ChatGPT - Benchmark -

This document describes an actual conversation with the program "ChatGPT" as of 20 December 2023.
To use ChatGPT select:



Notification: If part of this document is used by external parties, like ChatGPT, the url of this document has to be mentioned.


The discussion consists of a series of Questions, Answers and Comments. Both parties in the discussion are treated as equals.

7. The understanding of correlation and entanglement

1. Can you explain what is meant with correlation?

ChatGPT Certainly! Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the degree to which two variables change together. In other words, it quantifies the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two continuous variables. The key aspects of correlation are:
  1. Strength of Relationship: Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1. A correlation coefficient close to +1 indicates a strong positive relationship, meaning that as one variable increases, the other tends to also increase. On the other hand, a correlation coefficient close to -1 indicates a strong negative relationship, implying that as one variable increases, the other tends to decrease. A correlation coefficient close to 0 suggests a weak or no linear relationship.
  2. Direction of Relationship: The sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship. A positive correlation means that as one variable increases, the other variable also tends to increase. A negative correlation means that as one variable increases, the other variable tends to decrease.
It's important to note that correlation does not imply causation. Even if two variables are correlated, it does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other to change. Correlation simply measures the statistical association between variables. The most commonly used correlation coefficient is the Pearson correlation coefficient, denoted by "r." Other correlation coefficients, such as the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, can be used when dealing with non-linear relationships or ordinal data.

User 2. I understand what you write, but if correlation is something mathematical, why do you write: "Correlation simply measures the statistical association between variables." instead of: "Correlation simply calculates the statistical association between variables." ?

ChatGPT You make a valid point. I appreciate the clarification. When I say "measures," I'm referring to the fact that correlation is not just a calculation but a quantitative assessment of the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. The correlation coefficient provides a measure that goes beyond a simple numerical result; it gives a sense of the degree and nature of the association.
Still, the concepts measures and measurement are physical concepts. In mathematical sense, correlation is a calculation involving numbers.
So, to be more precise, we could say, "Correlation is a mathematical method that calculates the statistical association between variables, and the result is a measure – the correlation coefficient – that quantifies the strength and direction of this association."

user 3. My experience is more which chemical processes, where we want to understand if there is any correlation between different (process) variables

ChatGPT In the context of chemical processes, correlation analysis can be a valuable tool for understanding relationships between different variables and identifying patterns that may influence the overall process. Here's how correlation might be applied in the realm of chemical processes:
  1. Quality Control: Correlation analysis can be used to assess the relationship between various process variables and the quality of the final product. For example, you might investigate whether the concentrations of certain chemicals or the temperature at a specific stage of the process correlate with the purity or yield of the product.
  2. Optimization: When optimizing a chemical process, it's essential to identify factors that impact the desired outcome. Correlation analysis can help pinpoint variables that are strongly correlated with optimal process conditions. This information can guide efforts to fine-tune the process for improved efficiency or product quality.
  3. Troubleshooting: If there are deviations or issues in a chemical process, correlation analysis can be employed to identify potential causes. By examining the relationships between different variables, you can identify patterns that may indicate the root causes of problems and take corrective actions.
  4. Experimental Design: In the development or improvement of chemical processes, correlation analysis is often used as part of experimental design. By systematically varying process parameters and measuring their effects, you can assess how different variables interact and influence the overall outcome.
  5. Process Monitoring: Continuous monitoring of key variables in a chemical process is essential for maintaining stable and efficient operations. Correlation analysis can be used to establish baselines and detect deviations from normal patterns, helping to predict and prevent potential issues.
In summary, correlation analysis in the context of chemical processes is a powerful tool for gaining insights into the relationships between various variables. It facilitates a more informed approach to quality control, optimization, troubleshooting, experimental design, and process monitoring, ultimately contributing to more efficient and effective chemical processes.

User 4. But when you find certain correlations in the measurements of these variables, do you agree, that the cause lies in the details of how the reaction proceeds. For example, if you add more of a raw material the composition of the product may change.

ChatGPT Absolutely, you've highlighted a crucial point. When you observe correlations among variables in chemical processes, it often indicates that there are underlying mechanisms at play in the reaction or process. These correlations may reflect the interconnected and interdependent nature of various factors involved in the chemical transformation.
The critical issue is, that when we make observations with your eyes, the course of the reactions should not change.
The general rule is, that all observations or measurements should not change the course.
One exception is, when a photon hits a detector i.e. a CCD or our eyes, the photon itself is transformed in energy.

In your example, if changing the amount of a raw material correlates with a change in the composition of the product, it suggests that the quantity of that raw material is a significant factor influencing the reaction.
This correlation could be due to several reasons, such as:
  1. Stoichiometry: The amount of reactants and their ratios in a chemical reaction (stoichiometry) plays a fundamental role in determining the composition of the products. Changing the quantity of a raw material can directly impact the reaction's stoichiometry.
  2. Reaction Kinetics: The rate at which a reaction proceeds and the pathway it follows can be influenced by the concentrations of reactants. This, in turn, can affect the composition of the products.
  3. Side Reactions: Changes in the amounts of raw materials may lead to the initiation or suppression of side reactions, altering the overall reaction pathways and product distribution.
  4. Catalysis: Some reactions may involve catalysts whose activity is influenced by the concentrations of certain reactants. Changes in these concentrations can affect the catalytic activity and, consequently, the reaction outcome.
Understanding these details is crucial for process optimization, quality control, and troubleshooting. It allows researchers and engineers to make informed decisions about how to adjust process parameters, such as raw material quantities, to achieve desired outcomes. In this way, correlation analysis becomes a tool for uncovering the intricacies of chemical reactions and processes.

User 5. Now I want to discuss the subject entanglement, which is related to correlation. Are you familiar with this?

ChatGPT Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of entanglement, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics. Entanglement is a phenomenon where two or more particles become correlated or linked in such a way that the state of one particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them.
This is a typical sentence, where the writer does not mention the physical implications of this so-called entanglement. Why is the word linked mentioned? What has the distance between the particle s
This concept was famously described by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in their 1935 paper, leading to the EPR paradox.
In quantum entanglement:
  1. Correlated States: Entangled particles share correlated quantum states. For example, if the spin of one entangled particle is measured to be "up," the spin of the other entangled particle will be measured as "down," even if the second particle is far away.
    The reader should try to imagine, that this experiment is never performed before.
    In that case the first measurement can be "up" and the second can be "down". (However, this can also be the other way around) However this will not ring a bell or considered special. Only when the same experiment is performed 100 it is possible that this correlation is detected (for the first time!).
    What will happen next? I expect, the same people involved, will try to find the cause of this correlation. The first assumption will be: in the reaction itself, that is the most likely place where the two particles are created.
  2. Instantaneous Connection: One of the peculiar aspects of entanglement is that changes in the state of one particle seem to instantaneously influence the state of the other, even if they are light-years apart. This phenomenon appears to violate classical notions of locality and has been a subject of much debate and experimentation.
    When you assume that the correlation is caused, internal, as part of the reaction, no instantaneous actions are involved.
  3. Non-separability: Entangled particles are said to be non-separable, meaning that their individual quantum states cannot be considered independently of each other. The entangled system as a whole must be described by a joint quantum state.
Entanglement is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics and is a key resource in quantum information processing and quantum computing. It has been experimentally observed and verified in numerous experiments, and it plays a crucial role in various quantum technologies.

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.

User 6. Okay. Let's first discuss 'correlated states'. The fact that such a correlation exists must have a cause. Can you describe a type of reaction that causes such a correlation

ChatGPT In classical systems, the idea of correlated states typically arises due to interactions between components within a system. However, when we discuss quantum entanglement, the situation is a bit different from classical correlations, and it's important to emphasize that entanglement is a uniquely quantum phenomenon. It doesn't have a direct analog in classical physics.
What is the background of this 'solution'? You can only do that when all simpler explanations are found to be wrong, by means of experiments.
In quantum mechanics, the correlated states associated with entanglement can be created through various processes. One common scenario is the process of particle decay, where a parent particle decays into two or more daughter particles. The conservation laws in quantum mechanics ensure that certain properties, such as spin, angular momentum, or energy, are conserved during the decay process. As a result, the states of the daughter particles become correlated. Let's take an example involving the spin of particles, which is a quantum property:
  1. Creation of Entangled States: Consider a parent particle at rest with zero total spin. The parent particle decays into two daughter particles. According to conservation of angular momentum, the spins of the two daughters must be in opposite directions to cancel out the initial zero total spin of the parent.
    This decay happens at a particular position. That is the place where the two particles are created.
    The next step is that both particles are measured. That is the moment when the correlation is established. This is in line with the law 'conservation of angular momentum'. It should be mentioned that this law is not the explanation of the correlation. The explanation lies in the physical details of the decay process.
  2. Entangled Spin States: If one daughter particle is measured to have a spin "up," the other is immediately known to have a spin "down" because their spins are entangled and correlated.
    As I mentioned before, this correlation can only be established if the same reaction is performed 100 times before, and the actual results show correlation.
    The above text should be changed, in the sense that when one particle is measured the other particle does not immediate known anything. Particles don't know anything.
    If an observer knows that the result of a certain reaction shows correlation, then the observer immediate knows (predicts) after the first measurement what the result of the second measurement should be. Only humans can make deductions, particles cannot

    This entanglement ensures that the measurement outcomes of one particle instantaneously provide information about the state of the other particle, regardless of the distance between them. This phenomenon persists even if the particles travel far apart, seemingly violating classical notions of information transfer.
It's important to note that this example simplifies a complex quantum phenomenon, and entanglement can involve various quantum properties beyond spin. The creation of entangled states is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics and plays a central role in understanding the behavior of quantum systems.

User 7. Okay. What you describe is that the correlated 'particles' are created within a certain reaction. That means when the reaction is repeated again, the same correlated 'particles' are created?

ChatGPT In the context of quantum entanglement, it's important to clarify that the specific particles themselves are not predetermined or fixed. Instead, what is predetermined is the correlation between certain properties of the particles.
The use of the word predetermined is not clear. What you can do, is to declare the following statement as probably true:
When the same reaction is repeated the results will be the same
The problem is that never the same reaction can be repeated in detail. The statement is only an indication.
When a quantum system undergoes a process that results in entanglement, it means that certain properties of the particles become correlated in a specific way. So, if a reaction is repeated, it doesn't necessarily mean that the exact same particles are involved. What is consistent is the correlation between the particles' properties. To illustrate this, let's consider an analogy:
Imagine you have a pair of entangled dice. You roll the dice, and when you look at one die, you immediately know the outcome on the other die, no matter how far apart they are. The correlation is in the outcomes of the dice, not in the specific dice themselves.
Similarly, in quantum entanglement, when a reaction or process creates entangled particles, the correlation is in certain properties of those particles, such as spin or polarization. If you were to repeat the process, you would create a new pair of entangled particles with the same type of correlation in their properties.
This non-local correlation is one of the intriguing aspects of quantum entanglement, and it's fundamentally different from classical correlations. The specific particles involved can change, but the entangled correlation remains a consistent feature of the quantum system.

User 8. I think we have a slight misunderstanding.
Suppose you perform a reaction like: A + B --> C + D plus two other particles a+ and a- .
Next when I repeat that same reaction, I also should get the two particles.
Now when your two particles are correlated, I expect that in my case also the two particles are correlated?

ChatGPT I see, thank you for the clarification. Yes, your understanding is correct. In the scenario you've described, if the reaction produces two entangled particles (a+ and a-) in a correlated state, repeating the same reaction under identical conditions should indeed result in the production of another pair of entangled particles (b+ and b-) that are also correlated.
The only thing that should be changed is that the reaction should create correlated particles.
The entanglement is a property of the quantum system and the process that generates the particles. As long as the conditions of the reaction are the same, the entanglement should persist, leading to the creation of correlated particles in subsequent repetitions of the reaction.
So, if the initial particles a+ and a- are entangled and correlated in their properties (such as spin or polarization), the subsequent particles b+ and b- produced in a repeated reaction should also be entangled and correlated in the same way, assuming all other conditions of the reaction remain unchanged.

User 9. Now suppose you repeat the same experiment 100 times. My understanding is that in each case you get the two correlated and entangled particles, which can be verified by testing each particle?
The question is wrong. The question should not mention the word entangled

ChatGPT In quantum mechanics, the outcome of measurements on entangled particles is probabilistic. While the entanglement ensures that certain properties of the particles are correlated, the specific outcomes of measurements on each particle are not predetermined. Instead, they are subject to quantum probabilities.
In general, the outcome of any experiment is probabilistic. The outcome of a roulette is probabilistic, the same with any collision, the same with the trajectories of all the stars and planets.
Let's say you repeat the experiment 100 times, each time creating an entangled pair of particles.
That means you have previous knowledge about the reaction. i.e. the particles are correlated.
If you measure a property of one particle, such as its spin, the measurement outcome is not known in advance.
That is always the case.
However, due to the entanglement, the measurement outcome of the other particle becomes correlated instantaneously.
That is not the case. The particles are already correlated. This happened at the moment when the particles are created, due to particle decay.
This specific means that when any particle is measured nothing changes with the other particle.
This is a very important physical consideration. When any particle is measured nothing changes with any other particle involved, except by accident.

In each experiment, when you measure the properties of the entangled particles, you might observe a specific outcome for one particle, and the entanglement ensures that the other particle will exhibit a correlated outcome. However, the exact outcome of each measurement is not determined beforehand; it is probabilistic.
It's important to note that the correlations observed in entanglement experiments are statistical in nature. After repeating the experiment multiple times, you can observe a pattern of correlated outcomes, consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics. This statistical correlation is a key feature of quantum entanglement, and it's one of the aspects that distinguishes quantum behavior from classical behavior.

User 10. I almost agree with you.
My understanding is that the particle you measure first is probabilistic. This can be an a+ but also an a-.
But suppose I measure the other particle (independent of your measurement, and not knowing your result) This can also be an a+ but also be an a-.
But now comes the trick. In case you have measured an a+, I will measure an a-. And when you have measured an a-, I will measure an a+.
But now I see a contradiction. Which measurement influences the other? Does your measurement influence my measurement or is it the other way around?

ChatGPT Your observation touches upon one of the most intriguing aspects of quantum mechanics, often referred to as the "measurement problem" or the "entanglement paradox." The scenario you describe is a simplified version of the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox, and it's central to discussions about the nature of quantum entanglement.

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.

User 11. The problem lies in the sentence: '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.' My point is that in general, it's only when you measure one particle that the state of that particle is known. This is true for all particles created at any reaction. If you want to know the state of the other particle you have to measure that particle.
There is only one critical point. If it's known that both particles are correlated, then for both parties involved, after they perform a measurement, each instantaneously knows the result of the other.
The key point is that the so-called entanglement is already established during the reaction, when the two particles are created. The measurement as such has nothing to do with this correlation.
Any way it is physical very strange that a measurement 'over here' will instantaneously change something 'over there'.

ChatGPT You've highlighted a fundamental point, and your interpretation aligns with a key aspect of quantum mechanics. Indeed, the entanglement is established during the quantum interaction (such as a particle creation or decay process), and the measurement outcomes are correlated as a result of this entanglement.
Partly. ChatGPT should not use the word entanglement, but only correlation.
When you use both you have to explain the difference

To clarify and emphasize:
  1. C1 Entanglement is Pre-existing: The correlation between entangled particles is established at the time of the quantum interaction or reaction that creates them. This entanglement is a property of the quantum system, and it persists regardless of the distance between the particles.
    The correlation is physical established, at what I call the point of interacting. This is clearly before any measurement is performed. The consequence is that the measurements are performed independent from the primary reaction
  2. C2 Measurement Correlations: When a measurement is performed on one of the entangled particles, it immediately determines the state of the other particle due to the pre-existing entanglement. The correlation between the measurement outcomes is a consequence of the entanglement, not an influence that travels from one measurement site to the other. The correlation is physical established, at what I call the point of interacting. This is clearly before any measurement is performed. The consequence is that the measurements neither influence each other nor the primary reaction
  3. C3 Non-locality: The seemingly instantaneous correlation between distant measurements challenges our classical intuition about locality and the flow of information.
    This instantaneous action is not required if you assume that the correlation is established as part of the reaction i.e. decay process
    This phenomenon is referred to as non-locality. However, it's important to note that information transfer in the sense of classical signals or causal influences traveling faster than the speed of light is not occurring.
The understanding of these phenomena often involves acceptance of the non-intuitive aspects of quantum mechanics, and various interpretations attempt to make sense of the observed correlations without violating fundamental principles of relativity or causality. The nature of quantum entanglement continues to be a subject of active research and philosophical inquiry in the field of quantum mechanics.
Understanding of physical phenomena has nothing to do with non-intuitive aspects. Anyway, what is the definition?

Reflection 1 - ChatGPT - Introduction discussion

The purpose of this discussion is to understand the difference between correlation and entanglement.
Correlation can be used as part of a description to describe the behaviour and evolution of chemical reactions. Correlation can also be used in a much broader field of research. Entanglement is used in the same context, but as part of a much smaller field of chemical reactions. Specific when elementary particles are involved, including photons. i.e. quantum mechanics.

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.

Reflection 2 - ChatGPT - Reaction

The central issue around the topic entanglement is around reactions.
The most common way to describe reactions is with a Feynmann diagram. For a list of Feynmann diagrams see this:
For the Feynmann diagram of the Higgs boson see this: Diagrams - ATLAS Cheat Sheet.pdf
My understanding of a Feynmann diagram is that it shows the evolution in time, of interaction between elementary particles of a cross-section in a 2D. The real reaction is more complex and takes place in 3D, more or less centred around one point i.e. the point of interaction.
This is an important consideration. But there is one more point to consider: All the measurements to study the particles created as part the reaction, are more or less situated in a sphere around this point of interaction. Each of these measurements is also a reaction. I expect, that thes reaction is more an interaction between an elementary particle and an atom or a molecule.
My understanding is also that these secondary reactions will not influence the primary reaction at the point of interaction. I also expect that this is always the case and that there are no exceptions.

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.

  • The experiment performed is described in this article: "Polarization Correlation of Photons Emitted in an Atomic Cascade" by Carl Alvin Kocher written 1967
    To read the article select this link:
  • The two photons created are tested in a sphere of detectors surrounding point of interaction.
  • The result is that the two photons are correlated. The explanation is that this correlation is part of the interaction surrounding the point of interaction.
It is important to understand that this correlation can only be established when the experiment is repeated a certain number of times.
The problem is that there is a group of scientists which conclude that based on the result of the experiment the particles are entangled. The overall problem is that it is difficult to explain something when the concepts involved are not clear.
Specific they support what is written at C1 , C2 and C3

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.



Created: 21 December 2023

Back to my home page Index