| This shows that information about the measurement didn’t travel from one particle to the other. Either: - the information was always spread out (non-local) - the two particles aren’t really separated, they just appear to be (non-Euclidean) - the information was made up on the spot (non-real) Scientists often don’t talk about the first two options; this article omits them, because it’s hard to think about (and violates an assumption scientists make — that you can study bits of reality in isolation). Personally, I don’t think option #3 makes much sense — I think it was a calculation trick that has outlived its usefulness. But that would mean admitting Einstein was right, which doesn’t let you write pithy article titles. |
'...for we physicists believe that the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.'
Which is fascinating considering all the while he discussed 'synchronous events', talking about relativity, and how often time appears in his famous equations, eg E=mc^2 and K=8πG/c^4 . (c=meters/sec) A unitized 'spacetime' banishes time as a separable consideration.
It's as though we are trapped into a way of perceiving things that is wrong, but we haven't escaped that trap. OR... all of space-time is simply a giant, frozen, 4-D crystal in which the only thing moving - through the 3-D plane we call space - is our consciousness. If that's so, everything has already happened. OR... maybe that's mostly true, but not quite.
If that last thought intrigues you, you might enjoy reading Strange Life of Ivan Osokin by P.D. Ouspensky.