#
**FwibbFwibb**
t1_j7kx9lr wrote

Reply to comment by **arcytech77** in **Entanglement of Trapped-Ion Qubits Separated by 230 Meters** by **lfuwebred**

> but there should be a way to use appropriate analogies to convey those concepts without using equations.

You say "should". What makes you think there "should" be a way? That it is even possible?

#
**arcytech77**
t1_j7lahed wrote

Mostly my assumption comes from taking a look at how the language of math has evolved over the years. For example, first and second derivatives are easily understood and we use them to speak about rate of change and acceleration. Without the derivative and the concepts behind it, it would be hard to talk about acceleration without using the math. So with the topic of particle entanglement and why it can't be used for faster than light coms, I would work backwards starting from an analogy such as - there are two boxes that each contain a blue marble, opening either box changes the color of both marbles to green - a term or phrase could then be made to represent that particular flow of information.

#
**FwibbFwibb**
t1_j7ldgsi wrote

> Without the derivative and the concepts behind it, it would be hard to talk about acceleration without using the math.

Other way around. We already had the words "acceleration" and "speed". Newton came up with Calculus to put those words into math.

>So with the topic of particle entanglement and why it can't be used for faster than light coms, I would work backwards starting from an analogy such as - there are two boxes that each contain a blue marble, opening either box changes the color of both marbles to green - a term or phrase could then be made to represent that particular flow of information.

Your description isn't accurate in the least, and that's the problem. "Changing color" is already introducing wrong ideas. Nothing is "changing".

You can't even convey the *significance* of entanglement without first going over wavefunctions and eigenstates.

#
**arcytech77**
t1_j7lkks6 wrote

Funny you should bring up Newtwon, he did his math using quaternions I believe, and through that came the concept of vectors.

Anyways, I'm curious what's wrong with the analogy? It represents a particular flow information, nothing else. The state of entangled particles do *change* when you observe one of them.

#
**arcytech77**
t1_j7qmnwr wrote

Are you making the statement that collapsing the wave function isn't changing anything? I can see why you might say that, but I don't think that is accurate.

#
**[deleted]**
t1_j9dq4qs wrote

[removed]

Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments