Thanks for the thoughtful replies. Just a few more points of clarification.
vanesch said:
If a classical physicist were looking at the experimental preparation, he'd see nothing else but "things that are set up to interact".
Maybe, maybe not. If the
essence of quantum entanglement is the formal nonseparability
corresponding to the statistical dependence
produced by mutual interaction or common influence (and ultimately the filtering/measuring of the separated disturbances via a
common global parameter), then (wrt to a simple Bell optical setup anyway) the cross-corrolation can also be
understood in terms of analogy to a classical polariscopic setup.
The point is that the physical referent of the formal nonseparability is ultimately the statistical dependence that's produced via the experimental design.
vanesch said:
... two systems that are entangled have no "individual identity" anymore in their quantum-mechanical description.
Yes, but only if you're describing the simultaneous behavior of both systems wrt a global parameter. Otherwise, they still have an individual identity. It's just that the cross-correlation can't be understood without reference to the global parameter. This is the same state of affairs whether we're talking about it in terms of the qm formalism, or FLT or instantaneous
influences between spacelike separated events, or the polariscope analogy.
vanesch said:
But again, that's a sheer property of the quantum-mechanical description.
For reasons I've stated, I'm thinking that maybe the
essence of entanglement is not solely a property of the qm description. It depends on how one looks at it. As you say:
vanesch said:
... classical action-at-a-distance can mimic perfectly the quantum-mechanical entanglement (or, quantum-mechanical entanglement can mimic perfectly action-at-a-distance ; depends on your PoV).
So, the
essence of this thing for which we have interchangeable formal
descriptions is not one description or the other, but rather something or things that they have in common.
In any case, I will continue to refrain from using the term "entangled data".
Regarding my observation that your stance on this was possibly in conflict with your adherence to the MWI you wrote:
vanesch said:
I try to keep a distinction between what is "hard fact" and what are interpretational pictures. MWI is a way of giving a picture to the quantum-mechanical happening, which "explains" then of course entanglement and all that - but it's only that: a picture. It's not a hard fact.
I don't get any
picture at all from the MWI approach.
vanesch said:
It is true that, through the quantum formalism, entangled states give rise to weird correlations which cannot always be explained by classical interaction, locality and some other reasonable assumptions (re Bell's theorem and all that).
The correlations are weird only if associated with the qm formalism or FTL or instantaneous
propagations of some sort. When viewed via the polariscope analogy they are what one would expect for two identical waveforms being simultaneously analyzed by two identical filters. The correlation will vary as you vary the difference in the settings of the filters in a way that mimics the Malus Law results of polariscopic setups.
It's just that no value can be assigned to what's being filtered prior to a detection associated with some specific filter setting. This amounts to giving up the pseudo-objective view of reality that classical physics has allowed us to entertain.
In closing, I had written:
If the physical essence of quantum entanglement is interaction and mutual (common) influence, then in order to produce the correlations that correspond to quantum entanglement per quantum theory it would be necessary to duplicate the experimental conditions. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
To which you replied:
vanesch said:
I don't understand what you say here.
I have taken it that you are saying that the
essence of quantum entanglement is the quantum theoretical formalism. I'm saying that maybe the formalism isn't the essence of it. So, even if you give it another name, or attribute different sorts of causes to it, we're still talking about, essentially, the same thing, and
that thing is characterized
not by the quantum formalism but by experimental designs which entangle two or more quanta and the resulting data which satisfies certain criteria.