Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 12, 2015 at 19:53 comment added user12262 Timaeus: "The word measurement is just a (rather silly) name for certain kinds of interactions." -- No (that'd be silly), but moreover: to record and to evaluate relevant interactions (or their absence); noting "with whom" and "in which sequence (or in coincidence)", and applying subsequent measurement/evaluation operators. "[Is it possible to quantify ...] No." -- Well, there seem to be some attempts after all, such as this (though admittedly I haven't figured out yet how this particular approach might be applied to my specific question).
Nov 12, 2015 at 19:53 comment added user12262 Timaeus: "Edited. [...] common to have decay products be in an entangled state." -- Sure. Does this impede distinguishing the state attributed to the products of just one decay from the state atttributed to products of an ensemble of decays? "there is simply no empirical evidence that [...]" -- Claims of "evidence" (or lack thereof) can only be convincing if it's already agreed what constitutes (and how to gather) "evidence".
Oct 29, 2015 at 23:25 comment added Timaeus @user12262 Edited
Oct 29, 2015 at 23:23 history edited Timaeus CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1365 characters in body; added 30 characters in body; added 1 character in body
Oct 29, 2015 at 22:49 comment added user12262 Timaeus: Thanks for your detailed and notably rapid answer; +1. "The way you tell it" ... "It": the (suitably numerous) ensemble ... "was in the [entangled] state [...] by considering lots of potential different types of measurements." -- Right (not least, to determine ratios between coefficients). Thus: just one trial is not enough for this characterization. "Being entangled is about the state prior to measurement." -- That's unacceptable. Even "preparing" an ensemble is about first measuring, and then discarding trials (as "invalid") which didn't match the prep. prescription.
Oct 29, 2015 at 22:10 history answered Timaeus CC BY-SA 3.0