4 ms·

Entanglement isn’t necessary in that scenario, though. My understanding is that peaking at your penny forces the other penny into the complement state. There’s

by jquery 4y ago

Entanglement isn’t necessary in that scenario, though. My understanding is that peaking at your penny forces the other penny into the complement state. There’s an element of causality which is why we call it entanglement and not simply spin complements. My understanding is also that causality is instantaneous, i.e., faster than light, but still cannot be used to transmit information.

diplodocus1 4y ago
The difference being that yours being tails is actually not a fact and a probabilistic outcome? vs. it just always being tails and you not knowing? how would we ever know the difference?
- foota 4y ago
  I don't know how it applies specifically here, but generally until it's collapsed it will act as a wave, so you could see things occur that aren't possible for an already collapsed states.
- doubleunplussed 4y ago
  A particle is less like a coin with only two sides, and more like a little arrow which could be pointing in any direction. Quantum mechanics allows you to measure the projection of the arrow along any one axis, and you'll always get +1 or -1. If the two people with entangled particles measure along the same axis, they will always get opposite results. But they are also free to measure along different axes. The statistics of what results the two experimenters get when they measure their particles arrows along random axes in repeated trials are not the same as what you would get if the arrows had a predetermined direction all along. Google "Bell inequality" for details.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Yes. That's why it's so weird. Imagine two dice. There's no sense in which one die has a number until you throw it and one side lands upwards. With entanglement, you have two dice but they're correlated. For example they may always land opposite sides up. So if you see the value of one, you also know the value of the other. No matter where it is. The hard questions are: 1. How does one dice/particle know the other has landed/been measured? This is really just a special case of the unsolved measurement problem, but over larger than usual distances. 2. Where does the entanglement information live? If you look at a single die/particle it has no physical property that shows it's entangled. Individually, entangled and unentangled particles are absolutely identical. So you have a correlation that can't be explained by the structure of each die/particle. IANAQP but to me this suggests that you're looking at a 4D spacetime projection of an object which exists in some higher and/or more abstract space. So there's a single object in a hypothetical Quantum Space and we're seeing two views of it in our 4D spacetime. Entanglement somehow fixes the projection in a certain orientation.
- zeven7 4y ago
  Read about the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem. Einstein argued it was always tails and you just didn't know (local hidden variables) and Bell showed that couldn't be true.
devwastaken 4y ago
There is no such effect proven, nor could we measure it if it was. Entanglement can be summarized as using physics itself to have fundamental particles contain information. They don't communicate. All it does is tell you what the state of a and b are. We could assume that they were always that way from when they were conceived, but we can't know that, because it would require measuring it, which breaks entanglement. We can transmit that same information synthetically without entanglement, but it's not the same methods. I imagine entanglement being the hardware implimented version, and current methods the generic C implimentation.
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  > We could assume that they were always that way from when they were conceived Nope. Bell Inequality: a more complex lab experiment shows that they don't hold their state, they were not "that way" before measurement. That's the reason behind the rants about spooky action at a distance, superdeterminism, MWI, etc. Before someone starts yelling "You can't prove that, you can't peek the quantum states, you cheater!" I'd like to point out that it's reality showing its weird face and no human-made proofs were in use.
- causality0 4y ago
  Isn't there some kind of physics theorem equivalent to "0.9 repeating forever equals one" about things being the same if there's no way to define them as different? If a particle can't interact with anything in the universe without having aspect X then isn't saying it doesn't have aspect X before interacting a meaningless statement? Something can't be different without making a difference.
b112 4y ago
Just FYI to you and above post, peek, not peak.
denton-scratch 4y ago
My understanding (IANAQP) is that there is no element of causality, and so no instantaneous causality. We know that the entangled particles are in complementary states; we just don't know what states, until we peek at one of them.

by jquery 4y ago

diplodocus1 4y ago

The difference being that yours being tails is actually not a fact and a probabilistic outcome? vs. it just always being tails and you not knowing? how would we ever know the difference?

foota 4y ago
I don't know how it applies specifically here, but generally until it's collapsed it will act as a wave, so you could see things occur that aren't possible for an already collapsed states.
doubleunplussed 4y ago
A particle is less like a coin with only two sides, and more like a little arrow which could be pointing in any direction. Quantum mechanics allows you to measure the projection of the arrow along any one axis, and you'll always get +1 or -1. If the two people with entangled particles measure along the same axis, they will always get opposite results. But they are also free to measure along different axes. The statistics of what results the two experimenters get when they measure their particles arrows along random axes in repeated trials are not the same as what you would get if the arrows had a predetermined direction all along. Google "Bell inequality" for details.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Yes. That's why it's so weird. Imagine two dice. There's no sense in which one die has a number until you throw it and one side lands upwards. With entanglement, you have two dice but they're correlated. For example they may always land opposite sides up. So if you see the value of one, you also know the value of the other. No matter where it is. The hard questions are: 1. How does one dice/particle know the other has landed/been measured? This is really just a special case of the unsolved measurement problem, but over larger than usual distances. 2. Where does the entanglement information live? If you look at a single die/particle it has no physical property that shows it's entangled. Individually, entangled and unentangled particles are absolutely identical. So you have a correlation that can't be explained by the structure of each die/particle. IANAQP but to me this suggests that you're looking at a 4D spacetime projection of an object which exists in some higher and/or more abstract space. So there's a single object in a hypothetical Quantum Space and we're seeing two views of it in our 4D spacetime. Entanglement somehow fixes the projection in a certain orientation.
zeven7 4y ago
Read about the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem. Einstein argued it was always tails and you just didn't know (local hidden variables) and Bell showed that couldn't be true.

devwastaken 4y ago

There is no such effect proven, nor could we measure it if it was. Entanglement can be summarized as using physics itself to have fundamental particles contain information. They don't communicate. All it does is tell you what the state of a and b are. We could assume that they were always that way from when they were conceived, but we can't know that, because it would require measuring it, which breaks entanglement. We can transmit that same information synthetically without entanglement, but it's not the same methods. I imagine entanglement being the hardware implimented version, and current methods the generic C implimentation.

kubanczyk 4y ago
> We could assume that they were always that way from when they were conceived Nope. Bell Inequality: a more complex lab experiment shows that they don't hold their state, they were not "that way" before measurement. That's the reason behind the rants about spooky action at a distance, superdeterminism, MWI, etc. Before someone starts yelling "You can't prove that, you can't peek the quantum states, you cheater!" I'd like to point out that it's reality showing its weird face and no human-made proofs were in use.
causality0 4y ago
Isn't there some kind of physics theorem equivalent to "0.9 repeating forever equals one" about things being the same if there's no way to define them as different? If a particle can't interact with anything in the universe without having aspect X then isn't saying it doesn't have aspect X before interacting a meaningless statement? Something can't be different without making a difference.

b112 4y ago

Just FYI to you and above post, peek, not peak.

denton-scratch 4y ago

My understanding (IANAQP) is that there is no element of causality, and so no instantaneous causality. We know that the entangled particles are in complementary states; we just don't know what states, until we peek at one of them.