View Single Post
Swimmingly!
#1
Mar8-12, 11:07 AM
P: 45
Let two electrons' (A and B) spin be entangled. They'll be in a superposition of up and down spin.
When the spin of A is measured it settles randomly to up and instantly B is set to down.
What makes it unreasonable to say from the very beginning A was up and B was down?
Would we draw any different conclusions if we assumed it had an unknown but set spin from the very beginning?



My problem with the answer yes:
If there's a difference and if we then propose that "superpositioned-electron" behaves differently from a "non-superpositioned" electron. Then we can probably tell whether an electron is in superposition or not. And we can then use this to send information faster than light.
Therefore either the idea or my arguments are wrong. (possibly reading or changing them messes everything up)

So I assume it may be just a matter of how QM describes the world. Like if we knew that Angels pushed planets around. But we decided to say that it's gravity instead that does it, even though it's all done by the angels.

Also it reminds me a bit of a Schrodinger's cat. Is it that different to say we don't know from saying it's dead and alive?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states
Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested
Verifying the future of quantum computing