I Am Nowhere Near A Physicist (Score 1)

So I'm just a little confused about this article. To perform the experiment, you take a beam and split it into two. One beam (A) goes toward a target and crosses the distance in, say, 5 milliseconds. The second beam (B) takes longer and requires 60 milliseconds to reach the goal. If the researcher changes A, B is changed due to entanglement and vice versa.

What he's proposing is that changing B results in a change in A before B is actually changed. For the sake of example, we'll say A registers a change 55 milliseconds before B is modified - the difference between both beams. As he is researching causality, he would still have to modify B to verify that A and B match. Like any good researcher, he will continue with additional attempts at modifying A before changing B. But each time, he would require changing A in any case to see if A and B match.

Is that about correct?

Which leads me to believe that there's something akin to the conservation of mass something like a conservation of causality. He could never prove that A changed before B without actually modifying B in any case. Leaving the experiment half-done would cause doubt, let alone a paradox. It would be akin to cracking into a server to leave the message, "im in ur server, hacking ur systemz"

If this experiment is correct, and both communication systems are using this setup, then merely intending to leave the message would leave the message. But you would never be certain, because, really, are you going to trust thinking about leaving a message to leave a message? Not at all, you'd be certain to leave the message so that the public can see it.

As the "Uncertainty Principle" is already taken, perhaps it could be called the "Human Conditioning Principle."