- #1
Antiphon
- 1,686
- 4
[I invite people to post links as responses in case the idea I'm putting forward
is already covered someplace that I missed.]
Something has been bothering me about this type of experiment for
a long time, but this is clearly the place to bring it up.
My problem is this: that in an EPR-type experiment, one simply cannot say
that one of the measurements took place before the other. Ever. So it
is simply NOT true that one measurement forces the other into a known
state.
Of course we *can* wait at B for the A-B order to become unambiguous
but this is exactly the uninteresting case in EPR. It's always the interesting
case when the two measurements are not in one another's light cone.
I advance the idea that the correlation must take place and therefore that
the macroscopic A measurement outcome is actually entangled with the
corresponding macroscopic B measurement on the other side. In other
words, widely separated quantum engangled measurements are in fact
macroscopically entangled.
Comments?
is already covered someplace that I missed.]
Something has been bothering me about this type of experiment for
a long time, but this is clearly the place to bring it up.
My problem is this: that in an EPR-type experiment, one simply cannot say
that one of the measurements took place before the other. Ever. So it
is simply NOT true that one measurement forces the other into a known
state.
Of course we *can* wait at B for the A-B order to become unambiguous
but this is exactly the uninteresting case in EPR. It's always the interesting
case when the two measurements are not in one another's light cone.
I advance the idea that the correlation must take place and therefore that
the macroscopic A measurement outcome is actually entangled with the
corresponding macroscopic B measurement on the other side. In other
words, widely separated quantum engangled measurements are in fact
macroscopically entangled.
Comments?