4 ms·

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

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.