On 9/22/2011 8:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
>  > What you seem to be saying is that an imperfect
>> surface might coincidentally be hit in both detectors at the close
>> enough to
>> the same moment, to cause an "unchanged" state, i.e., both detect that
>> state, while in other case, the interaction with one detector just
>> happens
>> to fall within the bounds of the time that it takes to transition,
>> resulting
>> in one detector "causing" a state change, with the other detecting the
>> same.
>
> Did you even read the quantum delayed erasure wikipedia article? Did you
> understand what it says? If not, that would certainly explain the
> confusion.
>
No, the confusion was in what you seemed to state was going on. Not what 
the article said. I don't think I intentionally misread you, but what 
you wrote implied something else entirely, or at least seemed to.

Post a reply to this message