It's worth noting that while entanglement is a quantum phenomenon, and correlations are often discussed in classical contexts, there is a conceptual link between the two. Entanglement represents a special form of correlation that arises due to the quantum nature of particles.
In quantum mechanics, when two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one particle instantaneously determines the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them.
During any reaction nothing physical happens instantaneous when there is a distance between the two events. For the human mind, based on previous knowledge and experiments this is a different story.
The correlation between the particles is established at the time of entanglement, and the measurement outcomes are intimately linked.
In the scenario you presented:
You measure the first particle, and let's say it turns out to be an a+.
Due to entanglement, the other particle is now known to be an a-.
The apparent paradox arises when considering the sequence of events in a spacelike separation, meaning the measurements are made far apart and there is no causal signal that could travel between the two measurement locations at the speed of light or slower. In this situation, it might seem as though the measurement of one particle instantaneously affects the state of the other, violating the principle of causality.
The resolution to this paradox lies in understanding that the measurement outcomes were not predetermined before the measurements. It's only when you measure one particle that the state of the other becomes determined, and this determination occurs simultaneously due to the entanglement.
Also, in this sentence the meaning of the word determined or determination is not clear.
When you measure one particle and you know that the two particles are correlated, then you know instantaneous the state of the other particle. This has no physical consequences, and nothing instantaneous from a physical point is involved. The words determination and entangled should not be used.
The interpretation of these results has been a subject of ongoing debate and various interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, and others, offer different perspectives on the nature of measurement and entanglement in quantum theory. The key point is that the correlations are established at the time of entanglement, and the measurements are intimately connected in a way that challenges classical intuitions about causality and determinism.
The correlations are not established at the time of entanglement, they are established as part of the reaction. The measurements are not intimately connected and neither the concepts Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are crystal clear.
My understanding of the universe incorporates a rather simple worldview: There is always something there is nowhere nothing. It is much more like a fishbowl. The importance is that the fish does not realize that he is floating in water. He or she thinks that the bowl is empty.
The consequence is that all what is happening, the chemical processes, is also rather simple. In fact, there are two situations: Something stays the same or something changes always related to something else. A ball lays at rest on a flat table or a ball moves on a tilted table, relative to a flat surface.
However, this apparently is not true in the case when correlated particles are created, also called entangled particles.
My understanding is that particles (photons) created as a result of a reaction can be correlated, but the fact that they are correlated cannot change their physical behaviour.
My understanding of the process involved follows what is written above.
One important consideration is that when you perform a measurement on one particle, this will always influence the state of that measured particle, and can never be the cause of any correlation between the two particles. That is why it is so difficult to measure the speed of one particle, because this requires that the same particle is influenced twice. The same happens when the second particle is measured. Again the state of that particle is influenced. The result of both measurements can indicated what the state was before these measurements and can only indicate there was correlation before the measurements. That is the most sensible conclusion.
Back to my home page Index