Quantum mechanics just blow my fucking mind. Just the fact that all of modern physics is built on things that or might not exist and facts that might or might not be true, but seem sensible, is giving my brain an aneurysm.

>but because the two diamonds were linked
>linked

What does this mean? Did they just randomly shoot lasers into two diamonds they had lying around? Did they establish this link experimentally? This is a huge point to leave out.

>>3980
In the case of the diamonds, "linked" means that the two diamonds share a quantum superposition. What this means is that quantities that are indeterminate under quantum mechanics (position, momentum and a bunch of other more esoteric things that don't mean exactly what their plain-English names might imply) when measured in one of the diamonds, well cause the other diamond to possess the same quantity. Instantly, as far as we can tell. Possibly even if the two diamonds are no longer in the same light cone.

>>3987
...
how..
Quantum physicists must be the most masochistic, schizophrenic people in science, because this shit is absurd.

Uh, what are the practical uses of quantum physics?

GPS, solid state circuitry, optical drives, and soon quantum computing and encryption.

>>3987

That sounds like wacky, psychic-twin-powers type ridiculousness. So if you throw one diamond across the room, the other one moves, too?

Actually, after reading the article, it seems it boils down to, "We were expecting something to happen a certain way in a 50/50 ratio and it didn't, time after time. Therefore: magic."

So... did these guys just fall victim to the Gambler's Fallacy?

>>3992
>So... did these guys just fall victim to the Gambler's Fallacy?
Doing enough tests to limit the chances of coincidental skewing is something they teach in grade school these days. One would hope anyone being referred to as a scientist is aware of the Gambler's Fallacy and knows to account for it.

>>3993

You'd be surprised how hard its pushed for you to automatically generalize one finding to EVERY SINGLE THING EVER in academia.

>>3992
>So if you throw one diamond across the room, the other one moves, too?
quantum effects don't hold at macro scales

>>3993

As far as I know, the experiment involving FLT neutrinos was only done once, but that's probably because it's very expensive. Also, defying the Gambler's Fallacy requires getting enough results to qualify for the law of large numbers. Forgive me, my college Statistics teacher, but I've forgotten how many.

Probably thousands, though.

>>3996
I'm pretty sure the FTL Neutrino thing was actually done hundreds of times, at which point they decided that even with all that data it was still too silly, so they wanted to get other scientists to go over their work and see if they could figure out what mistakes they had made to explain it. Which is why they never announced the discovery of FTL Neutrinos, they just released their notes to other scientists so they could get more input and the press went wild.

>>3988
All current research points to quantum entanglement being a basic property of physical systems, in the same way as spin or charge.

>>3998
Sort of. Peer review and publication works sorta differently for math and physics. ArXiv is a sort of pre-publication open peer review platform that most/all math and physics papers get put on. It wasn't just that they thought their results were weird, that's just the thing that's done.

I love quantum mechanics. It's the closest thing to magic that we have left in the world.

Hell, if you could master the nature of the connection between two objects and synthesize/independently generate that relationship somehow, you could do all sorts of incredible/awful shit.