How do we know that entanglement allows measurement to instantly change the other particle's state?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
10












I have never found experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.



Using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down. Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4




    What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
    – OrangeDog
    yesterday










  • I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
    – Harry Johnston
    22 hours ago










  • I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
    – kasperd
    16 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
    – ahemmetter
    14 hours ago















up vote
18
down vote

favorite
10












I have never found experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.



Using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down. Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4




    What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
    – OrangeDog
    yesterday










  • I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
    – Harry Johnston
    22 hours ago










  • I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
    – kasperd
    16 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
    – ahemmetter
    14 hours ago













up vote
18
down vote

favorite
10









up vote
18
down vote

favorite
10






10





I have never found experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.



Using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down. Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have never found experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.



Using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down. Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down?







quantum-mechanics hilbert-space quantum-entanglement quantum-interpretations bells-inequality






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 14 hours ago









knzhou

39.9k10111194




39.9k10111194






New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









Qandry

9714




9714




New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4




    What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
    – OrangeDog
    yesterday










  • I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
    – Harry Johnston
    22 hours ago










  • I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
    – kasperd
    16 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
    – ahemmetter
    14 hours ago














  • 4




    What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
    – OrangeDog
    yesterday










  • I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
    – Harry Johnston
    22 hours ago










  • I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
    – kasperd
    16 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
    – ahemmetter
    14 hours ago








4




4




What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
– OrangeDog
yesterday




What you describe cannot happen - a change of the entangled particle cannot be observed. If you knew it was already spin up then you already measured it, so you already collapsed the state of the first one to spin down, which is what you will then measure.
– OrangeDog
yesterday












I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
– Harry Johnston
22 hours ago




I think you need to really understand non-commuting observables in order to understand both why entanglement seems weird and why it isn't really.
– Harry Johnston
22 hours ago












I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
– kasperd
16 hours ago




I find this video to have the easiest to understand explanation of why hidden variables cannot explain quantum effects.
– kasperd
16 hours ago












Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
– ahemmetter
14 hours ago




Possible duplicate of How do we know a quantum state isn't just an unknown classical state?
– ahemmetter
14 hours ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
47
down vote













The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
merely reveals properties that would exist
anyway even if they were not measured.
If this were true, then any given state
of the system would have definite values
$a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
combinations of these values.
Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
This, in turn, implies that the quantity
$$
(a+c)b+(c-a)d
$$

is either $+2$ or $-2$.
This is true
for every one of the 16 possible combinations
of values for $a,b,c,d$,
so if we prepare many states,
then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
between $+2$ and $-2$.
In particular, the average cannot
be any larger than $+2$.
This gives the CHSH inequality
$$
langle{AB}rangle
+langle{CB}rangle
+langle{CD}rangle
-langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
$$

where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
product of the values of $a$ and $b$
over all of the prepared states.



In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
+langle{CB}rangle
+langle{CD}rangle
-langle{AD}rangle$
can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




  • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


  • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


  • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – ACuriousMind
    yesterday


















up vote
2
down vote













Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




What is the proof of entanglement




Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    A pretty simple explanation that should be mostly fine:



    Suppose you have a "magic" black box that produces entangled particles with spin up and spin down. One is always up and the other is always down.



    If you measure one with up and down base states, you will get up in 50% of cases and down in the other 50%, while the other particle will be always just opposite. You can easily argue that here, you merely didn't know what came out and when you measured one you just figured out what both were. Everything works just fine, no need for any QM yet.



    But suppose you measure this setup in left/right base instead. Then, obviously, the first spin you measure will have 50% to be left, and 50% to be right, doesn't matter if it was up or down before. Now, predictions for the second spin are different. In classical physics, you are measuring left/right with 50% for the other particle too. This happens because you have 50% it was up * 50% it gets measured right + 50% it was down * 50% it gets measured right (same for left) But QM entanglement says that nope, we know with 100% certainty that the second spin will be right if the first was left and vice versa.



    To summarize: measure in up/down axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle and 100%/0% for the second particle. Measure in left/right axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle. Classical physics gives 50%/50% for the second one, while QM gives 100%/0%.



    This can be tested, has been tested extensively in various configurations and QM entanglement was found to match reality, while the classical physics doesn't.



    You STILL have several possibilities:




    1. Typical QM interpretation is right that stuff doesn't have state until measured.

    2. When you measured one particle, you changed both particles instantly.

    3. Everything including the measurement outcomes had been predefined before you even thought to make the box to measure this.

    4. Maybe something else.


    But you can't have good old classical physics where stuff behaves as you would expect and want it to.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
      – Acccumulation
      yesterday










    • Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
      – Zizy Archer
      20 hours ago


















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    In a comment Nagora says "It's a bad question: we have no "proof" of any scientific theory, we only have proof that discarded ones are wrong." But even that isn't correct (or is a bit of a non sequitur). "Entanglement exists" isn't a theory, it's a particular claim that exists within a wider theoretical framework. We don't prove or disprove individual claims, we evaluate theories as a whole with respect to the evidence. You can't evaluate, say, whether neutrinos travel faster than light except within a particular theoretical framework: however you're measuring the speed of the neutrinos depends on assumptions about how your measuring devices interact with neutrinos.



    We have a particular theory of quantum mechanics that predicts entanglement, and it comports with the experimental evidence. If you are willing to accept radically different assumptions, you could come up with a theoretical framework without the concept of entanglement.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
      – cmaster
      yesterday










    • Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
      – Acccumulation
      yesterday










    • The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
      – Harry Johnston
      22 hours ago


















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    To my knowledge, there exists no evidence that there is a causal interaction between two entangled but separated particles when the other one is measured. The preparation of such experiment produces correlated states, and if the system remains sufficiently isolated, the correlation survives through the time evolution and is revealed at the time of the measurement.



    CHSH and Bell's inequality prove that classical probability with uniformly random distributions cannot be used for calculating averages for such correlated systems - instead one should use the usual quantum mechanical approach. However, without further assumptions concerning the time evolution of the states, this argument is neutral regarding the causality vs correlation question.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      What you describe is essentially a variation a local hidden-variable theory which try to explain features of quantum mechanics (like observable effects of entanglement) via deterministic but not yet observable properties of objects (hidden variables), ruling out faster-than-light interaction between distant events.



      Local hidden-variable theories are disproved by experiments featuring a Bell's inequality violation, which cannot be explained without accounting for entanglement. It's not a proof of entanglement of course, rather, it's a proof that reality cannot be explained by local hidden-variable theories alone.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "151"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446974%2fhow-do-we-know-that-entanglement-allows-measurement-to-instantly-change-the-othe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes








        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        47
        down vote













        The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



        Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
        merely reveals properties that would exist
        anyway even if they were not measured.
        If this were true, then any given state
        of the system would have definite values
        $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
        Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
        could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
        so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
        combinations of these values.
        Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



        Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
        The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
        implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
        and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This, in turn, implies that the quantity
        $$
        (a+c)b+(c-a)d
        $$

        is either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This is true
        for every one of the 16 possible combinations
        of values for $a,b,c,d$,
        so if we prepare many states,
        then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
        between $+2$ and $-2$.
        In particular, the average cannot
        be any larger than $+2$.
        This gives the CHSH inequality
        $$
        langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
        $$

        where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
        product of the values of $a$ and $b$
        over all of the prepared states.



        In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangle$
        can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




        • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


        • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


        • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



        The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






        share|cite|improve this answer





















        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          – ACuriousMind
          yesterday















        up vote
        47
        down vote













        The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



        Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
        merely reveals properties that would exist
        anyway even if they were not measured.
        If this were true, then any given state
        of the system would have definite values
        $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
        Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
        could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
        so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
        combinations of these values.
        Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



        Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
        The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
        implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
        and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This, in turn, implies that the quantity
        $$
        (a+c)b+(c-a)d
        $$

        is either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This is true
        for every one of the 16 possible combinations
        of values for $a,b,c,d$,
        so if we prepare many states,
        then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
        between $+2$ and $-2$.
        In particular, the average cannot
        be any larger than $+2$.
        This gives the CHSH inequality
        $$
        langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
        $$

        where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
        product of the values of $a$ and $b$
        over all of the prepared states.



        In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangle$
        can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




        • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


        • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


        • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



        The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






        share|cite|improve this answer





















        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          – ACuriousMind
          yesterday













        up vote
        47
        down vote










        up vote
        47
        down vote









        The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



        Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
        merely reveals properties that would exist
        anyway even if they were not measured.
        If this were true, then any given state
        of the system would have definite values
        $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
        Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
        could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
        so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
        combinations of these values.
        Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



        Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
        The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
        implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
        and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This, in turn, implies that the quantity
        $$
        (a+c)b+(c-a)d
        $$

        is either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This is true
        for every one of the 16 possible combinations
        of values for $a,b,c,d$,
        so if we prepare many states,
        then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
        between $+2$ and $-2$.
        In particular, the average cannot
        be any larger than $+2$.
        This gives the CHSH inequality
        $$
        langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
        $$

        where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
        product of the values of $a$ and $b$
        over all of the prepared states.



        In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangle$
        can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




        • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


        • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


        • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



        The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



        Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
        merely reveals properties that would exist
        anyway even if they were not measured.
        If this were true, then any given state
        of the system would have definite values
        $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
        Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
        could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
        so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
        combinations of these values.
        Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



        Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
        The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
        implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
        and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This, in turn, implies that the quantity
        $$
        (a+c)b+(c-a)d
        $$

        is either $+2$ or $-2$.
        This is true
        for every one of the 16 possible combinations
        of values for $a,b,c,d$,
        so if we prepare many states,
        then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
        between $+2$ and $-2$.
        In particular, the average cannot
        be any larger than $+2$.
        This gives the CHSH inequality
        $$
        langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
        $$

        where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
        product of the values of $a$ and $b$
        over all of the prepared states.



        In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
        +langle{CB}rangle
        +langle{CD}rangle
        -langle{AD}rangle$
        can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




        • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


        • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


        • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



        The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Dan Yand

        5,1941524




        5,1941524












        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          – ACuriousMind
          yesterday


















        • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          – ACuriousMind
          yesterday
















        Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – ACuriousMind
        yesterday




        Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
        – ACuriousMind
        yesterday










        up vote
        2
        down vote













        Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



        Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



        Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




        What is the proof of entanglement




        Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




        Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




        This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






        share|cite|improve this answer



























          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



          Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



          Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




          What is the proof of entanglement




          Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




          Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




          This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



            Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



            Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




            What is the proof of entanglement




            Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




            Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




            This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



            Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



            Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




            What is the proof of entanglement




            Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




            Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




            This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            HolgerFiedler

            4,05531133




            4,05531133






















                up vote
                2
                down vote













                A pretty simple explanation that should be mostly fine:



                Suppose you have a "magic" black box that produces entangled particles with spin up and spin down. One is always up and the other is always down.



                If you measure one with up and down base states, you will get up in 50% of cases and down in the other 50%, while the other particle will be always just opposite. You can easily argue that here, you merely didn't know what came out and when you measured one you just figured out what both were. Everything works just fine, no need for any QM yet.



                But suppose you measure this setup in left/right base instead. Then, obviously, the first spin you measure will have 50% to be left, and 50% to be right, doesn't matter if it was up or down before. Now, predictions for the second spin are different. In classical physics, you are measuring left/right with 50% for the other particle too. This happens because you have 50% it was up * 50% it gets measured right + 50% it was down * 50% it gets measured right (same for left) But QM entanglement says that nope, we know with 100% certainty that the second spin will be right if the first was left and vice versa.



                To summarize: measure in up/down axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle and 100%/0% for the second particle. Measure in left/right axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle. Classical physics gives 50%/50% for the second one, while QM gives 100%/0%.



                This can be tested, has been tested extensively in various configurations and QM entanglement was found to match reality, while the classical physics doesn't.



                You STILL have several possibilities:




                1. Typical QM interpretation is right that stuff doesn't have state until measured.

                2. When you measured one particle, you changed both particles instantly.

                3. Everything including the measurement outcomes had been predefined before you even thought to make the box to measure this.

                4. Maybe something else.


                But you can't have good old classical physics where stuff behaves as you would expect and want it to.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                  – Zizy Archer
                  20 hours ago















                up vote
                2
                down vote













                A pretty simple explanation that should be mostly fine:



                Suppose you have a "magic" black box that produces entangled particles with spin up and spin down. One is always up and the other is always down.



                If you measure one with up and down base states, you will get up in 50% of cases and down in the other 50%, while the other particle will be always just opposite. You can easily argue that here, you merely didn't know what came out and when you measured one you just figured out what both were. Everything works just fine, no need for any QM yet.



                But suppose you measure this setup in left/right base instead. Then, obviously, the first spin you measure will have 50% to be left, and 50% to be right, doesn't matter if it was up or down before. Now, predictions for the second spin are different. In classical physics, you are measuring left/right with 50% for the other particle too. This happens because you have 50% it was up * 50% it gets measured right + 50% it was down * 50% it gets measured right (same for left) But QM entanglement says that nope, we know with 100% certainty that the second spin will be right if the first was left and vice versa.



                To summarize: measure in up/down axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle and 100%/0% for the second particle. Measure in left/right axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle. Classical physics gives 50%/50% for the second one, while QM gives 100%/0%.



                This can be tested, has been tested extensively in various configurations and QM entanglement was found to match reality, while the classical physics doesn't.



                You STILL have several possibilities:




                1. Typical QM interpretation is right that stuff doesn't have state until measured.

                2. When you measured one particle, you changed both particles instantly.

                3. Everything including the measurement outcomes had been predefined before you even thought to make the box to measure this.

                4. Maybe something else.


                But you can't have good old classical physics where stuff behaves as you would expect and want it to.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                  – Zizy Archer
                  20 hours ago













                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                A pretty simple explanation that should be mostly fine:



                Suppose you have a "magic" black box that produces entangled particles with spin up and spin down. One is always up and the other is always down.



                If you measure one with up and down base states, you will get up in 50% of cases and down in the other 50%, while the other particle will be always just opposite. You can easily argue that here, you merely didn't know what came out and when you measured one you just figured out what both were. Everything works just fine, no need for any QM yet.



                But suppose you measure this setup in left/right base instead. Then, obviously, the first spin you measure will have 50% to be left, and 50% to be right, doesn't matter if it was up or down before. Now, predictions for the second spin are different. In classical physics, you are measuring left/right with 50% for the other particle too. This happens because you have 50% it was up * 50% it gets measured right + 50% it was down * 50% it gets measured right (same for left) But QM entanglement says that nope, we know with 100% certainty that the second spin will be right if the first was left and vice versa.



                To summarize: measure in up/down axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle and 100%/0% for the second particle. Measure in left/right axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle. Classical physics gives 50%/50% for the second one, while QM gives 100%/0%.



                This can be tested, has been tested extensively in various configurations and QM entanglement was found to match reality, while the classical physics doesn't.



                You STILL have several possibilities:




                1. Typical QM interpretation is right that stuff doesn't have state until measured.

                2. When you measured one particle, you changed both particles instantly.

                3. Everything including the measurement outcomes had been predefined before you even thought to make the box to measure this.

                4. Maybe something else.


                But you can't have good old classical physics where stuff behaves as you would expect and want it to.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                A pretty simple explanation that should be mostly fine:



                Suppose you have a "magic" black box that produces entangled particles with spin up and spin down. One is always up and the other is always down.



                If you measure one with up and down base states, you will get up in 50% of cases and down in the other 50%, while the other particle will be always just opposite. You can easily argue that here, you merely didn't know what came out and when you measured one you just figured out what both were. Everything works just fine, no need for any QM yet.



                But suppose you measure this setup in left/right base instead. Then, obviously, the first spin you measure will have 50% to be left, and 50% to be right, doesn't matter if it was up or down before. Now, predictions for the second spin are different. In classical physics, you are measuring left/right with 50% for the other particle too. This happens because you have 50% it was up * 50% it gets measured right + 50% it was down * 50% it gets measured right (same for left) But QM entanglement says that nope, we know with 100% certainty that the second spin will be right if the first was left and vice versa.



                To summarize: measure in up/down axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle and 100%/0% for the second particle. Measure in left/right axis: both give 50% for each value of the first particle. Classical physics gives 50%/50% for the second one, while QM gives 100%/0%.



                This can be tested, has been tested extensively in various configurations and QM entanglement was found to match reality, while the classical physics doesn't.



                You STILL have several possibilities:




                1. Typical QM interpretation is right that stuff doesn't have state until measured.

                2. When you measured one particle, you changed both particles instantly.

                3. Everything including the measurement outcomes had been predefined before you even thought to make the box to measure this.

                4. Maybe something else.


                But you can't have good old classical physics where stuff behaves as you would expect and want it to.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 20 hours ago

























                answered yesterday









                Zizy Archer

                50125




                50125












                • I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                  – Zizy Archer
                  20 hours ago


















                • I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                  – Zizy Archer
                  20 hours ago
















                I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                – Acccumulation
                yesterday




                I think "axis" is a more appropriate word than "base". And you don't really explain why classical physics would predict 50% left/right for the second particle.
                – Acccumulation
                yesterday












                Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                – Zizy Archer
                20 hours ago




                Edited a bit with that classical physics addition. I used "base" as for example with light you might have LCP/RCP, where "axis" doesn't really seem right, while "base" still works.
                – Zizy Archer
                20 hours ago










                up vote
                1
                down vote













                In a comment Nagora says "It's a bad question: we have no "proof" of any scientific theory, we only have proof that discarded ones are wrong." But even that isn't correct (or is a bit of a non sequitur). "Entanglement exists" isn't a theory, it's a particular claim that exists within a wider theoretical framework. We don't prove or disprove individual claims, we evaluate theories as a whole with respect to the evidence. You can't evaluate, say, whether neutrinos travel faster than light except within a particular theoretical framework: however you're measuring the speed of the neutrinos depends on assumptions about how your measuring devices interact with neutrinos.



                We have a particular theory of quantum mechanics that predicts entanglement, and it comports with the experimental evidence. If you are willing to accept radically different assumptions, you could come up with a theoretical framework without the concept of entanglement.






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                  – cmaster
                  yesterday










                • Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                  – Harry Johnston
                  22 hours ago















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                In a comment Nagora says "It's a bad question: we have no "proof" of any scientific theory, we only have proof that discarded ones are wrong." But even that isn't correct (or is a bit of a non sequitur). "Entanglement exists" isn't a theory, it's a particular claim that exists within a wider theoretical framework. We don't prove or disprove individual claims, we evaluate theories as a whole with respect to the evidence. You can't evaluate, say, whether neutrinos travel faster than light except within a particular theoretical framework: however you're measuring the speed of the neutrinos depends on assumptions about how your measuring devices interact with neutrinos.



                We have a particular theory of quantum mechanics that predicts entanglement, and it comports with the experimental evidence. If you are willing to accept radically different assumptions, you could come up with a theoretical framework without the concept of entanglement.






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                  – cmaster
                  yesterday










                • Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                  – Harry Johnston
                  22 hours ago













                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                In a comment Nagora says "It's a bad question: we have no "proof" of any scientific theory, we only have proof that discarded ones are wrong." But even that isn't correct (or is a bit of a non sequitur). "Entanglement exists" isn't a theory, it's a particular claim that exists within a wider theoretical framework. We don't prove or disprove individual claims, we evaluate theories as a whole with respect to the evidence. You can't evaluate, say, whether neutrinos travel faster than light except within a particular theoretical framework: however you're measuring the speed of the neutrinos depends on assumptions about how your measuring devices interact with neutrinos.



                We have a particular theory of quantum mechanics that predicts entanglement, and it comports with the experimental evidence. If you are willing to accept radically different assumptions, you could come up with a theoretical framework without the concept of entanglement.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                In a comment Nagora says "It's a bad question: we have no "proof" of any scientific theory, we only have proof that discarded ones are wrong." But even that isn't correct (or is a bit of a non sequitur). "Entanglement exists" isn't a theory, it's a particular claim that exists within a wider theoretical framework. We don't prove or disprove individual claims, we evaluate theories as a whole with respect to the evidence. You can't evaluate, say, whether neutrinos travel faster than light except within a particular theoretical framework: however you're measuring the speed of the neutrinos depends on assumptions about how your measuring devices interact with neutrinos.



                We have a particular theory of quantum mechanics that predicts entanglement, and it comports with the experimental evidence. If you are willing to accept radically different assumptions, you could come up with a theoretical framework without the concept of entanglement.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Acccumulation

                1,748210




                1,748210












                • Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                  – cmaster
                  yesterday










                • Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                  – Harry Johnston
                  22 hours ago


















                • Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                  – cmaster
                  yesterday










                • Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                  – Acccumulation
                  yesterday










                • The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                  – Harry Johnston
                  22 hours ago
















                Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                – cmaster
                yesterday




                Anytime you disprove a theory, you also prove its exact logical inverse. Usually, that's not very interesting as it may contain virtually anything. But if you define "entanglement exists" to mean that a measurement can actually have an effect on another measurement that's not within the same light-cone, the logical inverse is the theory of local realism. This theory can be disproven, and has been disproven. Consequently, it has been proven that entanglement exists. Whether that's what QM describes is another question, but we know that some kind of "spooky action at a distance" exists.
                – cmaster
                yesterday












                Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                – Acccumulation
                yesterday




                Local realism hasn't been disproven, it's been proven to be inconsistent with other "self-evident" premises. And the inverse is not local realism, it's just locality. Realism is a separate premise.
                – Acccumulation
                yesterday












                The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                – Harry Johnston
                22 hours ago




                The last time I checked, the direct evidence was still somewhat inconclusive anyway. Have there been significant experimental improvements recently?
                – Harry Johnston
                22 hours ago










                up vote
                1
                down vote













                To my knowledge, there exists no evidence that there is a causal interaction between two entangled but separated particles when the other one is measured. The preparation of such experiment produces correlated states, and if the system remains sufficiently isolated, the correlation survives through the time evolution and is revealed at the time of the measurement.



                CHSH and Bell's inequality prove that classical probability with uniformly random distributions cannot be used for calculating averages for such correlated systems - instead one should use the usual quantum mechanical approach. However, without further assumptions concerning the time evolution of the states, this argument is neutral regarding the causality vs correlation question.






                share|cite|improve this answer








                New contributor




                borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  To my knowledge, there exists no evidence that there is a causal interaction between two entangled but separated particles when the other one is measured. The preparation of such experiment produces correlated states, and if the system remains sufficiently isolated, the correlation survives through the time evolution and is revealed at the time of the measurement.



                  CHSH and Bell's inequality prove that classical probability with uniformly random distributions cannot be used for calculating averages for such correlated systems - instead one should use the usual quantum mechanical approach. However, without further assumptions concerning the time evolution of the states, this argument is neutral regarding the causality vs correlation question.






                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    To my knowledge, there exists no evidence that there is a causal interaction between two entangled but separated particles when the other one is measured. The preparation of such experiment produces correlated states, and if the system remains sufficiently isolated, the correlation survives through the time evolution and is revealed at the time of the measurement.



                    CHSH and Bell's inequality prove that classical probability with uniformly random distributions cannot be used for calculating averages for such correlated systems - instead one should use the usual quantum mechanical approach. However, without further assumptions concerning the time evolution of the states, this argument is neutral regarding the causality vs correlation question.






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    To my knowledge, there exists no evidence that there is a causal interaction between two entangled but separated particles when the other one is measured. The preparation of such experiment produces correlated states, and if the system remains sufficiently isolated, the correlation survives through the time evolution and is revealed at the time of the measurement.



                    CHSH and Bell's inequality prove that classical probability with uniformly random distributions cannot be used for calculating averages for such correlated systems - instead one should use the usual quantum mechanical approach. However, without further assumptions concerning the time evolution of the states, this argument is neutral regarding the causality vs correlation question.







                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered yesterday









                    borg678873567

                    111




                    111




                    New contributor




                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    borg678873567 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        What you describe is essentially a variation a local hidden-variable theory which try to explain features of quantum mechanics (like observable effects of entanglement) via deterministic but not yet observable properties of objects (hidden variables), ruling out faster-than-light interaction between distant events.



                        Local hidden-variable theories are disproved by experiments featuring a Bell's inequality violation, which cannot be explained without accounting for entanglement. It's not a proof of entanglement of course, rather, it's a proof that reality cannot be explained by local hidden-variable theories alone.






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          What you describe is essentially a variation a local hidden-variable theory which try to explain features of quantum mechanics (like observable effects of entanglement) via deterministic but not yet observable properties of objects (hidden variables), ruling out faster-than-light interaction between distant events.



                          Local hidden-variable theories are disproved by experiments featuring a Bell's inequality violation, which cannot be explained without accounting for entanglement. It's not a proof of entanglement of course, rather, it's a proof that reality cannot be explained by local hidden-variable theories alone.






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            What you describe is essentially a variation a local hidden-variable theory which try to explain features of quantum mechanics (like observable effects of entanglement) via deterministic but not yet observable properties of objects (hidden variables), ruling out faster-than-light interaction between distant events.



                            Local hidden-variable theories are disproved by experiments featuring a Bell's inequality violation, which cannot be explained without accounting for entanglement. It's not a proof of entanglement of course, rather, it's a proof that reality cannot be explained by local hidden-variable theories alone.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            What you describe is essentially a variation a local hidden-variable theory which try to explain features of quantum mechanics (like observable effects of entanglement) via deterministic but not yet observable properties of objects (hidden variables), ruling out faster-than-light interaction between distant events.



                            Local hidden-variable theories are disproved by experiments featuring a Bell's inequality violation, which cannot be explained without accounting for entanglement. It's not a proof of entanglement of course, rather, it's a proof that reality cannot be explained by local hidden-variable theories alone.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 18 hours ago









                            Dmitry Grigoryev

                            2,5481523




                            2,5481523






















                                Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446974%2fhow-do-we-know-that-entanglement-allows-measurement-to-instantly-change-the-othe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Plaza Victoria

                                Puebla de Zaragoza

                                Musa