English: Illustration of the EPR paradox. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’m nowhere near sufficient in QM (Quantum Mechanics) knowledge to dabble with the topic of quantum entanglement. Nonetheless, I’ve found this topic to be very intriguing. So, what is quantum entanglement anyway? If I’m not wrong and had understood what I’d read correctly on quantum entanglement, to put in a way in which a layman can understand, quantum entanglement is a term which coins the phenomenon of two particles that physically interacted first but then separated on purpose (by design in whatever fashion) so one could test the correlative behaviors of one particle would exert on the other or vice versa while the two particles were separated by a mind boggling distance. I think that was a run-on sentence, but anyhow… Anyhow, quantum entanglement is acceptable to some quantum mechanics folks, because they had other theories and tests to prove that quantum entanglement is possible. So, let us argue that the folks who believe quantum entanglement is possible might be wrong. If quantum entanglement is possible, then how is it possible since Einstein’s special relativity theory (as other said) describes nothing can travel faster than light? Quantum entanglement seems to violate this very rule.
When someone witnesses quantum entanglement somehow, the consensus is that some hidden mechanics had allowed the passing of information from one particle to another at the speed that is seemingly to be instantaneous. With this speed, it appears not even light can travel this fast. Then the same quantum mechanics folks all agree among themselves that so far they believe no classical information can be transferred back and forth by quantum entanglement phenomenon, therefore the classical modes of traveling in relation to the idea of nothing can travel faster than light still holds true. For whatever to get to point B from point A or whatever information to get pass to point B from point A, a mode of travel or passing information has to occur. Probably through the no faster than light rule proposed by Einstein’s special relativity theory which has quantum mechanics folks agree that quantum entanglement phenomenon cannot allow classical modes of traveling. Also, in reality no classical mean of delivering information has been done with quantum entanglement, therefore these quantum mechanics folks still take the rule of no faster than light speed to be correct.
By now you probably would already confuse what is classical this and that right? At first I was like what on earth is this classical this and that too. Nonetheless, it’s just a term which describes the reality that humans perceive. So here is an example of what I mean by classical this and that. Let say classical mode of traveling is how a car would move normally on a street, and it’s still classical even though the car might move at the speed of light as long we humans can perceive the elements that allow the car to behave in such a way. For quantum entanglement, we humans cannot perceive what specific mode of traveling or passing of information which quantum entanglement has used to allow the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to interact with each other. OK, so I digress.
What interesting though is that some quantum mechanics folks think quantum entanglement exists, but they might have to contend with the EPR paradox. According to Wikipedia, EPR paradox is the paper that proposed Quantum Mechanics is incomplete since quantum entanglement cannot be explained thoroughly, and this paper was the joint efforts of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. If I’m not wrong, EPR paradox disagrees with how people perceive quantum entanglement is that classical modes of traveling must be accounted for, because the otherwise would prove to be rather imaginative. For some reason, I find this sort of analysis makes more sense than otherwise. Then again, what do I know since my knowledge on Quantum Mechanics is near zero.
I suspected that quantum entanglement might have been just how EPR paradox had suspected. Of course, I don’t even know enough about EPR paradox proposal to know that my own quantum entanglement suspicion is actually correlated with EPR paradox’s quantum entanglement suspicion. Quantum entanglement suspicion? I meant this in a way that quantum entanglement might not actually occur!
The YouTube video right after this paragraph explains a theory known as Bell’s Inequality which disproves EPR paradox conclusion on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement. Basically, as I dug furthermore into EPR paradox, it seemed that Einstein and his fellows believed and proposed that besides the classical modes of traveling (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light unless there is something that is…), in order for quantum entanglement to be true, there must be hidden variables that inherited by the particles. Perhaps EPR paradox argues that without the explanation of hidden variables, it is impossible for the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to have the ability to know about each other intentions and to correlate the behaviors, and on top of that to do so within the luxury of ignoring the classical distance limitation (i.e., distance doesn’t matter). Nonetheless, as I had mentioned earlier, the video right after this paragraph disproves the idea of there would be hidden variables.
Of course, before I state anything further, I wish to state that this is what I think and have come to term with my understanding of quantum entanglement and I have no expertise at all in regarding to this topic, therefore what I state next will only be of my own belief and not have any value to anyone unless someone thinks in the same manner in regarding to quantum entanglement as I do. In my opinion, perhaps Einstein and his fellows who proposed EPR paradox are half correct. I also believe the video above this paragraph does make sense, therefore I think Bell’s Inequality might have been right about disproving EPR paradox’s hidden variables suggestion. So, why am I think Einstein and his fellows who orchestrated the EPR paradox paper are half correct? In my opinion, it’s because I think Einstein and his fellows might have a point that two particles of the same (i.e., that we know how the two particles would behave if indeed one has the influence over the other or vice versa) cannot know each other intentions or even communicate with each other at such great distances without resorting to classical modes of traveling or passing (i.e., passing information). Instead of believing there is quantum entanglement, I like to think that it’s all about probability.
When I speak of probability, I meant that perhaps the measurements of the results of the behaviors of any two particles might occur within the probability, and this probability allows the capability of any two particles to behave according to their maximum potential (i.e., their inherited possible behaviors). So, in this way, if Alice is measuring particle number 1 and thinking that Bob will see particle number 2 to behave as how she would think it would have in this particular scenario/experiment, then Alice assumes that there is a quantum entanglement going on between the two particles (i.e., that meant to be of the same). Nonetheless, I think Alice would be wrong on assuming like that since I believe that particle number 2 might have the probability to behave in a way that Alice assumes it would be. Confusing? Don’t be, because I might be completely wrong anyway. With my limited knowledge, if there is any, on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement, I cannot be too sure that I know what I’m talking about. Still, with what I understood so far on this particular topic (i.e., quantum entanglement), even if I’m wrong, nothing has yet changed my mind about why I think quantum entanglement might just be only an imagination. Come to think of it, imagination does exist, because we imagine it in our mind. Nonetheless, some imagination might become something real, others just stay as the figments of imagination.