Recent content by akvadrako

I was just trying to use Dr. Chinese's terminology. My point was you still need to pick sub-ensembles; that's what the BSM results let you do. Without knowing the sub-ensembles there is no entanglement, at least no possibility to show entanglement. Edit: I think I get it now – Dr. Chinese...

I think your view is contradicted by this post-selection swapping experiment, most clearly if I assume there are no FTL or backwards in time influences. Are you trying to say that I must accept FTL influences? Because if not, the idea that entanglement is statistical correlation instead of an...

You are missing the point. It was always an aspect of the idealized experiment that you select 4 sub-ensembles, each entangled. And nobody was arguing that it was only the non-ideal experiment that allowed an "out" due to low fidelity. One still needs to "cherry-pick" those 4 sub-ensembles to...

There are 4 subensembles. You still need to know which runs belongs to which to get entanglement. This doesn't change anything about the discussion; as several people have pointed out, it would have been clearer to just consider the ideal experiment, where there is no need for an event ready...

Are you saying that Berkson's fallacy is (potentially) applicable to correlations resulting from all examples of entanglement and hence that one can not draw conclusions about causality from entanglement in general? Or just the entangled 1&4 sub-ensemble in this case? That would be odd as...

I would agree that nothing physical happens to 1&4, which is clear in the post-selection case, especially if one assumes that effects don't travel back in time. But when you select the subensemble using the swapping procedure before 1&4 are measured, you can use that subensemble to violate Bell...

See my last post for how to do this. You can indeed demonstrate entanglement of some random properties of a sub-ensemble of random pairs of cars using this technique, but only after the fact by looking at the results. Using post-selection on results one can violate Bell inequalities by more...

My definition of sub-ensemble is just a subset of a full ensemble, so there are always sub-ensembles, like taking every odd result. When one performs the delayed-choice version of the experiment, for the 1&4 ensembles, one is left with a list of measurement settings and results. There are two...

Yes, you need the results of C to select a sub-ensemble of AB to see any new statistics. My answer is if you don't do the operation at C correctly, you are not selecting the correct sub-ensemble of AB. The BSM is required to do that. As I'm sure you are aware, having been discussed on the...

By overall statistics I meant of the full 1&4 ensemble. The thing one can do is use the results of the BSM operation on 2&3 to select a sub-ensemble of 1&4, then perform a Bell test on that sub-ensemble and see that it violates the Bell inequalities, indicating that sub-ensemble was entangled...

Are you saying it changes the overall statistics? That cannot be true since it would allow signaling. In the delayed choice version, the measurement results are already determined. Nothing about the statistics can change. There is also no reason to think they do. It's always possible to bin...

The Bell measurements have nothing to do with it. Alice makes a measurement and angular momentum is conserved in her closed system, including the measurement apparatus and lab. Bob does the same. If both systems conserve momentum, of course when you consider them together it's also conserved.

This seems relevant: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.08342.pdf

The interesting thing is that entanglement between sub-ensembles can be created via post-selection, even in the past. We know it's real entanglement, since they can be used to violate Bell inequalities. Obviously it's just a statistical phenomenon, not time travel, strongly implying all...

I find several of the models for weighing outcomes satisfactory, but think it's a bit off-topic so won't get into it. Research hasn't stopped along these lines either; for example there is a paper from November which proposes an alternative way to count: Branch-counting in the Everett...