B Why isn’t quantum entanglement just correlation?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between quantum entanglement and classical correlation, particularly using the analogy of splitting a photograph versus measuring the spin of entangled particles. Participants argue that while classical correlations can be understood through predefined values, quantum mechanics introduces complexities due to the lack of defined states before measurement, leading to "spooky" correlations. Bell's theorem is referenced as a crucial framework that demonstrates the limitations of classical explanations and the necessity of quantum mechanics to account for observed phenomena. The conversation also touches on the implications of measurement angles and the holistic nature of entangled particles, which do not retain separate identities once entangled. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the fundamental differences between classical and quantum correlations, challenging the notion that they can be equated.
  • #51
lukephysics said:
doesnt a dot pattern mean we have measured the position of the partcle? and if so, due to complimentarity wouldn't we not be able to measure or know the spin? how does the experiment still work if it appears we know the spin and we know the position as well?
Yes. The uncertainty principle is about the uncertainty in the states, not the uncertainty in the measurements. So even if you measure both sides of a complementary pair precisely, any state you can prepare will have at most one be precise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
lukephysics said:
dood that's exactly why i search for answers from first principles, not trust the guys on here who say "just trust us dummy". they get angry when i ignore the authority. and even give me a warning lol.

or guys who say "trust this function right here". needs a foundation.
That is a pretty big mischaracterization of what actually happened here. You were given a first principles answer by post 3. You nevertheless continued to repeatedly make a false assertion. Even then, you were given several well-reasoned explanations why your continued assertion was wrong.

Some participants then did begin to become impatient and snippy. But to assert that you are looking for first principles explanations and that you were instead told “just trust us dummy” is simply not what happened.

With that I think we will close this thread before it degenerates further. You are certainly welcome to post new threads as new questions come up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, hutchphd, bhobba and 3 others

Similar threads

A Is delayed choice remote entanglement of photons derived from TDSE?
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
I Does entanglement always conserve something?
Replies
9
Views
1K
B Question about Bell's inequalities and 3-particle entanglement
Replies
14
Views
2K
B Quantum Entanglement in Practice
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Is quantum entanglement just like ordering Schrodinger's Slice pizza?
Replies
8
Views
2K
A Can entanglement be detected in a single Bell pair?
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
Replies
4
Views
3K
I After entanglement swapping, how can we verify the new entanglement?
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Imagining the EPR paradox/quantum entanglement
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Is the moment of the measurement well defined?
Replies
12
Views
2K