-3

How is quantum entanglement different from a controlled experiment where a pineapple is smashed at a high speed to a perfectly symmetric object and measuring one of its piece in air for spin, speed, direction etc. and finding correlations with other pieces of pinapple in mid air?

In quantum mechanics information cannot travel from piece A to piece B at faster than light to explain the correlation so the result is seen as unexpected (at least to people outside the science community like me) and at any time a piece can have any property but once the properties of a piece is measured the wave function will collapse and the properties of other piece or pieces becomes clear.

But isn't the correlation simply due to how the piece or particle was generated? No information needs to travel because the particle is simply continuing to react to the same common generation event? If we can call it information isn't it already with all the particles or pieces of pineapples in air already?

I (am a beginner, used to be interested in physics but nobody gave me answers so lost interest eventually and took a career in finance. this one was one of my questions) also view quantum mechanics as deterministic rather than probablistic but think the probablistic approach is necessary because we cannot measure all the variables with our very limited measuring and processing capabilities. For example, a roll of die by a machine is deterministic if we measure and process everything from the light fluctuation in power, air movement in real time, mass of the die, initial position, curvature, area of contact, etc. but because that is too complicated we use it as random with a probability. I feel in quantum physics we are doing the same thing as it is simply more practical, but everybody I talk to truly believe I am wrong. Mentioning this as it is related to the question, that is, the properties can be calculated without measuring in quantum mechanics if we have virtually unfathomable knowledge, measurement capability and processing power. We don't have that so in my view too probablistic quantum mechanicsm is the way science can progress, so no question about that, but is it established that quantum mechanics cannot be deterministric in reality?

Just want to know where and why I'm wrong. Thank you in advance.

Chandan
  • 1
  • 1
    "he assumption in quantum mechanics is that the information has to travel from piece A to piece B at faster than light to explain the correlation "- no. reference? I've never saw this assumption anywhere – Tobias Fünke Aug 03 '23 at 11:18
  • Sorry corrected. – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 11:20
  • My question is probably going to be downvoted to hell. Guys guys I am not attacking the science, convince me to switch sides. – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 11:25
  • 2
    There are several posts here in this forum explaining how entanglement is different from classical correlations. Use the search function – Tobias Fünke Aug 03 '23 at 11:30
  • I get that there is no active link. But beyond that I get lost. In Bell's theorem, using same inappropriate example of pineapple, I conclude that the pineapple pieces' flight was not disturbed by an interference like a tree. So I don't really get how it is different from classical mechanics. I am sure it is different. But how? – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 11:35
  • Also my thoughts that there is no genuine randomness makes it a challenge as I am questioning the assumptions of the experiment itself. I will try to learn more. Thanks – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 11:37
  • You might be interested in Part 2 of Sidney Coleman's lecture "Quantum Mechanics in your Face", where he explicitly takes on a hypothetical physicist who insists quantum mechanics is really deterministic. There's a write up of the lecture here https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12671 and a video version here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw&ab_channel=GraduateMathematics. – Andrew Aug 03 '23 at 11:40
  • if you know adult twins , Tom and Jerry, and someone says "one of the twins was transferred to New York, if you meet Jerry downtown London you immediately know that Tom is in New York. Quantum Mechanics is a different story then information transferre . – anna v Aug 03 '23 at 11:41
  • Thank you @Andrew I will check them both out. – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 11:42
  • Have you checked this and the links therein? – Tobias Fünke Aug 03 '23 at 11:43
  • @TobiasFünke Yeah, but I can put more effort into it. I started off thinking I got the answer already but as I kept reading I got lost. I get the impression both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are basically same thing just different suitable practical models, but that is definitely not what I hear. think you guys have steered me to the right direction, I will get back once I have properly studied these. – Chandan Aug 03 '23 at 12:00
  • A relevant answer to another question https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389367/quantum-entanglement-connected-or-just-in-tune/389439#389439 – alanf Aug 03 '23 at 22:05
  • Updating progress - The pineapple piece is not right to me anymore, and I have replaced it with a organized closed box of indentical pineapples that when flying changes spin and polarization of the box in a wave like pattern. – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 07:51
  • Photos, electrons, etc. have wave nature and particle nature, right? So my theory I want to disprove now is that the each of the entangled proton changes polarity continuously like a wave at least during the period between emission and measurement and whether that will match with the results of the experiments. – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 07:55
  • Or perhaps the quantum correlation is an effect of the method of how quantum entanglement particles are generated? For example it is a pineapple but we are breaking into pieces using a moving (faster than light) instrument that follows a special pattern. – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 08:00
  • @TobiasFünke In this answer https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3433/374035 the author says "For quantum theory, the wavefunction of the object is the hidden variable." Is this the answer I am seeking? Basically pineapple has a wave function? – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 08:10

2 Answers2

1

There is a classical joint probability distribution for the outcomes of the various measurements you can make on the pieces of your pineapple. Therefore those measurements satisfy Bell's theorem. Therefore this is not a useful analogy to quantum mechanical systems where Bell's theorem is violated and no joint probability distribution exists.

WillO
  • 15,072
  • If pineapple pieces is replaced with "small pineapples pieces in box"es that have an unknown wave function that affects its spin continuously in a wave pattern is the analogy valid or still invalid? – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 08:21
  • @Chandan : Still invalid for exactly the same reason. – WillO Aug 04 '23 at 10:26
0

A simpler example would be is to have 2 envelopes, put a slip of paper with +1 into one envelope and a slip of paper of -1 into the other envelope. Seal the envelopes and mix them up. Send one to a friend in Japan and another to a friend in the US. Of course you've told them already that there are 2 envelopes, one with +1 and the other with -1, but you don't know which person will receive which envelope. Your friend in Japan opens their envelope and finds "+1" and knows instantly that the other person has the enveloped with "-1."

Is this entanglement ? They're correlated, and you've updated your state of knowledge. But this isn't the sort of entanglement that's of use in quantum mechanics for computation or other weirdness. The description using simple games is bit more complicated than the above.

JQK
  • 1,791
  • Your example is indeed simpler. I am questioning whether the nature in quantum levels is as explained or whether it is simply used to advance science and the nature can be quite deterministic with simpler explanations. – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 08:57
  • It is simply about the reality of nature. My personal view is that classical mechanics and quantum meachanics are both incomplete and we should be able to explain it in a simpler way that does not involve things like sending information back in time, variable that connects everything, multiple versions/universes, multiple states existing before measuring, etc. unless the simpler explanations are ruled out. – Chandan Aug 04 '23 at 09:02
  • @Chandan Einstein thought as you did. But, these "feelings" were met with a theorem (Bell's) and put to the test experimentally. Whatever your personal view is, whatever your feelings are must give way to how nature answers us through experiment. – JQK Aug 04 '23 at 12:07