EPR & SR

[sethoflagos]

5 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I was asking about the video. Given that time travel is one of the most unscientific concepts imaginable, at least from a classical point of view, I'm wondering what the justification is for invoking it. Not saying it's impossible in quantum mechanics, just wondering why it's in the video.

I've given you the links to Jeff Tollaksen's paper. Perhaps you could find the time to study it and then you'll have a better explanation than any I could give you.

[MigL]

Can't say I agree with the video, or the conclusions drawn from his paper ( as little as I can understand it ).
It seems just another 'interpretation to me, as I don't much care for non-locality or time travel.

I am perfectly happy with the 'no local realism' interpretation, where all is probabilities, that, once 'fixed' by interaction/measurement/observation, emerge to what we perceive as 'real'.

Maybe it's just personal preference as to what seems less absurd to myself, somewhat like I prefer the 'Copenhagen' interpretation to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation.

[Mordred]

Well as I typically choose to ignore any interpretation aspects in any article or video. I found the paper useful in so far as the mathematics being applied. Which essentially breaks down an examination of error margin elimination to the weak limit. The paper examines the method of using a combination of preselection and post selection without causality violation as its not involving any causation signal sent from post selection to the past. Rather its making predictions of the past events based on the post selection results, as well as making predictions of the future events from the preselection correlations.

 the paper suggests this dual methodology will eliminate errors and minimize the error margin to improve the error margin to better understand the evolutionary history of the entangled particle pair.

[sethoflagos]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

... I don't much care for non-locality or time travel.

I am perfectly happy with the 'no local realism' interpretation, ...

I thought non-locality prevented local realism. So doesn't 'no local realism' imply non-locality?  

[MigL]

It's either/or ...

[sethoflagos]

No idea why, but Laurence Kuhn seems to have decided to feed me a bunch of backup material

The meat in this one is possibly best summarised in 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory (basis of Davies' PhD studies)

[MigL]

It's a long slog, 25 oages, but I recommend reading this topic in Speculations 

 

It is fairly recent ( month ago ) so I really don't want to re-hash the whole discussion, but it is very informative, and brings up the same questions you are considering.

Happy New Year.