Re:The Quantum Mechanics of Fate (2014)
by semi-extrinsic on Sunday February 22, 2015 @05:59PM
(#9091620)
Agreed. This[1] xkcd comic applies to almost every Nautilus article I've ever seen.
I read that to be more like "the naive interpretation of entanglement". The author even spends the remainder of the paragraph reminding (or educating) the reader that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and then the rest of the article is exploring retrocausality as another mechanism to explain entanglement with violating FTL restrictions.
> This is flat-out not true. The standard interpretation is
Unrelated Query: How can something be "flat out not true" if it's only an interpretation? Seems to be that what you're describing is a consensus or popular view opposed to a hard fact or universal truth.
> How can something be "flat out not true" if it's only an interpretation?
I think that chakademus meant that it is flat-out not true that "the standard interpretation … is that there is some kind of instant communication happening between the two particles" (notice the scope of the quotation marks); that is, that this is not the standard interpretation, not that this interpretation is 'wrong' (whatever that means).
This is flat-out not true. The standard interpretation is that the entangled objects are part of a single quantum state. Measurement/observation of the state collapses the wave-function, and does not necessarily imply communication between the constituent parts.