On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:53:11 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:53:38 AM UTC, scerir wrote: >> >> >> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 [email protected] ha scritto: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote: >> >> *AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try >> to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless, I tend strongly >> to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME >> IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE If so, it implies the arrow of time has its >> origin at the quantum level.'* >> >> #### Maybe. >> >> But ... since we say that there is non-separability between >> (position/momentum or time/energy) entangled quantum states, can we also >> say there is quantum non-separability not just *in space* (i.e. correlation >> between space-like separated events) but also *in time* (there is no >> *causal* ordering)? >> >> Are there Bell's inequalities for correlations *in time*? s. >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06884 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00248 >> >> >> *If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct to say >> there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal for >> measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing with >> time-like ordering in the laboratory wherein the "first" measurement >> occurred? AG* >> >> Frankly I do not think there is a "first" measurement and a "second" >> measurement, in case of entangled space-like separated parties. >> > > *Right. But isn't there a measurement, and THEN its hypothetical reversal; > that is, the attempt to reconstruct its wf by going backward in time? How > does space-like separated get into the act? AG* >
*I agree there might be statistical laws that determine outcomes, in the sense for example that successive spin UP measurements yielding different phases say, for the entangled pairs or triplets or whatever systems are formed in the measurement process, But whatever they are, or might be, if one follows what happens in general quantum measurements, we have no detailed knowledge of specific outcomes. The detailed results are, at least according to the CI, irreducibly random except for some statistical laws which, as I just said, lack specificity how at least some of the variables are set; for example, the position a particle will impact the screen in a double slit experiment. So I see no way of time reversing any quantum outcomes. What we likely have is a theory, QM, that is, in principle, time irreversible. Is this view discussed in the literature? AG* > > > >> As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci". >> > *And the translation is .... AG* > I am inclined to think there is a law of nature (a statistical law of >> nature) regulating the behaviour of entangled parties. >> >> But I also know that the speed of quantum information (the speed of >> quantum influences between entangled parties) could be (in principle!!!) >> >> c. >> >> Following set of links is, more or less, complete. >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007008 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410025 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308 >> >> -serafino >> >> Greenberger: ”Quantum mechanics is magic! It is not black magic, but it i >> s nonetheless magic!” >> > -- 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.
