3 ms·

I'm not sure why you're grouping entanglement in with the multiverse. One of those is a theoretical idea for reducing the Solomonoff complexity of the universe

I'm not sure why you're grouping entanglement in with the multiverse. One of those is a theoretical idea for reducing the Solomonoff complexity of the universe with no clear experimental implications. The other is an integral component of how we predicted and explain experimentally confirmed phenomena like violations of Bell's inequalities, the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation.

trhway 12y ago
because both violate Occam's razor (and both stem from very specific treatment of superposition). Like in the above mentioned "imaging by entanglement", a closer look at the experiment always reveals explanations for the observed effect without necessity to involve the "magic" of entanglement.
- Strilanc 12y ago
  How do you explain Bell inequality violations without involving entanglement? If we get quantum computers working at a non-trivial scale, would you consider that to be strong evidence for entanglement?
  - trhway 12y ago
    >How do you explain Bell inequality violations without involving entanglement? i still can't in details :) I so far have worked my way only until double-slit experiments - no superposition there :) For Bell violations i bet we have the same mis-interpretation of statistical aggregate description as individual realization (this "mis-interpreation" is the Copenghagen's superposition) as in double-slits. In case of Bell violations experiments it seems to be the same as "disjoint sampling loophole" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments#Disjoint_sampling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experime... >If we get quantum computers working at a non-trivial scale, would you consider that to be strong evidence for entanglement? it would be strong evidence for superposition and thus for entanglement. Want these computers like anybody else, yet don't really see them happening :(
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Entanglement isn't magic: it's just correlation. Behind every pair of entangled particles you find a single original causal event that created them and entangled them. Entanglement just seems like magic because the actual reality is a joint distribution over particle states that already obeys the appropriate physics, but you're thinking of it as two separate distributions whose results are "forced" by "magic" to conform to the appropriate correlation after the "sampling". There's no magic: you're just sampling a joint distribution in the first place.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >Behind every pair of entangled particles you find a single original causal event .... the actual reality is a joint distribution over particle states that already obeys the appropriate physics that is exactly my views too. QM people call it "hidden variable" theory. >two separate distributions whose results are "forced" by "magic" to conform to the appropriate correlation after the "sampling" and that is Copenhagen interpretation superposition wave function collapse based theory of entanglement. >you're just sampling a joint distribution in the first place. if somebody shows that Bell violations can happen here too the Nobel prize will be his/her. I though think that Bell violations can't happen at all. That would be another Nobel prize i guess :)

trhway 12y ago

because both violate Occam's razor (and both stem from very specific treatment of superposition). Like in the above mentioned "imaging by entanglement", a closer look at the experiment always reveals explanations for the observed effect without necessity to involve the "magic" of entanglement.

Strilanc 12y ago
How do you explain Bell inequality violations without involving entanglement? If we get quantum computers working at a non-trivial scale, would you consider that to be strong evidence for entanglement?
- trhway 12y ago
  >How do you explain Bell inequality violations without involving entanglement? i still can't in details :) I so far have worked my way only until double-slit experiments - no superposition there :) For Bell violations i bet we have the same mis-interpretation of statistical aggregate description as individual realization (this "mis-interpreation" is the Copenghagen's superposition) as in double-slits. In case of Bell violations experiments it seems to be the same as "disjoint sampling loophole" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments#Disjoint_sampling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experime... >If we get quantum computers working at a non-trivial scale, would you consider that to be strong evidence for entanglement? it would be strong evidence for superposition and thus for entanglement. Want these computers like anybody else, yet don't really see them happening :(
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Entanglement isn't magic: it's just correlation. Behind every pair of entangled particles you find a single original causal event that created them and entangled them. Entanglement just seems like magic because the actual reality is a joint distribution over particle states that already obeys the appropriate physics, but you're thinking of it as two separate distributions whose results are "forced" by "magic" to conform to the appropriate correlation after the "sampling". There's no magic: you're just sampling a joint distribution in the first place.
- trhway 12y ago
  >Behind every pair of entangled particles you find a single original causal event .... the actual reality is a joint distribution over particle states that already obeys the appropriate physics that is exactly my views too. QM people call it "hidden variable" theory. >two separate distributions whose results are "forced" by "magic" to conform to the appropriate correlation after the "sampling" and that is Copenhagen interpretation superposition wave function collapse based theory of entanglement. >you're just sampling a joint distribution in the first place. if somebody shows that Bell violations can happen here too the Nobel prize will be his/her. I though think that Bell violations can't happen at all. That would be another Nobel prize i guess :)