4 ms·
The researches don't know how to explain the results in a way that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of the world, so I'd say most people consider
by akvadrako 11y ago
The researches don't know how to explain the results in a way that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of the world, so I'd say most people consider that spooky.
One of the equally reasonable explanations is that the measurement results made by Alice and Bob are not actually determined until their compare their results. Or FTL "communication", or time-travel. Or that their sources of randomness are actually pre-determined.
I'm curious what would you consider spooky if not time-travel or whole universe pre-determinism?
- dools 11y agoRight they don't now how to explain it classically. In much the same way as electromagnetic waves for example are spooky if you try to explain them as propagating mechanically in the same way sound does. Light travelling in a vacuum?? Spooky! This in't time travel, there is no effect and no action at a distance. It's just how that state works. In the same way as I can't visualise a 5 dimensional sphere, I can't create a classical model that explains entanglement, but I can make predictions mathematically, observe the effects and then know that's how things are. Once you go beyond things that make sense intuitively, all you have is maths!
- akvadrako 11y agoThe problem with your argument is that you can rationalise anything that way - "that's just the way it is". Which is why I asked what you would consider spooky. If you don't consider anything within the realm of observable phenomena spooky, then you are essentially just defining spooky differently than other people.
- dools 11y agoIt's not the "spooky" part that I have a problem with, it's the "action at a distance" part. Things can be spooky or not spooky subjectively, but there is no action at a distance.