1

I just learned about it to some depth (not very much, just the basics), and I fail to see why is this phenomenon considered strange or unexpected and the like at all.

I mean let's consider a bag with a red and a white ball in it. Now, lets suppose someone, without looking (maybe just putting their hand into the bag and doing it there), puts one ball into a box, and the other into another box, and then brings those boxes way apart. Then, if one box is opened, we instantly know the colour of the other as well. I fail to see how this differs from all the classically taught entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" cases (like the Aspect experiment), for me this is identical to those. And consequently, I fail to see why is this a big deal, I mean I find nothing suprising or particularly interesting in this.

Obviously I am missing something, but I just can't figure out what. Any suggestions?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Benjamin Márkus
  • 395
  • 1
    It isn't a big deal and hasn't been since 1935. :-) – CuriousOne Jan 11 '16 at 20:11
  • 2
    @CuriousOne now that's just disingenuous. We didn't actually know if entanglement were due to hidden variables until Bell violation experiments were done, and that was not in 1935. Even today we're cleaning up the loose ends in those experiments. – DanielSank Jan 11 '16 at 20:34
  • 1
    @DanielSank: Hidden variables do not meet the criteria for science. Science is a method for the rational explanation of observed natural phenomena. QM without hidden variables explains all phenomena just fine, which means that we are done! Hidden variables were introduced by people who didn't like the rational explanation that QM delivers, i.e. they are all about personal beliefs! What Bell does is to basically exorcize some people's personal beliefs in how nature ought to work by showing that nature can't be working that way, but this belongs into philosophy, not science proper. – CuriousOne Jan 11 '16 at 20:44
  • That is the classical case, full defined before the balls separation. In QM, the theory assumes that the state of the couple of balls is defined after the measure of one of them, at the same time. Before the first measure, the state would be undefined, in a the superposition of different values. It is like if the 2 sides were sharing one wheel of fortune. –  Jan 11 '16 at 20:46
  • @igael: The state of a quantum system is defined at all time, it just doesn't amount to the outcome of a measurement being uniquely defined. Quantum evolution, if you will, allows for an observer dependent set of possible futures instead of prescribing one future for everybody. We should be glad about that, since it solves a lot of emotional and philosophical problems relating to classical determinism. – CuriousOne Jan 11 '16 at 20:50
  • my belief : a lot speak about the EPR experiments but a few ones know well the datas and the challenges. –  Jan 11 '16 at 20:50
  • @igael: What's the challenge, in your opinion? – CuriousOne Jan 11 '16 at 20:51

0 Answers0