Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesti
At the risk of attracting heat, may I expose a chink in the quantum armor? Cheer!
Okay, quantum entanglement is a nice little phenomenon, however, what nobody seem to care about is, what nobody seems to be asking is; why does it exist, and, what is its purpose?[/FONT]
|
Sorry. Frankly, your understanding is very limited for you to make such a bold statement. Bottom line. Quantum Mechanics is not intuitive nor easy to dismiss so casually - it is really based on probability not some 'fixed' answers.
Quantum mechanics is accepted because of its amazing predictive power of, say, various fundamental constants, (it is not really a predictive theory, though!) in understanding real experimental phenomena. I.e. Atomic theory or the Casimir effect - forces exhibited resulting from the quantum field. i.e. Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Another of course is the theory of
Quantum electrodynamics (QED), describing electron using the Dirac Equation via so-called relativistic quantum mechanics - and whose results are experimentally verifiable! Another is the particle gauge theory of
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) regarding quarks, etc.
If you must debate anywhere on such difficult subjects that seem to defy commonsense, I'd real suggest you read "
The New Quantum Universe" by By Anthony J. G. Hey, Patrick Walters Pub. Cambridge University Press.
As for its purpose, well you might ask what is the purpose of being born into the world or some child/children own existence. In the end, it really makes little sense for a question and epect a simple answer.
As for the real purpose (or what is running in the head) of
astroron posting this grissly waterdown BBC dribble, who knows?
As John Jost says;
"What we wanted to do was to perform this entanglement in the sort of system that people can relate to, a mechanical system that pervades nature everywhere."
Clear, even he (Jost), according to the Jason Palmer BBC article, has not even remotely achieved this goal. Really. Is the media right here or was the original published article saying something else. (the latter is real closer to being truer, methinks.)