News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole by gibybo on Saturday December 07, 2013 @06:48PM (#6868281)
The Einstein quotes are rather apt. There was a famous disagreement between some well known physicists about what quantum entanglement meant for the principle of locality. The argument that you explain above is the same as that used by some of the brightest minds in physics in the 1930s, including Einstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates#The_argum...

It was a hotly debated topic for several decades. Until 1964 we weren't even sure we could ever resolve it, then a fellow named John Bell published a testable theorem showing a divergence between quantum mechanics and the classical explanation you have above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem). In 1972, the first successful experiment of this theorem was performed, and incredibly, it showed entanglement is in fact more complicated than can be explained with classical mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments. The experiments have been repeated and refined over the years and little by little, the once common theory of local variables is now almost completely dead.

Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole by yk on Saturday December 07, 2013 @07:21PM (#6868364)
Notice that I say 'I shoot' above, so the moment you start to look at correlations, I start to decide into which pockets I shoot. ( For example determined by the results of an EPR experiment.) However, my rant is not so much about details of entanglement as it is about science journalism, after I have read the entire article, I still have no idea what the paper is about.