On 9/19/2011 17:02, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> What I am saying is that, in the case of the quantum eraser, you are rigging
> things so that the event doesn't happen, or a different one does.

Right. Indeed, that's the point.

> the confusion here is where the "observation" takes place, and where the
> measurement does.

In a system where the measurement device isn't performed by a living 
organism (i.e., most anything except the cat thought experiment) I don't 
think it's useful to decouple those terms.

> the thing that alters the state.

And in the case of the quantum delayed choice eraser, what is "the thing" 
that alters "the state"?

> b) they opted for the misleading term "observer", when
> talking about how the state collapses.

That's the problem. Nobody could come up with a reason that the state would 
collapse at all. I'm not sure even now it's a solved problem.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message