3 ms·

The splitting a coin analogy doesn't capture anything about entanglement though. It is just capturing a property of all distinguishable persistent objects: if y

by tzs 2y ago

The splitting a coin analogy doesn't capture anything about entanglement though. It is just capturing a property of all distinguishable persistent objects: if you have two distinguishable persistent objects and you know one is at location A and one is at location B, then if you find out which one is at A you know what the one at B must be. To be a reasonable analogy it has to capture something this is different between entangled and not entangled particles. That's the thing that is sometimes described as "spooky" and completely missing from the split coin analogy.

bawolff 2y ago
Its capturing that the two particles are correlated instead of transfering information. I feel like that is the core part to understand.
- tzs 2y ago
  But correlations like that happen all the time. You put the tape that was supposed to "Back Door Sluts 9" into the VCR and see that it is "Lord of the Rings" then you immediately know that when you gave your kids "Lord of the Rings" to take to a friends house you got the tapes swapped and the kids are now walking around with the hottest porno ever made. You know this because the two tapes are correlated because you rented them together and have no other rental tapes. No information had to be transferred for you to know the kids have BDS9. Or your daughter Lisa calls from school and tells you there is meat in her lunch. You immediately know that you must have mixed up the bag lunches that morning and Bart had the vegan meal. You make the lunches together, one vegan and one not, so they are correlated without information transfer. What makes entangled particles different from other pairs of correlated things is that they correlate in ways the seem impossible without communication. It's like if someone answered the question of why frogs sometimes rain from the sky by saying that because frogs cannot fly and are heavier than air, just like hail or rain or snowflakes, they feel a downward force from gravity which pulls them to the ground. It's right...but no one has trouble understanding the gravitational aspect of frogs falling from the sky. The thing people want to understand is how a bunch of freaking frogs got into the sky in the first place.

by tzs 2y ago

bawolff 2y ago

Its capturing that the two particles are correlated instead of transfering information. I feel like that is the core part to understand.

tzs 2y ago
But correlations like that happen all the time. You put the tape that was supposed to "Back Door Sluts 9" into the VCR and see that it is "Lord of the Rings" then you immediately know that when you gave your kids "Lord of the Rings" to take to a friends house you got the tapes swapped and the kids are now walking around with the hottest porno ever made. You know this because the two tapes are correlated because you rented them together and have no other rental tapes. No information had to be transferred for you to know the kids have BDS9. Or your daughter Lisa calls from school and tells you there is meat in her lunch. You immediately know that you must have mixed up the bag lunches that morning and Bart had the vegan meal. You make the lunches together, one vegan and one not, so they are correlated without information transfer. What makes entangled particles different from other pairs of correlated things is that they correlate in ways the seem impossible without communication. It's like if someone answered the question of why frogs sometimes rain from the sky by saying that because frogs cannot fly and are heavier than air, just like hail or rain or snowflakes, they feel a downward force from gravity which pulls them to the ground. It's right...but no one has trouble understanding the gravitational aspect of frogs falling from the sky. The thing people want to understand is how a bunch of freaking frogs got into the sky in the first place.