An appropriate metaphor would be escape velocity in Newtonian gravity. The concept and equation of escape velocity can be derived a priori from the law of gravity. The law of gravity itself, however, cannot be derived from any other rules - it must be empirically deduced from observation. (Until...
The mass, charge and spin are encoded in the quantum thing. :D
(Specifically, you can write a WF for an arbitary boson or fermion, and then fill in values for mass, electric charge and spin. There's no "extra" information required apart from the WF.)
I don't think so. Pick an experiment and I'll...
It's a wibbly-wobbly quantum-thing...
The photon is everywhere that has that particular energy... but you've got a very low chance of it entangling with your detector. :p
...Those are completely different statements. The one logically follows from the other, yes - since an inability to clone a state combined with "destructive reads" logically implies an unknown state cannot be fully determined - but they're not two ways of saying the same thing at all...
BTW, I read that paper about entanglement swapping, and suddenly realized that in the double-slit experiment where you're covering one slit, the object is still behaving like a wave. Feynman was right: it just interferes with itself in such a way that the only place it doesn't cancel out is...
It's the statement that one can't copy an unknown quantum state.
We do? The probabilities of the various observable values are the output of any QM model.
(Alternate answer: because its not possible to get the correct behaviour out of purely real numbers.)
The system - a Hilbert space vector...
I still don't know what correspondance you're looking for. In the era of Rutherford messing around with gold foil, we said that the nucleus was a collection of charged spheres, even though we hadn't actually seen them and later on saw there were no spheres to be found.
Or was there some...
Which implies an interpretation. More on that in a sec.
Oh shush. I'm not so moronic as to doubt the maths. :p I'm doubting the semantics people are assigning to the maths.
As you pointed out to idav, there's nothing "there" apart from the wavefunction. There's no particle, or...
The telescope version of the double slit setup appears to assume that photons (or whatevers) travel in straight lines from the slits to the telescopes, and therefore when a whatever arrives at the telescope, it came from the corresponding slit. Why is that true, if it is at all? If it is not...
BTW, with the delayed choice experiment, what should we expect to happen if a particle goes through one slit, only to arrive at the other telescope? What would that appear as in our results?
They're finished when the experimenter decides so - but the universe doesn't care. Just because the arbitary boundary of what we've called an "experiment" has passed doesn't imply anything physical, about measurements, WF collapse, or anything else.
So it simultaneously has no explanatory power...
Your math is correct, but your conclusion is false - just because one can see a shadow moving faster than light doesn't mean it actually is from the perspective of someone standing on top of it.
Is your quote supposed to imply something on its own? Because as far as I can tell, it's merely explaining the position I'm arguing - Gisin hasn't commented on its viability in that section.
But no experiment is ever done by someone outside of the universe. Things still interact inside the...