How does entanglement work? What are the standing hypothesis?

How does entanglement work? What are the standing hypothesis?

>Left
>Absolutely adorable
>Right
>Generic slut
Why are women so dumb?

because she's a rare outlier. Seriously, most women look hideous without makeup

Source? Citations? Fuck off nigger.

>How does entanglement work?
Two particle maintain a relationship over distance.

>What are the standing hypothesis?
"Standing" is putting it strongly. There are many discussions raging. Spooky action at a distance will remain spooky for a while.

>>Left
>>Absolutely adorable
>>Right
>>Generic slut
My very thoughts.

>Seriously, most women look hideous without makeup
When will they realise that looking plain healthy is not only what counts but also aligns with all mate selection instincts there are?

The dissipated prostitute looks is overdone.

Oblivious virgin detected.

Nah, most women are still doable without it, but they generally do look better with than without.
Gotta be honest, she looks better dolled up. But even without she looks good.

I like her much more on the left

She's so cute before the make up. She put on like 10 years doing that.

>dat left
why are redbrown heads so adorable

I tend to like girls more who do the makeup things.
Putting time is appearance (and even being bitchy) is an attribute of the IT girl, not the cool girl guys hang out with.
It's about attainability and status.
She looks good either way, so I rather have a gf that other men don't think they can have.

>It's about attainability and status.
Add "perceived" into that. Currently all girls seem to believe that they will deserve a George Clooney level guy. Strangely they end up with thrash.

>face cancer is attractive

Well, I'm not completely sure how "perceived status" is a lower form of "status".
Status is of course defined by context. I can own a huge piece of land, but that doesn't give me status if literally nobody knows of my ownership.

And I, just to make that clear, I was not talking about the girls wishes - I was saying I value status. Everybody can fuck around (except robots) theses days till they are 36 or whatever, so that's not a rare resource, and I don't even think "hot girls" are better in bed anyway. Even with a pretty girl, after a month you get used to it. An ugly girl with big tits is also a means to get off, and not much worse.
So looks, to me, is about raising the girls (and thus my) status.

adorable.. over 2000 selfies in 1 year.

take a white card and a black card and put them in grey envelopes. give one to someone and have them go away. now open your envelope. You see that your card is black. Therefore the other person's card has to be white.

>take a white card and a black card put them in envelopes
Poor analogy, in quantum mechanics neither card has a definite color until the person opens the envelope. Not "we don't know what color it is" but rather "it LITERALLY doesn't have one". The uncertainty isn't just a lack of human knowledge, it's a fundamental aspect. At least this is the Copenhagen interpretation...

>how does entanglement work
You're not going to get an answer that is easier to understand or resonates more with the macroscopic experiences we have with nature. The best explanation physicists have is that an uncertainty in the exact state of matter is intrinsic to the laws of the universe. There are no hidden variables and there doesn't need to be.

If you want to know why particles are entangled the way they are, then study tensor products of irreducible representations of Lie Groups - SU(2) in particular. This is how we understand the dynamics of two particles with spin, and how we can classify states like

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\uparrow\downarrow}-\ket{\downarrow\uparrow})[/math]

And in the very likely scenario that this^ didn't render, I'm referring to the "singlet state" which is a composite state of two particles with spin-1/2 that requires the other particle to be of opposite spin.

I don't know if there are any "standing hypothesis" besides the lack of hidden variables. It's really not that interesting of a problem.

since this thread is shite anyway, do you mind explaining how the Copenhagen interpretation is in any way favorable? It sounds like its choosing the less possible of two possible interpretations

>>Left
>>Absolutely adorable
>>Right
>>Generic slut
Agreed

Well i'll be jewed, first post turned out to be the best post.

>tfw girls on the left dont exist and youll never have an adorable qt3.14 gf

Agreed. This tends to apply almost universally and I'm wondering if there's less media-induced delusion outside of America.

On the left she only needs to sleep more (or not be so blazed), and take slightly better care of her skin (stop using harsh soaps or soap in general, moisturize with shea/cocoa butter if acne isn't an issue. Women have much thinner skin, and the underlying matrix structure is different). Nothing that needs to be masked or accentuated with makeup. Hair looks much nicer as is. Love that hair type.

Really easy to get tired of.

>he thinks he can preserve a classical world

since there's no hope of this thread being on topic anyway:

I feel a small sense of disgust when I see people who have gone through a not insignificant amount of effort just to seem more attractive, so minimal makeup and plainer clothes are subjectively way more attractive

i hate make ups

1. spooky FTL communication

2. Hidden variable/deterministic properties

virgins?

Yes.

>>he thinks he can preserve a classical world
Serious question; isn't QM just curve fitting? Like, isn't that why there's all the different interpretations; we fiddled the math to get some equations that worked without any real conceptual underpinning?