No what I'm describing is a way of understanding why entangled states aren't spooky. It's also a direct lift from Leonard Susskind so it's not even me doing it. The point is that the state is prepared in some way X, and the state is such that by knowing something about one thing, you also know something about the other thing.
The actual mechanism by which this occurs is only "spooky" if you try and interpret it classically. But if you just accept that "hey, it's quantum mechanics" then it's very easy to understand. Same as I can't visualise a 5-sphere but I have mathematical tools to work with one.
I can't "picture" the mechanism that allows measurements of quantum states to be anti-correlated, but I can use maths to express that behaviour and make predictions about how the universe behaves.
>No what I'm describing is a way of understanding why entangled states aren't spooky.
I think that if the explanation doesn't also convey the spookiness, it's not right.
>The actual mechanism by which this occurs is only "spooky" if you try and interpret it classically. But if you just accept that "hey, it's quantum mechanics" then it's very easy to understand.
That's just pushing the spookiness under the carpet.
The original phrase is spooky action at a distance, which has been summarised as spookiness. Actual spookiness notwithstanding, the most important thing really is that there is no action at a distance.
The actual mechanism by which this occurs is only "spooky" if you try and interpret it classically. But if you just accept that "hey, it's quantum mechanics" then it's very easy to understand. Same as I can't visualise a 5-sphere but I have mathematical tools to work with one.
I can't "picture" the mechanism that allows measurements of quantum states to be anti-correlated, but I can use maths to express that behaviour and make predictions about how the universe behaves.