3 ms·
Here the argument is about commuting observables and isn't relativistic. For example, position and momentum are non-commuting observables. If you measure both,
by millstone 8y ago
Here the argument is about commuting observables and isn't relativistic. For example, position and momentum are non-commuting observables. If you measure both, and then ask "what is the position of this particle," you have to know whether the position was measured first (in which case the position of the particle is still known), or whether the momentum was measured, so now the position is no longer known.
- lostmsu 8y agoI think mistreatment of causality might still be another explanation for the result. In particular, in the iterative process, that authors suggested to use to get w=ok, z=ok, each iteration must be connected to the previous in some QM encodable way, eg as { |continue>, |halt> }, that must be set in the last step, and measured in the first, therefore combining all participants into a single entangled QM system. It is not immediately obvious, that this addition would not affect the outcome of experiment, and hence should at very least be included in the paper.