You can’t get entangled without a wormhole (2013)

Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole (2013) by hasenj on Thursday November 20, 2014 @10:25PM (#8639660)

That's what Einstein argued for, and it's what Bell's inequality proves to not be the case.

I actually remember seeing a Youtube video of Susskind talking about how "FTL" communication is a hack to try to force the quantum state to conform with our notions about the world. (he didn't phrase it this way though; just my interpretation).

I don't know the context it was said, but it seemed to imply that there's a way of thinking about quantum states completely independent of set theory and our classical notions, and this way of thinking should not require FTL communication between entangled particles.

Edit:

I think this was the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT1bm1yM8Ow

He seems to imply that Aspect's experiment negates hidden/FTL communication.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole (2013) by evanb on Friday November 21, 2014 @12:43AM (#8639980)

While GP's example is not what happens in QM (Bell's inequality shows that the state of the two coins is not predetermined-but-secret), it is akin to that example, in the sense that because each person gets a random (though correlated) bit, they cannot transmit information to one another.

Bell's inequality is a statement about the possible strength of the correlation, rather than about information transmission.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole (2013) by pfortuny on Friday November 21, 2014 @06:18AM (#8640776)

Exactly. It is important to note that there is no information exchange if you do not have any information at all.

BTW: why did internet explorer just capitalize Exchange without my asking?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can’t get entangled without a wormhole (2013) by ep103 on Friday November 21, 2014 @10:07AM (#8641559)

spell check, exchange is a microsoft product.

[ Parent | on HN ]