addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [physicsnorthyork] Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment

From: Gary G.
Sent on: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:55 PM
You make an interesting point re-stability. However, this is only the case with macro objects, or, corollarously, information that's not lost when you make a measurement. At the micro level, it does indeed seem possible: the bilking arguments don't apply.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:48 PM, "Sean Walker" <[address removed]> wrote:

I imagine that somebody has tried to use this QM mechanic to send information back in time? (Sorry if I am raising something already discussed - I may have lost track) Intuitively, a consistent / stable reality would seem to depend on this not being possible!


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM, David <[address removed]> wrote:
Travelling back in time seems less likely than the photon having properties that we do not understand.

Historically, there have been countless situations where we did not understand what was going on regarding some phenomenon. 
I do not know of any evidence for anything going back in time.

Therefore, I think some unknown factor is a more plausible explanation than the photon going back in time. 
Dave :)

Sent from my iPod

On[masked], at 12:15, Gary Graham <[address removed]> wrote:

Very interested in knowing why you say "more plausible." I'm not being frivolous, I really want to know.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "David" <[address removed]> wrote:

The delayed choice results suggests that the photon has hidden variables that make it appear as a particle when there is no beam splitter, and makes it appear as a wave when there is a beam splitter.
This seems more plausible than the idea that by adding the beam splitter the photon goes back in time and becomes a wave.
Cheers,
Dave
PS. Very, very interesting stuff. David Bohm has suggestions in his book 'Causality and Chance in the New Physics' which address this issue. Maybe we should all read his book and then discuss?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohsen
To:




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by David ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about David, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Sean Walker ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Sean Walker, visit his/her member profile
To report abuse or block this person, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy