On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:10:42AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: ... > Here, from <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2464>: > > The violation of the Bell inequality has a schizophrenic status in > > physics. To many of the physicists I know, Nature’s violating the > > Bell inequality is so trivial and obvious that it’s barely even > > worth doing the experiment: if people had just understood and > > believed Bohr and Heisenberg back in 1925, there would’ve been no > > need for this whole tiresome discussion.
Seriously, I am none the wiser and cannot yet make sense of what they are saying. China apparently is putting this experiment in space - are they winning a game on prediction of one particular bit with > 75% probability, and if so, can they run that game numerous times to get that probability close to 100%, and if so, can the random inputs to each side be made not random so that the result of the game is transmission of information? I cannot begin to answer any of these questions sorry... > Me, I like the many worlds interpretation. But it's just an > interpretation. What matters is the math. That sounds much more interesting than the implications of 'dull' said to be arising from qubits :) The hope is that since some say the experiment is pretty dull to begin with, then perhaps there is a soul alive who could answer the above questions... we can only hope.
