For a simple case of two party system. What I understand by Entanglement(please correct me if I am wrong) is that if some property of the two systems is entangled, then knowing one, provides the knowledge of the same property about the other system, instantaneously. Thus one system steers the other and does so instantaneously(=non-locally). To me, all these three terms look the same. Please help me to understand these three concepts.
Asked
Active
Viewed 211 times
-1
-
3Related/possible duplicates: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/54975/50583, http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3158/50583 and their linked questions. – ACuriousMind Dec 26 '16 at 19:52
-
See ACuriousMind's links, but knowledge (i.e. observation) is not steering. You can't do anything with that knowledge to change the observation of the other entangled state, so there is no possibility of faster than light signalling. – Selene Routley Dec 27 '16 at 00:44
1 Answers
-3
If you look at a single pair of so called "entangled" particles, then all these terms are fake. Yes, if you measure/know the property of one particle, then you also know the property of the other particle. It is not because of any of the three terms. It is due to conservation laws. The properties are conserved and knowing full details (states) how they were "entangled", you can calculate to what extent the the property would be conserved in a particular plane. It is not entangled, it is not steered, and it is not non-local.
But if you look at numerous entangled pairs and their correlation, then yes, the term steering comes into play. The correlations are steered over a large number of pairs (measurements) by the conservation laws, to keep things in balance.
As a crude example - You keep pouring dirt at one place. I can guarantee that it will take shape of a heap. If you do it 100 times, you will see a heap 100 times. I am positive that it is possible to come up with a mathematical model that can describe heap as a non-local probabilistic phenomena. But we all know that the heap is formed by gravity over a period of time to keep things in balance.
Entanglement experiments have not been scrutinized sufficiently enough to rule in/out this kind of steering/balancing. Everyone knows to sing only one song - Bells inequality. Which by the way, would be also violated by the steering/balancing.
It is ironic that highly learnt people have such a strong bias towards a "no sense instantaneous non-local steering/influence" as opposed to even troubleshooting for a "relatively more common sense gradual steering".
kpv
- 4,509
-
It isn't really clear what you're trying to say here. Conservation laws are what requires us to have entanglement in QM. And the heap example is irrelevant- maybe you could explain it with "non-local probabilistic phenomena," but it has been shown to the satisfaction of mainstream physicists that you cannot explain quantum mechanics as a local realistic phenomenon. At the very least, if you want to stand by the position that you can, you should provide some evidence for that rather than rudely dismissing the physicists who work in this field. – Chris May 07 '18 at 02:00
-
@Chris: I have presented an indication that I think should be good enough to initiate a scrutiny of the entanglement correlations. Numerous times I have asked whether entanglement data has been subjected to such scrutiny or not and everyone seems to not bother about it rather than refering to when and where this analysis was done. I find it more like a religious attitude and that is what make me sound like rude when you are first time reading my answer. All mainstream studies same math and I consider it mathematical camouflaging till scrutiny is completed. Contd.. – kpv May 07 '18 at 04:31
-
@Chris: One specific moderator has pointed me for promoting my own article, so I usually do not refer to it. But I will provide here link to it in case you want to read and comment on it. The analysis is on real experimental data that is pretty recent. – kpv May 07 '18 at 04:35
-
-
You need to work on your statistics. You mention several times that something "may be hard to explain in terms of probability," or "it is likely not beyond probabilistic limits" or whatever, which is far from convincing. Either way, your assertion here seems to be "quantum mechanics is definitely wrong," while the best your paper even tries to show is "quantum mechanics has not definitively been proven to be correct." And this isn't really the forum to try to get your ideas peer-reviewed anyway. – Chris May 07 '18 at 05:48
-
@Chris: Forum to put QE through scrutiny does not exist. All experiments from the onset, are geared toward proving the weirdness rather than confronting it, at least per the headlines published in media. Thanks for your reading and input. By the way, how can you expect a convincing evidence on such a topic. A slight indication should be more than enough for further probing. – kpv May 07 '18 at 10:57
-
What the media publishes and the what is actually being researched have little to do with one another. And if no forum exists, that's because most physicists, quite reasonably, don't want to debate QM with someone who hasn't taken the time to understand what it is saying but still insists it's wrong. And I feel quite reasonable expecting the statistics to be done properly- without a statistical analysis "hey look this graph looks weird to me" is meaningless. A $2\sigma$ deviation is a "slight indication," "I haven't done the stats but it looks weird" is nothing. – Chris May 07 '18 at 20:12
-
-
@Chris: Statistics is done right for what it represents. The indication is single side trend in all graphs, not extent of deviation. Extent of deviation has been already mentioned in the write up, to be operating within probabilistic limits. Anyway, thanks. – kpv May 07 '18 at 21:44