Correlation setup between past and present

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between past and present measurement events in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on correlations between these events and the implications of manipulating present outcomes on past measurements. The conversation touches on theoretical possibilities, entanglement, and the nature of measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if there is a correlation between past measurement events (A) and present measurement events (B), manipulating B could potentially influence A.
  • Others argue that correlation does not imply causation and assert that it is impossible to influence the past.
  • One participant questions the coherence of the idea that correlations can "stay the same over time," suggesting that each measurement event occurs only once.
  • Another participant introduces a concept from a previous discussion regarding measurement in a unitary manner, questioning whether the outcome is determined by the eigenstates of the operator or by the observer's perception.
  • There is a challenge to the notion that the measuring device and the observer can be entangled with the observed particle, raising questions about the implications of such entanglement on the determination of outcomes.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the manipulation of B through perception, with participants questioning the role of perception in the measurement process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the relationship between past and present measurements, the nature of correlation, and the implications of entanglement. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the validity of the proposed ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the implications of measurement and entanglement, as well as the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are unresolved questions regarding the nature of correlation and the role of perception in measurement outcomes.

entropy1
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
72
Suppose A is an ensemble of measurement events in the past.
Suppose B is an ensemble of measurement events in the present.
Suppose there is a correlation between A and B that stays the same over time.
Suppose we can manipulate the outcomes of B (for example by choosing the orientation of the measurement basis or some other theoretical possibility).

If we manipulate B, and the correlation stays the same, can we then influence the outcomes of A?

If not, which of the following two reasons is the main reason:
1) Such a manipulation of B is not possible, OR:
2) There can be no influence to the past.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correlation is not causation. We can't influence the past.
 
entropy1 said:
Suppose there is a correlation between A and B that stays the same over time.

This doesn't make sense. Each set of events only happens once; there is nothing to "stay the same over time".

entropy1 said:
Suppose we can manipulate the outcomes of B

Then the correlations between B and A don't exist yet, because the B outcomes haven't happened yet.

entropy1 said:
If we manipulate B, and the correlation stays the same

This doesn't make sense. See above.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
I have this from Peter in another thread:
A measurement in Unitary manner can (according to Peter) be described by:
PeterDonis said:
$$\left( |1> + |2> \right) |R> \rightarrow |1>|U> + |2>|D>$$
The measuring device gets entangled with the observable.

If we are measuring a specific result, we get either ##|1 \rangle|U \rangle## or ##|2 \rangle|D \rangle##, right?
So, is the result determined by the eigenstates of the operator (##|1 \rangle## and ##|2 \rangle##) or could the outcome also be determined by the perception of the measured result (##|U \rangle## or ##|D \rangle##) (one goes with the other)?

If the observer gets entangled with the measuring device, and the measuring device got entangled with the observed particle, doesn't the observer get entangled with the observed particle? And if so, who is to say which determines the behaviour of which?
 
Last edited:
entropy1 said:
I have this from Peter in another thread

This describes a single measurement, not an ensemble of them. It has nothing to do with what you were describing in your OP, which doesn't make sense, for reasons I've already given.

entropy1 said:
The measuring device gets entangled with the observable

The measuring device gets entangled with the measured system.

entropy1 said:
If we are measuring a specific result, we get either ##|1 \rangle |U \rangle## or ##|2 \rangle |D \rangle##, right?

I don't understand what you mean by "measuring a specific result". The state after the interaction has both terms. But each term describes, not just a different state of the measured system, but a different state of the measuring device, plus everything else that interacts with it, including our brains. (I went into this in a later post in the other thread.) So as far as we observers are concerned, one result happened--but how that comes about depends on which interpretation of QM you adopt.

entropy1 said:
is the result determined by the eigenstates of the operator (##|1 \rangle## and ##|2 \rangle##) or could the outcome also be determined by the perception of the measured result (##|U \rangle## or ##|D \rangle##) (one goes with the other)?

The two are entangled, so this question doesn't make sense.
 
@PeterDonis: I was referring to the manipulation of B which may come about by the perception of the outcome of B.
entropy1 said:
If the observer gets entangled with the measuring device, and the measuring device got entangled with the observed particle, doesn't the observer get entangled with the observed particle? And if so, who is to say which determines the behaviour of which?
 
entropy1 said:
I was referring to the manipulation of B which may come about by the perception of the outcome of B.

What do you mean by "the perception of the outcome of B"? Where does that happen in the interaction I wrote down?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 92 ·
4
Replies
92
Views
12K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K