3 ms·
Aiui, it doesn’t at all matter which one is measured “first”, or if the two measurements are spacelike separated such that which one is first depends on frame o
by drdeca 4y ago
Aiui, it doesn’t at all matter which one is measured “first”, or if the two measurements are spacelike separated such that which one is first depends on frame of reference.
Whenever the two measurements are made, they will be correlated in a certain way.
You cannot communicate information from one to the other via how you choose to measure them, but you can in some cases coordinate on how your actions are correlated by choosing how to measure based on some info learned on one side.
So, if the direction along which A chooses to measure the spin depends on something A learned after A and B went far away from each-other, this can’t change the probabilities of B getting a result of 0 or 1, but it can change the probabilities of things like “A and B both get 1” or “A gets 1 and B gets 0”, etc. , even though not in a way that changes how likely it is for A to get 1, nor how likely for B to get 1.
This could conceivably be useful if uh, how useful it is for both parties to do something vs only one party doing it, changes based on the info, I guess?
- b112 4y agoAll that pops into my head here, is that in this case, the two particles, when twinned, are actually the same particle... simply at different time references. This behaviour makes zero sense to me otherwise. That makes me think that all particles are actually the same particle, and we're only observing them at different time references. The twinning only objectifies that, so as observers, we are viewing them at time references which allow for known state. Yes, this has a gazillion holes in it. edit: to add to this, there is no reason to infer that because things are separated by distance, they are not the same thing. The universe does not have to play nice, to ensure that humanly derived, evolved logic thinks that things make sense from a classical perspective. If all electrons, for example, are the same electron? Just observed at different time references and locations? Then things such as entanglement make more sense. edit2: What I mean by 'the same particle', is that theoretically all matter in the universe was one ball of whatever prior to the big bang. Everything already is one particle, prior to diffusion and differentiation due to cooling. Thus, every electron in the universe was at one point in time the same, single thing. Therefore, they are the same thing. If time does not exist, it means that this electron here, and over there, can be the same electron, for it can spend <unlimited time> here, and then <unlimited time> there, while at the same moment co-spanning the same time reference as we view it. OK, I'll shut up now, because this is gibberish.
- garblegarble 4y ago>That makes me think that all particles are actually the same particle This sounds similar to Quantum Field Theory[1], which might interest you. I won't try to summarise it here because I don't have a good grasp on it myself, as a layperson (with a below-average understanding of physics, realistically!) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
- b112 4y agoThanks I shall poke at this.