News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet. Parent comment

Re:Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet by ikeboy on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:36PM (#10144897)
How are you saying "the state was prepared before we separated" without meaning a local hidden variable theory? The only way for that to make sort of sense would be superdeterminism, or a nonlocal HV theory, which is definitely not the consensus in QM.

>The measurement of one half of an entangled pair doesn't modify the probability distribution of the other half of an entangled pair.

That's just saying it's local. Not relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet by dools on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:57PM (#10144934)
The only way for that to make sort of sense would be superdeterminism, or a nonlocal HV theory, which is definitely not the consensus in QM.

The only for it to make sense classically. It doesn't need to make sense, it just is. It's how QM works, you can't understand it by some classical mechanism.

Basically this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Declara...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet by ikeboy on Monday August 31, 2015 @09:49PM (#10150252)
You chose to use the phrase. If it doesn't make sense, don't use it. Saying "indeterminism" is fine.
[ Parent | on HN ]