- #1

- 166

- 1

## Main Question or Discussion Point

To me, the concept of entanglement sounds like an epiphany. I’m sure I can’t find one specific moment for it but I’d like to get closer. And I’d like your help. So far, I see that Einstein had issues with Born’s matrix mechanics (1925) among other things, which heated up the Bohr Einstein debates. A decade passed before the EPR paradox. So somewhere in there, I assume that Einstein noticed that QM does not allow the spin to be set at the emitter. I’m not sure how he recognized that.

Even that might not go back far enough for me. Somebody figured out 2 things. 1 – Given the right conditions, two particles must have opposite spin. I assume that comes from the conservation of angular momentum. QM contains the correspondence principle, which means that any QM prediction must average out at the macro scale and match the principals of classical physics. But I don’t quite get how that means two particles must have opposite spin.

2 – These two particles can only be described by a single function (wave function). My guess is that separate formulas would exceed Heisenberg’s non-commutativity rule. But I don’t know how to make that connection.

Even that might not go back far enough for me. Somebody figured out 2 things. 1 – Given the right conditions, two particles must have opposite spin. I assume that comes from the conservation of angular momentum. QM contains the correspondence principle, which means that any QM prediction must average out at the macro scale and match the principals of classical physics. But I don’t quite get how that means two particles must have opposite spin.

2 – These two particles can only be described by a single function (wave function). My guess is that separate formulas would exceed Heisenberg’s non-commutativity rule. But I don’t know how to make that connection.