In the quantum eraser literature it is suggested that the only causal mechanism behind the creation (or destruction) of interference is the erasing (or introduction of) distinguishing information. There is always a local operation performed upon the system in order to commit to the action of erasing/introducing information but it is generally agreed that the action itself, not being a measurement collapse, does not sufficiently cause a disturbance to the system. In the end, because we have modified the measurable statistics of the system by virtue of the action we should expect that there is a "driving force" so to speak. This would be the expectation in accordance with the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Even though the action of erasing/introducing information involves an operation on the system there is no conceivable way of modelling the unitary action as the root physical cause of the change in statistics. Let's face it, its like they say, that the root cause is distinguishing information, and information is not suppose to have a physical effect. This is especially obvious when we consider the action involved in experiments where the distinguishing information that destroyes interference is an action on an entangled partner. Someone tell me, is there an obvious explanation for this? Or does the quantum eraser violate conservation? To question this possibility I have created a website at http://violationprotocol.webs.com/ for those interested.
Aren't you the fake Stanford "visiting researcher" (Thomas Alexander Meyer) who produced a large number of research papers a few years ago?
My name is Thomas Alexander Meyer, which is easy enough to get from the link that I provided. But I have no idea where you get "fake Stanford visiting researcher" from, or "produced a large number of research papers a few years ago?"
There was a scandal a few years ago about an alleged "Stanford researcher" that got into Stanford with fake credentials and produced a large number of cosmology "papers" (more like PowerPoint presentations) until he was caught and thrown out.
One analogy can be explained with a dice. If we had a six sided dice, the probability of any side appearing is 1 to 6. Say I was to add a load or weight to that same dice. This will alter the odds of that dice. Random works under the assumption that one can't load the dice. Cheaters in gambling have shown that it is possible to change the odd distributions by adding potential. There is another related effect based on liquid state physics. Liquid state physics can do things not found in gas or solid state physics. A liquid can be placed into tension and pressure at the same time, in opposite directions, allowing these two effects to operate separately. The air over a glass of water not only creates pressure but also surface tension. A gas can only be placed under pressure. While solids can only use pressure and tension but these will vector add instead of work independently like in a liquid. If memory (electrons) was acting like a liquid some new things will come to the table. If we come back to the first suggestion, which was loading the dice, the liquid state effects can change the expected load of solid state statistics. For example, osmosis, which is common to water, makes use of liquid state physics to convert the entropy of water diffusion (randomness) into a directed force, called the entropic force (osmotic pressure =force/area). This creates order from chaos, allowing us to load the dice. This suggests memory, at some level, is becoming fluidized.
Interesting, but I couldn't any other info on that. Still, it's a pretty darn weird thing to do. reminds me of the Jan Schon incident.
Air will transfer ambient pressure but does not create surface tension in liquid which results from interaction between liquid surface and bulk molecules. Stress tensor covers both cases. If you meant motion as in fluid flow deformation for instance, that is different concept. From Wikipedia article Osmosis, under Basic Explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis#Basic_explanations So osmosis is an entropy increasing process. Greater order in the separated solutions is gradually lost as osmotic flow equalizes concentrations. As illustrated in U-tube example in that article, possibility for mechanical work output is there, but surely at very low efficiency.
Wllwisher, you misinterpret the question; [ENC]Say I was to add a load or weight to that same dice. This will alter the odds of that dice. Random works under the assumption that one can't load the dice.[/ENC] So in the case of quantum erasing, where is the driving force comming from that changes the statistical distribution? In fact where is the load comming from that completely erases the statistical interference distribution and provides "equally wieghted sides of the dice"? If the statistical distribution is that of interference then there is a weight on one side of the dice so that the statistics come out with peaks and troughs. If there is no interference then the dice are not loaded, it is a flat distribution corresponding to spontaneous emission of distinct sources. Somehow "distinguishing information" is the sole driving mechanism in the change between these two outcomes.
From last part at http://violationprotocol.webs.com/ Stage 3: This seems to be the nub of the argument, that modulating inferential knowledge (presumably at no energy or information cost!) can lead to change in net energy and/or momentum. But that would at least imply any resultant changed interference pattern has an overall change in energy or momentum. Has that been shown in your article? And assuming that part is a yes, that additionally modulation of inferential knowledge can be done without it necessarily entering into overall balance? In the case say of original Aharonov-Bohm interference experiment involving vector potential of an interposed magnetic whisker, electron interference pattern shifts but always in such a manner that neither net energy or momentum of interfering electrons is altered. Modulating whisker magnetization so as to alter pattern would introduce physical forces edA/dt and an energy exchange additional to static vector potential case. Maybe an analogy exists in your scenario, but I know too little of such eraser stuff or similar to say.
Q-reeus, your point, is correct but I'm not interested with the energy and information put into the system by the modulation of the distinguishing information or by the end mechanism which is used to exploit the change in statistics. This occurs locally and has no direct effect on the energy/momentum of the system itself. Somehow the statistics change and there is no explanation of it in the literature of the quantum eraser. There is no explanation of a driving force which changes the statistics.
