Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,892
- 2,135
- 126
yes he did, and he tried to disprove it with his "EPR" paradox. Fritzo, you're well versed for a guitar dude...:awe:
I study astrophysics in my spare time Guess I'm going the Brian May route.
yes he did, and he tried to disprove it with his "EPR" paradox. Fritzo, you're well versed for a guitar dude...:awe:
Even if they manage to plug the fair-sampling loophole there may be another fly in the ointment. It's possible the universe is superdeterministic.
The physicists explained that, in experimental tests, there are three loopholes that allow observed violations of local realism to still be explained by local realistic theories. These three loopholes can involve locality (if there is not a large enough distance separating the two objects at the time of measurement), the freedom to choose any measurement settings (so measurement settings may be influenced by hidden variables, or vice versa), and fair sampling (a small fraction of observed objects may not accurately represent all objects due to detection inefficiencies).
Previous experiments have closed the first loophole, which was done by ensuring a large spatial separation between the two objects (in this case, two quantum mechanically entangled photons) so that measurements of the objects could not be influenced by each other. Special relativity then ensures that the objects cannot influence each other, since no physical signals can travel faster than the speed of light. In these experiments, classically unexplainable correlations were still observed between the objects, indicating a violation of local realism. (The fair sampling loophole was closed in another earlier experiment using ions, where large detection efficiencies can be reached.)
They already closed the fair sampling loophole:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
5th paragraph:
What I mean is all three at the same time. No one likes superdeterminism just on principle but it still is out there. I'm not sure if it's even possible to test for it.
According to superdeterminism it it pointless to even try to test for superderterminism as the answer has already been determined.
No, it has to do with something called entanglement. There is a property of particles that allows them to be "mated". This means that if you do something to one particle, the other will react despite the distance involved.
Faster than light communication, maybe? Not sure, I am a computer scientist with a math / biology background, not versed in physics.why should this be important to me? (average joe)