On Quantum Entanglement

I first heard of quantum entanglement in a visiting professor’s exit lecture when I was in college. Or at least it was the first time I took interest in it since the topic was probably covered in passing in one of my physics classes. I don’t have a deep understanding of quantum entanglement but I guess I know enough to get myself motivated to write a blog post on my thoughts about the theory and its implications.

From what I understand, quantum entanglement is a phenomenon wherein the quantum states of two particles become “entangled,” even when they are separated by distance. When one parameter (among many parameters) that describes the quantum state of one particle gets measured (or becomes definite; note that one principle in quantum mechanics is that only one parameter that describes the quantum state of a particle can become definite at one time, and as one parameter becomes more definite, the other parameters become more uncertain), the other particle consequently assumes the corresponding value of that parameter. For example, if it becomes definite that one particle has a positive spin, then as a consequence, it also becomes definite that the other particle has a negative spin. Likewise, if it becomes definite that one particle changes spin from positive to negative, then the other particle also changes spin from negative to positive because correspondence in this case pertains to the conservation of spin. Again, it is emphasized that quantum entanglement holds true even when the two particles are separated by distance.

Quantum entanglement may seem too abstract when we think of it in terms of subatomic particles and quantum state parameters but, at least in my case, I got to appreciate it more when I zoomed out and thought of its implications in the “macro” world. I thought of quantum entanglement in terms of people, events, thoughts, and decisions. Maybe I used quantum entanglement as a metaphor rather than really think about its direct and consequential implications based on its theoretical structure. Nonetheless, I believe that metaphorical translation is not necessarily a “lower” form of mental exercise compared to more structured mind-stimulating activities like mathematical derivation and formal logic.

Anyway, I believe that there are generally two ways to think of the implications of quantum entanglement in the “macro” level:

1. We can never do anything without making an impact on other people or other things. We can never change without changing others. All our actions, words, decisions, and thoughts directly affect others’ actions, words, decisions, and thoughts. An event (a milestone, a tragedy, etc.) in one place is directly link to a corresponding event in a place that’s far away. If we apply quantum entanglement in the time dimension, we can go as far as saying an action done by a person at one time is directly linked to a corresponding action done by another person at a different time (maybe in another century or millennium). Quantum entanglement kind of reminds me of chaos theory but quantum entanglement postulates a more direct interaction even of particles separated by distance instead of the “spreading out” or “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. This first perspective can be summarized as: We should be thoughtful of all our actions, words, thoughts, and decisions and assess their corresponding impacts on people, things, and the world in general. I believe this thought is quite empowering and motivational.

2. Nothing we ever do, say, think about, or decide on is our own. We are never independent. Everything we say or do is directly linked to the words and actions of a corresponding person somewhere. Nothing is ever original. Everything that is created and every momentous event is a direct consequence of a corresponding creation or event at some distant point in space or time. We have no free will. Every decision is a result of a corresponding decision made somewhere else. Life in this world has no meaning except to satisfy the rules of correspondence that bind entangled entities together. I believe this second perspective brings despair.

I think it doesn’t really matter which perspective or “school of thought” we want to dwell on and, in the case of postmodernists, it is not even necessary to think of either of the two or any other alternative perspective as truer than the others. To somehow provide closure for this blog post, I guess the point is that there is always something even in the most difficult, abstract, and complex scientific ideas and theories which we can find as significant to us and to our lives. They do not only serve as metaphors but, more often than not, they represent certain perceived realities and truths about our existence.

And are we not all, in one way or another, in our own quests for truth?