3 ms·

Nope, entangled pairs are basically the following in JS: class RawQuantum { value = () => this._hidden ??= Math.random() } class Entangled

Nope, entangled pairs are basically the following in JS: class RawQuantum { value = () => this._hidden ??= Math.random() } class EntangledQuantum extends RawQuantum { valueA = () => this.value() valueB = () => 1 - this.value() } const {valueA, valueB} = new EntangledQuantum() You can give valueA to one procedure and valueB to another and know that whenever the _hidden field is observed, the two will have complementary views of the data. But this doesn't give the two procedures any way to communicate, and there's no measurable difference between resolving the _hidden filed now or later.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
To elaborate somewhat on the basically, the key difference between this example (and the more common "put a left shoe in one shoebox, a right shoe in another, shuffle, and send each to different people" example) and actual quantum entanglement involves being able to choose from a multi-axis spectrum of different measurements, and the resulting level of correlation precluding the possibility of there being a local hidden variable (the leftness or rightness of the shoe in the box before opening).
moefh 4y ago
That only works if you replace "basically" with "not really". With this code you can't violate Bell's inequalities[1], which is a really important feature of Quantum Mechanics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  For someone who is trying to learn the basics of quantum entanglement, the distinction between local and non-local hidden variables isn't take that essential. Or make those "hiddens" in the code above globals. Problem solved.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    Non-locality seems to be the least favorable way to resolve the Bell inequalities as far as most physicists are concerned. I'm not sure why though. I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff.
    - consilient 4y ago
      > I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff. Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. It means losing existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations - i.e., causation.
      - NoThisIsMe 4y ago
        Could you expand on this, or provide a source? I don't see how physics could yield a pure math result like that.
        consilient 4y ago
        Other way around. Of course physics has nothing to do with whether a theorem is true or false - but it has everything to do with whether our universe satisfies that theorem's hypotheses.
        n4r9 4y ago
        I'm also struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Non-local measurement outcomes have very little to do with causality. Are you arguing against specific interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics, which require privileged space–time foliations?
      - phkahler 4y ago
        >> Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. I think a multiverse, or anything "spooky at a distance" or the other stuff is exotic. Non-locality does take away our ability to do experiments in isolation I suppose, which is kind of a big problem, but it is limited to certain kinds of experiments and not (seemingly) relevant at larger scales.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

To elaborate somewhat on the basically, the key difference between this example (and the more common "put a left shoe in one shoebox, a right shoe in another, shuffle, and send each to different people" example) and actual quantum entanglement involves being able to choose from a multi-axis spectrum of different measurements, and the resulting level of correlation precluding the possibility of there being a local hidden variable (the leftness or rightness of the shoe in the box before opening).

moefh 4y ago

That only works if you replace "basically" with "not really". With this code you can't violate Bell's inequalities[1], which is a really important feature of Quantum Mechanics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

BoiledCabbage 4y ago
For someone who is trying to learn the basics of quantum entanglement, the distinction between local and non-local hidden variables isn't take that essential. Or make those "hiddens" in the code above globals. Problem solved.
- phkahler 4y ago
  Non-locality seems to be the least favorable way to resolve the Bell inequalities as far as most physicists are concerned. I'm not sure why though. I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff.
  - consilient 4y ago
    > I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff. Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. It means losing existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations - i.e., causation.
    - NoThisIsMe 4y ago
      Could you expand on this, or provide a source? I don't see how physics could yield a pure math result like that.
      - consilient 4y ago
        Other way around. Of course physics has nothing to do with whether a theorem is true or false - but it has everything to do with whether our universe satisfies that theorem's hypotheses.
        n4r9 4y ago
        I'm also struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Non-local measurement outcomes have very little to do with causality. Are you arguing against specific interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics, which require privileged space–time foliations?
    - phkahler 4y ago
      >> Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. I think a multiverse, or anything "spooky at a distance" or the other stuff is exotic. Non-locality does take away our ability to do experiments in isolation I suppose, which is kind of a big problem, but it is limited to certain kinds of experiments and not (seemingly) relevant at larger scales.