6 ms·

Yes you're missing something. The idea that an event in one place can influence an event in another place, even though it's not possible information traveled fr

Yes you're missing something. The idea that an event in one place can influence an event in another place, even though it's not possible information traveled from the first place to the second, is spooky. And the idea that this can even be the case even if the associated objects never coexisted in time is anything but "boringly trivial".

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Everyone keeps coming back to this point, but I maintain that just because there’s no way that we know of (or that makes sense in the framework of our understanding) for information to travel between the two, it absolutely does not mean information _did not_ travel between the two. It’s the simpler explanation, if you don’t let hubris get in the way.
- lowpro 9y ago
  It's more than that. It can be shown that information could not travel between 2 points provably, so it's not like we're missing some communication method. We can show there is no intermediate communication method. See the MIT introduction lecture on Quantum Physics: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-s... I believe the experiment where this is shown is lecture 1, possibly 2. It's been awhile since I watched this but a great source of information.
  - kirrent 9y ago
    To further clarify, any communication would have to be superluminal. Sure there are people who claim that there's some unobservable superluminal background to the universe that makes non-local hidden variable theories possible but I don't know that I'd call that the simpler explanation.
    - ComputerGuru 9y ago
      I was thinking more along the lines of undetected hyper surfaces or wormholes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tbabb 9y ago
I have a red ball and a blue ball. I flip a coin, and if it's heads I give you the red ball, and Alice the blue ball. If it's tails, the reverse. Alice goes off to Alpha Centauri, gives her ball to someone else, dies, the ball gets sent to Andromeda, whatever. When you open your box and see a red ball, you instantly know Alice's was blue, and no information has traveled from Andromeda. Not spooky. But of course we have no hidden variables, so instead of flipping a coin, we fork the universe. In one universe you get a red ball, in another Alice gets it. In either universe, when you open the box, you know what color Alice's ball is in your universe. Not spooky. Still not spooky if Alice lived a billion years ago.
- cgmg 9y ago
  The problem with the glove analogy (i.e. having a local hidden variable) is that it cannot explain quantum entanglement. Bell's theorem shows that entangled systems are correlated in a strictly stronger way. Quantum indeterminacy is different than the classical "we don't know which glove is in your pocket but we know they're opposites" sort of uncertainty.
- CookieMon 9y ago
  If you watch for more than 4 minutes, this 9 minute video explains how Bell proved that the particles can't have been given opposite "ball colors" at the time they became entangled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c It's quite clever how he proved it, and that it's actually possible to rule out "information that we're just not aware of".
- boyce 9y ago
  The difference is that the same experiment in quantum terms would have you look at the ball through a colour filter and determine the probability of a range of possibilities (and therefore the other ball wherever it is) but then seeing the statistics show the particular filter you choose changes the probability of what colour ball you have and therefore the distant ball also
  - jobigoud 9y ago

ComputerGuru 9y ago

Everyone keeps coming back to this point, but I maintain that just because there’s no way that we know of (or that makes sense in the framework of our understanding) for information to travel between the two, it absolutely does not mean information _did not_ travel between the two. It’s the simpler explanation, if you don’t let hubris get in the way.

lowpro 9y ago
It's more than that. It can be shown that information could not travel between 2 points provably, so it's not like we're missing some communication method. We can show there is no intermediate communication method. See the MIT introduction lecture on Quantum Physics: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-s... I believe the experiment where this is shown is lecture 1, possibly 2. It's been awhile since I watched this but a great source of information.
- kirrent 9y ago
  To further clarify, any communication would have to be superluminal. Sure there are people who claim that there's some unobservable superluminal background to the universe that makes non-local hidden variable theories possible but I don't know that I'd call that the simpler explanation.
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of undetected hyper surfaces or wormholes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tbabb 9y ago

I have a red ball and a blue ball. I flip a coin, and if it's heads I give you the red ball, and Alice the blue ball. If it's tails, the reverse. Alice goes off to Alpha Centauri, gives her ball to someone else, dies, the ball gets sent to Andromeda, whatever. When you open your box and see a red ball, you instantly know Alice's was blue, and no information has traveled from Andromeda. Not spooky. But of course we have no hidden variables, so instead of flipping a coin, we fork the universe. In one universe you get a red ball, in another Alice gets it. In either universe, when you open the box, you know what color Alice's ball is in your universe. Not spooky. Still not spooky if Alice lived a billion years ago.

cgmg 9y ago
The problem with the glove analogy (i.e. having a local hidden variable) is that it cannot explain quantum entanglement. Bell's theorem shows that entangled systems are correlated in a strictly stronger way. Quantum indeterminacy is different than the classical "we don't know which glove is in your pocket but we know they're opposites" sort of uncertainty.
CookieMon 9y ago
If you watch for more than 4 minutes, this 9 minute video explains how Bell proved that the particles can't have been given opposite "ball colors" at the time they became entangled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c It's quite clever how he proved it, and that it's actually possible to rule out "information that we're just not aware of".
boyce 9y ago
The difference is that the same experiment in quantum terms would have you look at the ball through a colour filter and determine the probability of a range of possibilities (and therefore the other ball wherever it is) but then seeing the statistics show the particular filter you choose changes the probability of what colour ball you have and therefore the distant ball also
- jobigoud 9y ago