There's a classic analogy to this when we talk about entanglement: imagine taking a pair of gloves and mixing them up. Put one in one box and the other in another box. Send one of the boxes far away. When you look down at the box that you kept, there is no way of knowing if it contains a left handed or a right handed glove; it's a 50/50 shot either way. Similarly you have no idea what the other box contains. You then decide to open your box and find a right handed glove. You then immediately know that the other box contains a left handed glove. In some sense this feels similar to what we see in entanglement but I don't think most people would claim that you opening your box somehow compelled the other glove to pick left/right. They were just always that way, you just didn't know which glove was where.

The claim, however, is that in QM it's not like this. Instead, your act of measuring your system actually does compell the other system to change.

For a long time there were a lot of heated arguments around all of this (most prominently between Einstein and Bohr) trying to figure out if the state of either box was truly undecided until you opened it or if there could have been some type of "hidden variable" that we had yet not discovered that nonetheless dictated what the state was (i.e. could it be more like the glove example or was it truly a new "spooky action at a distance"?)

For a long time physicists believed that this was an unanswerable question and should be relegated to philosophy. It wasn't until Bell discovered his inequality that this was dispelled. He designed an experiment that could be conducted to tell the two stories apart. When it was carried out, it was determined that nature is not like the glove example but rather consistent with the truly quantum story around entanglement. In other words, your measurement of your system actually does compelled the other system to change.

To me, this is a very elegant way of addressing this weird action at a distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Is it “to change” or “to define”? I’m a layman QM theorist, but I think this inaccuracy appears often in popsci media (if it is one). There was no info to change in the first place, there was only an undetermined coherence of either outcome. Is that correct?

I have to say I am always at a loss when quantum physicists start talking about "measurement".

In the classical world, measuring means looking at a particular variable x in a system S at time t, S(t) and via some process specific to x (which we want to measure), Mx, obtain the value of Mx(S(t)).

In QM by contrast, it seems that measurement itself has an action upon the system so that measuring in fact means looking at some Mx(Z(S,t)) where you actually never know S but only some kind of end product Z that is believed to reflect S but is itself the result of an unknown operation on S that QM people call "collapse".

So you seek Mx(S) but in fact spend your time looking at Mx(Z(S)) and draw conclusions on S... but I have yet to hear anyone explain to me, physically what is Z, how it works, etc. Lots of statistics, but no real understanding of that "collapse" process.

There are some modified versions of QM that tries to place this on a more rigorous footing, but none of them have convinced everyone that they do. My personal favorite is the many world's approach that in many ways is simpler than traditional QM because it says that there's no such thing as a measurement. Instead, when you think you're measuring something what you're really doing is entangling yourself with the system you're measuring which means that your state is no longer separate from the state of the system. There's a part of you that sees each outcome.

This is actually already how microscopic systems work: if two particles collide and get entangled, the state of each particle sort of splits in two. The only thing that MWI says is that this dynamics also applies to macroscopic objects.

You measure the colour of an object by bouncing light off it and seeing what comes back. The objects state is modified when the light hits it, since it imparts momentum.

Yes. This is the key point, I think, and it didn't seem well-communicated in the article.

That destroy my hopes of having (Close to ) Zero Latency Communication with Quantum Teleportation / Entanglement. We are still bound by the speed of light!

The dependency on classical communication would imply that it's not lower latency or higher throughput, and will remain subject to signal loss or degradation.

Also, not to get ahead of ourselves (understanding this is research), but what is the use/benefit of this method? We can already send and receive information over great distances with and without wires at seemingly high speeds. Is this a new level of speed? Are there some previous limitations of distances that are now surmountable? Is the power or cost envelope required somehow reduced in some obvious way (not today, but in some future commercial implementation)?

> The receiver does not know that a message has been sent until the first person contacts them classically. It's a common mistake to think that quantum teleportation is a new way of sending information. It's really a way to use classical communication in order to leverage entanglement to bypass various limitations of quantum mechanics.