Arvin Ash poses a macro scale parallel to entanglement (while using a Stern-Gerlach apparatus):
Ash highlights, of course, that once entangled, particles have superposed wave functions leading to inherent non locality. So, spooky action at a distance overlooks that non locality.
And as with the gloves, Alice needs to know her particle is part of an entangled pair to freely infer Bob got the other one, so to speak. Information has not evaded the speed of light limit.
Translation,* our concept of space, needs to be er, ah, uh, quantum adjusted. That was already lurking in low intensity beam interference and superposition. KF
*PS, added to show certain objectors that “translated” needs not be pernicious.
PPS, DV, quantum computing lurks here.
6 Replies to “L&FP, 65f: It’s all tangled up — quantum entanglement (vs how we tend to talk loosely)”
L&FP, 65f: It’s all tangled up — quantum entanglement (vs how we tend to talk loosely)
F/N: Wikipedia is interesting:
No big deal. Watch the following to learn how entanglement has been dealt with in quantum computers.
Relatd, that’s for later. The concept itself needs clarification. KF
Just read a very good (I think) article explaining the three (3!) major ways of interpreting (or not) quantum mechanics.
I tend to be a real Copenhagen person myself but that third interpretation . . . sounds interesting.
JVL, an interesting article, especially I liked:
The “[a]ccording to some estimates, roughly a quarter of our world’s GDP relies on quantum mechanics” gives pause, though in the end it implies that electronics and related technologies are baked into just about everything.
I think Copenhagen and shut up and calculate are usually seen as different, but there is a point.
Pilot waves, though, are a hidden variable theory and are dead. Save, maybe you can imagine that a probability wave is some sort of guidance.
We always come back to that low intensity particle beam with each particle interfering with itself in a double slit experiment.