3 ms·
> I'll also note that the "transmitted instantly" part depends on your interpretation of quantum physics. Ok, the way I interpret it is that entangled particle
by umvi 7y ago
> I'll also note that the "transmitted instantly" part depends on your interpretation of quantum physics.
Ok, the way I interpret it is that entangled particles are like 2 hard boiled eggs that have collided.
It is well known that if you roll 2 hardboiled eggs into each other, only one will crack.
So basically, if I roll two hardboiled eggs into each other and then hide them in paper bags, the eggs are now "entangled" and if I separate the bags by 1 million miles, I can observe the state of my egg and know instantly what the state of the other egg is.
For example, if I peer into my bag and see my egg is not cracked, I know that the other egg is indeed cracked! However, if I change the state of my egg (crack it) then obviously nothing happens to the other egg because the eggs are no longer "entangled".
There is no "instant transmission" happening here. All the properties of the eggs were set in stone the moment the eggs collided and thus it doesn't matter how far away you move them because the "entanglement" (collision) event already happened.
This is not a very useful property of hardboiled eggs and so I fail to see how this could be useful by scaling down the eggs to photons.
- syrrim 7y agoThat's the 'local hidden variable' model that was disproven by Bell in the sixties.
- zzo38computer 7y agoWill the "backward in time" model work? If two experimenters far away from each other make the same measurement and have the opposite answer, then they are, from the point of view from each other, backward in time to the source and then forward to the other one, in the other direction.
- russdill 7y agoThis is very similar to the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.
- zzo38computer 7y agoHow is it similar? I tried to learn but do not quite understand how this is similar.
- russdill 7y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding what you are stating.
- zzo38computer 7y agoYes, I probably wrote it not very clearly, but I don't know how to write it more clearly.
- umvi 7y agoYeah, and I watched Veritasium's video on it, but I still don't really buy "spooky action at a distance". The way I understand it, particles have an "absolute orientation" in space that is impossible to determine because currently we are limited to measuring the orientation relative to another orientation and getting a yes/no probabilistic outcome (also, we can only perform this measurement once because the act of measurement changes the orientation of the particle). Nevertheless, in reality the particle has an absolute, no-guesswork spin orientation property that a theoretical godlike being running the universe simulation would be able to observe in a "read only" fashion. (We mortals have to use probability abstractions because we don't have sophisticated enough methods of getting quantum information in a read-only fashion) So basically, when you "entangle" two particles, the act of entanglement affixes their absolute spin orientation to be polar opposites. Bell's theorem doesn't disprove that, afaik, and it accounts for the "spooky action at a distance".
- russdill 7y agoOk, let's say the absolute truth orientation is +x. What would you expect to happen when you measure along the +y axis? You'd expect a completely random result. But that isn't what you get when you measure both entangled particles in +y. Yes the spin of either particle on it's own is completely random, but their spin will always be opposite.
- umvi 7y agoIf you already know the absolute truth orientation, then there should be no guesswork when it comes to measuring it
- russdill 7y agoOK, so when you measure spin, you get two possible results. Either up or down. Set up a particle so it it's spin is in the +z axis. Now measure it in the +x axis. Will the detector return up or down?