The Bell Test rules out the possibility of a local hidden variable theory explaining quantum entanglement. That means the states of the two entangled particles are not simply unknown before measurement, they do not have independent states.
This means either, when you measure one particle it “instantaneously” affects the other, which has weird implications for causality because which particle is measured “first” can depend on your reference frame.
Or there is something statistical and truly random going on.
Oh I didn’t mean to refer to hidden variables. I think there’s just a fatal superfluence of available variables. Rather than an inability to know, the problem is an inability to know everything all at once.
Nothing in nature is fully random, just chaotic beyond our ability to model. Effectively random though? Yes, totally.
We have good reason to believe quantum mechanics is truly random
What’s the good reason?
The Bell Test rules out the possibility of a local hidden variable theory explaining quantum entanglement. That means the states of the two entangled particles are not simply unknown before measurement, they do not have independent states.
This means either, when you measure one particle it “instantaneously” affects the other, which has weird implications for causality because which particle is measured “first” can depend on your reference frame.
Or there is something statistical and truly random going on.
Oh I didn’t mean to refer to hidden variables. I think there’s just a fatal superfluence of available variables. Rather than an inability to know, the problem is an inability to know everything all at once.
The Bell Test is still a cool proof though.
Realities of the uncertainty principle aside, the difference is academic when you look at chaotic phenomena.
I agree, but my pedantry knows no bounds!