Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They are either breaking locality or doing something equivalent. This is getting into metaphysics, not physics, isn't it?

We probably are into metaphysics. We're talking here about different theories that are all compatible with observations to date. Theory selection is very much a philosophical pursuit, though it's something physicists will do to.

Anyway, my main claim is that, as I understand it, the most popular or common QM interpretation (Copenhagen) embraces locality, so it's incorrect to say that "They are either breaking locality or doing something equivalent".

Here's an example of that from an article by Reinhard Werner ('What Maudlin replied to'), arguing (as I understand him) for locality. Some particles are entangled, separated, and then one particle is changed so as to impact (via entanglement) the other. However, the change on one to the other isn't real until later. "The state change only becomes effective when the results from the two labs are brought together and are jointly analyzed, which can happen centuries later."

In the other paper I linked you to, it has the realists (such as hidden variable theories) rejecting locality, with the operationalists (which, as I understand it, is the most common view) embracing it.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: