sorry. That's not good enough. I'll take that guy in this video's authority over yours (or the site quantum-inspire.com) on this matter. (I'm not trying to belittle you in any way), If you look at the setting for the talk, his audience is (among others) professional Physicists. He's not a nut-job who came up wth something weird. He is someone who has gone into the depth of QM and is digging out a fact which most Physicists (and ordinary people) don't realize. He literally goes through the outline of a mathematical proof which shows, that given the standard QM modelling of physical reality (yes I'm being dualist atm), the mathematical component which corresponds to Measurement is identical to the mathematical component which corresponds to Entanglement.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:37 pmMartin,
I'm not an expert but I think this is wrong.
My understanding is along this line. If two (or more) particles are entangled, they are in a superposition of states until a measurement is made. Measuring/observing something on one of particles, spin for example, collapses the wave function (or pick your favorite interpretation) and determines one state on both particles. The superposition is gone.
https://www.quantum-inspire.com/kbase/s ... anglement/One of the other counter-intuitive phenomena in quantum physics is entanglement. A pair or group of particles is entangled when the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the quantum state of the other particle(s). The quantum state of the system as a whole can be described; it is in a definite state, although the parts of the system are not.
If the spin of one of the particles is measured on a certain axis and found to be counterclockwise, then it is guaranteed that a measurement of the spin of the other particle (along the same axis) will show the spin to be clockwise. This seems strange, because it appears that one of the entangled particles “feels” that a measurement is performed on the other entangled particle and “knows” what the outcome should be, but this is not the case.
As i write this i realize that in my original post i said Observation == Entanglement. Sorry. that was a mistake. I meant Mesurement == Entanglement.
So, unless you can show either:
1. the way he modells the physics is wrong
or
2. the way he does his Math is wrong.
i'd say your'e pretty much stuck with this fact.
What this dualistic identity Means is a completely different matter which we can discuss, but i think you'll have a hard time getting rid of the mathematical identity outlined in the above video.
(and no, i don't understand QM well enough to actually engage in your detailed comments. I'm likely to fall into numerous conceptual traps of trying to apply my intuition where intuition should not apply. But i know how physics and math works - in general - well enough to recognise the point his presentation is making. )