Suppose you're told that somebody has halved an apple and put the two pieces in separate boxes. You are given a box, and the other is sent to a friend on the other side of the planet, who phones you when it arrives.
You both open the boxes and describe what you see. "Oh my half has the stalk", "oh, mine doesn't". "I see 5 pips", "so do I". There are a bunch correlated (and anti-correlated) observations about the two halves.
Nothing surprising about this.
The quantum equivalent seems to work the same way at first glance. However on closer inspection there are some weird correlations that suggest that:
* The apple wasn't cut in advance, but the two halves were created and put in the box just before they were opened.
* Or maybe the apple was cut in advance, but somehow the person cutting knew what observations I would make ('I have the stalk').
* Or maybe the boxes were never separated but remained paired in 5-d space and only on opening did the apple split.
* Or maybe I messaged the apple-cutter back-in-time to say what I would do.
* Or something else.
My box is so remote from the other relativity (and practicality) surely means I'm causally independent of the other box. And I got to chose my observations freely, nothing influenced me. And yet we know one - or both - of these can't be true.
The mention of free-will in the paper is a bit cheeky, really.
IIRC in the literature 'parameter-independence' and 'outcome-independence'have been to used to name the sort of factors that feel bad to violate (did I have a free choice about what to observe?) verses supposedly more innocuous quantum magic.
You both open the boxes and describe what you see. "Oh my half has the stalk", "oh, mine doesn't". "I see 5 pips", "so do I". There are a bunch correlated (and anti-correlated) observations about the two halves.
Nothing surprising about this.
The quantum equivalent seems to work the same way at first glance. However on closer inspection there are some weird correlations that suggest that:
* The apple wasn't cut in advance, but the two halves were created and put in the box just before they were opened.
* Or maybe the apple was cut in advance, but somehow the person cutting knew what observations I would make ('I have the stalk').
* Or maybe the boxes were never separated but remained paired in 5-d space and only on opening did the apple split.
* Or maybe I messaged the apple-cutter back-in-time to say what I would do.
* Or something else.
My box is so remote from the other relativity (and practicality) surely means I'm causally independent of the other box. And I got to chose my observations freely, nothing influenced me. And yet we know one - or both - of these can't be true.
The mention of free-will in the paper is a bit cheeky, really.
IIRC in the literature 'parameter-independence' and 'outcome-independence'have been to used to name the sort of factors that feel bad to violate (did I have a free choice about what to observe?) verses supposedly more innocuous quantum magic.