Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

[juan]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:18:36 -0600
Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:

> On 08/06/2016 02:04 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 15:31:13 -0600
> > Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> The problem with classical mechanics is that it's not consistent
> >> with measurements.
> > 
> > 	Not consistent with what measurements?
> 
> The fucking paper that I've cited. 


	OK. Mine was mostly a rhetorical question. Those 'measurements'
	are meaningful only for QM charlatans.

	This is what's going on : 

	You have a 'theory'. You make some 'measurements'. Now when you
	put together your 'theory' and your interpreted(!!)
	'measurements' you come to the conclusion that 'reality' is
	'absurd' or 'magical' or 'weird' or any other similar bullshit.

	You know what the problem is, and why you arrive to those
	conclusions? It is because your FUCKING theory is ABSURD, not
	reality. 

	The problem is the PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHICAL underlying
	assumptions, not 'reality'.


> And more generally, all experiments
> that reject the null hypothesis that the outcome of the CHSH game is
> 75% or less.
> 
> >> Quantum mechanics is. The equations. According to the
> >> Copenhagen interpretation, only the math matters. I don't like it
> >> any more than you seem to. Because I'm not a mathematician.
> > 
> > 	"Only the math matters" doesn't make sense. This might come
> > as a shock, but physics is supposed to 'measure' 'reality'. Then
> > 	the  measured magnitudes may end up in some equations, used
> > to calculate other aspects of...reality. 
> > 
> > 	Like, you measure the volume of object X, you then put
> > 	'volume' and 'density' in a equation, and you get the
> > weight of object X.
> > 
> > 	Math is just a tool that deals with numbers. And numbers
> > 	without units have no physical meaning.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is math. 


	No it isn't. Quantum mechanics is supposedly a branch of
	mechanics which in turn is a branch of PHYSICS. 

	I 'hinted' at the connection between math and physics
	above. Looks like you royally ignored my point.

	Anyway, considering that our premises premises are radically
	different, the discussion is rather pointless. 



> It makes predictions about reality that can
> be tested. By experiments where stuff gets measured.
> 
> The problem is that some predictions of quantum mechanics, such as
> this stuff about entanglement, 1) have been verified experimentally,
> but 2) don't make obvious sense. 


	See above.


> That is, a wave function comprising
> two entangled electrons can apparently collapse instantaneously, even
> though the electrons are arbitrarily far apart. You could try to give
> up light as a universal speed limit. But that creates other paradoxes.


	There are no 'paradoxes' - those are logical flaws in the
	FUCKING theories. 




> 
> >>>> So basically, they find that the classical model of reality is
> >>>> fucked.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 	lol lol lol
> >>
> >> You must be a local realist ;)
> > 
> > 
> > 	I of course am a rationalist and a realist. I don't know
> > what 'local realism' is supposed to mean. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism


	My remark was sarcasm. There's only one kind of realism - the
	real one.






>