2 ms·

It's the nyt, so they are at best imprecise and at worst wrong. Entanglement can be thought of as a resource that allows you to do unexpected things (win the C

by fizx 11y ago

It's the nyt, so they are at best imprecise and at worst wrong. Entanglement can be thought of as a resource that allows you to do unexpected things (win the CHSH game), but sharing information isn't one of them. A better discussion can be had at http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=33 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=33

finnh 11y ago
Good old Aaronson, thanks. My recollection of "Quantum Computing since Democritus" informed my frowny-intuition about the NYT article ... should have gone to his blog directly no doubt.
weinzierl 11y ago
The linked article from Scott Aaronson is quite accessible and very worth reading. My favorite quote is: Perhaps the best way to explain local realism is that it’s the thing you believe in, if you believe all the physicists babbling about “quantum entanglement” just missed something completely obvious. What I still struggle to understand is the realism part. The NYT article seems to imply that, when all loopholes are closed, we will have the final prove to live in a non-local world. Realism isn't mentioned. The finding is another blow to one of the bedrock principles of standard physics known as “locality,” which states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. I always thought that local realism meant one of the following: - no realism - no locality - neither realism nor locality The Wikipedia article Principle of locality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_re...) says Any theory, such as quantum mechanics, that violates Bell's inequalities must abandon either locality or realism; Can the result of Bell's experiment be explained when we just abandon realism but not locality?
- fizx 11y ago
  > Is there an explanation of Bell's experiment that preserves locality and only gives up realism alone? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ I'm not super knowledgeable about this (and whether it even meets the criteria), but perhaps you will find it interesting.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Answer to your last question: yes. However, the results of these (and other) experiments are not consistent with abandoning realism. There is also a third option that almost no-one mentions, and that's superdeterminism; i.e. that free will doesn't exist.

by fizx 11y ago

finnh 11y ago

Good old Aaronson, thanks. My recollection of "Quantum Computing since Democritus" informed my frowny-intuition about the NYT article ... should have gone to his blog directly no doubt.

weinzierl 11y ago

The linked article from Scott Aaronson is quite accessible and very worth reading. My favorite quote is: Perhaps the best way to explain local realism is that it’s the thing you believe in, if you believe all the physicists babbling about “quantum entanglement” just missed something completely obvious. What I still struggle to understand is the realism part. The NYT article seems to imply that, when all loopholes are closed, we will have the final prove to live in a non-local world. Realism isn't mentioned. The finding is another blow to one of the bedrock principles of standard physics known as “locality,” which states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. I always thought that local realism meant one of the following: - no realism - no locality - neither realism nor locality The Wikipedia article Principle of locality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_re...) says Any theory, such as quantum mechanics, that violates Bell's inequalities must abandon either locality or realism; Can the result of Bell's experiment be explained when we just abandon realism but not locality?

fizx 11y ago
> Is there an explanation of Bell's experiment that preserves locality and only gives up realism alone? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ I'm not super knowledgeable about this (and whether it even meets the criteria), but perhaps you will find it interesting.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
Answer to your last question: yes. However, the results of these (and other) experiments are not consistent with abandoning realism. There is also a third option that almost no-one mentions, and that's superdeterminism; i.e. that free will doesn't exist.