Am 18.09.2011 18:27, schrieb Darren New:
> On 9/18/2011 1:02, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The *real* trick is the fact that you can create conditions
>> where you "know" what the outcome will be, instead of just looking
>> into the
>> box to find out.
>
> That's exactly what the quantum eraser does, and if you don't look at
> the result, you don't get interference. That's precisely the point I'm
> making. You get interference at time T by taking a measurement at time
> T+D, where D is a timelike separation from T.

Something's wrong there, because it would allow me to define a protocol 
to transfer information back in time:

- At time T+D, I decide wheter I take a measurement or not depending on 
some information.

- At time T, I check whether I get interference or not, which tells me 
whether I'll be measuring at T+D, which in turn gives me the desired 
information.

Last not least, I could even base my decision whether to take a 
measurement or not on whether I get interference or not - which would 
obviously cause a problem with causality.

Post a reply to this message