3 ms·

The envelope description doesn't allow the core of the issue to be expressed. Just allowing for a single measurement of a single property is completely unintere

• k__ 5y ago
  Yes. The envelope example always seem obvious. But when particle physicists talk about the problem, it sounds like it isn't that obvious.
  • eigenket 5y ago
    I don't think many physicists really think of entanglement as a problem now. Its kinda weird, but its also completely consistent, doesn't lead to any wild paradoxes and turns out to be very useful in a variety of scenarios. I think there are people who are concerned with the foundations of quantum mechanics more generally, and they might be concerned with entanglement as an emergent feature of the weirdness in the foundations they don't like, but most of the work I see these days is on interesting ways to use entanglement.
    • tarsinge 5y ago
      That’s a good point and a lot of incomprehensions come from that, in classical physics you can develop an intuitive understanding of the how with the foundation, but in QM it’s distinct. Physicist usually only answer on the how because that’s where the work is (“entanglement works like this, here is the model”) but there is interest in the foundation too, even if it’s a bit philosophical.