2 ms·
My understanding is that it's more like putting two copies of a letter into an envelope, mailing one copy halfway around the world, and then opening the other c
by nerdponx 4y ago
My understanding is that it's more like putting two copies of a letter into an envelope, mailing one copy halfway around the world, and then opening the other copy. You now know what they both contain because you know they contain the same thing.
Is this at least somewhat directionally correct? I know that quantum physics principles are very difficult to define without going into the actual math.
- affgrff 4y agoFunny how similar our comments are, I swear I believe I have not conciously read your comment before writing mine.
- eloff 4y agoThat was Einstein's view, but it was disproved in the seventies by experimental measurements of Bell's inequality. I'm just a computer guy, so someone else can chime in with a more detailed explanation. It's also easy to find more info on Google.
- rhinokungfoo 4y agoYour example is akin to the Hidden variable theory (in the example the hidden variable will be the fact the two letters are copies). Bell's inequality tests have ruled out the hidden variable theory. Veritasium has a good video explaining Bell's inequality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoIt only rules out local hidden variable theories that assume statistical independence. Of course many scientists don’t like violating locality or statistical independence but there’s no philosophical reason to a priori discard them.