Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5893678" data-attributes="member: 177">Freyar deals with this stuff a bit more day-to-day than I do, so he might correct me.  However...Okay, this is the same as my pragmatic explanation, above.  The problem with the example is that cake flavors can't change with time.  I said that the data sometimes argues against this, but I can expand a bit on that.  And here's a place where things are weird:Imagine we measure a property of a particle.  Spin is the usual example.  The spin can be either up, or down.  You measure it (at time t=0), and find it to be up.  Now, consider taking a second measurement, some time after the first.  If you take it very soon after t=0, you are very likely to still find the spin to be up, and there's only a small probability it will have flipped to down.  As time goes on, the chance the spin has flipped increases, until at some point, you're back to a coin-flip, 50/50 for finding it up or down.Now, take two particles (call them A and B).  Entangle them (so, you know if you find one of them is spin up, the other will be spin down) at time t=0.  At time t=5, you measure the spin of A, and find it to be down.  Measure the spin of B at time t=12, say.If this were actually the "it isn't that complicated" idea, you'd expect to see the spin of B not depend upon when you measured A.  Because, honestly, it isn't that complicated.  The nature of B was set at time t=0, and B has gone on its merry way alone and undisturbed since.  You might figure that the probability of finding B up or down would be as if it had been set at time t=0, and it is now t=12.What you'll see is the probability of B being up or down is as if it had been observed at t=5, even though nobody looked at it!This sounds to me to be equivalent to the "quantum non-locality" explanation.</blockquote>

Verification