So did they make something happen in one by doing something to the other or what?
Article doesn't seem very clear. Unless the big hoopla is doing something to one thing and making NOTHING happen to the other when SOMETHING should have happened.
Enough with the voodo, just give me a teleporter and warp drive already, alright.
Dunno. I do know, however, what my Irish Physics 101 prof would have said: "I dunno wha ya cannuh see it--it's rot thar in frunnuh ya!"
> Article doesn't seem very clear.
I think it's the quantum version of "you and I are locked in a room with only one beer in the fridge." If the beer is later found to be gone, then either you drank it or I did, even though we were both thirsty, but they don't know which of us did.
At least that's what I got out of it.
one quantum spin (i.e., one quantum bit) flipped for the atoms at the site L of one ensemble, invariably none flipped at the site R of the other ensemble
We flipped a switch over here and nothing happened over there.
and when one spin flipped at R, invariably none flipped at L
And when we flipped a switch over there nothing happened over here.
both possibilities existed simultaneously.
We all discussed it over several drinks.
"So did they make something happen in one by doing something to the other or what?
Article doesn't seem very clear. Unless the big hoopla is doing something to one thing and making NOTHING happen to the other when SOMETHING should have happened."
I agree. I thought when you changed the one group, there was supposed to be a change in the other group. Because there is a pair and they must alwyas have opposite spin.
I don't get the article either.
Any physicists around?