So, the article start's with Einstein's "I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky action at a distance."
But the article says that there is no spooky action at a distance, just that, prior to observation, the attributes of a particle can be estimated by a probability. The observation provides more information about not only the observed particle, but any particle that it is entangled with.
The article concludes that Einstein fully understood this, but stated his criticism in a way that was meant to simplify the real problem with the theory. The reality is that describing the real state of the world (is the cat really dead, or is he alive, or is he both) makes no sense. The cat was either dead or alive a long time ago, it's just that quantum mechanics can describe the probability of the cat having been dead or alive to an ignorant observer. The observation only provides additional knowledge about the nature of two particles, it has no impact on either of the particles nature.
This seems just so intuitive. The problem is that some Copenhagen zealots were so adamant that observation changes the state of the Universe. This just can't be so.
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2022/04/14/spooky_action_at_a_distance_not_a_chance_827017.html
But the article says that there is no spooky action at a distance, just that, prior to observation, the attributes of a particle can be estimated by a probability. The observation provides more information about not only the observed particle, but any particle that it is entangled with.
Quote:
Suppose Charlie wants to send holiday greeting cards to Alice and Bob. Charlie has a supply of red cards and green cards. He tells Alice and Bob they will get the same color card, but he doesn't reveal which color. Then he assigns each color to one side of a coin, flips it, and, based on the coin toss, picks identical cards to mail to Alice and Bob. While Alice has a 50-50 chance of guessing the colorcall that the probability functiononce she opens the envelope, the probability wave collapses: now she knows not only that her card is, say, red, but that Bob's is red too.
...
Spooky action? Wrong again. But in these quantum examples it's because Alice's measurement has collapsed the quantum probability function for both her and Bob's electrons. That's because, in their entangled state, they were in essence mathematically bound too each other, having shared the initial state of entanglement when they were near each other. An equation described the state and probabilities, which traveled with the electrons wherever they went, describing any potential observer's knowledge of the system. The electrons are bound together by being described by the same probability function, but they are not physically bound in any way.
The article concludes that Einstein fully understood this, but stated his criticism in a way that was meant to simplify the real problem with the theory. The reality is that describing the real state of the world (is the cat really dead, or is he alive, or is he both) makes no sense. The cat was either dead or alive a long time ago, it's just that quantum mechanics can describe the probability of the cat having been dead or alive to an ignorant observer. The observation only provides additional knowledge about the nature of two particles, it has no impact on either of the particles nature.
This seems just so intuitive. The problem is that some Copenhagen zealots were so adamant that observation changes the state of the Universe. This just can't be so.
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2022/04/14/spooky_action_at_a_distance_not_a_chance_827017.html