Weird Physics

[BillT]

Entanglement is possibly the weirdest thing for people to understand in quantum physics.
I find this a very interesting concept, but do not yet fully understand it.

It has now been reproven more strongly than before:
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/08/more-evidence-support-quantum-theory-s-spooky-action-distance

[Mugwump]

Entanglement is possibly the weirdest thing for people to understand in quantum physics.
I find this a very interesting concept, but do not yet fully understand it.

It has now been reproven more strongly than before:
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/08/more-evidence-support-quantum-theory-s-spooky-action-distance

If there is a loophole for testing, it reasons that there could more of a chance for failure, than success....and they established that...but it bothers me that they can state their success while so many errors come in to play. Granted any success is good, but closing the gap in the percentage of errors may prove way more difficult...and that will be the only way to confirm that their testing technique is a solid one, and that their findings are obtained in a valid manner. 

[BillT]

My understanding was that they would identify the cases when things did not work right and then, took them out of their study since they did not fit the conditions of the test.

Much of quantum physics has to do with statistical outcomes to particular situations. (Einstein hated this!)

I'm not a quantum physics guy, but my understanding is that they run their experiments so that they get huge numbers of occurrences (millions). This gives their statistics a lot of power. More numbers, stronger conclusions. So much that well demonstrated physics of this kind give results that are among the most strongly supported concepts around.

[Mugwump]

My understanding was that they would identify the cases when things did not work right and then, took them out of their study since they did not fit the conditions of the test.

Much of quantum physics has to do with statistical outcomes to particular situations. (Einstein hated this!)

I'm not a quantum physics guy, but my understanding is that they run their experiments so that they get huge numbers of occurrences (millions). This gives their statistics a lot of power. More numbers, stronger conclusions. So much that well demonstrated physics of this kind give results that are among the most strongly supported concepts around.

Yes, I understood the need for mass amounts of data sets in order to get the 'good' sampling numbers up to a better comparison of pass/fail data....but they admitted to that each sampling was over and done once they verified a spin direction, because the transfer had occurred before it could even verified.....and that's amazingly quick, ?....when they spread the distance out it still was measured in milliseconds....LOL...I think Einstein was rightly skeptical..it prodded the studies onward..but still without the verification's, and with such large failure numbers, it looks impossible to say. The super computers used still aren't adequate enough even with the amended testing....the whole scale has to be broadened, or better massive computer numbers must be done to bring it all together. It's a grandiose undertaking stating it mildly..but with a better data set..the possibilities of any quantum technologies associated with the project are outstanding....and not just the Quantum key distributions ....