Hmm... well that is a little convenient isn't it? We can just throw out the theory of conservation of information when we talk about quantum mechanics because... But even if you do that, you are not really addressing the fundamental problem. Even if you add this extra layer of complication by...
Okay, let's take a little step back and see if I can state my objections to this situation a little more eloquently. We can say time has nothing to do with the measurement of an entangled particle's spin. I'm still not entirely convinced this is the case, but let's just go with it. So the...
To me it seems that this situation is really just an artifact of how measurement/observation works with quantum mechanics. Say you entangled a pair of photons, measured them both locally, and determined that photon A had an up spin and photon B had a down spin. Based on what you said about...
Well, why would they need to communicate with each other? They just share a state. That state was set at the moment of entanglement, and the only thing that changed upon measurement was that we learned what the state was. Nothing particularly spooky about that, just a shared probability between...
So I think this is where my confusion about the situation might be coming from. If we are saying that the passage of time has no effect on the result of the collapse of a quantum entangled system, why is this so called spooky action at a distance so spooky? Aren't we more or less just saying, we...
So let me preface this by saving, I am a computer programmer, not a physicist, and the main reason I became interested in quantum mechanics has a lot to do with the recent developments in quantum computing and quantum entanglement in general, although I do have a lot of curiosity about the inner...