The first one I understand. If you measure something, then you’ve got to touch it to do so, if only with a light beam. When you touch it, it moves (changes). But the idea that when you touch it, it sends an instantaneous message to another “entangled” object on the other side of the universe, and that object also changes, is difficult to accept. Yet, that is the theory. And the theory is generally accepted by most physicists. The “proof” is statistical.
Part of my skepticism is due to the fact that I don’t put much stock in statistics. The conclusions of statistical studies generally assume that you understand the mathematical structure of the phenomena you are studying. You’re just trying to measure the parameters. But in this case, you are actually trying to identify the mathematical structure of the phenomena you are studying.
Thanks, Brilliant.
I see what you mean. I wonder if the quantumness of “measuring things changes those things” would continue if there were a way to measure without ANY effect on the object being measured?
Entanglement seems so weird, two particles millions of parsecs away will each simultaneously move in like fashion when one moves??? Weird!
I wish I could understand how Einstein and others can figure out things from math...like, how did Einstein figure out the speed limit of light from math alone? It seems like me saying “2+2=4, therefore the speed of that pickup truck driving by is 70 mph.”
How can math alone figure out the precise speed of light? Wouldn’t they need some sort of measuring tool or something?
These are prolly the most basic, junior-high school physics facts, but...oh well!
See ya’,
Ed