- #1
- 1,224
- 72
If we assume there is no counterfactual definiteness, would that mean that measurements on entangled particles needn't be correlated, for if you don't compare the results, you just don't know if they do?
So, CFD has necessarily to do with non-commutation?Counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is really about unperformed measurements. If you measure momentum on A and position on B: you cannot really talk about A's position and B's momentum at the same point in time unless there exists CFD. Classically, objects do not have non-commuting measurement operations. Quantum objects do.
Because, I was aiming at eternal separation in spacetime of two measurements that were performed. The thing with that would then be that Alice would never know whether Bob actually did carry out a measurement.
I mean forever separated in the future. (after preparation)If the two particles are eternally separated ( i.e. in the past and in the future ), then I don't see how you can have entanglement - not only will it be impossible to verify the correlation, but the entanglement cannot exist in the first place, since its creation requires an initial interaction between the particles.
I mean forever separated in the future. (after preparation)
Are things of which we don't have information relevant anyway?
If the two particles are eternally separated ( i.e. in the past and in the future ), then I don't see how you can have entanglement - not only will it be impossible to verify the correlation, but the entanglement cannot exist in the first place, since its creation requires an initial interaction between the particles.
That is why I think there should be some notion of observer-dependence here, although I don't know what it would formally ( = mathematically ) look like.
Not so fast, grasshopper.
Lol, just as I thought I had the whole EPR-entanglement thing hammered down, someone comes along and throws a spanner in my mental works I am going to have to digest your last three posts, and definitely do a bit more reading on this subject, as I wasn't aware of the phenomena you have mentioned. The learning never ends !
Forward and backward in time? (space?)but requires forward and backward effect propagation to explain anything.
Forward and backward in time? (space?)
Why should not do soIf we assume there is no counterfactual definiteness, would that mean that measurements on entangled particles needn't be correlated, for if you don't compare the results, you just don't know if they do?
Because there is word lately about forward and backward 'influence/causality' in time on quantum level! That might mean that what happens later (i.e. the bringing together of information to establish the correlation) has some interaction with what happens earlier (i.e. the preparation of the entangled particles). In that case, the future might be just as important as the past. I image a quantum wave (e.g. a state) propagating forward in time and another one backward. (of course this is heavily simplified)Why should not do so
Can a mentor confirm if what entropy said above was true.. that the bringing together of information to establish the correlation is what created the correlation in entanglement (like some time reversed process)? For instance. Alice and Bob located 14 billion light years away took 14 billion years to travel for classical comparison.. then that bringing togethe of information affects the past? but how could it be?
I don't like that idea; it doesn't seem to fit with entanglement. I rather like to think in terms of 'resonance', wherein future probability waves interfere with past ones in a way that due to slight variations (HUP/quantum fluctuations) in the combination of influences from the present as well as the future, the 'outcome' of the both present and future influences reinforce ('resonate') to some outcome at some point. This means that causal influences of the future cancel with causal influences of the present (past), with a net undetectable causation. This seems to correspond most (but not entirely) with TI.[..]some people call it Retrocausal.
future probability waves interfere with past ones in a way that due to slight variations (HUP/quantum fluctuations) in the combination of influences from the present as well as the future, the 'outcome' of the both present and future influences reinforce ('resonate') to some outcome at some point (eg. as in a [negative] well).
It is my own view that I find partly supported by TI. It is an interpretation. QM has already been confirmed. However, TI produces drastically more simple math, I think.I think I saw that episode of STtNG. ;-)
Is this discussion based on both math and experimental observation? Its very interesting, but its also pretty out there to this lay person.