3 ms·
Dang I low key have a problem here because I already mentioned it was a joke and gave the same explanation, but because this is the top reply and the comments b
by im3w1l 4y ago
Dang I low key have a problem here because I already mentioned it was a joke and gave the same explanation, but because this is the top reply and the comments both show n-hours ago it looks like I walked back my statement in response, and I think it's fair to say that this is why the original comment got a down vote and ended up at the bottom.
- gus_massa 4y agoAfter reading your comment again, now I'm wondering how does the variation of QM discussed in the article handle the special cases you mentioned. In the usual QM the explanation is "easy" because the collapse is magical. But if they want to eliminate the magic and propose a underlying "physical" process for the collapse then they have nasty problems and FTL transmission.