4 ms·

You can only conclude that "Physical reality doesn't exist until observed", if you imply nothing can move faster than light. Also hidden variable theory aren'

• david927 11y ago
  I will happily imply that energy/mass cannot move faster than light. You know, I think a hidden variable theory is a crutch. To me, there's simply a Planck's constant foundation that prevents infinite regression just as much in terms of information as it does with radiation, etc.
  • Ygg2 11y ago
    What you imply is besides the point. It's what the finding implies. Interpreting that as "physical reality doesn't exist" is far fetched.
    • david927 11y ago
      This isn't about relativity at all. If you're measuring N-S electron spin, you will get 100% N spin or 100% S spin but never any E-W spin. Period. If you're measuring E-W electron spin, you will get 100% E spin or 100% W spin, but never any N-S spin. You can word smith it how you wish, but electron spin is directly tied to the spin you look at. To speak of the "reality" of the spin when you're not measuring it makes no sense.
      • Ygg2 11y ago
        In my previous comment I didn't mention relativity. > If you're measuring N-S electron spin, you will get 100% N spin or 100% S spin but never any E-W spin. Ok, but not arguing against it. I'm arguing that there are alternative interpretation to that event other than "reality doesn't exist until we look at it". There are other explanations like: retroactive causality, many world, informational based, etc. Basically, just read the top comment, it summarizes my thoughts on the matter.