3 ms·
> in the case of two entangled electrons, whatever happens to one’s spin influences that of the other, instantaneously. This is a very lazy way of saying what
by abdullahkhalids 7y ago
> in the case of two entangled electrons, whatever happens to one’s spin influences that of the other, instantaneously.
This is a very lazy way of saying what happens in the experiment and what eventually leads to confusion. "influences" is the most problematic word here.
A non-incorrect statement would be, "the outcome of measurements are found to be correlated when the two distant observers meet at a future time and compare notes."
I think at our current understanding of the philosophy of physics, saying more is not something most people should be attempting.
- root_axis 7y agoI think most people can intuitively understand the observed behavior by thinking about the process as if the two particles had been "pre-programmed" to correlate with each other at the time of entanglement. With that explanation, things seem pretty mundane, then it can be explained that even though the behavior appears like the particles have been pre-programmed, the nitty gritty of Bell's Theorem shows us that this isn't the case, and that's why it is so fascinating to scientists.