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
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top