- #1

- 4

- 0

I looked into quantum entanglement thing last days and I think I got it right. At least the basics.

Just one thing. Quantum entanglement concept says that when I measure the state of one particle, it affects the entangled one's state

But what does this have to do with the relativity of time? If one measuring device (and the particle) is moving very very fast, so the time is slowing down on it from the viewpoint of the second, how will the results correlate, since there's no absolute time and simultaneity is relative?

--

And one more thing. There's a popular analogy of quantum entanglement with classical mechanics, which goes like this:

As I pictured to myself, this analogy ends when we do a measurement of the same parameter the second time and get the other results. Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept" states that it breaks down even earlier:

Is it correct? Even if we work with probabilistic values here. What makes it impossible to simulate the experiment with dice? Aren't we gonna see anti-correlation anyway? Just can't get what creates a difference here. Or should I look into the Bell's inequality in order to understand this?

Just one thing. Quantum entanglement concept says that when I measure the state of one particle, it affects the entangled one's state

*instantly*.But what does this have to do with the relativity of time? If one measuring device (and the particle) is moving very very fast, so the time is slowing down on it from the viewpoint of the second, how will the results correlate, since there's no absolute time and simultaneity is relative?

--

And one more thing. There's a popular analogy of quantum entanglement with classical mechanics, which goes like this:

*"Alice and Bob have a coin, and they slice it along the circumference into two half-coins, in such a way that each half-coin is either "heads" or "tails". They then put each half-coin in an envelope, one for Alice and the other for Bob, randomly. Alice then measures her half-coin, by opening her envelope. For her, the measurement will be unpredictable, with a 50% probability of her half-coin being "heads" or "tails". However, if she compares the side of the coin she obtained with the side of the coin Bob measured in his half-coin, she will see that they are always opposite, hence perfectly anti-correlated."*As I pictured to myself, this analogy ends when we do a measurement of the same parameter the second time and get the other results. Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept" states that it breaks down even earlier:

*"To see the power of entanglement, Alice and Bob have to measure the spin of their particles in other directions than just up or down. ... Now the classical simulation of entanglement breaks down―there are no "directions" other than heads or tails to be measured. One could imagine that upgrading the coins to dice could solve the problem, but this is hopeless."*Is it correct? Even if we work with probabilistic values here. What makes it impossible to simulate the experiment with dice? Aren't we gonna see anti-correlation anyway? Just can't get what creates a difference here. Or should I look into the Bell's inequality in order to understand this?

Last edited by a moderator: