I Why Does Quantum Entanglement Seem Puzzling Compared to Everyday Correlations?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter leonid.ge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entangled parts
leonid.ge
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Why coins are different from particles?
Suppose someone throws coins and once they fall on heads or tails, she saws them along the middle on two parts: one pointing towards the ground and the other pointing from the ground. Then she sends those two parts into opposite directions so after some time they reach two distant planets, one inhabited by Bob and the other with Alice who measure what they've got. So the results that Alice and Bob get will correlate, even though the planets are very far apart, and this does not seem strange to anyone. So why correlation for entangled particles looks strange to people and for coins not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any correlations you can produce with coins cannot violate the Bell inequalities. Correlations you can produce with entangled particles can. That's the difference.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, PeroK, Hornbein and 1 other person
leonid.ge said:
TL;DR Summary: Why coins are different from particles?
Coins and electrons behave fundamentally differently, not just when it comes to entanglement. A coin can be spinning fast or slow and a precise axis of rotation can be found. This is the case for any maroscopic rigid body.

An electron's spin is manifestly quantized. And the components of spin about different axes are incompatible observables. This means that the electron never has any well-defined axis of rotation.

In short, electrons obey QM, the Schrodinger equation and the uncertainty principle. Whereas, coins obey Newtonian mechanics. Additionally, electrons exhibit quantum entanglement, whereas coins do not.
 
Last edited:
leonid.ge said:
So why correlation for entangled particles looks strange to people and for coins not?
The correlations for entangled particles are statistically different from those that we find if assign the properties of the particles when the pair is created, no matter how we do it. In the middle of the last century John Bell proved that any theory that works the way you're thinking must disagree with the quantum mechanical prediction for entangled particles - and since then we've done the experiments that conform that QM is correct,

You will want to google for "Bertlmann's socks" and "Bell's theorem", and pay particular attention to the web page maintained by our own @DrChinese
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...

Similar threads

Back
Top