pines-demon's latest activity

It is just the arrow of time, never heard of thermodynamics time.

But only if you force the exact same input state each time--which has to include the unobservable particle positions as well as the wave...

Just trying to contribute to the answer of PD here. In some interpretations, like Bohmian mechanics you get the same result every time...

Perhaps the only interesting (?) fact was that the birth of wave mechanics was 100 years ago.

When I first started in PhysicsForums I used to just post links of articles I found interesting. Every time I got various messages...

What did you find intersting about it? It seemed to be the useful pop-sci. The ending is: “The lesson may be,” de la Hamette says...

The latter is (as the name says) an approximation of the former, where only the first order term in the Born series is taken into account.

Read on correspondence principle here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ As with all Bohr principles, the guy...

It must be my translator; I misspelled it once and now it always translate it that way by default. I don't know how to fix it...

Do you have a reason to put an accent in Barandes -> Barandés? It is not the first time I seen it here.

In this case, it's not from Zeilinger, but I would like to see the following translated into Barandés' terms...

I mean something more human level. Imagine that one tries to reproduce an entanglement experiment à la Mermin, you drop some assumption...

which paper?

Can you provide a simple example of what would that look like?

Sure but I am talking about the dynamics (the indivisible part).