147 reputation
6
bio website stackoverflow.com/users/35364
location Toronto, Canada
age 29
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen Feb 1 at 1:44

University of Calgary Alumni
B.S.c. Computer Science


Jan
12
comment Why quantum entanglement is considered to be active link between particles?
I don't know .. but your answer seems to contradict itself. if there's no magic transfer of information, and if the outcome is genuinely random, then it should be possible in principle to violate certain conservation laws, no? (since, as far as I can tell, entanglement is mostly about conserving things like angular momentum, etc)
Aug
7
accepted How can a strong water current be cold
Aug
6
asked How can a strong water current be cold
Mar
21
awarded  Scholar
Mar
21
accepted When matter and anti-matter collide
Mar
21
asked When matter and anti-matter collide
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
It's gotten too long now :) The only thing I really understood is that this "Psi" thing is a probability function and it works, and there's a theorem (that hasn't been proven) which asserts no hidden variables (no yet-to-be-discovered reasons). But I already hinted at this in my question and so you're not really providing an answer yet. I'm (somewhat) aware of the EPR experiment, and according to Wikipedia, Einstein didn't directly participate in writing it and he felt the outcome was too formal and the main point got lost in the formalism.
Mar
21
revised Causality and Quantum uncertainty
clarify a bit about non-determinism
Mar
21
awarded  Commentator
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
@Peter Shor, if you think it has been asked and answered before, give a link. I did search before posting.
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
I don't have a problem with that. My problem is the way people interpret that. It seems the most prevalent interpretation is that particles really act according to a probability function, not anything else. In that sense, their behavior is random. It could be here or there, but there's no reason why. I think it's not random, I think it's determined by factors we don't know. But the prevalent view among physicists seems to be that: no, it's just non-deterministic. (see my "cairo day/night" example in the question).
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
That doesn't answer the question at all; it doesn't even remotely address it. Surely the particle has a certain speed and a certain momentum, regardless of whether or not you can measure it.
Mar
21
awarded  Supporter
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
Your summary about Bell's Theorem is the closest thing to an answer. Maybe you could rewrite your answer and center it around that point?
Mar
21
awarded  Editor
Mar
21
revised Causality and Quantum uncertainty
added 242 characters in body
Mar
21
comment Causality and Quantum uncertainty
"all that happens is a probability" what makes anyone say for sure there's nothing else? It seems patently clear that there's an awful lot we don't know about sub-atomic particles, and future discoveries could bridge this gap.
Mar
21
awarded  Student
Mar
21
asked Causality and Quantum uncertainty
Mar
21
awarded  Autobiographer