Participatory Anthropic Principle

In summary: This is a key feature of entanglement and is confirmed by experiments. It is also a key feature of the sort of "spooky action at a distance" that you have mentioned. So, yes, their past could be different than your past, but the measurement results will always be consistent with each other.
  • #1
Jim Kata
197
6
TL;DR Summary
Can spooky action at a distance change the past?
Consider the following thought experiment, two electrons are in an entangled state with a total angular momentum of zero. They split apart from each other some billion or so years ago and I observe one of the electrons right now. Before the observation, there is some probability that it will be spin up and some probability that it will be spin down. If I observe the electron to be spin up, then I know that the other electron is spin down. But has it been spin down all along? What if along its way traveling to me some alien measured it say a couple million years ago. Would they necessarily have to of measured the electron being spin up too? I have no knowledge as to whether this electron has been previously measured by someone else or not. Could their past be different than my past? That is could they of measured the electron to be spin down forcing the other entangled electron to be spin up while I measured the opposite result?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jim Kata said:
Summary:: Can spooky action at a distance change the past?
No. Retrocausality is not part of QM. Although, if you want to look at hypothetical mechanisms for entangement, the it is one of the options. See, for example:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/question-about-an-entanglement-paper.966466/#post-6135121

Just to emphasise that these hypothetical mechanisms are not part of QM.

Jim Kata said:
They split apart from each other some billion or so years ago and I observe one of the electrons right now. Before the observation, there is some probability that it will be spin up and some probability that it will be spin down. If I observe the electron to be spin up, then I know that the other electron is spin down. But has it been spin down all along?
First, you have a misconception that each particle in an entangled pair has its own (pure) state. The entangled pair has a two-particle state and cannot be seen as two separate particles - until the system is measured, of course. After the measurement (of either particle), then you have two separate particles, each with its own state. This aspect of entanglement has been demonstrated by tests of Bell's Theorem.

Moreover, asking whether the other particle has been spin down all along assumes that the particle had a single particle state. In terms of QM, that question makes no sense, therefore.

Jim Kata said:
What if along its way traveling to me some alien measured it say a couple million years ago. Would they necessarily have to of measured the electron being spin up too? I have no knowledge as to whether this electron has been previously measured by someone else or not. Could their past be different than my past? That is could they of measured the electron to be spin down forcing the other entangled electron to be spin up while I measured the opposite result?
It doesn't matter which measurement takes place first, the spins will always be opposite. If you get in touch with the alien, you will always find that they got the opposite measurement value from you.
 
  • Like
Likes DrChinese

1. What is the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)?

The Participatory Anthropic Principle is a philosophical concept that suggests that the universe and its physical laws are shaped by the conscious observations of sentient beings, such as humans. It proposes that the universe exists because there are conscious observers who can perceive and make sense of it.

2. Who came up with the Participatory Anthropic Principle?

The Participatory Anthropic Principle was first proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler in the 1970s. It was later refined and popularized by physicist and cosmologist, Brandon Carter, in the 1980s.

3. How does the Participatory Anthropic Principle relate to the anthropic principle?

The anthropic principle states that the universe must have the necessary properties for the development of intelligent life, since we, as humans, are here to observe it. The Participatory Anthropic Principle takes this a step further by suggesting that the universe is not only fine-tuned for the existence of life, but also for the existence of conscious observers who can perceive and make sense of it.

4. Is the Participatory Anthropic Principle accepted by the scientific community?

The Participatory Anthropic Principle is a highly debated and controversial concept within the scientific community. While some physicists and philosophers find it intriguing and plausible, others argue that it is untestable and therefore not a valid scientific theory.

5. What are the implications of the Participatory Anthropic Principle?

The Participatory Anthropic Principle has significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It suggests that we, as conscious observers, play a fundamental role in shaping the universe and that our observations and perceptions are closely intertwined with the physical laws that govern it.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
4
Replies
124
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
787
Replies
48
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
952
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
758
Back
Top