6 Language fixes.
source | link

Why is quantum entanglement is considered to be an active link between particles?

From everything I've read about quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement phenomena, it's unobvious fornot obvious to me, why quantum entanglement is considered to be an active link. I.e.That is, it's stated every time that measurement of one particle affects anotherthe other.

While inIn my head, there is a less magic explanation: the entangling measurement affectaffects both particles in thea way which makes their states identical, though unknown. In this case measuring one particle will reveal information about state of the other, but without magica magical instant modification of remote entangled particle.

Obviously, I'm not the only one who had this idea. What are the problems associated with this view, and why is the magic view is preferred?

Why quantum entanglement is considered to be active link between particles?

From everything I've read about quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement phenomena it's unobvious for me, why quantum entanglement is considered to be active link. I.e. it's stated every time that measurement of one particle affects another.

While in my head there is less magic explanation: the entangling measurement affect both particles in the way which makes their states identical, though unknown. In this case measuring one particle will reveal information about state of the other, but without magic instant modification of remote entangled particle.

Obviously, I'm not the only one who had this idea. What are the problems associated with this view and why magic view is preferred?

Why is quantum entanglement considered to be an active link between particles?

From everything I've read about quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement phenomena, it's not obvious to me why quantum entanglement is considered to be an active link. That is, it's stated every time that measurement of one particle affects the other.

In my head, there is a less magic explanation: the entangling measurement affects both particles in a way which makes their states identical, though unknown. In this case measuring one particle will reveal information about state of the other, but without a magical instant modification of remote entangled particle.

Obviously, I'm not the only one who had this idea. What are the problems associated with this view, and why is the magic view preferred?

    Question Protected by Qmechanic
5 retagged;
| link
4 edited tags
| link
3 edited tags
| link
2 edited tags
| link
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/27046407957381120
1
source | link