## Trending News

# Question about entangled particles. Why does observation change their state?

Situation: Alice and Bob are measuring 2 entangled particles

A) Why is it that once a particle is observed, it retains the properties it was observed with indefinately. I.E. If it was observed spinning up, than it will always spins up in all subsequent observation. Why? Why is it that particles exist in a superposition, but only take a solid state once we measure them. What takes them out of this state of superposition, what is it about observing it that causes the particle to indefinately become an up or down spin?

Are they predisposed to this state and we just don't know how to predict it, or is it truly random? If truly random, how does the universe exist? Without an observer, everthing is only "the probability" of being x,y, or z, right?

B) If we observed every particle in the universe, would this mess something up, or do these particles actually have a predisposed tendency to spin a certain way, and perhaps we are just unable to identify what causes it to naturally want to spin up or down and it just appears random to us?

C) What determines whether it will be observed as up or down when Alice measures it. Is it just a certain probability that it will be either/or, or is there some deciding factor that says "it's in a superposition, but when she measures it it will show an up-spin because of x". Is it trully random (equal probability of it being either up or down once observed), or is there some type of deciding factor that leads to it being observed as "up" more often than "down" or vice versa?

D) The speed of two particles sending information between each other once observed are insane (in theory it is faster than instant), how is it possible for the two particles to communicate at this speed? This violates relativity, is there any current theory on this?

### 3 Answers

- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
A) It's a pretty fundamental property of quantum mechanics. There are two ways to interpret it. Namely Copenhagen or Everett interpretations. In either case, the results are truly random, not with some hidden values which was proved by the Bell Inequalities. Also check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement

B) This is kinda related to A. Check out Bell Inequalities and EPR paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalities

C) Again much the same, the observation makes the result take on a definite state. There was no definite state before the observation, only a superposition. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit It's an experiment which shows that the superposition exists until you measure it. Look at the section 'When observed emission by emission'

D) Relativity is not violated because the two particles themselves can't travel faster than light, and also because the states are completely random. Because Alice/Bob can't control the states of the spins, they can't communicate with each other. No information travels faster than the speed of light.

- Anonymous1 decade ago
A) there is no limitation on further changes in state after "collapse" is obtained by measurement. But the "system of entangled particles" is broken by measurement, as you have removed a member of that system.

B) observing every particle in the Universe would simply increase the uncertainty of the system, since we *cannot* know everything about each particle.

C) it is a function of probability, and is not some sort of trick of Nature.

D) the system of particles' interactions is not limited by relativity.

If you review the formula for diffraction, you will note that displacement associated for "waves" for very large slit openings is simply "too small to measure", not zero. And since wave behavior is exhibited when even single quantum objects are making the journey, then neither the geometry of the object, nor of the slit is confined to a discrete spatial locations, but to probability clouds. Since each particle is, in some sense, everywhere, one should ask why all interactions are not instantaneous. Maybe c, G, inertia, omega (cosmological constant) and such are something else again. Like "population measures".

- deprizioLv 44 years ago
the linked value of light is a continuing. it is going to repeatedly commute at 299 mil metres consistent with 2nd as i'm smart you already comprehend. as properly the actuality that, Einsteins E=MCsq (C being basic) is basically huge-unfold as photons have no mass. So in effect this is now not the linked value of light in spite of the shown fact that the linked value of massless debris. for this reason, questioning the universe is composed of approx 4% remember, it has mass. making use of the formula would state that something with even a morsel of mass has to mathematically commute slower then C. SPL is a continuing of nature regardless of the action or the observer. An celebration, for seen basic (photons) the refractive index of any glass is many times around a million.5, which capacity basic indoors glass travels at precisely c / a million.5 ? 200,000 km/s; so refractive index of air for seen basic is a pair of million.0003, so the linked value of light in air is approximately ninety km/s slower than c. One has to additionally evaluate etheres and alongside with velocity. the easy rule is, now not something with mass can commute on the linked value of light. Neddy ---- your clarification of somebody in geneva performing some subject with debris reflects you're doing what diverse human beings do. that is attempting to answer a query with out understanding on the project. the LHC do 'perform a little subject with debris' we do plenty greater suitable then that. Nor do our debris we destroy on an identical time get everywhere close to to C. in case you do now not comprehend, do in basic terms now not pretend to. there is now not something incorrect without longer understanding. I relatively have been given understanding indoors the project via actuality i asked questions now not via actuality i pretended to take excitement in the respond. actually, in seek for of thoughts is the way forward now not attempting to sound such as you already comprehend.