4 ms·

I don't understand why there have to be hidden variables in order for their not to be anything spooky about this. This is just how entanglement works. There's n

by dools 11y ago

I don't understand why there have to be hidden variables in order for their not to be anything spooky about this. This is just how entanglement works. There's no way to understand some kind of classical "mechanism" for this. It's no more spooky than, say, magnetism. There is a state where some measurements of some properties are correlated. Big deal!

akvadrako 11y ago
The researches don't know how to explain the results in a way that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of the world, so I'd say most people consider that spooky. One of the equally reasonable explanations is that the measurement results made by Alice and Bob are not actually determined until their compare their results. Or FTL "communication", or time-travel. Or that their sources of randomness are actually pre-determined. I'm curious what would you consider spooky if not time-travel or whole universe pre-determinism?
- dools 11y ago
  Right they don't now how to explain it classically. In much the same way as electromagnetic waves for example are spooky if you try to explain them as propagating mechanically in the same way sound does. Light travelling in a vacuum?? Spooky! This in't time travel, there is no effect and no action at a distance. It's just how that state works. In the same way as I can't visualise a 5 dimensional sphere, I can't create a classical model that explains entanglement, but I can make predictions mathematically, observe the effects and then know that's how things are. Once you go beyond things that make sense intuitively, all you have is maths!
  - akvadrako 11y ago
    The problem with your argument is that you can rationalise anything that way - "that's just the way it is". Which is why I asked what you would consider spooky. If you don't consider anything within the realm of observable phenomena spooky, then you are essentially just defining spooky differently than other people.
    - dools 11y ago
      It's not the "spooky" part that I have a problem with, it's the "action at a distance" part. Things can be spooky or not spooky subjectively, but there is no action at a distance.
chriswarbo 11y ago
Magnetic effects are local, since photons are sent between the objects; ie. distant objects don't interact with each other, they interact with photons locally, which then "carry" the force to the other object, where they again act locally. In fact, magnetism is a realtivistic effect; it's how the electrostatic force behaves when things are moving. "Spooky action at a distance" is something that's non-local, ie. there's nothing being transmitted between the objects; they "just know". Even if there were something being transmitted, it would have to be going faster than the speed of light. A great example is gravity; in Newton's model, gravity is spooky action at a distance, because objects (eg. planets) are in a pure vacuum, yet everything is aware of the location of everything else. General relativity replaces this with local interactions: objects are interacting with the spacetime around them, curving it; movement follows these curves; and changes propagate outwards at the speed of light, as (gravitational) waves.
- danbruc 11y ago
  Magnetic effects are local, since photons are sent between the objects; ie. distant objects don't interact with each other, they interact with photons locally, which then "carry" the force to the other object, where they again act locally. IANAP, but that is probably not a correct picture. Photons carry energy and therefore if you imagine electrically or magnetically charged objects sending out a constant stream of photons in order to mediate electric or magnetic forces you quickly get a problem with conservation of energy. In fact, magnetism is a realtivistic effect; it's how the electrostatic force behaves when things are moving. This also seems at least not accurate to me - relativity turns electric forces into magnetic forces and vice versa when you change reference frames, but they are not the same thing, they are two different aspects.
- dools 11y ago
  I'm not saying magnetism and entanglement are related, I'm saying that when we talk about forces between things, when we get down to it we have no more an understanding of how force "works" than we do how entanglement "works". We want everything to be like little machines with cogs and wheels and pulleys. But what is force? What is the thing that repels two negative charges? There's no "mechanism", that's just what force is and what it does. We're so comfortable accepting all this other shit about how the universe operates why should entanglement be any different?
tim333 11y ago
The 'spooky' word originated with Einstein who wasn't easy with faster than light effects.
- dools 11y ago
  Yes, and he was right not to be easy with that, because there are no faster than light effects. Entanglement is a state in which some measurements of objects are correlated. End of story. There's no "wires" connecting them, it's just how shit works. It's no more spooky than how light travels in a vacuum. If you try to understand light as propagating the same as sound, it's spooky. But light works differently than sound. Measurement of very small things works differently than measurement of very large things. It's just not that big of a deal. Like it's important and interesting but everyone gets hung up on this spooky bullshit.
  - tim333 11y ago
    There is something that looks rather like a faster than light effect - in the two photons experiments the correlations depend on the angle between the polarisers even if they are far enough apart that a light speed signal could not relay the polariser angle in time. Whether you see that as spooky is a bit in the eye of the beholder. But it's certainly a surprising thing. My guess would be its like that because quantum mechanics is the fundamental nature of the universe and space and time are an apparent effect of that. So in odd situations like the entanglement experiments quantum mechanics works as usual but something about space and time doesn't work like you might think it would. A bit like space and time being a leaky abstraction over quantum mechanics to make a programming analogy.
    - dools 11y ago
      Right. I completely agree. And I guess what I have a problem with is not the word spooky but the notion that there is "action at a distance".
poelzi 11y ago
there is a classical explanation for it, look into the BSM-SG model from Stoyan Sarg. Most brillian physicist ever lived. If you find a error in his theory, tell me, because for me it makes sense and everybody I asked just ignores him but could not tell me a error eighter. If its so wrong, should be easy to disprove: - find a logical error - find math error - find something that is not explained in this framework nothing of those happend
- dools 11y ago
  Thanks for the tip i'm gonna check that out

by dools 11y ago

akvadrako 11y ago

The researches don't know how to explain the results in a way that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of the world, so I'd say most people consider that spooky. One of the equally reasonable explanations is that the measurement results made by Alice and Bob are not actually determined until their compare their results. Or FTL "communication", or time-travel. Or that their sources of randomness are actually pre-determined. I'm curious what would you consider spooky if not time-travel or whole universe pre-determinism?

dools 11y ago
Right they don't now how to explain it classically. In much the same way as electromagnetic waves for example are spooky if you try to explain them as propagating mechanically in the same way sound does. Light travelling in a vacuum?? Spooky! This in't time travel, there is no effect and no action at a distance. It's just how that state works. In the same way as I can't visualise a 5 dimensional sphere, I can't create a classical model that explains entanglement, but I can make predictions mathematically, observe the effects and then know that's how things are. Once you go beyond things that make sense intuitively, all you have is maths!
- akvadrako 11y ago
  The problem with your argument is that you can rationalise anything that way - "that's just the way it is". Which is why I asked what you would consider spooky. If you don't consider anything within the realm of observable phenomena spooky, then you are essentially just defining spooky differently than other people.
  - dools 11y ago
    It's not the "spooky" part that I have a problem with, it's the "action at a distance" part. Things can be spooky or not spooky subjectively, but there is no action at a distance.

chriswarbo 11y ago

Magnetic effects are local, since photons are sent between the objects; ie. distant objects don't interact with each other, they interact with photons locally, which then "carry" the force to the other object, where they again act locally. In fact, magnetism is a realtivistic effect; it's how the electrostatic force behaves when things are moving. "Spooky action at a distance" is something that's non-local, ie. there's nothing being transmitted between the objects; they "just know". Even if there were something being transmitted, it would have to be going faster than the speed of light. A great example is gravity; in Newton's model, gravity is spooky action at a distance, because objects (eg. planets) are in a pure vacuum, yet everything is aware of the location of everything else. General relativity replaces this with local interactions: objects are interacting with the spacetime around them, curving it; movement follows these curves; and changes propagate outwards at the speed of light, as (gravitational) waves.

danbruc 11y ago
Magnetic effects are local, since photons are sent between the objects; ie. distant objects don't interact with each other, they interact with photons locally, which then "carry" the force to the other object, where they again act locally. IANAP, but that is probably not a correct picture. Photons carry energy and therefore if you imagine electrically or magnetically charged objects sending out a constant stream of photons in order to mediate electric or magnetic forces you quickly get a problem with conservation of energy. In fact, magnetism is a realtivistic effect; it's how the electrostatic force behaves when things are moving. This also seems at least not accurate to me - relativity turns electric forces into magnetic forces and vice versa when you change reference frames, but they are not the same thing, they are two different aspects.
dools 11y ago
I'm not saying magnetism and entanglement are related, I'm saying that when we talk about forces between things, when we get down to it we have no more an understanding of how force "works" than we do how entanglement "works". We want everything to be like little machines with cogs and wheels and pulleys. But what is force? What is the thing that repels two negative charges? There's no "mechanism", that's just what force is and what it does. We're so comfortable accepting all this other shit about how the universe operates why should entanglement be any different?

tim333 11y ago

The 'spooky' word originated with Einstein who wasn't easy with faster than light effects.

dools 11y ago
Yes, and he was right not to be easy with that, because there are no faster than light effects. Entanglement is a state in which some measurements of objects are correlated. End of story. There's no "wires" connecting them, it's just how shit works. It's no more spooky than how light travels in a vacuum. If you try to understand light as propagating the same as sound, it's spooky. But light works differently than sound. Measurement of very small things works differently than measurement of very large things. It's just not that big of a deal. Like it's important and interesting but everyone gets hung up on this spooky bullshit.
- tim333 11y ago
  There is something that looks rather like a faster than light effect - in the two photons experiments the correlations depend on the angle between the polarisers even if they are far enough apart that a light speed signal could not relay the polariser angle in time. Whether you see that as spooky is a bit in the eye of the beholder. But it's certainly a surprising thing. My guess would be its like that because quantum mechanics is the fundamental nature of the universe and space and time are an apparent effect of that. So in odd situations like the entanglement experiments quantum mechanics works as usual but something about space and time doesn't work like you might think it would. A bit like space and time being a leaky abstraction over quantum mechanics to make a programming analogy.
  - dools 11y ago
    Right. I completely agree. And I guess what I have a problem with is not the word spooky but the notion that there is "action at a distance".

poelzi 11y ago

there is a classical explanation for it, look into the BSM-SG model from Stoyan Sarg. Most brillian physicist ever lived. If you find a error in his theory, tell me, because for me it makes sense and everybody I asked just ignores him but could not tell me a error eighter. If its so wrong, should be easy to disprove: - find a logical error - find math error - find something that is not explained in this framework nothing of those happend

dools 11y ago
Thanks for the tip i'm gonna check that out