Question for physicists from a non-physicist pleb here. I have

File: 58290486.jpg (42KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 316x202px

Anyone?

>>8675294

Thanks for the feedback. I am going to have to do some more research before I can give a sensible reply. But for what it's worth, the idea behind this analogy is that quantum entanglement starts some sort of process, which predetermines some future event (based primarily on time).

I don't see how your analogy captures the idea of the hourglasses being entangled.

A vague analogy would be that you send two envelopes, one to Australia and one to Russia, and in one you put a green leaf and in one a brown one. Two friends there expect one of those two leaves each. As soon as the Austrialian guy receives and opens his envelope, looking at the color, he instantaneously knows that color of the Russian guys leaf. (If Australia receives brown, Russia must have gotten green).
The difference is that for QM the interpretation is that the leaf in the envelope (the wavefunction) has no fixed color (state that's singled out to be measured/observed) until opened, and when opened it appears odd that this fixes the other guys color. But imho it's not a strange thing if you know QM and are "raised" with that theory, and if you're not a realist about the framework.

And I have a problem incorporating the feature in your picture because an hourglass is done at one point (whereas a wavefunction never stops on the general/unobservable level, the time derivative is never zero)

>>8675317
I deleted and extended my answer a little above.

The entanglement is just the creation of the system of states that can be observed (and there are many quantum states that can't be observed (superpositions of the observable ones))

What's changing with time is the chance of those observable states to be observed (e.g. there may be 4 states that can be observed in principle, and the probability for them to be measured, respectively, oscillates in time). The Schrödinger equation determines this oscillation.
At the event of observation, the measurement result was not predetermined (according to the Canon interpretation of QM). The chance for a particular observation to be realized was possibly oscillation up and down, however.

The last paragraph is true for QM in general. With entanglement, the point is that the wavefunction "collapses" (to use this language) everywhere, as soon as a measurement is done somewhere. E.g. measuring Green in Australia makes it impossible for Russia to measure Brown.
(Again, the difference to the classical world is that that the leaf on the way to Australia was neither a green nor a brown one, as long as the envelope wasn't opened.)

>>8675319

Ah ok that is a good example, I can see how my analogy doesn't really incorporate that property.

The part that still kind of baffles me is how the act of observing determines the state.

Just one last attempt though. Let's say I put two hourglasses in these envelopes. These hourglasses are of course predetermined to change into another state at a certain point in time. However, because I do not understand the innerworkings of these hourglasses, and because I do not know how large the hourglasses are, I do not know when these states will change. Now after some time the enevelope arives in Russia and I open the envelope, I observe that the hourglass is in state A, therefor I now know that the hourglass in Australia is also in state A. I know it is an arrogant statement, but couldn't this 'not wel understood entanglement' cause scientists to think that their observation in Russia determined the outcome of the observation in Australia. I mean I am probably wrong, but this is my pleb interpretation.

>>8675358
>>8675335

OP here again.

I guess the main problem with my analogies are that I do not understand the idea of wave-functions and what it means for them to collapse.

I won't say I now understand the idea of QM, but it is good to know what you do not know (or at least to know more specifically). So again thanks for your feedback.

>>8675382
It's not worth learning.

It's junk pop science.

>>8675358
>not wel understood entanglement
it's well understood

>but couldn't this 'not wel understood entanglement' cause scientists to think that their observation in Russia determined the outcome of the observation in Australia.
For one, the prediction of the existence of entanglement was there half a century before it's observation. It's not like people measured something and wondered about it, it's that people were using at framework (QM) to build theories, and this framework implied something (entanglement) that they deemed odd. But the math is clear.
And, in the classical interpretation of QM, opening any envelope (measuring the envelope system in any of the countries)/measuring the united wavefunction at any one point in space "does something to the function at the other place".
This is arguably odd when you start with the idea that none of the colors/states that will be measured are determined at any time (even a second) before the measurement. What's "spooky" is that within a second, all outcomes everywhere in that entangled system are determined.

>The part that still kind of baffles me is how the act of observing determines the state.
It's a postulate of the mathematical formalism. Don't overthing it.
Think of a clock with 60 minutes ticks vs. one with only 12 five minute ticks and no in-betweens. On the quantum level, there are 60 minutes, but the guy with the clock that has only 12 ticks can only observe those, and when it's 42 minutes and 30 seconds and he looks at his watch, he never knows if he'll observe the tick at 40 minutes or at 45 minutes.
The unobservable states in QM are, by definition, not to be observed, and never will be. The equation of QM tell you how the minute ticks move and thus how the probabilities change, but the guy with the 12 ticks clock can only compute his chance to measure stuff, not more.

>>8675382
The wave function collapse means that when one of the observable states is observed (0,5,10,15,20,...), then this is the new state of the system. Maybe the quantum state was 17 minutes and 55 seconds, and the QM model implies that at this time you have a 10% chance of measuring 10min, 40% of measuring 15 min, 50% of measuring 20 min and 10% of measuring 20min.
When the observation is made, and e.g. the result is that the watch says 10min (there was a 40% chance computed for this to happen), then the "wavefunction collapsed", meaning that the new state of the minute clock is set to 10min (and the previous (and observable) state of 17 minutes and 55 seconds becomes irrelevant)

>>8675382
The wave function collapse means that when one of the observable states is observed (0,5,10,15,20,...), then this is the new state of the system.

Going back to the example of the QM model for a armwrist-watch:
Maybe the quantum state was 17 minutes and 55 seconds, and the QM model implies that at this time you have a 10% chance of measuring 10min, 40% of measuring 15 min, 50% of measuring 20 min and 10% of measuring 20min.
When the observation is made, and e.g. the result is that the watch says 10min (there was a 40% chance computed for this to happen), then the "wavefunction collapsed", meaning that the new state of the minute clock is set to 10min (and the previous (and unobservable) state of 17 minutes and 55 seconds becomes irrelevant)

>>8675425

Though I do feel some sort of paradigm shift happening in my mind right now, I think it will take some more time before I can get a better grasp on it.

I have been reading some 'pop science' books on QM, and I must say that I feel that your feedback did a better job at explaining the concepts than those books did. Unfortunately I really need to head towards bed right now, but I will definitely spend some more time pondering over your comments. Again, thanks for these explanations, I really appreciate them.

>>8675447
I'd say learn some linear algebra and then browse over some QM textbook chapters

>>8675382
u dont need "collapse" if u just do many-worlds :]