- #1
kochanskij
- 45
- 4
There are a pair of entangled particles moving in opposite directions. A measurement is done on particle A, the wavefunction collapses randomly, you observe either spin up or spin down, A does an action at a distance on B, particle B instantly collapses to the opposite spin state, a measurement of B reveals its now definite spin state. But in a frame of reference moving fast relative to the lab frame towards detector B, measurement B happened first. B made the random choice and collapsed the wavefunction, B performed the action at a distance on A, particle A collapsed to the opposite spin state, and detector A measured its now definite state.
According to special relativity, the time ordering of two events outside of each other's light cone is not uniquely defined. It is relative to your frame of reference.
I don't think any of these facts are in dispute, are they?
So if the collapse of the wavefunction is a real objective event, then which detector caused the collapse and which measured an already definite state? Which particle made the random choice and which obeyed its partner's instructions? A definite answer would pick out a privileged at-rest reference frame, which relativity says is impossible.
The only possible interpretation is that neither measurement collapsed the wavefunction, thus leading to the many-worlds interpretation of QM. Is my logic flawed in any way? Is there a way to defend the Copenhagen Interpretation?
According to special relativity, the time ordering of two events outside of each other's light cone is not uniquely defined. It is relative to your frame of reference.
I don't think any of these facts are in dispute, are they?
So if the collapse of the wavefunction is a real objective event, then which detector caused the collapse and which measured an already definite state? Which particle made the random choice and which obeyed its partner's instructions? A definite answer would pick out a privileged at-rest reference frame, which relativity says is impossible.
The only possible interpretation is that neither measurement collapsed the wavefunction, thus leading to the many-worlds interpretation of QM. Is my logic flawed in any way? Is there a way to defend the Copenhagen Interpretation?