100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Bell's Theorem | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I thought I understood it, but after reading the Scientific American article on entanglement and non-locality I got lost. Shame Robert Anton Wilson is dead, because he explained it well, and so- who here can re-re-explain it to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
locality is dead. that's all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 03/05/09 12:57 PM
|
|
I thought I understood it, but after reading the Scientific American article on entanglement and non-locality I got lost. Shame Robert Anton Wilson is dead, because he explained it well, and so- who here can re-re-explain it to me? Essentially it points out that QM is incomplete becuase of this contradiction that is created via QM entanglement. locality is dead. that's all |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dudes, I work 12 hour shifts, my sleep cycle is way off, my mind is usually in a fuzz. Until I get another job and real sleep could you please kindegarten it for me. Sorry, So far... non-local influence, is there a why and how or just an observation? Is it just at the QM level? Or seen in a Newtonian level? Dudes, I am so sleepy all the f*ing time and my brain is yoghurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To tell you the truth I am fairly ignorant of the fundamentals of bells theorem, When I first started studying QM I read it in depth, and have not had a chance to refresh.
The jist is that quantum entanglement is counter intuitive. Reality is skrewd. |
|
|
|
|
