Measurement of Entangled Particles causes up or down spin?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding entangled particles and their spin states. Participants explore whether the act of measurement causes the spin of one particle to determine the spin of its entangled partner, or if the spin is a property inherent to the entangled state itself. The conversation touches on theoretical implications and interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the measurement of one entangled particle causes the other to exhibit opposite spin, suggesting a mechanism of information transfer during measurement.
  • Others question whether the measurement itself is the cause of the spin state, arguing that it may instead be a property of the entangled state established prior to measurement.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of hidden variables, referencing the EPR paper and questioning if the particles have predetermined outcomes for spin measurements.
  • Another participant clarifies that quantum mechanics predicts correlations between measurements without implying any information transfer, emphasizing that the correlation arises from the entangled state rather than the act of measurement.
  • It is noted that while individual spins are indeterminate, their correlation is a result of the entangled state preparation, and measurement outcomes are random but correlated according to Born's rule.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of measurement in determining spin states of entangled particles. There is no consensus on whether measurement causes the spin state or if it is an inherent property of the entangled state.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference Bell's Theorem and the EPR paradox, indicating a need for understanding these concepts to fully engage with the discussion. The implications of local hidden variables and the nature of quantum correlations remain unresolved.

CarawayBlossom
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Are we assuming that our measurement of entangled particles is what causes them to be a particular spin? Wouldn't it be the the thing that caused what we call entanglement rather then the measuring of them?
In reading around, it seems that in the case of entangled particles, it is the measurement of one of the particles that causes the other one to be it's opposite spin and that there's some means of info transfer going on caused by the measurement. I'm not understanding why it would not be that the opposite spin is a property of, that which causes entangled states, the instance that that mechanic happened, rather then the measuring being the thing that causes the other to be the opposite spin.

(Please let me know if I have made any post formatting or other errors, new participant here)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CarawayBlossom said:
Summary:: Are we assuming that our measurement of entangled particles is what causes them to be a particular spin? Wouldn't it be the the thing that caused what we call entanglement rather then the measuring of them?

In reading around, it seems that in the case of entangled particles, it is the measurement of one of the particles that causes the other one to be it's opposite spin and that there's some means of info transfer going on caused by the measurement. I'm not understanding why it would not be that the opposite spin is a property of, that which causes entangled states, the instance that that mechanic happened, rather then the measuring being the thing that causes the other to be the opposite spin.

(Please let me know if I have made any post formatting or other errors, new participant here)

:welcome:

Are you familiar with Bell’s Theorem? Without that, you are missing the next key ingredient in the puzzle of the EPR paradox.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: CarawayBlossom
CarawayBlossom said:
Summary:: Are we assuming that our measurement of entangled particles is what causes them to be a particular spin? Wouldn't it be the the thing that caused what we call entanglement rather then the measuring of them?

In reading around, it seems that in the case of entangled particles, it is the measurement of one of the particles that causes the other one to be it's opposite spin and that there's some means of info transfer going on caused by the measurement. I'm not understanding why it would not be that the opposite spin is a property of, that which causes entangled states, the instance that that mechanic happened, rather then the measuring being the thing that causes the other to be the opposite spin.

(Please let me know if I have made any post formatting or other errors, new participant here)
What you are asking is whether the two particles have internal (so-called "hidden") variables that are preset with the outcomes of all spin measurements that may be made on them? This was the hypothesis of the EPR paper.

Actually, QM and its probabilities based on amplitudes predicts different results from any local hidden-variables theory. This was first identified by John Bell (see Bell's Theorem) and has subsequently been tested. The results of these experiments show that the particles cannot have preset local hidden-variables.

Note that QM does not propose any information transfer between the particles. All QM says is that the results of experiments are consistent with the original entangled state, hence measurements of spin on the particles are correlated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
That's the important point: Though the spin of the single particles in the entangled state are completely indetermined they are highly correlated, and this correlation is due to the preparation of the particles in this entangled state and not due to the measurement of the spin of one particle, for which you get a random outcome with probabilities given by Born's rule, but what's then also determined is also the spin state of the other particle due to the correlation as described by the prepared entangled state.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Measuring electron spin and measuring entangled electron spin
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad After entanglement swapping, how can we verify the new entanglement?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Breaking the Light Speed Barrier?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad The Extended Wigner's Friend Scenarios
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
High School Quantum Entanglement information transmission idea to knock down....
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Undergrad Unveiling the Mystery of Entangled Particle Spin
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad What happens to the other particle in an entanglement state?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Entanglement after measurement
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Measuring Entangled Particles in two different Basis
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K