Murray Gell-Mann on Entanglement

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Thecla
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entanglement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Murray Gell-Mann's statements on quantum entanglement, particularly his assertion that measuring one photon does not affect the other. Participants explore interpretations of this claim, the implications for non-locality, and the nature of quantum measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants agree with Gell-Mann's statement but note that it is interpretation dependent and does not necessarily reject non-locality.
  • Others argue that measuring one photon does affect the other, as it collapses the wave function of both photons.
  • A participant questions the meaning of "to do something to the other one," suggesting that it relates to the observer's reduced density matrix.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of measurement and whether it suggests that the state of one photon is predetermined before measurement.
  • Some participants reference the philosophical implications of causality and counterfactual definiteness in the context of quantum mechanics.
  • There is a discussion about Bell's contributions to quantum non-locality and how they relate to Gell-Mann's views.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about Gell-Mann's assertion, suggesting it oversimplifies the complexities of quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant highlights that the quantum state may represent the observer's knowledge rather than an objective reality, which could resolve some objections to Gell-Mann's statement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of Gell-Mann's statement and the implications for quantum mechanics and non-locality.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the nature of quantum states, measurement, and causality, which influence their interpretations of Gell-Mann's claims.

  • #421
stevendaryl said:
There is another big difference with diffusion, and that is that diffusion is a matter of some substance spreading out in physical space, while a wave function propagates in configuration space. The difference isn't apparent when you're talking about a single particle, but becomes important when you are talking about multiple particles. For two particles, the wave function is a function of 6 variables: \psi(x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2) where (x_1, y_1, z_1) refers to the location of the first particle, and (x_2, y_2, z_2) refers to the location of the second particle. Because it's a function of configuration space, there is no meaning to "the value of the wave function here". So, in spite of the similarity of form, the Schrödinger equation is nothing like a diffusion equation (at least not diffusion through ordinary 3-space).
Good points. I would just point out that even in the multiparticle case it would still make sense to draw an analogy with a random walk. In the latter case we would want to calculate ##P\left(x_{1},y_{1},z_{1},x_{2},y_{2},z_{2}\right )##, i.e. the probability of finding the particles at ##\vec{x}_{1}## and ##\vec{x}_{2}## after the initial system preparation. The Feynman diagrams for two particles would have a natural translation into a random walk analysis for two classical particles.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #422
MrRobotoToo said:
Good points. I would just point out that even in the multiparticle case it would still make sense to draw an analogy with a random walk. In the latter case we would want to calculate ##P\left(x_{1},y_{1},z_{1},x_{2},y_{2},z_{2}\right )##, i.e. the probability of finding the particles at ##\vec{x}_{1}## and ##\vec{x}_{2}## after the initial system preparation. The Feynman diagrams for two particles would have a natural translation into a random walk analysis for two classical particles.

Right, but in classical probability theory (with no nonlocal interactions), the probabilities for random walks factor for particles that are too far apart to interact. That is, for two particles that are far apart,

P(x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2) \approx P(x_1, y_1, z_1) P(x_2, y_2, z_2)

The random walk taken by this particle is independent of the random walk taken by this other particle. If that fails to be the case, then one suspects that there is some unaccounted-for long range interaction or shared state.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K