38 points by bookofjoe 7 hours ago | 29 comments
Havoc 5 hours ago
Surely anything else would imply a mechanism with additional complexity and indirectly void the entire concept. Delayed entanglement effect doesn't quite have the same cleanness for lack of better word
bl0rg 5 hours ago
nickpsecurity 3 hours ago
contravariant 4 hours ago
None of this is beyond current models though, so I imagine you could predict the results quite well if the calculations were feasible. And if that can be done then that's probably exactly what they did.
mr_toad 3 hours ago
(There is a theory in which non-local variables propagate at superluminal speeds, but not instantaneously, but this is a whole other matter).
deepfriedchokes 2 hours ago
signa11 2 hours ago
dr_dshiv 4 hours ago
Then, just by looking in your left pocket, you can learn that your friend has the heads half—instantly!
In other words, it’s not as spooky as it is made out to be.
tzs 4 hours ago
There's a neat game called the CHSH game that illustrates this. Here's a description [1].
Here's a puzzle equivalent to CHSH but that might be easier for programmers to visualize [1].
drewcsillag 1 hour ago
Both the ERP, and the explanation of the CHSH with the difference being cos^2(theta) an isn’t that just Malus’s law? So in the case of the ERP experiment, if you fired single polarized particles at a polarizing filter at one angle or the other you still get cos^s(theta) as the difference without requiring entanglement, no?
That implies, in the case of entangled particles there is more than one dimension of “whatever” that causes the polarizing filter to “choose” whether to extinguish the particle on non-equal angles - like azimuth/elevation instead of just theta? It just seems to me that rather than disproving a “hidden variable”, it requires one?
Like I said, I assume I’m missing something and am wrong.
bawolff 2 hours ago
tzs 1 hour ago
To be a reasonable analogy it has to capture something this is different between entangled and not entangled particles. That's the thing that is sometimes described as "spooky" and completely missing from the split coin analogy.
bawolff 59 minutes ago
ziofill 4 hours ago
ozzydave 3 hours ago
magicalhippo 2 hours ago
That's not really the spooky part of entanglement. The rabbit hole goes much deeper, like here[1] or here[2].