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: 6837459, member: 611935"] The authors are saying the Delft experiment or any experiment that has the BSM test in the absolute future of measuring Alice and Bob is vulnerable to thinking there is true entanglement when it can be post selection entanglement (correlation, but no action at a distance). For other experiments where the BSM test is in the past of Alice and Bob's measurement the authors say entanglement must be real. And I would go further and say that the case where the BSM test is done in the absolute future of measuring Alice and Bob is most likely because of post selection and to deny this would contradict the Bell result itself. If you expect the non-local result of the EPR experiment, you would also expect that the inverse of the EPR experiment would have to be true. The entanglement swapping experiment with BSM test in the absolute future is just the inverse of the EPR experiment; instead of starting with two photon states the same, you are ending with two photon states the same. So to deny this case can not be a post selection trick is the same as being in conflict with the actual Bell result of the normal EPR case. And if you think I am wrong, do the experiment in your head or on paper in reverse; start with the photons at the BSM test and make them go in the reverse direction; is this not exactly equal to the normal EPR experiment? So my objection to Dr. Chinese statements is implying (whether he intended it or not) that this case shows retrocausality when there is no indication that it does and the expectations are that it does not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Quantum Perspectivalism by D.Dieks
Back
Top