Spooky action at a distance not allowed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "spooky action at a distance" in the context of quantum entanglement, particularly addressing claims made by Sabine Hossenfelder regarding the effects of measuring and manipulating entangled particles. Participants explore the implications of these claims, the nature of entanglement, and the potential for hidden variable theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants interpret Sabine Hossenfelder's argument to mean that manipulating one particle in an entangled pair does not affect the other until a measurement is made.
  • Others argue that the concept of "changing" one particle is ambiguous, as any operation on one particle affects the entangled state of the system as a whole.
  • There is a discussion about the possibility of hidden variable theories, with some suggesting that both local and non-local aspects could coexist in explaining entanglement.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the validity of Sabine's reasoning, particularly regarding the steering of a particle's pointer state within its basis state.
  • Some participants challenge the premise of hidden variable theories, stating that there is no established theory that supports such a framework in the context of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of Sabine Hossenfelder's claims or the validity of hidden variable theories. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of entanglement and the nature of "spooky action at a distance."

Contextual Notes

Participants note the ambiguity in terminology such as "spooky action at a distance" and "changing" a particle's state, which complicates the discussion. The lack of a precise experimental or mathematical specification is acknowledged as a limitation in clarifying the arguments presented.

  • #31
kurt101 said:
If that is the case then my criticism is that she should have worded it better
You're entitled to your opinion of course. However:

kurt101 said:
Here is the picture of Stern Gerlach cascade that illustrates what I was trying to explain.
You don't need to keep belaboring this. You're just repeating yourself, and responding would just mean others repeating themselves. Enough is enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
793
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
8K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
9K