Correlation setup between past and present

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of manipulating measurement outcomes and its correlation with past events. It is stated that correlation is not causation and that it is not possible to influence the past. The discussion also touches on the entanglement of measuring devices with observed particles and the role of perception in determining outcomes. However, it is unclear how perception plays a role in the described interaction.
  • #1
entropy1
1,230
71
Suppose A is an ensemble of measurement events in the past.
Suppose B is an ensemble of measurement events in the present.
Suppose there is a correlation between A and B that stays the same over time.
Suppose we can manipulate the outcomes of B (for example by choosing the orientation of the measurement basis or some other theoretical possibility).

If we manipulate B, and the correlation stays the same, can we then influence the outcomes of A?

If not, which of the following two reasons is the main reason:
1) Such a manipulation of B is not possible, OR:
2) There can be no influence to the past.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Correlation is not causation. We can't influence the past.
 
  • #3
entropy1 said:
Suppose there is a correlation between A and B that stays the same over time.

This doesn't make sense. Each set of events only happens once; there is nothing to "stay the same over time".

entropy1 said:
Suppose we can manipulate the outcomes of B

Then the correlations between B and A don't exist yet, because the B outcomes haven't happened yet.

entropy1 said:
If we manipulate B, and the correlation stays the same

This doesn't make sense. See above.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4
I have this from Peter in another thread:
A measurement in Unitary manner can (according to Peter) be described by:
PeterDonis said:
$$\left( |1> + |2> \right) |R> \rightarrow |1>|U> + |2>|D>$$
The measuring device gets entangled with the observable.

If we are measuring a specific result, we get either ##|1 \rangle|U \rangle## or ##|2 \rangle|D \rangle##, right?
So, is the result determined by the eigenstates of the operator (##|1 \rangle## and ##|2 \rangle##) or could the outcome also be determined by the perception of the measured result (##|U \rangle## or ##|D \rangle##) (one goes with the other)?

If the observer gets entangled with the measuring device, and the measuring device got entangled with the observed particle, doesn't the observer get entangled with the observed particle? And if so, who is to say which determines the behaviour of which?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
entropy1 said:
I have this from Peter in another thread

This describes a single measurement, not an ensemble of them. It has nothing to do with what you were describing in your OP, which doesn't make sense, for reasons I've already given.

entropy1 said:
The measuring device gets entangled with the observable

The measuring device gets entangled with the measured system.

entropy1 said:
If we are measuring a specific result, we get either ##|1 \rangle |U \rangle## or ##|2 \rangle |D \rangle##, right?

I don't understand what you mean by "measuring a specific result". The state after the interaction has both terms. But each term describes, not just a different state of the measured system, but a different state of the measuring device, plus everything else that interacts with it, including our brains. (I went into this in a later post in the other thread.) So as far as we observers are concerned, one result happened--but how that comes about depends on which interpretation of QM you adopt.

entropy1 said:
is the result determined by the eigenstates of the operator (##|1 \rangle## and ##|2 \rangle##) or could the outcome also be determined by the perception of the measured result (##|U \rangle## or ##|D \rangle##) (one goes with the other)?

The two are entangled, so this question doesn't make sense.
 
  • #6
@PeterDonis: I was referring to the manipulation of B which may come about by the perception of the outcome of B.
entropy1 said:
If the observer gets entangled with the measuring device, and the measuring device got entangled with the observed particle, doesn't the observer get entangled with the observed particle? And if so, who is to say which determines the behaviour of which?
 
  • #7
entropy1 said:
I was referring to the manipulation of B which may come about by the perception of the outcome of B.

What do you mean by "the perception of the outcome of B"? Where does that happen in the interaction I wrote down?
 

FAQ: Correlation setup between past and present

1. How does correlation between past and present data help in scientific research?

Correlation between past and present data allows scientists to identify patterns and trends over time, which can provide valuable insights into the relationships between variables and their effects on outcomes.

2. What methods are commonly used to establish correlation between past and present data?

The most commonly used methods include statistical analysis, time series analysis, and data mining techniques such as regression analysis and correlation coefficients.

3. Can correlation between past and present data be used to predict future outcomes?

While correlation can help identify potential relationships between variables, it does not necessarily imply causation and therefore cannot be used to predict future outcomes with certainty. Other factors and variables must also be taken into consideration.

4. How can one ensure the accuracy and reliability of correlation results?

To ensure accuracy and reliability, scientists must carefully select and analyze data, use appropriate statistical methods, and consider potential confounding factors that may affect the relationship between past and present data.

5. What are some potential limitations of using correlation between past and present data in scientific research?

Correlation does not prove causation and may be affected by other variables not accounted for in the analysis. Additionally, correlations found in one study may not necessarily apply to other populations or contexts, so caution must be exercised in generalizing results.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
92
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Back
Top