5 ms·

> Rather, both balls are in a superposition of being both red and blue simultaneously, and it is not possible in principle to assign a color to either one of th

> Rather, both balls are in a superposition of being both red and blue simultaneously, and it is not possible in principle to assign a color to either one of them until the moment a measurement is made. I don't disagree, and (clearly) I make a measurement when I show you the color of a ball. Before I show you a ball, I would also say that the colors of the balls are in a superposition. > major revolution in physics in order to understand that if there are two balls, one is blue and one is red, then if you see one of the balls is red, you can conclude the other ball is blue? Entanglement is really just this simple — entanglement itself is a statement about a wave function, classical or quantum. The major revolution in physics is that transformations of the wave functions do not behave as we would classically expect. Entangled particles are a tool that we can use to measure those transformations (and get surprising results).

Kranar 5y ago
Fair enough we'll simply disagree on that. Entanglement is not a property about wave functions and really has nothing to do with waves. It's a logical consequence of the uncertainty principle and was ironically deduced by Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky (EPR Paradox) as a way to argue that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of physical reality. Being that it's strictly a consequence of the uncertainty principle, it applies equally well to non-wave function formulations of quantum mechanics such as the matrix formulation which does not use a wave function. Entanglement is precisely the principle that a physical system can exist such that no part of the system can be described without describing the rest of the system as a whole. Einstein argued that this made quantum mechanics incomplete, the idea that somehow two properties of a physical system separated potentially by light years could not be decomposed into two physical systems that behaved independently of one another violated basic notions of local realism. The issue is that as soon as you stated that one ball is red you have made a statement about some property of the physical system that is independent of the rest of the system. That is fundamentally what entanglement states you can not do. All you can state is that there are two balls that are in a superposition of being red and blue and there is no way to describe one ball as red and the other as blue, they are both red and blue simultaneously. That is what entanglement is and that is the new principle that was neither known to the ancient Greeks or something that a 3 year old could figure out. Not the idea that if there are two balls and one ball is red and the other is blue, then if you see the red ball you know that the other ball is blue. Nothing about that ever baffled any physicist.
- virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago
  This comment is the most helpful thing I've ever read about entanglement. Thank you!
- feoren 5y ago
  While I believe that entanglement is genuinely something new and interesting, your explanation of it simply feels like a semantic difference. There is no way in which the universe you describe would be different from a classical universe, at least up to the limits of your description. I'm simply "not allowed" to say that one of the balls is red and the other is blue, before I've looked? It's just, what, against the law to say that? There must be more to it than that. There has to be some observation that would be different in a universe with entanglement than in a universe without entanglement, and you haven't described what that difference is. There must be one out there, though -- it's just not clear to me what it is. Does it have to do with the fact that the fastest I can spread the message "I just looked at ball A and it's red!" is the speed of light, and ball B could be very very far away? But I thought entanglement doesn't actually allow FTL communication?
  - sawalk4 5y ago
    Isn't this distinction exactly what the article is about? By saying ahead of time, "one ball is red, the other is blue", you're describing a hidden-variables theory of entanglement. It may be unknowable (before measurement) which color the ball in your left hand is, but it has a color. But Bell's theorem provides a very measureable counterexample to this type of explanation of entanglement. Sure, in the article they talk about electron spins instead of ball colors, but the analogy is that there isn't a well defined "color of the ball" before it's measured. Of course, the analogy breaks down a bit: electron spin can be measured in multiple axes with somewhat complicated interactions.
    - tylerhou 5y ago
      > By saying ahead of time, "one ball is red, the other is blue", you're describing a hidden-variables theory of entanglement. No, consider the case of neutral pion decay, which emits one spin up electron and one spin down electron. We can clearly say ahead of time one electron will be spin up, and the other will be spin down. But there is no hidden variable that determines which. If there were a hidden variable, then knowledge of that hidden variable would let you predict which electron is spin up (which ball was red). In the macroscopic world, the hidden variable might be the state of my brain when it chose which hand to grab which ball. But if you replaced me with a robot, and that robot used the measurement of a quantum event (such as an electron's spin) to determine which ball to choose, then there is no hidden variable.
kgwgk 5y ago
> I make a measurement when I show you the color of a ball You “make a measurement” well before that, when you say that you have a red ball and a blue ball. The point of entanglement is that until you make a measurement they don’t have a color. You could measure something else than color and you would also find a correlation. But if they have a defined color the entanglement is broken. Sure, one is red and the other is blue. But if you measure anything else (a non-commuting observable, that is) there will be no correlatiom. And not knowing which one is what (already defined) color is not a superposition. It’s just a mixture.

Kranar 5y ago

Fair enough we'll simply disagree on that. Entanglement is not a property about wave functions and really has nothing to do with waves. It's a logical consequence of the uncertainty principle and was ironically deduced by Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky (EPR Paradox) as a way to argue that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of physical reality. Being that it's strictly a consequence of the uncertainty principle, it applies equally well to non-wave function formulations of quantum mechanics such as the matrix formulation which does not use a wave function. Entanglement is precisely the principle that a physical system can exist such that no part of the system can be described without describing the rest of the system as a whole. Einstein argued that this made quantum mechanics incomplete, the idea that somehow two properties of a physical system separated potentially by light years could not be decomposed into two physical systems that behaved independently of one another violated basic notions of local realism. The issue is that as soon as you stated that one ball is red you have made a statement about some property of the physical system that is independent of the rest of the system. That is fundamentally what entanglement states you can not do. All you can state is that there are two balls that are in a superposition of being red and blue and there is no way to describe one ball as red and the other as blue, they are both red and blue simultaneously. That is what entanglement is and that is the new principle that was neither known to the ancient Greeks or something that a 3 year old could figure out. Not the idea that if there are two balls and one ball is red and the other is blue, then if you see the red ball you know that the other ball is blue. Nothing about that ever baffled any physicist.

virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago
This comment is the most helpful thing I've ever read about entanglement. Thank you!
feoren 5y ago
While I believe that entanglement is genuinely something new and interesting, your explanation of it simply feels like a semantic difference. There is no way in which the universe you describe would be different from a classical universe, at least up to the limits of your description. I'm simply "not allowed" to say that one of the balls is red and the other is blue, before I've looked? It's just, what, against the law to say that? There must be more to it than that. There has to be some observation that would be different in a universe with entanglement than in a universe without entanglement, and you haven't described what that difference is. There must be one out there, though -- it's just not clear to me what it is. Does it have to do with the fact that the fastest I can spread the message "I just looked at ball A and it's red!" is the speed of light, and ball B could be very very far away? But I thought entanglement doesn't actually allow FTL communication?
- sawalk4 5y ago
  Isn't this distinction exactly what the article is about? By saying ahead of time, "one ball is red, the other is blue", you're describing a hidden-variables theory of entanglement. It may be unknowable (before measurement) which color the ball in your left hand is, but it has a color. But Bell's theorem provides a very measureable counterexample to this type of explanation of entanglement. Sure, in the article they talk about electron spins instead of ball colors, but the analogy is that there isn't a well defined "color of the ball" before it's measured. Of course, the analogy breaks down a bit: electron spin can be measured in multiple axes with somewhat complicated interactions.
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    > By saying ahead of time, "one ball is red, the other is blue", you're describing a hidden-variables theory of entanglement. No, consider the case of neutral pion decay, which emits one spin up electron and one spin down electron. We can clearly say ahead of time one electron will be spin up, and the other will be spin down. But there is no hidden variable that determines which. If there were a hidden variable, then knowledge of that hidden variable would let you predict which electron is spin up (which ball was red). In the macroscopic world, the hidden variable might be the state of my brain when it chose which hand to grab which ball. But if you replaced me with a robot, and that robot used the measurement of a quantum event (such as an electron's spin) to determine which ball to choose, then there is no hidden variable.

kgwgk 5y ago

> I make a measurement when I show you the color of a ball You “make a measurement” well before that, when you say that you have a red ball and a blue ball. The point of entanglement is that until you make a measurement they don’t have a color. You could measure something else than color and you would also find a correlation. But if they have a defined color the entanglement is broken. Sure, one is red and the other is blue. But if you measure anything else (a non-commuting observable, that is) there will be no correlatiom. And not knowing which one is what (already defined) color is not a superposition. It’s just a mixture.