constructed out of pieces that are not separately any sort of
photon measuring device. The new detector A will be located 0.01 light years from event O. Time, t, for detector A
at its original location is (0.011L.Y.-0.009L.Y.)/c = 6.3072X10 4sec. (1L.Y. = 9.4608X1012km) Time, t, at the new
location is (0.01L.Y.-0.009L.Y)/c = 3.1536X10 4s. The time required to build the detector and have it ready when the
photon reaches detector B is 6.3072X10 4s-3.1536X104s + 100s = 3.1636X104s. Assume that the new detector A
completed in half the time or 1.5818X104s.

Once detector A is at the new location, a quantum signal transmitted to detector B in order to give its relative
position but that requires 3.1536X104s. The photon arrives at detector B in 100s and thus at detector B when the
polarized measurement is made the relative position of detector A at its new position is not known. The position
signal arrives at detector B late. The speed of transmission of the quantum information of the result of the
measurement at detector B based on detector A at its original location the last known position of detector A. The
time of transmission of the quantum information of the measurement outcome at detector B is 6.3072X10 4s. In
the meantime the partner to the photon at detector B arrives at detector A in its new location in time t =
3.1536X104s + 100s = 3.1636X104s which is less than time, t = 6.3072X104s. The quantum information of the result
of the measurement of the photon at detector B is late at arriving at detector A in its new location. The photon
arriving at detector A is not in any correlated state with the one at detector B so the results of a measurement at
detector A may violate the rules of quantum mechanics for entangled photons.

The only way that the quantum information of the result of a measurement on an entangled photon at detector B
is to arrive at detector A in its new location is if detector A at its new location is completed 3.1536X104s before the
entangled photon arrives at detector B. This result is not general and thus the speed of transmission cannot
depend upon the geometry of the detector locations if transmission of all quantum information is finite.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the geometry of the argument.
 32

Time

6.3072 e4 sec
A old =T old
3.1536 e4sec
A new
=T new

Photon B
t0= =100 Sec
0
Space
0.011 L.Y. 0.010 L.Y.0.009L.Y. 0.009L.Y
Anew completed in. 1.5818 e4 Sec
Figure 3.3
 33

The arguments above with the particular experimental arrangements show that having a finite speed for the
propagation of quantum information leads to untenable results. First, there was a particular finite speed of
transmission of quantum information from one detector where a result of a measurement on one entangled
photon transmitted to the other photon. An experimental arrangement was set up in such a way that the
quantum information not transmitted to the other photon in time. This would be the case for any finite speed of
transmission of quantum information since an experimental arrangement could be set up to produce the same
outcome.

If the speed of transmission of quantum information depends upon the geometry of the locations of the detectors
then there are problems associated with this assumption. The particular example where there was a relatively
quick change in the location of one of the detectors before measurement of one entangled photon occurred
illustrated a problem. The same problem can occur if the change in a detector location occurs after a measurement
on an entangled photon occurs while the quantum information transmission of the detector’s new position is
somewhere along the way.

How fast would quantum information need to travel then to solve a problem associated with finite transmission
speeds of quantum information? Consider the same situation where the speed of transmission of quantum
information depends upon the experimental arrangement of the detectors. The largest possible experimental
arrangement would be one where two photons entangled across the universe. That distance would be 2*13.7 =
27.4 billion light years if the two photons emitted in opposite directions from event O to the limits of the
observable universe. In kilometers, it is 2.55X10 23km. The difference in the distance between the two legs of travel
then would determine a speed for transmission of quantum information. For instance if the difference in the time
of arrival between the two entangled photons at their respective detectors is 1 second then the speed that
quantum information has to travel is 2.55X10 23km/s in order for the quantum information of the measurement
outcome at one detector to reach the other when the other photon arrives.

As an experiment assume the difference in distance between the two detectors, A and B, after billions of years of
set up time is 1cm. Assume detector A is 1cm farther than detector B. That represents a difference in the time of
travel of a photon of 1cm/3X10 10cm/s = 3.33X10-11s. The photon will arrive at detector B 3.33X10 -11s before its
partner arrives at detector A. The speed for the transmission of quantum information then has to be
2.55X1023km/3.33X10-11s = 7.65X1033km/s for the quantum information to arrive when the photon does at detector
A. Assume as in the scenario above detector A is moved closer to the source by 0.5cm to position A’ at the same
time as one of the photons arrives at detector B. The movement process occurs in a time equal to say 1.67X10 -11s.
One of the entangled photons reaches detector B 1.67X10 -11s before the other reaches A’. The information of
detector A’ being at its new position reaches detector B in 1.67X10 -11s. Again, it is late. At detector B when the
measurement is made the speed of transmission of the quantum information is based upon detector A’s position
and will be late arriving at detector A’. The photon arriving at detector A’ has no knowledge of the measurement
outcome at detector B and thus is not in a correlated state. The only way for this scenario to work is if detector A’
is in position 1.67X10-11s prior to the entangled photon arriving at detector B. Again, this is not a general result so
having a finite speed for the transmission of quantum information leads to problems.

The argument continues on to a limit determined by quantum uncertainty of position or time. That would be
random fluctuations of the positions of the detectors and time of measurement. Each outcome of a measurement
of position is determined probabilistically and so each measurement of position would lead to slightly different
outcomes. The problems cited above would still exist even for the extremely high speed for the transmission of
quantum information. The conclusion is that the speed of transmission of quantum information is in principle
instantaneous.
 34

Next, consider the case where the transmission of quantum information of the result of a measurement on one
photon instantaneously transmits to the other placing it in a correlated state. Then the measurement of that
photon would lead to the correct probable outcome given by the quantum rules for entangled photons.

Figure 3.1 illustrated the geometric relations of two detectors, A and B, and the space-like world line for a
transmission speed of 50,000*c. As can be seen from the diagram and the corresponding analysis the information
transmitted to detector A of the measurement results of one photon of an entangled pair at detector B was 2.6s
late. The photon traveling to detector A would not correlate. If the quantum information is given simultaneously
then the entangled photon traveling toward detector A would receive that information at event A’ and be placed
in a correlated state 10s prior to arriving at detector A. See Figure 3.4. When it arrives at detector A the correlated
photon measures and its outcome is by the quantum rules for entangled photons. This would be true for detectors
at equal distance form event O, the emitter, as well as for any difference in the distances of the detectors from
event O.

In Figure 3.3 along with the corresponding analysis showed that moving a detector A(old) to A(new) within certain
time constraints leads to possible untenable results from a measurement at detector A (new) according to the
quantum rules for entangled photons. Figure 3.3 redrawn in Figure 3.4 showing the inclusion of a world line of
simultaneous creation of a correlated state at event A (simul) on one entangled photon when its partner measures
at detector B. Thus the photon traveling toward the detector located at A (old) will be correlated when it arrives at
the detector A (new) after the detector at A (old) is moved to A (new) within 3.1536X10 4s. If the detector at A (old)
is placed at A (new) at a time greater than 3.1536X10 4s and less than 6.3072X10 4s which is after the correlated
photon passes the position of A (new) the photon will not of course be measured at the detector at A (new) or A
(old). The photon however will be in a correlated state given by the outcome of the measurement of its entangled
partner at detector B determined by the quantum rules for entangled photons. Placing another detector farther
away in the path will confirm the correlation. A finite speed for the transmission of quantum information can lead
to violation of quantum rules for entangled particles. However, simultaneity of a correlation state of an entangled
photon from a measurement on its partner always leads to the entanglement following the quantum rules for
entangled photons even for an experiment the size of the observable universe.
 A Time
35
50,000 C= ~1.5 e10 km/sec
2.6 sec
Time B to A+~12.6 sec
A’ B

Simultaneous
OA=.01 L.Y +10 L.S
~9.4611 e10km OB=.01 L.Y=
OA’ =.01 L.Y ~9.4608 e10 km
~9.4608e10 km

Space
Distance B to A = 1.89221 e11km

Figure 3.4
 36

The arguments given above leads to the need for instantaneous transmission of quantum information or that
measurement on one of an entangled pair of photons leads to a simultaneous placement of the other into a
correlated state. This is true for a correlation through space as shown. The limit of a relative spatial distance
measurement between two detectors is the inherent quantum uncertainties associated with the probable
outcomes of measurement of their relative positions. Moving the detectors in space-time along the null path of
the photon requires both a space and time location change relative to the stationary observer. The simultaneous
placement of an entangled photon into a correlated state after a measurement on its partner as described above
occurs on a space-like plane of simultaneity but there is also a movement of the detectors in time as well. Thus, an
equally good description of the simultaneous placement of an entangled photon into a correlated state occurs
simultaneously throughout the time of their existence as well. The limit in the relative temporal locations of the
two detectors is the inherent quantum uncertainties in the measurement of time. Thus, there is a spatial as well as
a temporal link between the two entangled photons. The photons entangled in the complete space-time and the
limit is the inherent quantum uncertainty of space-time itself. Since the outcomes of measurements on entangled
pairs of photons must follow the rules of quantum mechanics for entangled photons, the space-time link between
a pair of entangled photons is in principle instantaneous or simultaneous across space from where one entangled
photon is located to the other and during all their time of existence until both being absorbed in measurements.
Quantum entanglement is independent of those uncertainties.

As a final experiment let the emitter of the pair of entangled photons explode after the photons emitted. Is the
time link between the two entangled photons through the emitter broken? After the photons emitted they
entangle and the outcomes measured by a pair of detectors must follow the quantum rules for entangled photons.
Thus, the temporal link is not broken. The space-time event of their emission is what is important since they
entangled there. Figure 3.6 illustrates the temporal link between two entangled photons.

In conclusion, entangled particles simultaneously linked together in a four-dimensional flat manifold leads to
dividing the manifold locally into 1 plus 3 dimensions. These dimensions identify as a space and a time. The
entangled particles link in space-time simultaneously. That the link is simultaneous or instantaneous leads to the
quantum entanglement transcending any boundaries of space-time. To ascribe a finite speed to the transmission
of quantum information during measurements on entangled particles is untenable and so time and space does not
apply in determining any sort of a transmission speed. Quantum entanglement besides being instantaneous does
leave its mark as paths when viewed from the space-time perspective since objects have different event locations.
The quantum entanglement effect occurs in a domain more fundamental than that of space-time and is actually
the generator from some fundamental building blocks. Virtual particles in a quantum vacuum create as entangled
particles that obey the quantum uncertainty principle. The quantum fluctuations of space-time manifest itself
strongly on small scales of distance and time or at extreme high energies at the Plank scale, which are at the limits
of classical space-time of general relativity. At the Plank scale quantum, fluctuation effects would produce
fluctuations, which have extreme gravitational space-time curvatures. Chaos would upset coherent connections in
space-time itself at that level. Quantum entanglement generates and transcends space-time is then necessary to
maintain coherent causal structure and the distinct dimensions from fundamental building blocks in a chaotic
world of extreme quantum fluctuations of space-time
 37

Time

Space
O
Temporal Link: OA + OB
Figure 3.5