Spooky action at a distance
This is a part of a series I’ve decided to launch for myself in which I attempt to write 1 paragraph (3–10 sentences) about something a day. It will not be perfectly curated or articulated, and there will certainly be punctuation problems. You’ve been warned.
2/8/21
Bear with me as I try to put my limited understanding of quantum mechanics to paper. Also, keep in mind, I’m not sure if what I’m referring to falls under quantum mechanics or quantum physics, but the area of focus here is intended to be quantum entanglement.
So, if I’ve got this right: Einstein believed that the relationship of the state of two objects was predetermined by something we currently couldn’t observe ie. ‘rigged by a [card] dealer.’ Whereas Bohr believed that the only thing we could know is the start and final state, and that the two are only set when we observe them. This really sounds like two ways of saying the same, but what Bohr’s perspective implies is that the in-between can’t be predicted. Basically, Einstein believed that there was an underlying system that ultimately everything conformed to.
It’s no surprise to learn that Einstein was a statistical thinker, while Bohr was a philosopher. Essentially, Bohr’s thought was much in line with Schrödinger’s cat in a box thought experiment: the cat is both alive and dead until seen.
There are many things to think about and question of the two perspectives (mainly leaning toward Bohr’s):
- The idea that things only ‘are’ or ‘exist’ if we observe them seems severely flawed in its egocentricity.
- That quantum mechanics and entanglement really blur too much of the line between philosophy and science, calling to mind Descartes “I think therefore I am.”
