I don't understand quantum entanglement. Seems like flame
| Upper Middle Class Dad in quarter zip golf pullove | 08/07/25 | | SYDNEY SWEENEY SUPERFAN | 08/07/25 | | cowshit | 08/07/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 08/07/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 08/07/25 | | Theotokos is based | 08/07/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 08/07/25 | | Theotokos is based | 08/07/25 | | SYDNEY SWEENEY SUPERFAN | 08/07/25 | | Upper Middle Class Dad in quarter zip golf pullove | 08/07/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 7th, 2025 6:34 PM Author: SYDNEY SWEENEY SUPERFAN
it's just describing a statistical probability of possible current positions of particles, there are never actually particles "in multiple places at once"
it's like if i was describing an airport, and i said that there's a 50% chance of your flight being at the A gate and a 50% chance of it being at the B gate. if you went to the A gate, your plane would either be there or it wouldn't be, and it would be at gate B instead. it wouldn't be "at both gates at once." all we were doing is describing the statistical likelihood of where it would be
there is no "collapse" of "the wave function" as a result of you measuring/observing it. i don't know why people describe it like that. it's just saying that once you go to the A gate, the plane is either there and observable, or it isn't and it's at B
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5759707&forum_id=2/#49165599) |
|
|