On 29/11/2017 9:29 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement
swapping gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of
Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality
of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two
particles. Whether these two particles are entangled or separable has
been decided *after* they have been measured. *If one views the
quantum state as a **real physical object*, one could get the
seemingly *paradoxical situation* that *future actions appear as
having an **influence on past and already irrevocably recorded
events*. However, there is never a paradox*if the quantum **state is
viewed as to be no more than a “catalogue of our knowledge*”. Then the
state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the
relative temporal order of the three observer’s events is irrelevant
and no
physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into
the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement
swapping. What, however, is important is to relate the lists of Alice,
Bob and Victor’s measurement results. On the basis of Victor’s
measurement settings and results, Alice and Bob can group their
earlier and locally totally random results into subsets which each
have a different meaning and interpretation. This formation of subsets
is independent of the temporal order of the measurements. According to
Wheeler, Bohr said: 'No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it
is a registered phenomenon.'
We would like to extend this by saying: 'Some registered phenomena do
not have a meaning unless they are put in relationship with other
registered phenomena.' "
-- Zeilinger et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578
It seems to me that ontic interpretations of quantum states, **if**
future measurements appear as having an influence on past and already
*irrevocably* *recorded* events, are untenable. Now the MWI is, for
sure, an 'ontic' interpretation (an ontic theory if you prefer). How
can we explain, within MWI, in 'ontic' terms, that *future actions
appear as having an **influence on past and already irrevocably
recorded events? *Is it possible that in MWI is *both* a real physical
object and a *“catalogue of our knowledge*”?**
Thanks for posting this, Serafino. Zeilinger's group in Vienna have
certainly mastered quantum optics experiments. I would like to see the
MWI explanation of the apparent non-locality here. Zeilinger interprets
this according to Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but it really
boils down to an epistemic understanding of the wave function.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
