A night with the stars (Brian Cox on telly)

[guillefix]

Not really; as pointed out by Ken G in #114, 'mere' correlation entanglement you talk about here is not the same as PEP.

I'll have to find out resoruces for this because to me PEP effects is just a kind of quantum entanglemnt. But this knowledge comes from an ever evolving self taught QM, so I am happy to change my view as soon ad I understand how it's different.

 

[Ken G]

I'm pretty sure Brian Cox would not interpret any of his own statements as implying that FTL communication is possible. He's trying to express an interpretation of quantum mechanics, not inventing his own theory! As in Bell's theorem, what we mean by an "instantaneous effect" is rather vague. I prefer never using that term for either Bell-type entanglement or indistinguishability issues, because I feel the term "effect" should be reserved for things that could allow communication between the event attributed as the cause and the event attributed as the effect. The basic problem is that "cause and effect" has no precise meaning in physics, especially when you note that the basic equations of physics are time symmetric. Cause and effect is basically sociology, any attempt to make it a physically testable principle results in speed-of-light limitations, and few expect relativistic quantum mechanics to be any different.

 

[guillefix]

Yes completelly agree, cause and effect is a pretty artificial concept, specially in quantum mechanics and even more specially in the quantum eraser experimenr)

 

[audioloop]

States reflect knowledge of a system, and when your knowledge changes, the state changes "instantaneously" (or at least as fast as your brain works)

but then, it follows that there is a correlation between the 2 states.
are you claiming a fully epistemic account of the process ?