Quantum Enganglement

Quantum Entanglement experiment using a coin and a copy machine.

1. Flip a coin onto an open copy machine, and close the cover of the copy machine without looking to see if the coin landed heads down or tails down.

2. Make two copies, fold the copies and put each into a separate envelope without looking to see if the coin landed heads down or tails down.

3. Mail the two copies to two far away locations, perhaps mail one to Geneva (A) and one to Washington (B).

4. Now open the copy in Geneva, and view the results for the first time to view the image of the coin (it shows tails down).

5. We now know "instantly" that the copy in Washington is also an image of tails down.

6. Einstein might argue that nothing "spooky" just happened. The two envelopes contained identical images of the tail side of a coin, we mailed them to distant locations, then we learned the contents of both envelopes by viewing the contents of one of the envelopes.

7. Heisenberg might argue that the two envelopes were "entangled" (correlated) and contained "super position" images of both heads and tails, until the first envelope was opened. At which point the quantum super-position collapsed, and the opened envelop randomly selected a value (in this case "tails down"), instantly communicated from Geneva to Washington what Washington should see when it opens it's envelope (the same "tails down" value that was randomly selected in Geneva).

8. However, any interpretation that requires "instant" communication (or instant wave collapse) is incompatible with "order of events" in Relativity theory. Relativity theory requires that the order of events is relative to the observer. If observers in Geneva (A) and Washington (B) open (measure) the envelope at the same time (relative to an observer half way between the two locations), then each observer would observe their measurement as happening before the other. Geneva would have caused the wave function to collapse before Washington, and Washington would have caused the wave function to collapse before Geneva. Both can not be true. (A different interpretation of QM called "multi-worlds" avoids the "simultaneous" issue by splitting off each observer into their own new parallel universe and new time line, one where Geneva opened the envelope first, and one where Washington opened the envelope first - a paradox requiring an exponentially growing, infinite number of new worlds and new timelines, everytime any quantum measurement is made - perhaps the most incredulous interpretation of all).

9. Experiments based on "Bell's Inequalities" seek to determine if a quantum reality exists before it is measured (is the quantum realm random or deterministic). If the math behind these experiments is valid (it is generally accepted but credibly challenged[1], [2]), then either the quantum world is non-deterministic (random until measured as Heisenberg argues) or an additional "non-local" (perhaps omnipresent) "pilot wave" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory) must exist as Bohmian Mechanics proposes.

10. So who's understanding was correct, Einstein or Heisenberg? Is this analogy fair?

Read more about this debate in the article Is QM Spookyness Under Threat?

[1] Disproof of Bell's theorem: illuminating the illusion of entanglement, Joy Christian, University of Oxford, 2014 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303939609_Disproof_of_Bell's_theorem_illuminating_the_illusion_of_entanglement

[2] On a Surprising Oversight by John S. Bell in the Proof of his Famous Theorem, Joy Christian, Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, 2019 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf