Mordeth

Thank you very much for the explanations Strange and studiot. Much appreciated! And thank you for the link Strange. The lightbulb went off after reading the explanations here and then following that link! I had initially read the entire wikipedia article on the subject and simply couldn't understand the fundamental nature of the issue. My initial senses and internal bias appealed to Einstein's view via EPR, but mostly because I didn't even understand what the fundamental "issue" or "debate" was to begin with. It seemed a non-issue, especially when considering some of the analogies provided. But I see now what the nature of the problem is (using some basic math to express it was needed) and I very much appreciate your assistance in this understanding. I wrote it all down myself so that I could see the numbers myself. From following more of the links, it is extremely interesting (and surprising) to me that literally every single experiment shows a Bell inequality violation, including those that have apparently closed most of the "loopholes". My wager was most certainly in favor of "local hidden variables", as it made sense to me. But I see now that my intuition was wrong.

Hello, I have a question related to Eise's very useful explanation above, which was provided in another post. My question is related to what appears to be the crux of quantum entanglement and the subsequent loss of entanglement via measurement. My question is related to the statement by Eise above that says: "The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. " Is it possible to explain these statements further? Preferably with details. Everything else is very easy to follow, except this exact part, which seems to be very critical in understanding the topic. If it is possible, please contain any explanations to this one particular detail - "...the correlation is stronger than one would expect..." (unless necessary to explain the answer). I am not arguing or debating any point, but rather attempting to understand. Thank you.

Hi All, I am trying to understand how we can show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I understand that one way is to use data taken from observing Type 1a supernovae due to their standard intrinsic luminosity. This then allows us to calculate luminosity distance and redshift, and from there calculate a ratio that apparently shows it to be non-linear over many samples taken at large distances. Wouldn't this just show that the expansion rate is changing? How do we specifically know it is accelerating? Have we ever observed a ratio that suggests the opposite? What I also do not understand is how we can know what the size of the universe was at the time the light was emitted. Does the redshift itself that we observe give us a clue as to the size of the universe at the time the light was emitted? And also, is there a possibility that the effect we are seeing is simply an illusion due to relative movement? Or could space be accelerating in some areas and not accelerating in others? Thanks for any insight.