1935+81

If that's true, it's proof that
a) CERN is overrated
or
b) The guy needed some quick bucks and accepted to narrate some pop-sci bull

What about Ringbauer experiment niggu?
arxiv.org/abs/1412.6213

probably B

You're free to come up with a full causal and realist interpretation, but you'll find you're gonna have something counter-intuitive at some point or another.

At the expense of a pile of conservation laws.

Am I free? That's the standard interpretation.

>two sets of non-interference patterns when mixed will look like two sets of interference patterns

The fact that you need a coincidence counter to do the experiment is all proof needed to discard retrocasuality.

no

I know that the sets are not separable without classical information from the idler photon measurement my man, what I'm asking you is what happens in the cases that correspond to an interference pattern?
Sure they are counted after the fact but why are they no cases where the idler photon show a linear polarization where the signal photon falls outside of the corresponding pattern. What happens to the wave function?

It's not retrocausality, but it does seem to show that superpositions are ontological rather than epistemic. It leaves you with the very odd understanding that future measurements influence the description of the experiment that occurred in the past. The future impacts what story you invoke to describe experiments of the past. It's not retrocausality, but it is in itself a very peculiar result that describes a strange reality

the influence is instantaneous. Wormholes are not a solution.

Wormholes are a valid hypothesis. The path through the hole is shorted than the path through space.

Nope, it's just a trick with a coincidence counter.

If that was true, you wouldn't need a coincidence counter.

Also, if you add the interference patterns you get two clump patterns, not a coincidence.

Then can you describe what an history for one of the interference-cases look like?

Don't let the fact that wormholes were first proposed as solutions to legitimate relativistic problems fool you into thinking that GTR itself suggests that creating a pair of photons brings a wormhole into existence. Relativistic effects depend on masses and where little mass density is involved one would expect things to spacetime to approximate that of special relativity. Wormholes arose in connection to black holes, regions of immense mass density.

Also, the correlations between entangled particles can occur between particles that were not created together. How are the wormholes connecting them? Wormholes would also violate the no-communication theorem. Wormholes are bits of spacetime just like any other. What's preventing communication faster than light?

I could go on. there are too many problems. it's not a solution.

Because most people are afraid of math. Most people aren't good with math. Most people invoke classical visual analogies and simple casuality chains.

Don't get irritated with people. Manipulate them.

:)

Just work out. It freaks people out when you not only look better than them (or at least more fit) but you act smarter than them too. It doesn't "blow" their mind but it impresses the chicks enough to get a lot more glances and conversation initiation.

>the correlations between entangled particles can occur between particles that were not created together. How are the wormholes connecting them?
Why would they need to be created together?

>Wormholes would also violate the no-communication theorem
Not if all they can transfer is the entanglement

>Why would they need to be created together?

What mechanism could possibly explain the creation of a wormhole between two entangled particles other than as a "tube" connecting the two at pair-creation? The problem is only amplified when you consider particles created apart and entangled later.

>Not if all they can transfer is the entanglement

Who says this is the limit? Why would this be the limit? Again, wormholes are bits of spacetime just like any other. What's preventing ordinary particles and fields from taking the shortcut as well?

here
Ok I think I got what you mean.
[math][/math]
If we take the Kim delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, when the signal photon hits [math]D_{0}[/math] this is what happens:
wave function is something like [math]|A\rangle_{S}|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{S}|A\rangle_{I}[/math]
(where [math]|A\rangle_{S}[/math] and [math]|A\rangle_{I}[/math] correspond to the signal and idler photon going through split A)
let's say it hits it in a spot exclusive to the [math]R_{01}[/math] pattern
the wave function of the idler photon collapses to [math]|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I}[/math],
while if you hit a spot in the [math]R_{02}[/math] pattern it collapses to
[math]|A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I}[/math]
[math]|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I}[/math] can only be detected at
[math]D_{01}[/math], [math]D_{03}[/math] or [math]D_{04}[/math] because of interference and similarly [math]|A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I}[/math] can only be dected at [math]D_{02}[/math], [math]D_{03}[/math] or [math]D_{04}[/math]

Well this is fucking trivial after all, it seems you were right. So trivial that I wonder if I'm missing something.

here
Ok I think I got what you mean.
[math][/math]
If we take the Kim delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, when the signal photon hits [math]D_{0}[/math] this is what happens:
wave function is something like [math]|A\rangle_{S}|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{S}|A\rangle_{I}[/math]
(where [math]|A\rangle_{S}[/math] and [math]|A\rangle_{I}[/math] correspond to the signal and idler photon going through split A)
let's say it hits it in a spot exclusive to the [math]R_{01}[/math] pattern
the wave function of the idler photon collapses to [math]|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I}[/math] ,
while if you hit a spot in the [math]R_{02}[/math] pattern it collapses to:
[math]|A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I}[/math]

[math]|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I}[/math] can only be detected at
[math]D_{01}[/math], [math]D_{03}[/math] or [math]D_{04}[/math] because of interference and similarly [math]|A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I}[/math] can only be dected at [math]D_{02}[/math], [math]D_{03}[/math] or [math]D_{04}[/math]

Well this is fucking trivial after all, it seems you were right. So trivial that I wonder if I'm missing something.

>won't let me delete
the wave function of the idler photon collapses to [math] |A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I} [/math] ,
while if you hit a spot in the R02 pattern it collapses to
[math] |A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I} [/math]

[math] |A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{I} [/math] can only be detected at
D01, D03 or D04 because of interference and similarly [math] |A\rangle_{I}-|B\rangle_{I} [/math] can only be dected at D02, D03 or D04

Fuck I meant to write:
wave function is something like [math]|A\rangle_{S}|A\rangle_{I}+|B\rangle_{S}|B\rangle_{I}[/math]

Well anyway you get the point. Is that your interpretation of the experiment?

c) youtu.be/OPV3D7f3bHY?t=3m54s