Entanglement and "spooky action at a distance"

[geordief]

I don't want to put my rudimentary oar into another thread so this is hopefully a simple question.

 

If an object is described simultaneously   in more than one way  and  two such  objects are created simultaneously, how can it be surprising when a measurement of one  is also a de facto measurement of the other?

 

I ask because I am under the impression that Einstein struggled  with and fought against this idea and yet it seems ludicrously simple.

 

What am I  missing?(a lot ?)

(entanglement is not even confined to quantum objects is it)

 

I googled the following link  by way of confirmation bias so I cannot vouch for it....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/

[swansont]

Because the states are undetermined before you measure them. It's not like grabbing one of a pair of gloves and then looking to see it the right glove and instantly knowing the other one is left.

You can create two entangled photons with a particular polarization. Measure one as vertical, and the other one will be vertical. Always. That's a problem unless the photons were known to have vertical polarization. Which isn't the case.

What's more, repeat the experiment exactly and measure one a horizontal, and the other one is horizontal. The photons do not have a determined polarization until you measure one of them. And then the other has the correlated value.

[studiot]

Yes it is a simple question, but unfortunately it does not as yet have a simple or any complete, answer.

Let me take you back a few centuries to Christopher Columbus.

In those days they knew of the magnetic compass, but they were in a similar position as regards to its action and many (sometimes tragic) mistakes were made in its use as a result.

There were, of course, speculations as to why it worked but the action remained spooky.

Magnetism was just not sufficiently understood and was known by way of a bunch of example disconnected phenomena that did not make sense, but displayed unpredictable action at a distance.

Fast forward to Professor Sir Charles Inglis in 1951

Quote

To the unenlightened the behaviour of a gyroscope may well seem capricious and even verging on the supernatural. Cause and effect apparently act at in planes at right-angles to one another; and under the influence of a set of coplanar forces the spin of the gyroscope will try to move in a direction at right-angles to and, if thwarted in its attempt to do so, it will fight furiously to achieve its purpose.

Spooky action again but note the date.

Of course Sir Charles goes on to explain the action used for many Victorian party magic tricks which was properly understood by then.

 

So today we have a number of instances of unexplained phenomena, seemingly connected but currently lacking a proper coherent theory.

Of course there are plenty of speculations, but none without consequence elsewhere in the theory.

 

We should always be prepared to say when we just don't know.

 

Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

Edited December 18, 2017 by studiot

[geordief]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

.

 

Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

.Thanks . I think I should pass for now as I should try to digest  what I have been told so far and put the conceptions I already have ,such as they are in order

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, geordief said:

.Thanks . I think I should pass for now as I should try to digest  what I have been told so far and put the conceptions I already have ,such as they are in order

Note that the spooky action referred to in the OP is entanglement and the EPR paradox, and not simply interactions that take place over some arbitrary distance, as with a compass, or a gyroscope. Those are separate topics of discussion.

[Rob McEachern]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Because the states are undetermined before you measure them. It's not like grabbing one of a pair of gloves and then looking to see it the right glove and instantly knowing the other one is left.

However, it is exactly like observing an entangled pair of polarized coins, rather than a pair of gloves. This has been extensively discussed on the thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105862-any-anomalies-in-bells-inequality-data/?tab=comments#comment-999458 The post I made on July 1, which discusses gloves, socks, coins and all the rest of it. Gloves do not exhibit "quantum correlations", since, as Swansort has stated, they are always in a fixed state of being either right or left handed, INDEPENDENT of any observation. But coins are not in any such fixed state - their observed state DEPENDS upon the observer's decision to observe the coin from a specific angle; change the observation angle and you change the result. Consequently, coins will exhibit the exact same correlation statistics, with the exact same detection efficiencies, observed in the best Bell tests on polarized photons, when the coins are specifically constructed to exhibit only a single bit of information. It is the number of recoverable bits of information (one vs. more than one) that determines the correlation statistics (and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). It has nothing to do with spooky action at a distance, or classical vs. quantum physical objects. See my paper "A Classical System for Producing Quantum Correlations" for details: http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0129v1.pdf

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Rob McEachern

[Mordred]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Because the states are undetermined before you measure them. It's not like grabbing one of a pair of gloves and then looking to see it the right glove and instantly knowing the other one is left.

You can create two entangled photons with a particular polarization. Measure one as vertical, and the other one will be vertical. Always. That's a problem unless the photons were known to have vertical polarization. Which isn't the case.

What's more, repeat the experiment exactly and measure one a horizontal, and the other one is horizontal. The photons do not have a determined polarization until you measure one of them. And then the other has the correlated value.

I had to read closely what you had written here, lol At first glance I thought you missed a polarization state.

Anyways this arxiv may provide insight

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001&ved=0ahUKEwitm5K1gJXYAhUBmoMKHYTCA0wQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw2MyGvbkcvUFwmP4FAdZHAU

Don't worry too much about the full article on Supplementary parameter theory. The first section helps explain Swansonts reply.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mordred

[interested]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

I was waiting and hoping someone else might ask this question. How does a gyroscope point the way to resolution of entanglement?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, interested said:

I was waiting and hoping someone else might ask this question. How does a gyroscope point the way to resolution of entanglement?

I don't think it was offered as such. It was offered as an example of spooky action.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think it was offered as such. It was offered as an example of spooky action.

 

I thought you had banned discussion about the connection.

[J.C.MacSwell]

What is spooky about a gyroscope? Everything is local.

[interested]

21 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What is spooky about a gyroscope? Everything is local.

Do you view entanglement as being local? If so how? Do you envisage an extra 4th spacial dimension connecting separated entangled particles in 3 dimensional space? and how the does entanglement apply to gyroscopes?

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, interested said:

Do you view entanglement as being local? 

We know that it's not.

3 hours ago, interested said:

  how the does entanglement apply to gyroscopes?

Already answered: it doesn't.

On 12/19/2017 at 6:04 AM, studiot said:

I thought you had banned discussion about the connection.

I'm participating in this thread, i.e. not moderating. I can't have banned anything.

If you have a connection in mind, by all means tell us what it is.

[Octavian]

On 20/12/2017 at 4:18 AM, interested said:

Do you view entanglement as being local? If so how? Do you envisage an extra 4th spacial dimension connecting separated entangled particles in 3 dimensional space? and how the does entanglement apply to gyroscopes?

 

I don't get yet what a gyroscope has to do with this.

But for your comment to make sense, you have to +1 to each of your dimension.  Entanglement is a 5-D property which links particles not through positional space, nor space-time, but traversing spacetimes.  The plurlism there is the key to understanding all the spooky stuff.  And would also explain the collapsing the probability function.

[interested]

21 minutes ago, Octavian said:

I don't get yet what a gyroscope has to do with this.

But for your comment to make sense, you have to +1 to each of your dimension.  Entanglement is a 5-D property which links particles not through positional space, nor space-time, but traversing spacetimes.  The plurlism there is the key to understanding all the spooky stuff.  And would also explain the collapsing the probability function.

I know plenty about gyros and dont get how they explain entanglement in any way either, someone else posted on the subject, not me.

Can you explain more re your 5 D world? Are you talking x,y,z, and time + another dimension, traversing all the other dimensions.  Do you have any links explaining this 5D world of yours?

[Strange]

On 18/12/2017 at 1:05 PM, studiot said:

Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

I would also like to know how you think a gyroscope is relevant....

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 hours ago, Strange said:

I would also like to know how you think a gyroscope is relevant....

...and (to Studiot) what mathematical boundaries does a gyroscope break?