Quantum entanglement somehow breaking relativity

[Anonymous No.15576254]

I don't get it. If you measure one entangled particle, you know the state of the other because of the underlying logic (they always come in certain pairs). Nothing is traveling faster than light, I just know what the result will be for the other measurement based on certain logic of the universe. It's just predicting the answer, just like you can predict a thrown ball's trajectory.

What exactly is the issue?

[Anonymous No.15576268]

>>15576254
>What exactly is the issue?
Muh spooky action at a distance because they still think the distance that matters is distance in decompressed 3-space.

[Anonymous No.15576279]

>>15576254
what einstein meant by 'spooky action' was not entanglement, but the wave collapse. it is instantaneous, and therefore violates relativity.

[Anonymous No.15576334]

>>15576254
>What exactly is the issue?
The issue is that the measurements are more complicated than just measuring up and down along a single axis. The two scientists measuring the spin (Alice and Bob) can freely pick the axis they want to measure. Knowing Bob's measurement won't exactly tell you Alice's measurement unless they involve the same axis, so there is probability involved, and you have to talk about correlation of measurements. It turns out that a common sense interpretation of the situation ("local realism") leads to incorrect inequality of these correlations. Wikipedia actually gives a pretty good example of how a common-sense inequality is violated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Theorem

[Anonymous No.15576369]

>>15576334
>freely pick
explain what you mean by "freely".

>It turns out that a common sense interpretation of the situation ("local realism") leads to incorrect inequality of these correlations.
not how it works at all.

[Anonymous No.15576378]

>>15576369
First read the section in the wikipedia article that I linked to, and then get back to me if you have a question. An inequality is derived there, and you should be able to understand it even if you don't know anything about quantum mechanics (you need to understand quantum mechanics to see how it is violated though, of course).

[Anonymous No.15576394]

>>15576378
no, and i have no questions. i know better than you. the statement you made is completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.15576398]

>>15576394
Okay kid, you know everything. Sorry for trying to teach you something new

[Anonymous No.15576879]

>>15576398
>>15576378
>>15576334
>citing Wikipedia as a source
>gets mad when he rightfully gets called retarded
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.15576883]

>>15576879
>I don't have the patience to read a mathematical argument that is presented clearly in a linked page, but I trust every conspiracy theory I read on /pol/

[Anonymous No.15576889]

>>15576883
>cites wikipedia as a source
>gets laughed at
>reflexively blames /pol/
holy kek

[Anonymous No.15576893]

>>15576889
>cites wikipedia as a source
Okay I'll bite. What is wrong with the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem? Does it make you feel smart to imply that you know more than what is presented in the article?

[Anonymous No.15576896]

>>15576893
>what is wrong with the article
The problem is its publicly edited you tit, cite a real source and ill take it seriously
Or are you seriously such a midwit that you cant understand why wikipedia articles arent sources?

[Anonymous No.15576903]

>>15576896
Sure try David Griffith's textbook on quantum mechanics. He has a slightly more complicated argument (but still pretty simple) there. Since not everyone has that textbook, and I was under the mistaken impression OP actually wanted to learn about why people think entanglement is a big deal I checked that Wikipedia presented a similar argument. The validity of what is written there does not depend on the authority of whoever edited the article, but you would not understand that anyway.