Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hey guys,I have to admit that my knowledge of this stuff is

  1. Dec 9, 2012 #1
    Hey guys,

    I have to admit that my knowledge of this stuff is probably quite lacking in comparison to most other people's but I was wondering if anyone had some resources I could use to look into regarding nonlocality?

    From what little I do know about Quantum Mechanics is that Einstein had a beef with its probabilistic nature and insisted that there was a third particle involved which has since been disproved. I've been trying to look into possible nonlocal explanations for quantum phenomenon such as what happens in the quantum eraser experiment and was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of work being done with this or if there are any currently accepted theories?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2012 #2

    tom.stoer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Nonlocality

    The currently accepted theory is quantum mechanics
     
  4. Dec 10, 2012 #3
    Re: Nonlocality

    Don't know what you mean by "a third particle involved", but there's been more papers written on quantum nolocality than you can shake a stick at. I share your curiosity about this and can only suggest that you utilize the available internet resources. Search in Physics Forums, Google, Yahoo, arxiv.org, Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. etc. You'll find enough material to keep you busy for years.
     
  5. Dec 10, 2012 #4
    Re: Nonlocality

    Thanks for the tip.

    As you can tell I'm pretty new to all of this and am just barely starting to get my head wrapped around a few things. But it seems to me that anytime someone tries to mention a cause and effect relationship of the random nature of QM people tend to dismiss it as nonsense or impossible. I've only recently stumbled upon a few ideas for nonlocal ideas but I have no idea how valid any of these ideas (although I don't know if most physicists really do either).

    Also, by 'third particle involved' I was trying to reference the EPR paradox... which I just reread and apparently does not necessarily involve a 'particle'.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook