Could the paradoxical nature of entanglement be the result of a change in the nature of quantum properties, or an incomplete understanding of such, instead of non-locality?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
3$\begingroup$ A paradox is a construct of the human mind, not a property of nature. $\endgroup$– CuriousOneCommented May 6, 2015 at 4:24
-
$\begingroup$ A possible answer: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131773/… $\endgroup$– HolgerFiedlerCommented May 6, 2015 at 5:01
-
$\begingroup$ And a unanswered question about entangled particles with identical of all their entangled parameters $\endgroup$– HolgerFiedlerCommented May 6, 2015 at 5:04
-
$\begingroup$ Here is an answer about distant particle entanglement. $\endgroup$– HolgerFiedlerCommented May 6, 2015 at 5:08
-
1$\begingroup$ To put it differently: There is no paradox. Entanglement is only correlations that are (in some sense) stronger than classical correlations. $\endgroup$– MartinCommented May 6, 2015 at 8:08
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
It's not uncommon that popular science articles will refer to paradoxes in physics. However it is extremely important to understand that there are no paradoxes in physics. Our current theories of physics are self consistent and do not contain paradoxes (though there are some conditions not covered by any of our existing theories).
Non-physicists tend to use the word paradox to mean something that jibes with their intuition. The fault is not with the physics, but rather that many of the current areas of research are so far removed from everyday life that intuition is an unreliable way to approach them.
In this particular case, entanglement is a well understood phenomenon perfectly described by our current theories of quantum mechanics and experimentally confirmed. It involves no paradoxes and needs no appeal to new physics to understand it.
answered May 6, 2015 at 9:18
-
$\begingroup$ How does physics resolve the apparent FTL nature of entanglement? How do we deal with entanglements implication of space not meaning what we think it means? @john $\endgroup$– Yogi DMTCommented May 6, 2015 at 12:36
-
$\begingroup$ @YogiDMT: It is indeed FTL, but that isn't a problem and doesn't conflict with special relativity or any other of our theories. I don't understand what you mean by entanglements implication of space not meaning what we think it means. The theory that describes entanglement is formulated in Minkowski spacetime, which is exactly what we think spacetime is (well, flat spacetime, we don't yet have a theory for dealing with entanglement in curved spacetime). $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2015 at 12:58