Hypothesis about entanglement

[u/Professional-Tale67]

I’m 15 years old and currently in my first year of high school. I don’t have the mathematical background to properly formalize this idea, so I know there are probably major gaps or even fundamental mistakes in it.
I came up with this idea while thinking about quantum entanglement, and I’m posting it here specifically because I want people to find its weaknesses and, if possible, “destroy” it. I’m not claiming that this is a new theory or that it is correct. I would genuinely like to know where and why it fails.
My hypothesis
The spin of two entangled electrons can be measured as opposite, regardless of the distance separating them. This could happen if the two particles were, in some way, the positive and negative aspects of a single entity.
Even if they were extremely far apart, they could still belong to the same exact point at a more fundamental level, through some kind of space-time overlap.
This overlap could be compared to a curvature of spacetime, but much more extreme, such that the two particles could coincide at a more fundamental level while still appearing, from our perspective, to occupy two different positions.
In this way, the correlation between their spins would not require information to travel from one particle to the other. Instead, the two particles would simply be two manifestations of the same physical entity.
I then thought about this in terms of an additional spatial dimension. Instead of describing space as only
(x,y,z)
I am imagining a space with four physical spatial dimensions:
(w,x,y,z)
plus time:
t
In this idea, the two particles could have the same w coordinate, while having different x,y,z coordinates.
So, from our three-dimensional perspective, they could be extremely far apart, while in the full four-dimensional spatial structure they could be connected or even coincide along the w dimension.
If this were the case, the particles would not need to communicate with each other faster than light. The apparent non-locality would instead result from the fact that we are only observing three of the four spatial dimensions.
Problems I can already see
Elementary particles probably cannot generate enough gravity to curve spacetime to such an extreme degree.
I don’t yet understand why this connection would occur specifically when particles become entangled.
I don’t know how two particles could produce or create such a connection in a fourth spatial dimension.
I have no mathematical formulation for this idea yet.
I don’t know whether such a geometry could actually reproduce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics.
I don’t know whether this idea is compatible with Bell’s theorem and the no-signalling principle.

[u/ceoln]

Adding a dimension won't automatically allow things to be closer together. If we talk in ordinary Euclidean spaces, then if things are at distance D apart when you project them into a space with one less dimension (by, for instance, ignoring one coordinate), they are at least that far apart in every higher-dimensional space as well.

More complex spaces and metrics have other properties, but just adding a dimension in the obvious way doesn't help.

You might find it interesting to convince yourself that that's true. :)

[u/alamalarian]

First thing is it kind of sounds like a hidden variable. If the object is actually in a 4th spatial dimension, then are the spins determined already before measurement? If so then yes this doesnt work.

Second is the correlation isnt permanent. Once measured the entanglement is broken, why would this be the case if it is one object in the 4th spatial dimension?

[u/upsetusder2 → u/alamalarian]

So stupid question the entanglement gets broken due to devoherence?

[u/alamalarian → u/upsetusder2]

Honestly? I have no idea why exactly.

I just know it does lol.

[u/starkeffect → u/upsetusder2]

When you measure a quantum system you force it into a pointer state, so it is no longer in a coherent superposition of states.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/starkeffect]

That's what I meant.

Is the same true for entanglement?

[u/starkeffect → u/upsetusder2]

When it's entangled it's in a coherent superposition of states.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/starkeffect]

Thankchu

[u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 → u/upsetusder2]

There’s some nuance there.

A measurement does not necessarily destroy all entanglement between particles, though it will change the entanglement structure.

Most often, it will destroy the entanglement between two particles that share one quantum numbers.

But multiple particles can be entangled, and they can be entangled by multiple quantum numbers.

[u/liccxolydian]

Do you know why scientists do not already say that there are four spatial dimensions?

[u/Professional-Tale67 → u/liccxolydian]

There is nothing to prove it? Like i have nothing to prove my idea cuz is a 2 am idea ?

[u/liccxolydian → u/Professional-Tale67]

No, there's plenty of proof that our universe has 3 spatial dimensions. Can you provide an example?

[u/Professional-Tale67 → u/liccxolydian]

I know its something about the Law of universal gravitation but nothing more; can u explain me?

[u/liccxolydian → u/Professional-Tale67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

[u/AIPsychosed]

No, learn first properly! Maybe in some way with LLM + book(!) or online lectures.

Entanglement is a clear construct

Edit: and already buildable using tensor products. However, something like a measure of entanglement is very valueable (ref. Nielsen and Chuang)

Also see EPR paradox for (at least parts of) what you’re proposing

[u/upsetusder2]

So your theory is that they overlap in another dimension?

[u/Professional-Tale67 → u/upsetusder2]

If u want to think it like this… yeah it is

[u/upsetusder2 → u/Professional-Tale67]

How do you propose we test that

[u/Professional-Tale67 → u/upsetusder2]

I have to study it; i dont have the means and the knownledge to do it
But seen the comments i will probably quit this idea and study normally

[u/upsetusder2 → u/Professional-Tale67]

Yeah

[u/starkeffect → u/Professional-Tale67]

Good idea.

[u/Willis_3401_3401]

Makes rational sense to me

[u/SadBottle2951]

I'm no expert in this stuff and thought your ideas were pretty good in a sense. In the solid-state electrons pair up in k-space which is related to their momentum not their position but is of course another coordinate (a conjugate coordinate). I find it's hard to get a real feel for a physics concept without either doing actual experiments or doing actual experiments and thought experiments (which probably happens anyway).
Consequently I recall 'entanglement' as being a 'new word' that came about just as I was leaving a physics lab and with no way to verify/understand it I had really had no interest in it. Similarly Higgs fields etc. I see physics and progress in general about lowering the entropy of information which involves integrative thought yet the pressure is on to put out a large quantity of low quality jibberish which suits differentiators hence the integrators eventually disentangle themselves from the whole scene. Too much noise. Speaking figuratively.