
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time - nikolasavic
https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
======
vuldin
I can't help but feel that it is very likely our ancestors (if we make it long
enough) will look back on the limited understanding we have at this point in
time regarding spooky action at a distance, the theory of everything, general
relativity meets quantum mechanics, etc. and be astounded for a number of
reasons. The biggest reasons being 1) that everyone could be missing something
so obvious while at the same time 2) going down such wrong but entertaining
rabbit holes.

~~~
epigramx
There is nothing obvious about quantum mechanics; those that say that they
fully understand it intuitively probably are the first that don't understand
it. The main answers we have about it are the results of math, not the results
of something obvious intuitively so there is a very low chance we'll get
answers intuitively when nothing we have so far came from that route.

tl;dr: we are too bozos for Quantum Mechanics.

~~~
jerrre
I think the post you replied to implies there must be a much simpler
explanation for this stuff.

------
jerry40
So there is no time, we just live in a constant moment which changes according
to our measurements. A "Groundhog day" with different mornings.

~~~
abhishekjha
Sometimes this worries me. _Am I waking up in the same reality /dream that I
slept in last night?_ It looks like everything is dependent on how _you_
measure it.

------
m3kw9
So is this article implying spooky action at a distance also applies to time?
Time do relates to distance through velocity correct?

------
vladimirralev
Somewhat related, there is also empty-space entanglement
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH-3bFqtJjg&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH-3bFqtJjg&feature=youtu.be&t=2015)

------
nunodonato
time is a psychic measurement of action, it doesn't exist by itself

~~~
pizza
wait so then why can information not travel faster than the speed of light,
which is a value that depends upon time existing - you can't measure
signals/information propagation at faster than c; c is in the form of dx/dt,
even if you do that trick where you just set c=1, right?; ..is there no dt?

------
tbabb
I don't understand why physics is spooked out by entanglement. It is just a
correlation-- and if we want to have any interesting patterns in the universe
at all, we are going to have correlations.

All this seems to be saying is that there can be an entanglement in the
present with something in the past. At to me, that seems equivalent to saying
that the past and present are correlated, which seems boringly trivial.

Am I missing something?

~~~
eoinmurray92
It not correlation - bell inequalities show that local variables don't explain
the correlations: ie no correlated variable exists because states are decided
at measurement (or wavefunction collapse) time. This is why entanglement is
interesting.

~~~
tbabb
Sure, "no hidden variables" is interesting/weird. And interference is
interesting/weird. And both of those things happen independently from
entanglement.

But entanglement itself seems very not-weird to me once you buy into those
other things.

~~~
whatshisface
What you're on to is that all of the big popular examples of "quantum
weirdness" (uncertianty, entanglement, tunneling) emerge from a very small and
elegant set of axiomatic postulates. That's the beauty of physics.

One such group of postulates that chemists like to use can be found at
[http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.htm...](http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html)
. You can probably beat the elegance of those if you're willing to step
further from what's actually used in calculations, but that's not what
chemists like to do.

Here's a better shot at being axiomatic and elegant, but it's a lot less clear
(from a lay-perspective) how they relate to reality:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac%E2%80%93von_Neumann_axio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac%E2%80%93von_Neumann_axioms)

~~~
mikhailfranco
I find Lucien Hardy's discussion enlightening:

 _Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms_

[https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012](https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-
ph/0101012)

------
davegardner
Presumably this could have some significant implications in regards to quantum
computing.

