3 ms·
"If B has property ~k, then we've proven that B had an internal state before we performed the measurement." This part is the flaw in the logic. That doesn't pr
by Osmium 14y ago
"If B has property ~k, then we've proven that B had an internal state before we performed the measurement."
This part is the flaw in the logic. That doesn't prove that B has an internal state. All it proves is that, in some sense, B's state is related to A (assuming you repeat the experiment until you reach statistical significance).
Entanglement is nothing more than saying one particle is connected, in some sense, to another. Like a see-saw: if one side goes up, the other must go down. It's only "confusing" in the sense that the particles are physically separated, and the link between them is not mediated by a force as we understand it. Instead, they're linked by their very nature. It's almost as if you have just one particle, that's somehow been split into two and spatially separated. That's the conceptually difficult part.
- hasenj 14y agoWhy not choose the mundane and least astonishing explanation? If an object A is moving (with a known momentum) and hits a stationary object B, we can measure the momentum of either A or B and instantly know the momentum of the other object without having to measure it. The two objects are somehow "connected"; their state (momentum) is "entangled". Why is quantum entanglement different?
- Osmium 14y agoBecause that momentum transfer is mediated by a fundamental force, typically the electromagnetic force. Entanglement is a property of the particle, and is not mediated by a force: the collapse of the wavefunction of one particle doesn't /cause/ the collapse of the other, rather they both collapse simultaneously.
- kybernetikos 14y agoBecause we can measure a difference empirically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Practical_experiments_testing_Bell.27s_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Practical_expe...