Nope. That's the point of Bell's inequalities.

It doesn't work for photons as well. You can time a screen to block photon's path after it flies through two slits of an interferometer. You need not only instantaneous communication, but actually faster-than-instantaneous communication.

Non-locality means transmission of information with faster-than-light speeds (essentially, from future to past). To preserve causality you have to impose limitations on this transfer and these limitations are even more magical (see: "superdeterminism"). See my explanation at http://slashdot.org/comments.p... for an example.

It doesn't matter. A pilot wave is a type of a hidden state, in such theories particle take a unique way determined by a pilot wave.

Think about it - how can a pilot wave communicate which way a particle must take without going backwards in time (i.e. violating the Lorentz invariance)? Imagine that you have a classic two-slit single electron interference experiment. Suppose that the pilot wave theory is true - in this case a pilot wave interferes with itself and electron chooses one path and ultimately hits a scintillating screen where it's detected as a particle. For an external observer it would look as if a particle interfered with itself. So far so good.

However, let's add another twist - suppose that there's a device (a simple metallic screen) that blocks one of the paths that the electron can take _after_ flying through the slit - this device will cause the interference pattern to disappear (and this was checked by experiments!). However, how would an electron "know" about it when it flies through two slits? Moreover, we can complicate the device by making the screen move and block one path only after electron flies through the slits (it's complicated to do with electrons but it's essentially what happens in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment). Somehow the pilot wave must provide information to the electron from its future!

No, it doesn't eliminate the dualism. Pilot wave theories are a subtype of hidden variable theories and thus were proven wrong by Bell inequalities. The fact that some fluid dynamics systems behave kinda like quantum systems (and only qualitatively so!) means nothing.

We're all holding our collective breath waiting to hear your practical, commercially and technically feasible alternative.

Maybe he should try to find shelter in a country with sensible copyright laws. Yes, they do (still) exist over here in Euroland.

I hope not, it's been a pretty good label to identify the importance of a "crisis". As soon as -gate is added, you know you can skip the story without missing anything worth your time.

Hope so, it's allegedly less painful when you relax.

Terrorists are to you today what communists were to your father and fascists to your grandfather. Just one intangible group of people that we kinda-sorta know where to find on this globe (along with "there might be some in our country" that we can't find without some new laws that cut down your freedoms) to project your 2 minute hate o

I dunno if "If you watch that movie, chances are you're going to die in a terrorist attack" is a tagline that would make people want to see it. "A movie to die for" might be, but its literal application sure isn't.

I'd ask my appointment to move it somewhere else. Duh.

There's a line between stupid and brave. Brave is to face danger when there's necessity. Stupid is when you face danger when you could easily avoid it without losing anything.

The moment a large segment of population started cheering up torturers as Protectors of the Homeland.

Not? Look at the two nutjobs you picked as examples and tell me it ain't so.

The bigger the group of people who have access to resources that are to remain secret, the bigger the threat that the secret gets out. It just takes one link in the chain to break it, and only one to talk to render a key useless.

Or, in other ways, while breaking a key may be impossible, breaking a kneecap isn't.