4 ms·
If you read up on the Delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment [1] you'll see how your "simplistic" explanation leads to paradoxes such as the present altering
by ko27 4y ago
If you read up on the Delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment [1] you'll see how your "simplistic" explanation leads to paradoxes such as the present altering events that occurred in the past. But if you describe unmeasured states as being in a superposition then there is no paradox.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoIf you allow hidden variables it’s also easily resolved ;)
- ko27 4y agoGood thing we ruled out local hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
- NoThisIsMe 4y agoThe local part is important. We haven't ruled out hidden variables. Bell himself preferred hidden variable interpretations.
- ko27 4y agoYes, I am aware of that, that's why I made sure to mention it. There is a world of difference between local and non-local theories. And in no way do non-local theories fit in any of the simple explanations the original poster had in mind. > We haven't ruled out hidden variables No, but we ruled out every non-local or non-real one. Which is a far more interesting achievement.
- mal-2 4y agoSuperdeterminism hasn't been ruled out yet.
- prettyStandard 4y agoDoes anyone know what the Many World's interpretation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is?
- russdill 4y agoThat there is no delayed choice or quantum eraser. The naming of the experiment is based on waveform collapse interpretations.
- lmm 4y agoAs with most things, under many worlds you barely need any interpretation. You either read the measurement and thereby entangle your own state with what was measured (putting yourself in a superposition of having seen one waveform or the other), or you don't and you see the interference pattern. There's not really anything to interpret or explain.