[extropy-chat] more on Afshar Experiment, as of 7 weeks ago

scerir scerir at libero.it
Tue Sep 21 07:05:54 UTC 2004


> I would have to say that the use of inference is the problem, the
> drawing conclusion from an absence. This is faulty, like saying, "Well,
> I just heard thunder, but I wasn't struck on this side of my house, it
> must have hit my front yard..." 
> Mike Lorrey

Yes. But this sometimes can be allowed, i.e. if
"states" are not "physical" but "epistemological"
entities, or functionals. Are "states" just
descriptions of all available knowledge about
a physical system? Notice that this "knowledge"
also dependends on the observer's choice of apparata, 
and is also dependent on the choice of what, in the *future*, 
the same observer *might* wish to measure (i.e. in case 
of delayed choice measurement of the particle-like nature, 
or of the wave-like nature, of one entangled particle, 
while the particle-like nature, or the wave-like nature, 
of the other entangled particle, is already detected).

So even "negative" outcomes can change the system
(collapse the superposition of states) at least
if your interpretation of "state" is epistemological,
and not ontological. See the Renninger's experiment
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_40.html#4.1






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list