Timeline for Entanglement and relativity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2012 at 11:28 | history | edited | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1221 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2012 at 6:44 | history | migrated | from theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 25, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | Luboš Motl | Dear Giulio, the correlation is unambiguously and quantitatively predicted by quantum mechanics, in agreement with the experiment, and the quantum calculation makes it self-evident that the reason for the correlation is the contact of the two subsystems in the past (the initial state) and not anything that happens during the measurements. It's nearly guaranteed, both in classical and quantum physics, that two subsystems in contact remain correlated with each other. None of the things provides a glimpse of a rational evidence for MWI, "real collapse", or any of these unphysical superconstructs. | |
| Mar 25, 2012 at 17:08 | comment | added | Giulio Prisco | Thanks for answering Luboš! I think your knowledge interpretation is nice and clean, but does not explain the experimental fact that the measurements of A and B are actually correlated as quantum mechanics predicts. In a frame of reference where A is the first to measure, say spin up, B will measure spin down. But now switch to a frame of reference where B is the first to measure. How to explain that B measures spin down, in absence of a collapse caused by A measurement (which has not happened yet in this frame of reference)? It seems to me that Everett's MWI is the only way out. | |
| Mar 25, 2012 at 16:59 | history | answered | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |