The Poker Correlation to Quantum Mechanics

[TakenItSeriously]

The standard analogy of poker to QM:

In QM fundamental particles exist in a superposition state in which all discrete combinations of properties exist at once.

 

In poker, players must treat their opponents hand as an imaginary range of all possible hand combinations of hands that fit with the players past actions.

 

Probability Theory:

In poker, probability theory is limited in its accuracy due to it's inability to account for information lost in the muck when players hands are folded. This was something that probability theory had assumed to be too complex to be calculate.

 

A few years back, I had managed to account for this missing information based on a simple idea I had first applied in the first grade, which had created quite a stir at the time.

 

The idea was that when the physical counting of objects was involved for problems of arithmetic such as taking 15 blocks away from a pile of 20 blocks, I had reasoned that it was faster to count five blocks and just grab what was remaining which allowed one to take far less time counting blocks.

 

My solution was apparently a novel approach and when teachers tried to apply math to account for the practice, the math seemed to create a paradox. A fact that I argued against with teachers at the time.

 

Really it only created an intuitive mathematical error caused by how we inntuitively cound objects in the positive domain and not the negative domain, but evidently riddles were apparently created based on this incident that were thought to demonstrate the paradox for a brief time.

 

I applied the same practice of counting the negative of a range in order to retrieve the information that was previously lost in the muck. Another words a folding range was simply the negative of the range of hands that were played. I called it hidden information because the human brain is not trained to think in the negative and so we never even knew that such information even existed.

 

Using negative ranges was the initial basis I used for solving the problem of capturing 100% of all attainable information from a system which in this case was a poker simulator that I had created in Excel.

 

While playing poker against human players involves free will, the problem could be too complex to solve, but I wanted to find a baseline using pokerbots within a poker simulator which I was also developing at the time. Poker-bots could simulate the actions of humans, but still have completely determinant hand ranges, and hand ranges were the key to the solution.

 

An example of a hand range may be the following:

 

In a ten handed game of Texas Holdem, a player or a bot, might open raise when first to act with a tight range of the top 8% of possible hands such as:

88+, ATs+, AJo+.

 

That range could then be reduced to an average weighted distribution of card ranks within two cards as demonstrated below using a hand matrix in Excel:

 

Figure 1: A Hand Range Matrix used for calculating the distribution of card ranks in a range using Excel.

 

Note that the numbers within the matrix represent the number of ways that a pocket pair, unpaired suited hand, or unpaired unsuited hand are created in ratios of 6, 4, & 12 ways respectively.

 

Another words, after the raise but before looking at your own two cards, the remaining cards in the deck would, on average, contain:

3.3 Aces

3.7 Kings

3.7 Queens

3.7 Jacks

3.8 Tens

3.9 Nines

3.9 Eights

4.0 Sevens

4.0 Sixes

4.0 Fives

4.0 Fours

4.0 Threes

4.0 Twos

 

Adding up to 50 cards.

 

If the player in first position had instead folded in that position, assuming that they didn't have a calling range (which is standard), then the average distribution of the remaining cards would be quite a bit different:

 

Figure 2: A hand matrix showing rresults for a folded hand in the same position results the remaining stub being:

 

3.89 Aces

3.86 Kings

3.86 Queens

3.86 Jacks

3.85 Tens

3.84 Nines

3.84 Eights

3.83 Sevens

3.83 Sixes

3.83 Fives

3.83 Fours

3.83 Threes

3.82 Twos

 

Again adding up to 50 cards.

 

Therefore it seems like all that needs to be done is to reduce every player range down to two weighted cards and remove them from the deck which should produce the average weighted distribution of the stub containing 32 cards, right?

 

Unfortunately it's not that simple once we try to account for more than one range. One reason is that the combinatorics functions require us to use only integers, so to accomidate the percentages of weighted averages, I had to figure out a new method for approximating the combin function using rational numbers.

 

More importantly the laws of conservation tells us that for every new range that we introduce, their must be an immediate adjustment made for all past ranges as well as the distribution of the remaining deck influencing future ranges due to the finite number of cards being fixed at 52.

 

That seemed to imply that information had to travel in a loop both forwards and backwards in time, or to put it another way, it required an instantanious transfer of new information to all player hand ranges already defined or yet to be defined, similar to how entanglement works, thus making it seem like the problem could not be solved.

 

I was finally able to find a solution (mostly) when I eventually realized that hand ranges weren't real. They were only how we must imagine our opponents hand where as the real hand had always been the same two cards.

 

Once I realized this, I was free to figure out a method that could automatically redistribute ranges based on all existing ranges simultanoiusly which seemed to work extremely well for the one trial I had time to test with a Monti-Carlo simulation before all of my projects were lost due to hackers.

 

This theoretically would have allowed me to make calculations far more accurately then ever before based on far more accurate information in the stub.

 

Before probability calculations assumed that future cards were always dealt from a random deck of 52 or 50 random cards regardless of 20 cards already in play, we could now assume that they were dealt from a stub of 32 cards with a biased distribution of hand ranks based on weighted averages of all of the ranges involved.

 

The link below is where I announced the solution (but not the discovery of the imaginary QM like effect which I assumed would be too dificult for people to easily accept).

 

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/card-removal-card-bunching-solved-1418266/

 

Again, while the quantum effect modeled is real in terms of conservation of information, it is based on imaginary ranges that only exist in our imaginations. Also, I believe the limitations of those quantum like effects in the macroscopic domain, does not violate any of the Laws of nature but I believe that it does set limits on how accurately we may calculate our predictions using probability theory, when attempting to capture 100% of available information, which never the less is far more accurate than we can currently calculate using probability theory alone and far faster than we can calculate using Monti-Carlo methods.

 

If I am ever able to recreate or recover the project, I hope to know more about it at that time. Below are, pics that were taken of the origional project showing the Range Removal section and does not even include the poker simulator section or the VBA code involved in the poker simulation or poker bot algorithms.

 

Figure 3: Matrix used for removal of known cards shown above.

 

Figure 4: Section responsible for calculating Range Removal effects. Note that the known card removal matrix is the matrix shown in the top right corner of the picture.

Edited March 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

The standard analogy of poker to QM:

In QM fundamental particles exist in a superposition state in which all discrete combinations of properties exist at once.

 

In poker, players must treat their opponents hand as an imaginary range of all possible hand combinations of hands that fit with the players past actions.

 

Probability Theory:

In poker, probability theory is limited in its accuracy due to it's inability to account for information lost in the muck when players hands are folded. This was something that probability theory had assumed to be too complex to be calculate.

The similarity of poker with QM is that they involve probabililty, but it pretty much ends there.

 

A few years back, I had managed to account for this missing information based on a simple idea I had first applied in the first grade, which had created quite a stir at the time.

 

The idea was that when the physical counting of objects was involved for problems of arithmetic such as taking 15 blocks away from a pile of 20 blocks, I had reasoned that it was faster to count five blocks and just grab what was remaining which allowed one to take far less time counting blocks.

 

My solution was apparently a novel approach and when teachers tried to apply math to account for the practice, the math seemed to create a paradox. A fact that I argued against with teachers at the time.

 

There is no paradox. This is pretty simple math, and I can't fathom that anyone capable of doing algebra would stumble here.

[koti]

The similarity of poker with QM is that they involve probabililty, but it pretty much ends there.

 

I'm no expert on QM but Im sure that the level of probability complexity in QM is far beyond the pretty straight forward probabilities in poker.

[TakenItSeriously]

The similarity of poker with QM is that they involve probabililty, but it pretty much ends there.

I think I may have oversimplified the problem to the point where the concept that I was trying to illustrate was lost.

 

The analogy for quantum entanglement has to do with the fact that information about one particle has an instant effect on the other particle based on property A is read by Alice therefore Property A cannot be read Bob.

 

In the poker analogy case their is a similar effect with ranges that are changed with each new range introduced.

 

The easiest way to explain it is when each new range is smaller than the previous ranges ie. each player raises the others.

 

Let's begin again with player1 opening with the same standard raise with the same range:

88+, ATs+, AJo+

which means that his hand weighting would look like like the following assuming a full and random deck.

0.7 Aces

0.3 Kings

0.3 Queens

0.3 Jacks

0.2 Tens

0.1 Nines

0.1 Eights

= 2 cards

 

Assume player2 raises with an even tighter range of

QQ+, AKo, AKs

where

.825 Aces

.825 Kings

.350 Queens

= 2 cards

 

Then introducing player2's range would an instantanious impact on the weighted distribution of Player1's range to suddenly be much less likely to contain Aces or Kings. and much more likely to contain smaller pocket pairs.

 

lets then assume Player3 reraises with a range of KK+

1.0 Aces

1.0 Kings

for a weighted average. (2 aces 1/2 the time and 2 kings 1/2 the time.)

 

Again both player1's distribution and player2's distribution of cards both must be adjusted instantaneously.

 

Finally assume player 4 raises all in which he can only do with aces only and action folds around to player1 who also goes all in with aces.

 

now all ranges have become nearly definitive where we know that Player3 must have KK only and player 2 has QQ 6 times in 7 and KK once in 7 and clearly both must now fold.

 

The point is that each time new information is introduced then the previous ranges must be redifined to adjust for the new information. And in theory, the information is transferred instantaniously.

 

There is no paradox. This is pretty simple math, and I can't fathom that anyone capable of doing algebra would stumble here.

As I said, their was no paradox and these were just elementary school teachers, but to be fair try converting a simple equation of say:

20-15+13-10+2=10

 

But using the negative counts each time and youll find it's not easy to encorporate negative counts into the arithmetic.

 

I'm sure their are riddles that intuitively seem to create paradoxes, though they are not, which are based on negative counting. I just can't recall any of them.

Edited March 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

I think I may have oversimplified the problem to the point where the concept that I was trying to illustrate was lost.

 

The analogy for quantum entanglement has to do with the fact that information about one particle has an instant effect on the other particle based on property A is read by Alice therefore Property A cannot be read Bob.

 

In the poker analogy case their is a similar effect with ranges that are changed with each new range introduced.

 

The easiest way to explain it is when each new range is smaller than the previous ranges ie. each player raises the others.

 

Let's begin again with player1 opening with the same standard raise with the same range:

88+, ATs+, AJo+

which means that his hand weighting would look like like the following assuming a full and random deck.

0.7 Aces

0.3 Kings

0.3 Queens

0.3 Jacks

0.2 Tens

0.1 Nines

0.1 Eights

= 2 cards

 

Assume player2 raises with an even tighter range of

QQ+, AKo, AKs

where

.825 Aces

.825 Kings

.350 Queens

= 2 cards

 

Then introducing player2's range would an instantanious impact on the weighted distribution of Player1's range to suddenly be much less likely to contain Aces or Kings. and much more likely to contain smaller pocket pairs.

 

lets then assume Player3 reraises with a range of KK+

1.0 Aces

1.0 Kings

for a weighted average. (2 aces 1/2 the time and 2 kings 1/2 the time.)

 

Again both player1's distribution and player2's distribution of cards both must be adjusted instantaneously.

 

Finally assume player 4 raises all in which he can only do with aces only and action folds around to player1 who also goes all in with aces.

 

now all ranges have become nearly definitive where we know that Player3 must have KK only and player 2 has QQ 6 times in 7 and KK once in 7 and clearly both must now fold.

 

The point is that each time new information is introduced then the previous ranges must be redifined to adjust for the new information. And in theory, the information is transferred instantaniously.

 

As I said, their was no paradox and these were just elementary school teachers, but to be fair try converting a simple equation of say:

20-15+13-10+2=10

 

But using the negative counts each time and youll find it's not easy to encorporate negative counts into the arithmetic.

 

I'm sure their are riddles that intuitively seem to create paradoxes, though they are not, which are based on negative counting. I just can't recall any of them.

Youre not taking stack sizes into account which in no limit holdem has a huge (probably the biggest) impact on player range polarization. I fail to see any correlation other than what Swansont mentioned.

[TakenItSeriously]

I'm no expert on QM but Im sure that the level of probability complexity in QM is far beyond the pretty straight forward probabilities in poker.

Actually the complexity of quantum entanglement is about as simple as it gets. alice measures spin up in the y axes then Bob must measure spin down in the y axes. whats so complicated about that?

 

The difficult part is in understanding how Bobs particle knows to be spin down the instant that alice measures spin up. Quantum weirdness just means it is not well understood, but not necessarily complicated, IMO.

Youre not taking stack sizes into account which in no limit holdem has a huge (probably the biggest) impact on player range polarization. I fail to see any correlation other than what Swansont mentioned.

stack sizes are not relavent in the examples as they were intended. In fact neither does strategy play a roll, only that the ranges are definitive such as with poker bots and that ranges always includes the actual hand.

 

If you like assume every stack was sufficient to make pot sized raises and sufficient to being priced out vs an all in.

 

BTW, polarized ranges into a four way action pot? from the first four players in a ten handed game???

 

What kind of poker do you play.?

Edited March 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

Actually the complexity of quantum entanglement is about as simple as it gets. alice measures spin up in the y axes then Bob must measure spin down in the y axes. whats so complicated about that?

 

The difficult part is in understanding how Bobs particle knows to be spin down the instant that alice measures spin up. Quantum weirdness just means it is not well understood, but not necessarily complicated, IMO.

Im not sure if its as simple as you state. Wave functions, probability amplitude, discrete amplitudes, laws for calculating densities of probability are far more complex than just a simple up/down spin of a particle.

Nevertheless, I still fail to see any other correlation between QM and poker than a simple "they both involve probability" statement.

 

Edit: Link added:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9307019.pdf

Edited March 23, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

Actually the complexity of quantum entanglement is about as simple as it gets. alice measures spin up in the y axes then Bob must measure spin down in the y axes. whats so complicated about that?

In QM, the particles did not have the value of spin until they are measured. That's not true in poker, and it changes the correlations that you can get. Also in QM you can measure the spin along different axes and get different probabilities, which doesn't happen in poker.

[TakenItSeriously]

Im not sure if its as simple as you state. Wave functions, probability amplitude, discrete amplitudes, laws for calculating densities of probability are far more complex than just a simple up/down spin of a particle.

Nevertheless, I still fail to see any other correlation between QM and poker than a simple "they both involve probability" statement.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Wave functions can be translated into probability densitty curves, as long as their is a polar aspect to the problem which is not the case here, but it is the case in another post I had made about bells inequalities.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103544-proof-that-bells-inequalities-are-equal/?p=974405

 

In that post I had used aspects of Range Removal for calculating the bias in the distribution of spin combinations for detectors at 0, 60 and 90 degrees.

 

in that example I believe the probability density curve turns out to being equivalent to the wave function results.

[koti]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Wave functions can be translated into probability densitty curves, as long as their is a polar aspect to the problem which is not the case here, but it is the case in another post I had made about bells inequalities.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103544-proof-that-bells-inequalities-are-equal/?p=974405

 

In that post I had used aspects of Range Removal for calculating the bias in the distribution of spin combinations for detectors at 0, 60 and 90 degrees.

 

in that example I believe the probability density curve turns out to being equivalent to the wave function results.

Well...I'll give you a real life example of why I think there is little correlation between poker and QM appart from the fact that both systems deal with probability; I can pretty firmly grasp the aspects of probability in the game of poker but the issues discussed in the arxiv link I edited in above are beyond me.

Edited March 23, 2017 by koti

[TakenItSeriously]

In QM, the particles did not have the value of spin until they are measured. That's not true in poker, and it changes the correlations that you can get. Also in QM you can measure the spin along different axes and get different probabilities, which doesn't happen in poker.

Effectively, the opponents hand does not have definitive value to the player except through the information that he is able to observe.

 

measuring spin, speed, momentum, polarization, or any other complementary property is not the important aspects that cause entanglement.

 

True they are not technically proper analogies which would mean that they were mathematically identical.

 

However they are analogous in their cause/effect mechanism. And the mechanism of the poker analogy seems to indicate that entanglement is created by conservation laws and the complete accounting of information in a system.

Well...I'll give you a real life example of why I think there is little correlation between poker and QM appart from the fact that both systems deal with probability; I can pretty firmly grasp the aspects of probability in the game of poker but the issues discussed in the arxiv link I edited in anove are beyond me.

Anything that is complex in it's understanding can be explained in a simple way once its understood well enough.

 

"If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

-Albert Einstein

[swansont]

Effectively, the opponents hand does not have definitive value to the player except through the information that he is able to observe.

Doesn't matter. The card has a particular value regardless of whether a particular player knows it. That's a key distinction in entanglement, and you are not accounting for it.

 

measuring spin, speed, momentum, polarization, or any other complementary property is not the important aspects that cause entanglement.

Not being able to know the state of the particles is an important aspect.

 

True they are not technically proper analogies which would mean that they were mathematically identical.

 

However they are analogous in their cause/effect mechanism. And the mechanism of the poker analogy seems to indicate that entanglement is created by conservation laws and the complete accounting of information in a system.

Complete accounting of information ruins the entanglement.

[TakenItSeriously]

Doesn't matter. The card has a particular value regardless of whether a particular player knows it. That's a key distinction in entanglement, and you are not accounting for it.

Whether a particle has no specific state before one decides to look seems pretty irrelevant. However if you could give an example of how it becomes relevant, Id be open to considering it.

 

Not being able to know the state of the particles is an important aspect.

I agree that Its the ability to make the observation that is important which is the whole point behind the equivalence principle.

 

So In a poker game that's played online where live tells are not evident and a player cannot physically see the hand except through the intended methods of player actions is all that is important in the analogy.

 

Complete accounting of information ruins the entanglement.

What I meant about the complete accounting of information is that all available information has been accounted for, not necessarily when or how you observe the information.

 

That is why this effect has never been associated to poker before now. Because previously, with probability, too much information was left unaccounted for in the muck.

Edited March 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[koti]

Anything that is complex in it's understanding can be explained in a simple way once its understood well enough.

 

"If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

-Albert Einstein

 

 

I agree. Could you explain to me than what is the correlation of poker to QM ?

 

stack sizes are not relavent in the examples as they were intended. In fact neither does strategy play a roll, only that the ranges are definitive such as with poker bots and that ranges always includes the actual hand.

 

If you like assume every stack was sufficient to make pot sized raises and sufficient to being priced out vs an all in.

 

BTW, polarized ranges into a four way action pot? from the first four players in a ten handed game???

 

What kind of poker do you play.?

I feel uncomfortable with discarding the most important aspect of a no limit holdem game (which your example suggests that is the game) which is player stack size but I get it, for the sake of your example lets assume what you assume.

The most comfortable game I feel in is no limit holdem. I also like to play pot limit omaha when I feel like in need of more adrenaline.

Edited March 23, 2017 by koti

[TakenItSeriously]

I agree. Could you explain to me than what is the correlation of poker to QM ?

The relavent correlation under discussion is that each observation seems to have an instantanious effect on all entangled objects.

 

Also to say that probability in general is only one thing it has in common is not a fair statement like saying two things have calculous in common. Its the details of how probability is treated equivalently to both.

 

for example some details are that superposition states are discrete states of existance the same as hand combinations are descrete combinations .

 

or that any lesson in quantum computers could be translated just about word for word into a lesson in equity calculations.

 

There is more than enough to learn from when comparing two, either as a teaching aid or as a tool for learning some of the aspects of QM, that we may not understand that well yet.

 

For instance that entanglement seems to be a consequence of the laws of conservation.

Edited March 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

Whether a particle has no specific state before one decides to look seems pretty irrelevant. However if you could give an example of how it becomes relevant, Id be open to considering it.

I submit that you have an insufficient knowledge of QM, and in particular entanglement, if this is your position.

 

I agree that Its the ability to make the observation that is important which is the whole point behind the equivalence principle.

I fail to see what the equivalence principle (which is part of general relativity) has to do with anything. Further evidence, perhaps, that you are out of your depth.

 

The relavent correlation under discussion is that each observation seems to have an instantanious effect on all entangled objects.

 

Also to say that probability in general is only one thing it has in common is not accurate. Its the details of how probability is treated equivalently to both.

 

for example some details are that superposition states are discrete states of existance the same as hand combinations are descrete combinations .

 

or that any lesson in quantum computers could be translated just about word for word into a lesson in equity calculations.

 

There is more than enough to learn from when comparing two, either as a teaching aid or as a tool for learning some of the aspects of QM, that we may not understand that well yet.

 

For instance that entanglement seems to be a consequence of the laws of conservation.

No, the instantaneous part is not the correlation, and entanglement is not a consequence of laws of conservation. That is a necessary but insufficient condition. There are plenty of conserved quantities not subject to entanglement, because they do not follow the rules of QM. Anything classical qualifies, like poker.

[koti]

TakenItSeriously, on 23 Mar 2017 - 3:43 PM, said:

The relavent correlation under discussion is that each observation seems to have an instantanious effect on all entangled objects

 

There is no entanglement in poker.

 

 

TakenItSeriously, on 23 Mar 2017 - 3:43 PM, said:

for example some details are that superposition states are discrete states of existance the same as hand combinations are descrete combinations .

 

There are no superposition states in poker.

Edited March 23, 2017 by koti

[imatfaal]

Whether a particle has no specific state before one decides to look seems pretty irrelevant. However if you could give an example of how it becomes relevant, Id be open to considering it.

 

 

The following is not true - but it gives an idea. You have two cards A and B - one is an Ace the other a King; you do not know which is which. With classical cards you could say that measure card A by pairing with another known card and then turning the unknown over.

 

So if we measure card A by pairing with a Queen and measure card B by pairing with another Queen. If you get Ace Queen with card A you must get King Queen with card B. This would be the same if the Ace and King were in superposition

 

But if we measure card A and card B DIFFERENTLY - ie we measure card A with a Queen and Card B with a new Ace. Then with the classical measuring that if you get Ace Queen with card A then ALWAYS you will get King Ace. But with a superposition and with a different measurement of the two entangled particles (this is the equivalent of measuring on different axes in Bell Experiment) if you got Ace Queen with card A there would be a possibility that with card B you would get King Ace and also a possibility you would get Ace Ace

[koti]

 

The following is not true - but it gives an idea. You have two cards A and B - one is an Ace the other a King; you do not know which is which. With classical cards you could say that measure card A by pairing with another known card and then turning the unknown over.

 

So if we measure card A by pairing with a Queen and measure card B by pairing with another Queen. If you get Ace Queen with card A you must get King Queen with card B. This would be the same if the Ace and King were in superposition

 

But if we measure card A and card B DIFFERENTLY - ie we measure card A with a Queen and Card B with a new Ace. Then with the classical measuring that if you get Ace Queen with card A then ALWAYS you will get King Ace. But with a superposition and with a different measurement of the two entangled particles (this is the equivalent of measuring on different axes in Bell Experiment) if you got Ace Queen with card A there would be a possibility that with card B you would get King Ace and also a possibility you would get Ace Ace

 

I have to admit that I have no idea what you are talking about imaatfal

I mean the example you posted is very clear to me but I fail to see where to find a correlation between the unknown card setups in your example and quantum entaglement/superposition states.

I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanical type superpositions & entaglements have no relfection in poker ?

Edited March 23, 2017 by koti

[imatfaal]

 

I have to admit that I have no idea what you are talking about imaatfal

I mean the example you posted is very clear to me but I fail to see where to find a correlation between the unknown card setups in your example and quantum entaglement/superposition states.

I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanical type superpositions & entaglements have no relfection in poker ?

 

 

There is no connexion - exactly as you said. There is no reflexion in poker.

 

Sorry I was unclear. I was attempting to show how far from an unknown pair of cards that an entangled pair would be - obviously my analogy failed dreadfully. The point of the final measurement being completely unimaginable and impossible in poker is that entanglement is radically and fundamentally different from a mere state of being unknown.

 

I would try again without introducing cards - but frankly the best example is the Bell Inequality and Experiments and the OP has issues with that already.

[koti]

 

There is no connexion - exactly as you said. There is no reflexion in poker.

 

Sorry I was unclear. I was attempting to show how far from an unknown pair of cards that an entangled pair would be - obviously my analogy failed dreadfully. The point of the final measurement being completely unimaginable and impossible in poker is that entanglement is radically and fundamentally different from a mere state of being unknown.

 

I would try again without introducing cards - but frankly the best example is the Bell Inequality and Experiments and the OP has issues with that already.

Phew

[imatfaal]

Phew

 

I think I have adequately shown that it is complicated Even if I was trying to do so much more

 

»Hvis man kan sætte sig ind i kvantemekanik uden at blive svimmel, har man ikke forstået noget af det,« Bohr

 

I have posted this in Danish as it seem this is probably about as understandable as my example

[koti]

 

I think I have adequately shown that it is complicated Even if I was trying to do so much more

 

»Hvis man kan sætte sig ind i kvantemekanik uden at blive svimmel, har man ikke forstået noget af det,« Bohr

 

I have posted this in Danish as it seem this is probably about as understandable as my example

 

While translating that Bohr quote I found some other really good ones by him...this one is a gem:

"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical"

[TakenItSeriously]

 

Whether a particle has no specific state before one decides to look seems pretty irrelevant. However if you could give an example of how it becomes relevant, Id be open to considering it.

The following is not true - but it gives an idea. You have two cards A and B - one is an Ace the other a King; you do not know which is which. With classical cards you could say that measure card A by pairing with another known card and then turning the unknown over.

 

So if we measure card A by pairing with a Queen and measure card B by pairing with another Queen. If you get Ace Queen with card A you must get King Queen with card B. This would be the same if the Ace and King were in superposition

 

But if we measure card A and card B DIFFERENTLY - ie we measure card A with a Queen and Card B with a new Ace. Then with the classical measuring that if you get Ace Queen with card A then ALWAYS you will get King Ace. But with a superposition and with a different measurement of the two entangled particles (this is the equivalent of measuring on different axes in Bell Experiment) if you got Ace Queen with card A there would be a possibility that with card B you would get King Ace and also a possibility you would get Ace Ace

I'll concede that my statement was prematurly stated and not exactly how I should have expressed it. Also, what I had intended to say isn't really that important.

 

However, I think I understand where your going with this analogy which, If I'm right could serve a very useful purpose where I think we could have some common understanding of one of the more confusing aspects of entanglement, that I would have had trouble explaining myself, while recognizing it in your example of showing the relavance of the hidden information of entanglement.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but It seems like it was intended to show that the mathematical treatment of results when two observers measuring the same entangled spin angle is actually mathematically equivalent to two measurements of a single spin property as represented by the Queen

 

And that's mathematically different when measuring different spin angles that sometimes represent two different spin states represented by the Queen or Ace.

 

It wouldn't matter that neither observer knew when their measurements coincided, only that they know that they would a third of the time.

 

Is that the gist of what you were saying?

 

 

I think I have adequately shown that it is complicated Even if I was trying to do so much more

 

»Hvis man kan sætte sig ind i kvantemekanik uden at blive svimmel, har man ikke forstået noget af det,« Bohr

 

I have posted this in Danish as it seem this is probably about as understandable as my example

BTW, I finally got around to translating that quote.

 

I do agree that QM can be extremely confusing.

 

However, I think that's all the more reason for looking at it through an appropriate analogy. Once you realise that most of it is just probability, then QM becomes much easier to understand.

.

 

..

 

 

.

Edited March 24, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[imatfaal]

I'll concede that my statement was prematurly stated and not exactly how I should have expressed it. Also, what I had intended to say isn't really that important.

 

However, I think I understand where your going with this analogy which, If I'm right could serve a very useful purpose where I think we could have some common understanding of one of the more confusing aspects of entanglement, that I would have had trouble explaining myself, while recognizing it in your example of showing the relavance of the hidden information of entanglement.

 

1. It is not hidden - even if you use this word inadvisedly to mean unusual or unknown it is "taken" in this context by its usage in local hidden variables which have been proven not to account for qm effects. The information is not pre-existing yet hidden from the observer - the state of particle A and the state of particle B are not defined as yet; the only state which can be defined is the superposition. This is crucial - you cannot cannot cannot get the same results for local hidden variables; it was the genius of bell to find a relatively simple experimental method to test this

Correct me if I'm wrong but It seems like it was intended to show that the mathematical treatment of results when two observers measuring the same entangled spin angle is actually mathematically equivalent to two measurements of a single spin property as represented by the Queen

 

And that's mathematically different when measuring different spin angles that sometimes represent two different spin states represented by the Queen or Ace.

 

Not just mathematically but experimentally - the analogy was (as I think you understand) that if you measure spin on the same axis on both entangled particles (ie with a queen each time) then you always get opposite results as the spins are perfectly anticorrelated. However if you measure on two entangled particles on different axes (queen and ace) then you do not get the expected results demanded by a classical analysis. I started the analogy with the idea of the idea of using whether you can pair up your first card - ie a correlation; which is closer to the truth but it was already too complex. And in your last sentence - just to bring the point home; you do not measure two different spin states - you measure a pair of particles in superposition.

It wouldn't matter that neither observer knew when their measurements coincided, only that they know that they would a third of the time.

 

You do not need two observers for "weirdness" to occur. Don't start getting into quantum teleportation before you get your head around this - or concentrate entirely on quantum teleportation and ignore this. The Bell experiment is the repeated measurement of pairs of entangled particles (whether spin on electrons or polarisation of photons) at different axes and the amount of correlation or anti-correlation between the two particles of the pair. There is no need for a second observer who has only the information passed by the entangled pair etc. Keep it simple.

However, I think that's all the more reason for looking at it through an appropriate analogy. Once you realise that most of it is just probability, then QM becomes much easier to understand.

 

This, in my opinion, is the nub of the problem. There is no appropriate classical analogy - there cannot be as the results of the qm world are fundamentally odd. You can indeed work with QM by just sucking it up and doing the maths ("Shut up and Calculate" - as not said by Feynman) - but you are missing out on all the fun and just working as black box, more importantly you cannot extend your ideas if you do not embrace the divergence from the classical