Worth reading because it has an interesting, new (to me, at least) and approachable explanation of <i>local realism</i>.<p>Money quote:<p><pre><code> Perhaps the best way to explain local
realism is that it’s the thing you believe in,
if you believe all the physicists babbling
about “quantum entanglement” just
missed something completely obvious.</code></pre>
Einstein et. al.'s original paper on the EPR paradox is very clear and understandable, I recommend it: <a href="http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777" rel="nofollow">http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777</a>
Locality (as opposed to non-locality) is a strange concept if you think about it. Because how would different points in space "know" to run the same set of equations? Hence all points have something in common, giving rise to the possibility (or non-weirdness) of non-locality. But of course, this is completely non-scientific :)
Thanks for this article, the previous description of the experiment I read omitted the 'discard the result unless a measurement show that the entanglement was successful' step, leaving me very confused..
I didn't know that this was possible, that said I still don't have any clue about HOW this is possible.
Money quote: "if people had just understood and believed Bohr and Heisenberg back in 1925, there would’ve been no need for this whole tiresome discussion"<p>Prof. Aaronson is teaching a grad seminar this Fall at MIT on Computation and Physics. Here's hoping he makes the lecture notes public ;)
This is a really good explanation... but I can personally only square most of this entanglement non-locality with a many-worlds interpretation. Which is itself hugely problematic.
I don't have a problem with locality being violated. According to relativity, distance is relative and depends on the reference frame. There will always been some reference frame where their is no distance between points.