Randi limited his challenge to individuals who could provide proof of supernatural abilities. But it we expanded that to say anything supernatural, then that would necessarily include entanglement. Or does someone here claim to know a mechanism to account for this proven phenomenon? Prove it isn't magic or supernatural. We can say what happens but have no idea how it could happen. I am really rusty on this but I think David Bohm is the only one to even touch on a potential explanation. Even then I don't think he provided a mechanism of action. There are plenty of mysteries left. What makes me scalding mad is people closing minds to these mysteries. It kills the essence of science - the spirit of discovery. This is why engineers should never run a physics forum. Physicists love questions [at least the good ones do]. Engineers love answers and avoid questions that don't have an answer.
Well, no. Since entanglement is a well-known, well-studied and useful phenomenon, and arises as a consequence of physical interactions, it's part of science - not the supernatural. Sure there are details we don't understand yet, but that is true of almost everything in science. I mean, we don't know all the details of how gravity works, either. But someone would look pretty silly if they tried to claim that prize by dropping a tennis ball, then saying "See? Gravity is supernatural!"
Entanglement was predicted by quantum theory and is a perfectly reproducible natural phenomenon. How can it be supernatural?
You really don't see how completely silly these statements are? Forums are just for fun. If you don't like how a forum is run just go to another one.
It is not the phenomenon that makes something supernatural but the explanation for it. Randi's challenge tested for the explanation, not the phenomenon itself. For example, moving a piece of paper is not in and of itself supernatural. Explaining that you have done it with nothing but the power of your mind is what puts it into the realm of the supernatural. Breathing on it to make it move is, on the other hand, not a supernatural explanation. So Randi's challenge was to show that the supernatural explanation was correct - by the claimant explaining the supernatural cause of the phenomenon, and then Randi ensuring that it was tested with scientific rigour. So if you can claim you can move a piece of paper with your mind, he would isolate the paper from everything other than your mind - or at least as best he could, etc. Entanglement is just the phenomenon. Supernatural would be the explanation for it. And good luck with testing for that you come up with. Given that the supernatural is all about the explanation of the phenomenon, just having a phenomenon for which there is no accepted theory/explanation does not make it supernatural. Sure, one might say that the phenomenon of "ghost" is a supernatural phenomenon, but really this is just the assumed explanation for the observed phenomenon (lights, shadows, etc). Entanglement is a natural phenomenon, repeatable, observable, but one for which there is no accepted theory of mechanism. If you want to propose a supernatural explanation, such as "magic", then you need to explain what that mechanism is, how it works, why it is beyond the natural, and then show that that is what is happening. I.e. you need to show your explanation is correct, not just why others might be wrong. Running a forum is not about your own academic discipline, but about management, and adherance to the site's rules. A theologian could run a physics forum, or a swimming instructor, or a chef, if they have the requisite management skills and can enforce the rules.
