Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Quantum Perspectivalism by D.Dieks
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="kurt101, post: 6836329, member: 611935"] I don't understand why you keep using the retrocausal argument, when you say [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-entanglement-swapping-a-result-of-post-selection-or-a-result-of-a-quantum-operation-called-a-bsm.1047772/post-6829915']Here[/URL] that you are agnostic on it. Here is the quote from you: "Now please keep in mind that I am agnostic on the issue of retrocausallity itself. All I assert is that quantum nonlocality violates strict Einsteinian locality, by creating a context that spans spacetime. I think a better term than "retrocausal" is "acausal"." Specifically when you say "the Alice/Bob entanglement can be created" "after Alice and" " Bob's measurement". When you admit that you are agnostic on the issue of retrocaulity, aren't you admitting that it is possible that this part of the experiment has a causal explanation? Like maybe this part of the experiment can be explained by some physical causal process related to the post selection part of this experiment? FWIW, in the other thread that got shutdown (unfortunately as I did not get any chance for clarification) that was my only point in bringing up the paper is that the authors were explaining why causality is not ruled out for the case where entanglement is established after the measurement of Alice and Bob in the entanglement swapping experiment. I don't think the authors were refuting any QM predictions so I still don't understand what Peter Donis was saying when he said "This isn't a refutation of anything. It's a proposed claim about a new "loophole" in such experiments. Such claims are ubiquitous in the literature, but they always boil down to one thing: claiming that if an experiment is done that closes the claimed loophole, the predictions of quantum mechanics will be violated. In other words, such claims are made by people who don't want to accept that the QM predictions are correct." What QM prediction are these authors disputing? Here is the paper again: [URL]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3#Sec21[/URL] if you want to point out to me what QM prediction the authors are refuting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Quantum Perspectivalism by D.Dieks
Back
Top