4 ms·
Your take makes it sound like "we had this awesome idea! but we tested it and we were wrong." I have no idea if you're correct, but that is indeed how science s
by delinka 10y ago
Your take makes it sound like "we had this awesome idea! but we tested it and we were wrong." I have no idea if you're correct, but that is indeed how science should work.
- sirclueless 10y agoI think the actual argument is the converse: "We had this awesome idea! We tested it and we were right!" (In this context "violations" are the desired experimental result.) It rests on whether bi-locality is an empirically interesting property. And as it turns out there are some well-cited theoretical physics papers on the interest in this property for quantum networks [1], so it is likely that I am not the right audience for this press release, and a physicist might find this significantly more interesting. [1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bilocality+bell%27s+inequality https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bilocality+bell%27s+ine...
- Manishearth 10y agoNah, locality is expected to be violated. Bell test experiments have proven this for like forever, and rather recently a very accurate test with very few loopholes was conducted too. They used a new kind of locality and proved it was broken too. Interesting, but not groundbreaking.