Entanglement: How Does it Work and Its Implications in Everyday Life?

[nnope]

I don't have much of a background in quantum physics so be patient with my questions please. Basically I want to know how does entanglement actually work? Is information being transferred faster than we can detect it or is there some invisible link between particles that causes the phenomenon we call entanglement?
Also just an extra question how does all of quantum mechanics translate to every day life? Does my bed disappear when I am not looking at it?

 

[Nugatory]

I don't have much of a background in quantum physics so be patient with my questions please. Basically I want to know how does entanglement actually work? Is information being transferred faster than we can detect it or is there some invisible link between particles that causes the phenomenon we call entanglement

That's an easy question: Neither. However, now that you know what it's not, you'll probably want to know what it is, and that's not such an easy question.

Also just an extra question how does all of quantum mechanics translate to every day life? Does my bed disappear when I am not looking at it?

Of course not, and nothing in quantum mechanics suggests that it might.

If you can get hold of the book "Sneaking a look at god's cards" by Giancarlo Ghiradi, it will give you much of the background that you need without demanding more mth thn you have.

 

[bhobba]

Here is the technical definition of entanglement. It's more at the I level than B but hopefully you will get the gist.

One of the foundational principles of QM is called the principle of superposition.

It says if a system can be in state |a> and |b>, without detailing just what they mean, then c*|a> + d*|b> is another state where c and d are any constants. I will for definiteness use 1/√2 for both in the following.

Ok now suppose we have two systems each can be in state |a> and |b> so you can have system one in state |a> and system 2 in state |b> - this is written as |a>|b> and conversely you can have system 1 in state |b> and system 2 in state |a> - this is written as |b>|a>. Now let's apply the principle of superposition to this combined system so you have 1/√2 |a>|b> + 1/√2 |b>|a> as a possible state. Such states are called entangled.

Now let's just observe system 1. We find, if we chug through the math, it acts as if it what is called a mixed state which I will not go into, but is the foundation of what's called decoherence which I will also not go into. You must study some textbooks for that one.

Of relevance here suppose when you observe system 1 and find its in state |a> then since its part of state |a>|b> system 2 is automatically in state |b>. And conversely if its in state |b> then system 2 is in state |a> - that's all pretty intuitive, but again if you chug through the math it shows your intuition is right.

Now that's all Bell is - simple really. So what's this whole thing about - paper after paper and talk of non locality etc etc. That's simple as well - but few will explain it to you - here will. It just a correlation - yes that's all. But you say, correctly, that's trivial - it can't be all it is. But believe it or not it is. The issue however, and this is the only thing, is it has statistical properties different to correlation's we find in the world around us - see Dr Chinese's explanation:
http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

So it has statistical properties different to what we usually have. Well this is QM - do you expect it to be the same as classically? Of course not. But what some do is say - I want it the same as classical. OK - you look for some out and you soon find it - if you assume non-locality you can have it. That's where this whole FTL, non locality stuff comes from. But then you ask - why bother? And that is the whole secret to this business hardly anyone will tell you - just accept QM as it is and there is no issue - it's this butting your head against just accepting nature as it is, that's the issue. You want to fight against it, and you go down a rabbit hole of weirdness, non locally etc etc. Don't fall for it.

Of course this in no way diminishes the genius of Bell in figuring this all out - its what some people have taken from it - they have made it much harder than it is and confusion abounds with all sorts of silly statements even from people that should know better. Don't fall for it - don't go down the rabbit hole in trying to force QM to your intuition, as some say of people who get too caught up in trying to understand the foundations of QM (the saying came from Feynman). Its a legit area of study, but gee it confuses beginners. Just accept QM as it is and all is fine. Its a bit weird - just accept it. Later, when you have learned a lot more of QM that's the time to look at its foundations, you are prepared for it then and have a much greater chance of not going down that rabbit hole leading nowhere.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Khashishi]

First of all, you need to understand that the number of parameters needed to represent a state is larger in quantum mechanics than in classical logic. In classical logic, a system that has two eigenstates has only two possible states, e.g. up and down. But a quantum state can be in superposition, so there's infinite possible states. (In this case, the measure of the state space is equal to the number of points on a sphere.) If you have incomplete information about the state, then in classical logic, you represent this as a probability of each state A and B. It is essential to understand that a superposition between A and B is different than a classical probability distribution containing A and B. In the first case, the state is fully known (a so-called pure state); in the second, there is incomplete information. In quantum mechanics, you represent a state with incomplete information using a density matrix, which has an even larger state space.

The rules for combining two smaller systems into a larger system are different than in classical logic. In classical logic, if we combine two systems with two states each, we have a system with 2x2 or 4 states (e.g., up-up, up-down, down-up, down-down). In quantum mechanics, you have a system with 2x2 or 4 eigenstates, but infinite states, since states don't need to be eigenstates (they can be superpositions). You could have a pure state that is some superposition A*(up-up)+B*(up-down)+C*(down-up)+D*(down-down). A, B, C, and D are complex numbers, but with the restriction that A^2+B^2+C^2+D^2 = 1. Since there are two numbers in each complex number, if we ignore the overall phase, the size of the state space is 6D. Note that the 2 state system has a size of state space that is 2D (surface of sphere). If you have two 2-state systems, and you choose a state for each system, you are choosing a point in a 4D space. The point here is that the size of the state space of the combined system is bigger than the product of the sizes of state space of each subsystem. In other words, when systems are combined, it unlocks more possible states that can't be expressed by specifying the state of each subsystem. These additional states are called entangled states. In fact, almost all of the states in the combined system are entangled states.

 

[entropy1]

Is information being transferred faster than we can detect it or is there some invisible link between particles that causes the phenomenon we call entanglement?

You can look at it in the way of the principle of conservation, that the physical universe is filled with. In the case of entanglement this translates to: if one particle is up, the other must be down, and vice versa. There is no information transfered. There are several interpretations that each give a different explanation of how the quantity in question could be conserved without transfering info FTL. The bottom line, the math, shows conservation is possible. QM can be counter-intuitive. Another conservation is that of energy: in a closed system any energy lost by an element in it is gained by one or more other elements in it, so that the total energy remains the same.

 

[Ken G]

There have been a lot of good answers above, I've learned something from each. Here's my take: entanglement is where we learn that systems are fundamentally holistic, meaning all one thing rather than comprised of separate parts. It's just that being comprised of separate parts is kind of a special (perhaps even trivial) case of being all one thing, kind of like how a circular orbit is a special case of the allowed elliptical orbits. We don't say that orbits have to be either circular or elliptical, and we don't say that they should be circular but every now and then we encounter these bizarre elliptical ones, we just say circles are special cases of ellipses, and perhaps this is the view we should take about systems that act like they are made of separate parts as opposed to being all one thing.

What's more, when you have a vast internal complexity in a system, it tends to act more and more as though it was comprised of parts, sort of like how there are processes that exist in astronomy that tend to circularize elliptical orbits and that's why most orbits are indeed close to circular. So the conclusion is, our macroscopic experiences lead us to think that systems are fundamentally comprised of separate parts that work together, but quantum mechanics shows us this is a kind of emergent property of the specific way that complicated systems cover the tracks of their fundamentally holistic (quantum) character.

Note this insight is not forced on anyone, because to accept it is essentially to reject the Copenhagen approach to quantum mechanics. Bohr took the opposite view that systems are indeed comprised of parts and do in fact function classically, but the fact that these rules don't work for the quantum world is evidence that, in his words, "there is no quantum world." But one of Bohr's own principles is the principle of correspondence, which means that combining a sufficient number of quantum systems, or sufficiently exciting a single quantum system, must always give the same result as a classical experiment, so even he did allow that one must be able to interpret the classically real world as emergent from quantum mechanics. So although Bohr would likely have rejected the idea that reality is fundamentally holistic and only appears to be comprised of parts in the classical limit (since he took the classical limit as what reality is, essentially by definition), nevertheless I can invoke his own correspondence principle to support the idea that being comprised of parts is only the classical limit that stems from a reality that is fundamentally holistic, but which being made of parts emerges as a special case when all the entanglements are effectively broken.

 

[anothergol]

That's an easy question: Neither.

What do you mean, neither? Why/how can it not be an "invisible link"?

 

[anothergol]

But then you ask - why bother? And that is the whole secret to this business hardly anyone will tell you - just accept QM as it is and there is no issue - it's this butting your head against just accepting nature as it is, that's the issue. You want to fight against it, and you go down a rabbit hole of weirdness, non locally etc etc. Don't fall for it.

I've read this a lot, not to try to make sense of QM, to just acknowledge it and go on. I'm sure this makes sense for pro's in this domain, which seems to be very mathematically driven, but.. consider that not many here (unless I'm mistaken about the target of this forum) will go deeper in the maths, and are indeed there a little to make sense out of QM.
I mean, it doesn't mean we're idiots, if Einstein himself had problems accepting the nature of entanglement.

That is, facts like a particule is in superposition of states until observed, but the observed spin will be purely random (if I'm saying it right), that's not getting into the maths, that's understandable by everyone, but most importantly, there is something we can understand from that: that one can't use entanglement to communicate faster than light. We don't all need to view QM as black box of equations to make a little sense out of it.
If I took this example it's because we often see the unfortunate word "teleportation" used in the media. Understanding entanglement better makes us understand that it's in no way a teleportation. I consider this as "making sense out of QM", what entanglement means & doesn't mean from a.. more "real" aspect.

 

[Ken G]

What's more, it can be argued that quantum mechanics makes a lot more "sense" than does classical mechanics, for those who are mathematically inclined-- it's just that we (as a species, and often as individuals also) learned classical mechanics first, so it prejudiced our thinking. In support of this claim, I will point out some quotes by Parmenides and Zeno, who were both trying to use pure logic, almost 2500 years ago (!), to determine what the nature of reality "had to be", in order to make "sense" logically:

Parmenides:
How could what is perish? How could it have
come to be? For if it came into being, it is not;
nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming
into being is extinguished, and destruction
unknown.

Sounds like gobbledygook, right? Actually, read closer, and then look up the no-clone and no-deleting theorems of quantum mechanics. Then consider this:

Zeno:
The hypothesis of the many, if examined sufficiently in detail, leads to even more ridiculous results than the hypothesis of the One.

More mystic mumbo jumbo? Read about the meaning of the "unitary" time translations in quantum mechanics. And while you're at it, google the "quantum Zeno effect," which no doubt sets the record for an observed phenomenon named after the longest elapsed time for someone who in some sense predicted or expected it.

The conclusion I am leading you toward is that when you take pure logic, and try to use it to infer how reality will behave, you end up with some of the crucial aspects of quantum mechanics, and nothing like classical mechanics. So I agree with you-- there may well be some fertile soil involved in "making sense" of quantum mechanics, if it is a much more logically accessible theory than Newton's laws, albeit seemingly strange.

 

[nnope]

How did we go from trying to understand entanglement to overly convoluted responses that are talking about God knows what and quoting God knows who?

 

[Ken G]

Well, I guess if you understand entanglement without any "convoluted" insights, we'd all love to hear it.

 

[bhobba]

IThat is, facts like a particule is in superposition of states until observed,

You have hit on the issue right there.

Even explaining superposition without math is impossible - and believe me I have tried.

A quantum object is in superposition all the time and in an infinite number of ways. What I suspect you are trying to say, and this is the other part of the issue, is superposition of what is being observed - which has a very specific meaning I can discuss - it leads to the so called preferred basis problem.

The above as you wrote it, because of that actually makes no sense. To formulate meaningful questions and get meaningful answers at the beginner level is very difficult. I did the best in my previous post based on the innumerable queries I have replied to on this forum. If what I said still makes no sense then really me, and I suspect many other science advisers, can't really help you. Some will simply tell you - study the real deal ie actual textbooks and leave it at that. I won't - I will do my best, but in the final analysis it really is the only way.

It is the very important issue that is at rock bottom of the confusion and misconception pop-sci accounts give such as teleportation etc. There is no teleportation. Even professionals like Brian Green resort to things like particles are in many places at once (I have heard him say it). He probably knows better (it's wrong BTW - QM is silent on such things - but even after studying advanced textbooks fell for that one myself - so Brian is well and truly excused - and why I said probably), but unless he wants to get in front of the camera and say - well I really can't tell you too much without some math and turn virtually everyone off that's what he is reduced to. It's to give a feel so to speak - but its wrong. We spend a lot of time here correcting such - like I said even I fell for some of that stuff and had to be corrected - with varying degrees of success. Its particularly bad in Quantum Field Theory without going into the details.

It will take time, but, with some effort, the following are at pretty close to the beginner level (you just need a smidgen of calculus) and will do just that:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465075681/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465062903/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I am sorry, truly I am, but its the only way.

Thanks
Bill

 

[nnope]

Zeno:
The hypothesis of the many, if examined sufficiently in detail, leads to even more ridiculous results than the hypothesis of the One.

More mystic mumbo jumbo? Read about the meaning of the "unitary" time translations in quantum mechanics. And while you're at it, google the "quantum Zeno effect," which no doubt sets the record for an observed phenomenon named after the longest elapsed time for someone who in some sense predicted or expected it.

So I read about this Zeno effect, I fail to see what the quote has anything todo with the concept.

How could what is perish? How could it have
come to be? For if it came into being, it is not;
nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming
into being is extinguished, and destruction
unknown.

Sounds like gobbledygook, right? Actually, read closer, and then look up the no-clone and no-deleting theorems of quantum mechanics. Then consider this:

Im still failing to see the point. You've taken some quote by some guy born in 501 BC and assumed it sheds light on aspects of QM because it seems to allign with a concept on the subject. It seems to me that his philosophy is flawed anyway.

 

[nnope]

Well, I guess if you understand entanglement without any "convoluted" insights, we'd all love to hear it.

Thats not what I am trying to imply, I am just saying that some of the explanations given and the discussions had on these topics are so purposely convoluted that after I've spent 15 minutes trying to understand them I realize they can be explained in simpler terms.

 

[Ken G]

So I read about this Zeno effect, I fail to see what the quote has anything todo with the concept.

It has everything to do with the concept, because it is about superposition and how superpositions involve indefiniteness. Entanglement is a type of superposition that involves indefiniteness among several particles. The point of the Zeno effect is that in order for a system to evolve unitarily from having one definite value of a discrete variable to another, it must move through indefinite states in between, which requires that the system go unmeasured for a time. Since there exists measurements that collapse an entangled system into a Bell state, this means that in order for an entangled system to evolve unitarily into a different Bell state, it must go unexposed to Bell measurements for a time, otherwise the initial entanglement will be locked in. The name stems from Zeno's logical argument that change is impossible, which now must be modified to say that change between definite states is impossible.

Im still failing to see the point. You've taken some quote by some guy born in 501 BC and assumed it sheds light on aspects of QM because it seems to allign with a concept on the subject. It seems to me that his philosophy is flawed anyway.

Then you need to know more about what he was saying. Parmenides was saying that if something (read "quantum state") exists now, then it must have always existed, and it could not cease to exist without having not existed before. This is precisely true of quantum states under unitary evolution, that's the no-cloning, no-deleting theorems in a nutshell. Of course Parmenides did not know quantum mechanics, the point is that he arrived at his conclusions using a form of logic that is apparently quite similar to the logical structure of quantum mechanics. And yes, he did that in 500 BC or something, that's the whole point-- this speaks to the issue of just how difficult to understand is the basic underlying structure of quantum mechanics, if it bears resemblance to one of the very first logical efforts that people tried to apply to the nature of reality. But yes, these kinds of insights might not be interesting to all people, I already knew that, the issue was more if the person asking the question and trying to struggle with the meaning of quantum mechanics would like to see it in that historical perspective or not.

 

[Ken G]

Thats not what I am trying to imply, I am just saying that some of the explanations given and the discussions had on these topics are so purposely convoluted that after I've spent 15 minutes trying to understand them I realize they can be explained in simpler terms.

Maybe 15 minutes isn't enough to distill the lessons of quantum mechanics. The danger is not to trivialize it, yet to get some feeling of how it fits into a larger perspective of all the ways nature could have worked.

 

[nnope]

It has everything to do with the concept, because it is about superposition and how superpositions involve indefiniteness. Entanglement is a type of superposition that involves indefiniteness among several particles. The point of the Zeno effect is that in order for a system to evolve unitarily from having one definite value of a discrete variable to another, it must move through indefinite states in between, which requires that the system go unmeasured for a time. Since there exists measurements that collapse an entangled system into a Bell state, this means that in order for an entangled system to evolve unitarily into a different Bell state, it must go unexposed to Bell measurements for a time, otherwise the initial entanglement will be locked in. The name stems from Zeno's logical argument that change is impossible, which now must be modified to say that change between definite states is impossible.

Then you need to know more about what he was saying. Parmenides was saying that if something (read "quantum state") exists now, then it must have always existed, and it could not cease to exist without having not existed before. This is precisely true of quantum states under unitary evolution, that's the no-cloning, no-deleting theorems in a nutshell. Of course Parmenides did not know quantum mechanics, the point is that he arrived at his conclusions using a form of logic that is apparently quite similar to the logical structure of quantum mechanics. And yes, he did that in 500 BC or something, that's the whole point-- this speaks to the issue of just how difficult to understand is the basic underlying structure of quantum mechanics, if it bears resemblance to one of the very first logical efforts that people tried to apply to the nature of reality. But yes, these kinds of insights might not be interesting to all people, I already knew that, the issue was more if the person asking the question and trying to struggle with the meaning of quantum mechanics would like to see it in that historical perspective or not.

Basically, you are saying that you can't use the ordinary line of logical thinking to explain QM it requires a different form of insight. That makes sense.

On a side note, 'Parmenides was saying that if something exists now, then it must have always existed, and it could not cease to exist without having not existed before.', the claim that if something exists now, means it must have always existed is flawed (pretty sure I didn't exist 100 yrs ago), only the latter part of that statement makes sense (unless I am dumb enough to completely misunderstand what is being said).

'this speaks to the issue of just how difficult to understand is the basic underlying structure of quantum mechanics', I guess you develop that understanding when you actually study QM. I am going to buy these books the guys have suggested above and try to develop my perception on the subject.

Thanks!

 

[Ken G]

On a side note, 'Parmenides was saying that if something exists now, then it must have always existed, and it could not cease to exist without having not existed before.', the claim that if something exists now, means it must have always existed is flawed (pretty sure I didn't exist 100 yrs ago), only the latter part of that statement makes sense (unless I am dumb enough to completely misunderstand what is being said).

That's what's so interesting about Parmenides' logic, it flies in the face of daily experience. But so does quantum mechanics! Parmenides was saying that the appearance of something that didn't exist before is a kind of illusion (so yes, either you are a kind of illusion, or the idea that you didn't exist 100 years ago is a kind of illusion). That really seems like nonsense, I agree with you. But then you learn quantum mechanics, and you discover that according to that theory, all closed systems evolve "unitarily", which yields a "no-cloning" theorem, and a "no-deleting" theorem. That means all quantum states are eternal, they neither appear nor disappear-- if you find a system in a quantum state, that state already existed somewhere else, and has been "teleported" to your system. So if you take this lesson literally, and you regard your identity as a kind of "quantum state" (never mind if that's a reasonable thing to do, people who regard quantum mechanics as a fundamental truth underlying all of classical reality have no choice but to regard that as true), then it is indeed an illusion that you came into being when you were born-- you merely acquired some pre-existing state of a system that you have no observational access to (that's the "illusion" part, like collapse of the wavefunction is a kind of illusion).

So it's eerie that there are these connections with a purely logical perspective on reality, and quantum mechanics, when we tend to regard the surprises of quantum mechanics as strange or even "illogical." We find it's the opposite of illogical-- it's just not like our experiences. So what does that mean? That's the tricky question that no one has really been able to wrestle with, and some prefer not to even ask the question.

 

[bhobba]

Basically, you are saying that you can't use the ordinary line of logical thinking to explain QM it requires a different form of insight. That makes sense.

Hmmmmm. Not so sure of that:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101012.pdf

But guys we seem to be getting off topic here - which is what entanglement is.

Can we stick to that. I did my best in my post - any queries?

Thanks
Bill

 

[nnope]

That's what's so interesting about Parmenides' logic, it flies in the face of daily experience. But so does quantum mechanics! Parmenides was saying that the appearance of something that didn't exist before is a kind of illusion (so yes, either you are a kind of illusion, or the idea that you didn't exist 100 years ago is a kind of illusion). That really seems like nonsense, I agree with you. But then you learn quantum mechanics, and you discover that according to that theory, all closed systems evolve "unitarily", which yields a "no-cloning" theorem, and a "no-deleting" theorem. That means all quantum states are eternal, they neither appear nor disappear-- if you find a system in a quantum state, that state already existed somewhere else, and has been "teleported" to your system. So if you take this lesson literally, and you regard your identity as a kind of "quantum state" (never mind if that's a reasonable thing to do, people who regard quantum mechanics as a fundamental truth underlying all of classical reality have no choice but to regard that as true), then it is indeed an illusion that you came into being when you were born-- you merely acquired some pre-existing state of a system that you have no observational access to (that's the "illusion" part, like collapse of the wavefunction is a kind of illusion).

So it's eerie that there are these connections with a purely logical perspective on reality, and quantum mechanics, when we tend to regard the surprises of quantum mechanics as strange or even "illogical." We find it's the opposite of illogical-- it's just not like our experiences. So what does that mean? That's the tricky question that no one has really been able to wrestle with, and some prefer not to even ask the question.

Oh, I get the point, it is basically like the recycling of matter. When I die I will return to the Earth and my matter will, over time, of course, reform into new life and objects. The matter that makes me has always been there, sure, but I didn't exist until I existed. In terms of QM, how does that all fit into the larger scheme of things? Surely, a system in a quantum state didn't exist in this universe before this universe came into existence, right? Or this where things clash with philosophy and we must draw the line for the sake of this forum?

 

[nnope]

Hmmmmm. Not so sure of that:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101012.pdf

But guys we seem to be getting off topic here - which is what entanglement is.

Can we stick to that. I did my best in my post - any queries?

Thanks
Bill

Sorry, you are right, ignore my last post.

 

[Ken G]

It's not really off topic, believe it or not, because one of the most practical applications of quantum entanglement is called "quantum teleportation," which is basically about how to send a signal that is a quantum state, using entanglement. Since the signal is a quantum state, it invokes the no-cloning theorem, which means there is no point in trying to eavesdrop on the quantum state-- if you intercept it, it will be detected, because you can't copy it and look it over. The eternal uniqueness of the quantum state is why it makes for secure communication.

 

[zonde]

It's not really off topic, believe it or not, because one of the most practical applications of quantum entanglement is called "quantum teleportation," which is basically about how to send a signal that is a quantum state, using entanglement. Since the signal is a quantum state, it invokes the no-cloning theorem, which means there is no point in trying to eavesdrop on the quantum state-- if you intercept it, it will be detected, because you can't copy it and look it over. The eternal uniqueness of the quantum state is why it makes for secure communication.

Your argument is interpretation dependent. Idea that everything can be explained only with unitary evolution and nothing else is interpretation of QM. And it is rather questionable if that is a valid interpretation as it involves a lot of handwaving.
It is clear that unitary evolution can not replicate arbitrary quantum state (I would say a state represented by state vector so not to fall in some semantics trap), but it is clear that known quantum state modulo quantum phase can be replicated as that is exactly what amplification process is doing. So I would say it's quantum phase that can't be replicated, but quantum phase is not an explanation of all the observations we make.

 

[zonde]

I don't have much of a background in quantum physics so be patient with my questions please. Basically I want to know how does entanglement actually work? Is information being transferred faster than we can detect it or is there some invisible link between particles that causes the phenomenon we call entanglement?

There is no answer to your question and strictly speaking there can't be answer to your question within science. Science just test different models and the one that lasts is assumed to give pretty good answer to the question how things work.
There might be answer to the question: What are the possible ways how entanglement might work?
My answer would be that quantum phase is conserved non-locally and when the first measurement is made on one entangled particle then the other particle, because of some resonance type link, supplies the phase change required by measurement induced change of the first particle. I have to warn that this is my own interpretation of entanglement phenomena but the the good thing is that it is rather direct interpretation of QM formalism.

 

[anothergol]

You have hit on the issue right there.

Even explaining superposition without math is impossible - and believe me I have tried.

A quantum object is in superposition all the time and in an infinite number of ways. What I suspect you are trying to say, and this is the other part of the issue, is superposition of what is being observed - which has a very specific meaning I can discuss - it leads to the so called preferred basis problem.

I was talking about superposition the way I understood it. That is a particle has a probability wave (which I'd call "area") of being in a position/state, in which it is all at once, until the observation (which I'd call interaction, and btw, that simple "observation" bad choice of a word has to be at the origin of most hippie or religious deviations in the sea of youtube videos about all this) collapses this and one position/state is "picked" at random.
Well that's how I understood it. Is it not that?
I wasn't talking about superposition of what's being observed, because I don't even know what it means.

I've seen videos about superposition, are they vulgarizing it so much that the explanation is then wrong, if it can't be explained without maths?
Btw I'm pretty sure most people get attracted to QM through -visual- explanations, whether it's the double slit experiment, or stuff about entanglement. Obviously because it's weird, but I don't see how it's wrong to try to make sense out of it. Afterall, there are dozens of interpretations of all this, perhaps they're all compatible with what's observed, but they don't all have the same meaning at all. Maybe it doesn't matter which interpretation is right (if any) because it's not going to change the reality and not going to affect experimental results, but I don't think QM should be restricted to those who want to make something practical out of it. I mean, it's the nature of reality that's discussed, that's something. Before getting interested in QM, I would have sworn that randomness didn't exist (from what I understood, Einstein did as well, so it can't be that stupid). Then I'm told that randomness does exist and is at the base of reality. It doesn't matter a single bit if that doesn't affect my "big scale reality" (in which randomness has always meant something else anyway). QM will never directly change my life, perhaps indirectly through devices that I use but that's something else. But questionning what reality is (and that's in no way religious, I'm an atheist), I don't think that's unimportant.
Cosmologists work on many things that don't really have any utility, other than trying to figure out the universe, or what is reality again (dark matter).
Another example, gravity not being a "real" force. I'm sure that doesn't matter a single bit in the maths, where it's treated as a real force, but hell, gravity is another really weird thing, nothing wrong trying to know what it is. Just knowing that it's a deformation of space/time won't change the maths but it changes your vision of reality.

I'm sure the OP's question was not "explain entanglement with maths" but rather "how is entanglement generally interpreted" btw.
Yeah perhaps there are dozens of explanations for it, but that's what's interesting.

 

[Ken G]

Your argument is interpretation dependent.

But quantum teleportation, and secure communication of quantum states, is certainly not interpretation dependent, nor is the application of the no-cloning theorem to that important application. As to whether or not change is possible, etc., yes, that is a way to look at quantum mechanics, but not necessarily a consequence of quantum mechanics. It's basically saying, let's try to understand quantum mechanics by taking it to its logical extreme, and when you do that, you return to a kind of thinking that was first introduced long before there was anything remotely resembling Newton's laws.

 

[bhobba]

I'm sure the OP's question was not "explain entanglement with maths" but rather "how is entanglement generally interpreted" btw. Yeah perhaps there are dozens of explanations for it, but that's what's interesting.

I don't even know where to start with what you said.

I put a lot into my explanation - its the best I can do.

But I guess I have to start somewhere. You said:
That is a particle has a probability wave (which I'd call "area") of being in a position/state, in which it is all at once, until the observation (which I'd call interaction, and btw, that simple "observation" bad choice of a word has to be at the origin of most hippie or religious deviations in the sea of youtube videos about all this) collapses this and one position/state is "picked" at random.

Then you said:
I wasn't talking about superposition of what's being observed, because I don't even know what it means.

The first is about observing position - you virtually stated it outright. Then say you weren't talking about observation in what being observed - not even understanding what that means.

See the contradiction?

If I could explain it without a smattering of math I would have, but I can't, in fact I don't think anyone can. All I used was just a little bit of math - nothing hard - what's so difficult about it?

You sometimes see posts is physics the territory or a map of the territory. In fact its a mathematical model. You can't explain a mathematical model without math - can't you see that? You can try and succeed some of the time - but with superposition the jig is up.

Thanks
Bill

 

[zonde]

But quantum teleportation, and secure communication of quantum states, is certainly not interpretation dependent, nor is the application of the no-cloning theorem to that important application.

Quantum cryptography is important application of QM. Never heard that quantum teleportation is an important application.
About your point being interpretation dependent, yes, probably I should have rather replied to your post #18.

As to whether or not change is possible, etc., yes, that is a way to look at quantum mechanics, but not necessarily a consequence of quantum mechanics. It's basically saying, let's try to understand quantum mechanics by taking it to its logical extreme, and when you do that, you return to a kind of thinking that was first introduced long before there was anything remotely resembling Newton's laws.

Simply take your approach and explain possible model for quantum entanglement. That's the topic of this thread.

 

[_PJ_]

Entanglement is the property that two or more entities share a particular (set of) relationship.

 

[star apple]

Entanglement is the property that two or more entities share a particular (set of) relationship.

Assume Alice detector could detect vertical up or down, or horizontal left or right… an entangled pair was sent to both Alice and Bob, if Alice detected it as vertical down.. would Bob detect it as horizontal left or right? Or is it always vertical?

If vertical is dot and horizontal is dash.. can’t they send morse code.. Alice can use vertical and horizontal to form messages and Bob can receive it horizontal or vertical and decode the sentences.

All right. Where has I got it wrong?