The Indianapolis Public Library Request For Proposals General: Fill & Download for Free

First we have to dispell the notion that entanglement is a quality unique to quantum scale events. If I pick a card out of a deck, write down what it is on a nakin and send you to the other side of the universe; when you look at the napkin you know instantaneously what the card in my hand is. If i give the card to alice and send her to ther left side of the universe, the you and alice scenario is a real world thing, not metaphor. It is in fact the nineteenth century riddle that raised the question in physics in the fiest place.This is not determinism, this is a causal path. The cause of the napkin is drawing the card from the deck.Time is superpostioned just as the electron, when the electron is a wave function, is superpostioned. This is a very long answer, but I keep getting the same questions repeatedly. In particular, look at the link to my answer regarding the HUP. Note that the HUP is only sequitur to the electron so long as it remains a wave function. As a wave function, the electron is in a distribution of places and velocities (hence momenta) that got it to those superpositions of places.Once the electron is detected, is ‘collapses’ to a particle, and the urban myth that the HUP applies is busted. If you can’t measure both the instantaneous (very small) position and velocity of an electron, nothing in our modern world would work. Even a CRT (old fashioned TV) requires exact location (at the screen, pixel) and velocity (to sweep the electron beam across the screen).The same is true of RADAR, and just about every gadget you use, such as your laptop, right now. If the position and velocity of the electron is chaotic in the chip, then your computer is f&cked.There is nothing more I HATE than getting the HUP consistently wrong.see my answer at Bill Bray's answer to What is quantum entanglement, and what is a superposition in quantum mechanics?Ok, so I got so many requests on this subject that I feel like Santa the week before Christmas.First, understand that I have answered this question in several different ways on Quora, so I will be referring you to several of my former answers rather than re-write the whole thing over again. Second, I have written a text for laymen, which was free to Quora users, but I get crap from the Quora High Command whenever I refer you off site. So, although there is an entire 850 page thick book freely available, I’m not allowed to direct you to it. My answers are typically copy and paste from the text.The first thing you need to review is this, which describes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments by Kim, et al: https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-is-in-a-superposition-state-of-two-possible-energy-levels-from-where-would-it-absorb-energy-to-jump-to-the-next-level-if-the-wave-function-collapses/answer/Bill-Bray-6You will note that in the first video, he mentions a Nobel for answering this question. That is completely true and correct. Therefore, since no Nobel has been awarded to any web site or TV documentary for answering the subject, COMPLETELY FORGET everything you have heard.Just to clarify: when we got to describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, that erased all doubt that the conscious observer plays a role in the system, not merely an inert detector. Again, no mechanistic argument otherwise has been awarded the awaiting Nobel, therefore counter arguments otherwise simply ideologically contradict the outcome of the experiments. The current verbiage uses the term ‘entangled with the past’ rather than outwardly state ‘retro causality,’ or causality violation.’ Among the countless claims of an explanation, none have occurred. In 2012 Wineland and Haroche were awarded a Nobel for scaling the phenomenon up to the macroscopic scale. [Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012] Some have misidentified this with a Nobel for a mechanistic explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. This development led to the current Quantum Computing model.Essentially, what Wineland and Haroche accomplished was to hit an atom with exactly half of the photon energy to move it to another position. What resulted was the atom being in both locations simultaneously. Normally such a superposition is limited to a single photon or electron. However, scaling it up to atomic proportions was a Nobel piece of work.To make it more clear, Superposition is an observed phenomenon. There are countless mathematical descriptions of it. HOWEVER, there is NO explanation what or why it is. To use superposition as an explanation is non-sequitur. Superposition is not defined, albeit there are tons of mathematical equations describing the behavior by way of observation; that is not an explanation of what or why it is. The math only describes what it may or may not do.In the double slit phenomenon, why does superposition occur at one or both slits rather than anywhere else in the cosmos? Even according to all of the current mathematical descriptions of superposition, there is a wide distribution of possible localities extending out to infinity. While there is a greater probability that it is superpositioned across a more narrow choice of locations, there is no equation on Earth that describes that there are exactly two possible superpositions, oddly at each slit. (Except for those that are fudge).The answer being superposition (with respect to spacial locality), then, is a billion times more mysterious than the original question. That is, the choices in superposition of localities is infinite, and inexplicably result in one or both slits; the odds are exactly infinity to 1 that this is the correct answer. It is in fact so absurd, that it is embarrassing to watch.In the Delayed Choice portion of Kim et al’s setup, why does superposition occur 8ns back in time at detector D-zero rather than any other time in the universe? The answer, again, of the magic black box superposition then becomes a billion times more mysterious than the original question; again. Yes, the wave function is superpositioned in time, and again, the choice of possible localities in time is ultimately spread across (this differs a little) from the Big Bang until the exact present. Why it is superpositioned at exactly two localities in time and not smeared equally across 4 x 1027 (the number of nanoseconds of the age of the current cosmos) temporal localities is a thousand, trillion, trillion times less likely to be the correct answer. That is, the temporal location in superposition is a smear, rather than a distinct locality. In spacial locality, there are one or two outcomes, and we’re OK with that. In temporal locality, (like Bob and Alice) once two positions materialize, the temporal order between them becomes a smear, not distinct. If the temporal localities were distinct, normal ‘signaling’ between Bob and Alice would be observed, taking time; and Quantum Entanglement would not be observed. Again, this suggestion is so bizarre it is embarrassing to watch someone say it. (Like you’re the one who is embarrassed when the comedian or performer on stage sucks, an oddity in human empathy).Part of what Wineland and Wickham achieved was in fact, getting an atom to superposition where they wanted it to be. However, their methodology is in no way related to the Delayed Choice or the Quantum Eraser phenomenon.Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and claims of observed, yet unexplained phenomenon being an answer is only embarrassing to watch and hear. No one has explained what or why superposition is, there is only math describing the way it behaves after observing it for a century. There is a degree of predictability, but there is no such (non-fudged) equation that places the outcomes at exactly both of the spacial localities of Kim, et al’s setup (which was an arbitrary choice) and temporal localities of exactly 8 nanoseconds apart in Kim’s choice of placement of detector Dx and D0, which was also chosen arbitrarily.It is akin to stating that the God of Superposition was watching over Kim and his colleagues, and taking very careful measurements of their setup while they were not looking, so as to befuddle mankind’s understanding of reality.<���x��8That is, the only Nobel on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is scaling it up in size to the real world. There is no universally accepted model which removes the conscious observer from the system. However, those who do render such arguments are quite vocal and zealous. They make claims of ‘closed time loops,’ the HUP, pure probability, and so on, but again, no universally acceptable answer.“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” - Max Planck [Kahn, Boundless Paradox, Dec 4, 2015]Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and calm dismissals, there is no such answer the removes the conscious observer from the system. You can and will find countless arguments to this effect, but the best that has been achieved is to scale the phenomenon up is size to the atomic.I have read a lot of dismissals of the DCQE as some mechanistic argument, none work. Regarding the photon as superpositioned in space and time (which it is) does not dismiss the result, especially in light of the fact that this phenomenon has been scaled up to the macroscopic.Then, go on to this answer to review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The explanation will undoubtedly raise hell because of the urban myths that have prevailed since childhood. Nonetheless, this is the correct meaning of the HUP: https://www.quora.com/The-double-slit-experiment-proved-that-direct-observation-altered-results-What-would-happen-if-the-sensors-recorded-results-but-the-results-werent-accessible-by-humans-For-example-what-if-a-computer-put-an/answer/Bill-Bray-6In that answer, you can see that causality was never a ‘property’ of physics. There is no linearity to time. We choose to perceive time in this way (linear) because we are quantumly weird.For instance, I do not want you to drag this information into your frame of reference and homogenize it with your view, you MUST move into this frame of reference of the explanation, else, walk away with nothing but another confabulated myth. That is, don’t try and validate your concepts via these explanations, forget everything you know and move into this new frame of reference with me.Then we get to Quantum Gravity. You need to know this because, rather than the Higg’s having to do with anything, it appears in current thinking that space-time and its geometry (gravitation), and hence the forces and constants, properties and so on, are emergent phenomenon as a direct result of quantum entanglement.First you need to understand the Planck units: Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In another text, I’m not sure where, I take the -1 Law of Thermodynamics (That’s negative 1 law of thermodynamics), ‘Information cannot be destroyed,’ as per Susskind’s statement, and express what information is according to Bekenstein’s Black Hole entropy, Wheeler’s work on it, and eventually led to Verlinde’s definition:Where ‘N’ represents the number of bits of information, AΩ represents a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (like the surface of a Black Hole), and I believe by now we have discussed Lp. Therefore, I extrapolate this such that we can determine what ‘N’ is: (no one has outwardly stated what scope ‘N’ is, but it is obvious)Furthermore, as a natural number, we set ‘c’ equal to 1, such that Lp = tpTo simplify, we think of entropy as an increase in the number of possible outcomes of a superposition of that wave function, and Ordiny as a decrease in the number of possible outcomes of that superposition. As the area AΩ increases, the number of possible outcomes of a superposition increases, entropy increases. As AΩ decreases, the number of possible superpositions decreases, Ordiny, or Gravitation. This then extends out to the other forces as well. Each force demonstrates either, ultimately, an increase in the number of possible superpositions (entropy) or decrease in the possible number of superpositions (Ordiny). We see Ordiny as an ‘attractive force,’ and entropy as repellent.So we take 1 bit, N, 4Lp^2, like a trigonal pyramid, but shape is impossible on a Planck scale, because, for instance, a triangle's hypotenuse is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore a triangle cannot exist, likewise for a circle, with pi diameters, and every other possible shape, and so on. Everything at the Planck scale - the Planck scale is a shapeless domain.This would be a good time to look at: Bill Bray's answer to Does Planck length go against the idea of a continuous space and time?This image was used to try and visualize quantized space on a Planck scale:In any case, you can see that a triangle, which therefore has a hypotenuse ofa is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore impossible. A circle has a relationship to its diameter of pi, also not an integer of Lp, and so on with every possible normal shape.Then you can review : Bill Bray's answer to Is there a way how natural wormholes could form?This describes the ‘quantum foam,’ a characteristic of space-time that describes the dynamic structure on the Planck scale. There is a short review of this by wilczek, who actually measured the quantum foam’s effect on the strong and weka forces (for which he earned a Nobel, at 48 minutes into:In this bit, N, we either have information in it, or there is no information in it. If there is information in it, it by definition is entangled with some other bit of information somewhere. As the distance between these two bits N and N’ increases, the probability that they are quantum entangled decreases, because the wave function in the HUP limits the amount of time such a thing can exist. If N is entangled with N’, then each has an element a or its symmetric partner a’.If there is no N’ then there is no space-time in this scenario. If there is an N’, then time limits us to the probability that it contains either a or a’. From this time constraint, the number of possible superpositions is defined, and so the size of our world sheet, AΩ.This is how space-time is then an emergent form from information entropy vs. Ordiny. You may also note that ‘c’ is not a velocity, it defines the relationship between the world-sheet AΩ with respect to Lp and tp (space and time). It is not a ‘speed limit’ it is the definition of space-time.1.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.2.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:3.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.4.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.5.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.6.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.7.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.8.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.9.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.10.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.11.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.12.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.13.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.14.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.15.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.16.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.17.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.18.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.19.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.20.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.21.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.22.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.23.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.24.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.25.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.26.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.27.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.28.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.29.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.30.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.31.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.32.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.33.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.34.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."35.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.36.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.37.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.38.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.39.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.40.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.41.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.42.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.43.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.44.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.45.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.46.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.47.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.48.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.49.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.50.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-251.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.52.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).53.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.54.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)55.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel56.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.57.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.58.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.59.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 1061064260.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.61.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.62.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.04210563.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-364.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 199465.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 200466.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)67.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)68.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.69.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)70.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/061209971.A. I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light72.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).73.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.74.A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing75.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.76.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.77.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.78.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.79.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.80.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.81.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference82.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.83.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.84.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.85.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.86.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.87.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.88.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.89.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.90.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.91.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.92.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.93.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.94.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.95.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.96.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.97.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.98.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.99.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.100.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067101.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.102.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973103.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264104.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955105.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.106.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955107.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010108.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).109.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.110.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.111.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.112.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.113.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320114.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)115.A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)116.C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)117.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)118.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)119.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)120.A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)121.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)122.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)123.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.124.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)125.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997126.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43127.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1128.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)129.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010130.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.131.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3132.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.133.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.134.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913135.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.136.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8137.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.138.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71139.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.140.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.141.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.142.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010143.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015144.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.145.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell146.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0147.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017148.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675149.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9150.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149151.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer152.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002153.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0154.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.155.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673156.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505157.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.158.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation.159.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)160.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.161.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).162.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,163.pp365-383 (1962).164.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.165.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.166.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.167.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.168.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997169.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)170.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.171.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).172.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)173.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.174.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975175.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.176.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.177.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.178.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.179.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.180.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.181.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."182.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.183.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.184.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.185.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.186.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.187.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.188.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.189.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.190.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.191.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977192.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955193.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubscans/VI-50.pdf194.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213195.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.

You are going to get so many goofy and/or ‘opinionated’ answers to this that I have to (as much as I hate to) get into this one. So I’m going to use the same answer, with the same 200 references, as before.Ok, so I got so many requests on this subject that I feel like Santa the week before Christmas.First, understand that I have answered this question in several different ways on Quora, so I will be referring you to several of my former answers rather than re-write the whole thing over again. Second, I have written a text for laymen, which was free to Quora users, but I get crap from the Quora High Command whenever I refer you off site. So, although there is an entire 850 page thick book freely available, I’m not allowed to direct you to it. My answers are typically copy and paste from the text.The first thing you need to review is this, which describes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments by Kim, et al: https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-is-in-a-superposition-state-of-two-possible-energy-levels-from-where-would-it-absorb-energy-to-jump-to-the-next-level-if-the-wave-function-collapses/answer/Bill-Bray-6You will note that in the first video, he mentions a Nobel for answering this question. That is completely true and correct. Therefore, since no Nobel has been awarded to any web site or TV documentary for answering the subject, COMPLETELY FORGET everything you have heard.Just to clarify: when we got to describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, that erased all doubt that the conscious observer plays a role in the system, not merely an inert detector. Again, no mechanistic argument otherwise has been awarded the awaiting Nobel, therefore counter arguments otherwise simply ideologically contradict the outcome of the experiments. The current verbiage uses the term ‘entangled with the past’ rather than outwardly state ‘retro causality,’ or causality violation.’ Among the countless claims of an explanation, none have occurred. In 2012 Wineland and Haroche were awarded a Nobel for scaling the phenomenon up to the macroscopic scale. [Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012] Some have misidentified this with a Nobel for a mechanistic explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. This development led to the current Quantum Computing model.Essentially, what Wineland and Haroche accomplished was to hit an atom with exactly half of the photon energy to move it to another position. What resulted was the atom being in both locations simultaneously. Normally such a superposition is limited to a single photon or electron. However, scaling it up to atomic proportions was a Nobel piece of work.To make it more clear, Superposition is an observed phenomenon. There are countless mathematical descriptions of it. HOWEVER, there is NO explanation what or why it is. To use superposition as an explanation is non-sequitur. Superposition is not defined, albeit there are tons of mathematical equations describing the behavior by way of observation; that is not an explanation of what or why it is. The math only describes what it may or may not do.In the double slit phenomenon, why does superposition occur at one or both slits rather than anywhere else in the cosmos? Even according to all of the current mathematical descriptions of superposition, there is a wide distribution of possible localities extending out to infinity. While there is a greater probability that it is superpositioned across a more narrow choice of locations, there is no equation on Earth that describes that there are exactly two possible superpositions, oddly at each slit. (Except for those that are fudge).The answer being superposition (with respect to spacial locality), then, is a billion times more mysterious than the original question. That is, the choices in superposition of localities is infinite, and inexplicably result in one or both slits; the odds are exactly infinity to 1 that this is the correct answer. It is in fact so absurd, that it is embarrassing to watch.In the Delayed Choice portion of Kim et al’s setup, why does superposition occur 8ns back in time at detector D-zero rather than any other time in the universe? The answer, again, of the magic black box superposition then becomes a billion times more mysterious than the original question; again. Yes, the wave function is superpositioned in time, and again, the choice of possible localities in time is ultimately spread across (this differs a little) from the Big Bang until the exact present. Why it is superpositioned at exactly two localities in time and not smeared equally across 4 x 1027 (the number of nanoseconds of the age of the current cosmos) temporal localities is a thousand, trillion, trillion times less likely to be the correct answer. That is, the temporal location in superposition is a smear, rather than a distinct locality. In spacial locality, there are one or two outcomes, and we’re OK with that. In temporal locality, (like Bob and Alice) once two positions materialize, the temporal order between them becomes a smear, not distinct. If the temporal localities were distinct, normal ‘signaling’ between Bob and Alice would be observed, taking time; and Quantum Entanglement would not be observed. Again, this suggestion is so bizarre it is embarrassing to watch someone say it. (Like you’re the one who is embarrassed when the comedian or performer on stage sucks, an oddity in human empathy).Part of what Wineland and Wickham achieved was in fact, getting an atom to superposition where they wanted it to be. However, their methodology is in no way related to the Delayed Choice or the Quantum Eraser phenomenon.Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and claims of observed, yet unexplained phenomenon being an answer is only embarrassing to watch and hear. No one has explained what or why superposition is, there is only math describing the way it behaves after observing it for a century. There is a degree of predictability, but there is no such (non-fudged) equation that places the outcomes at exactly both of the spacial localities of Kim, et al’s setup (which was an arbitrary choice) and temporal localities of exactly 8 nanoseconds apart in Kim’s choice of placement of detector Dx and D0, which was also chosen arbitrarily.It is akin to stating that the God of Superposition was watching over Kim and his colleagues, and taking very careful measurements of their setup while they were not looking, so as to befuddle mankind’s understanding of reality.That is, the only Nobel on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is scaling it up in size to the real world. There is no universally accepted model which removes the conscious observer from the system. However, those who do render such arguments are quite vocal and zealous. They make claims of ‘closed time loops,’ the HUP, pure probability, and so on, but again, no universally acceptable answer.“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” - Max Planck [Kahn, Boundless Paradox, Dec 4, 2015]Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and calm dismissals, there is no such answer the removes the conscious observer from the system. You can and will find countless arguments to this effect, but the best that has been achieved is to scale the phenomenon up is size to the atomic.I have read a lot of dismissals of the DCQE as some mechanistic argument, none work. Regarding the photon as superpositioned in space and time (which it is) does not dismiss the result, especially in light of the fact that this phenomenon has been scaled up to the macroscopic.Then, go on to this answer to review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The explanation will undoubtedly raise hell because of the urban myths that have prevailed since childhood. Nonetheless, this is the correct meaning of the HUP: https://www.quora.com/The-double-slit-experiment-proved-that-direct-observation-altered-results-What-would-happen-if-the-sensors-recorded-results-but-the-results-werent-accessible-by-humans-For-example-what-if-a-computer-put-an/answer/Bill-Bray-6In that answer, you can see that causality was never a ‘property’ of physics. There is no linearity to time. We choose to perceive time in this way (linear) because we are quantumly weird.For instance, I do not want you to drag this information into your frame of reference and homogenize it with your view, you MUST move into this frame of reference of the explanation, else, walk away with nothing but another confabulated myth. That is, don’t try and validate your concepts via these explanations, forget everything you know and move into this new frame of reference with me.Then we get to Quantum Gravity. You need to know this because, rather than the Higg’s having to do with anything, it appears in current thinking that space-time and its geometry (gravitation), and hence the forces and constants, properties and so on, are emergent phenomenon as a direct result of quantum entanglement.First you need to understand the Planck units: Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In another text, I’m not sure where, I take the -1 Law of Thermodynamics (That’s negative 1 law of thermodynamics), ‘Information cannot be destroyed,’ as per Susskind’s statement, and express what information is according to Bekenstein’s Black Hole entropy, Wheeler’s work on it, and eventually led to Verlinde’s definition:Where ‘N’ represents the number of bits of information, AΩ represents a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (like the surface of a Black Hole), and I believe by now we have discussed Lp. Therefore, I extrapolate this such that we can determine what ‘N’ is: (no one has outwardly stated what scope ‘N’ is, but it is obvious)Furthermore, as a natural number, we set ‘c’ equal to 1, such that Lp = tpTo simplify, we think of entropy as an increase in the number of possible outcomes of a superposition of that wave function, and Ordiny as a decrease in the number of possible outcomes of that superposition. As the area AΩ increases, the number of possible outcomes of a superposition increases, entropy increases. As AΩ decreases, the number of possible superpositions decreases, Ordiny, or Gravitation. This then extends out to the other forces as well. Each force demonstrates either, ultimately, an increase in the number of possible superpositions (entropy) or decrease in the possible number of superpositions (Ordiny). We see Ordiny as an ‘attractive force,’ and entropy as repellent.So we take 1 bit, N, 4Lp^2, like a trigonal pyramid, but shape is impossible on a Planck scale, because, for instance, a triangle's hypotenuse is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore a triangle cannot exist, likewise for a circle, with pi diameters, and every other possible shape, and so on. Everything at the Planck scale - the Planck scale is a shapeless domain.This would be a good time to look at: Bill Bray's answer to Does Planck length go against the idea of a continuous space and time?This image was used to try and visualize quantized space on a Planck scale:In any case, you can see that a triangle, which therefore has a hypotenuse ofa is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore impossible. A circle has a relationship to its diameter of pi, also not an integer of Lp, and so on with every possible normal shape.Then you can review : Bill Bray's answer to Is there a way how natural wormholes could form?This describes the ‘quantum foam,’ a characteristic of space-time that describes the dynamic structure on the Planck scale. There is a short review of this by wilczek, who actually measured the quantum foam’s effect on the strong and weka forces (for which he earned a Nobel, at 48 minutes into:In this bit, N, we either have information in it, or there is no information in it. If there is information in it, it by definition is entangled with some other bit of information somewhere. As the distance between these two bits N and N’ increases, the probability that they are quantum entangled decreases, because the wave function in the HUP limits the amount of time such a thing can exist. If N is entangled with N’, then each has an element a or its symmetric partner a’.If there is no N’ then there is no space-time in this scenario. If there is an N’, then time limits us to the probability that it contains either a or a’. From this time constraint, the number of possible superpositions is defined, and so the size of our world sheet, AΩ.This is how space-time is then an emergent form from information entropy vs. Ordiny. You may also note that ‘c’ is not a velocity, it defines the relationship between the world-sheet AΩ with respect to Lp and tp (space and time). It is not a ‘speed limit’ it is the definition of space-time.1.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.2.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:3.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.4.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.5.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.6.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.7.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.8.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.9.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.10.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.11.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.12.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.13.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.14.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.15.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.16.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.17.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.18.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.19.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.20.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.21.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.22.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.23.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.24.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.25.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.26.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.27.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.28.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.29.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.30.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.31.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.32.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.33.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.34.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."35.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.36.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.37.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.38.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.39.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.40.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.41.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.42.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.43.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.44.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.45.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.46.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.47.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.48.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.49.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.50.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-251.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.52.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).53.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.54.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)55.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel56.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.57.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.58.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.59.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 1061064260.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.61.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.62.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.04210563.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-364.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 199465.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 200466.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)67.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)68.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.69.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)70.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/061209971.A. I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light72.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).73.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.74.A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing75.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.76.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.77.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.78.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.79.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.80.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.81.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference82.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.83.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.84.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.85.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.86.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.87.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.88.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.89.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.90.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.91.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.92.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.93.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.94.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.95.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.96.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.97.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.98.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.99.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.100.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067101.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.102.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973103.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264104.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955105.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.106.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955107.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010108.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).109.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.110.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.111.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.112.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.113.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320114.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)115.A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)116.C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)117.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)118.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)119.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)120.A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)121.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)122.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)123.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.124.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)125.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997126.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43127.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1128.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)129.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010130.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.131.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3132.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.133.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.134.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913135.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.136.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8137.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.138.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71139.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.140.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.141.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.142.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010143.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015144.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.145.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell146.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0147.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017148.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675149.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9150.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149151.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer152.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002153.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0154.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.155.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673156.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505157.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.158.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation.159.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)160.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.161.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).162.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,163.pp365-383 (1962).164.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.165.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.166.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.167.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.168.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997169.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)170.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.171.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).172.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)173.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.174.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975175.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.176.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.177.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.178.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.179.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.180.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.181.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."182.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.183.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.184.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.185.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.186.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.187.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.188.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.189.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.190.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.191.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977192.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955193.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubscans/VI-50.pdf194.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213195.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.

Ok, so I got so many requests on this subject that I feel like Santa the week before Christmas.First, understand that I have answered this question in several different ways on Quora, so I will be referring you to several of my former answers rather than re-write the whole thing over again. Second, I have written a text for laymen, which was free to Quora users, but I get crap from the Quora High Command whenever I refer you off site. So, although there is an entire 850 page thick book freely available, I’m not allowed to direct you to it. My answers are typically copy and paste from the text.The first thing you need to review is this, which describes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments by Kim, et al: https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-is-in-a-superposition-state-of-two-possible-energy-levels-from-where-would-it-absorb-energy-to-jump-to-the-next-level-if-the-wave-function-collapses/answer/Bill-Bray-6You will note that in the first video, he mentions a Nobel for answering this question. That is completely true and correct. Therefore, since no Nobel has been awarded to any web site or TV documentary for answering the subject, COMPLETELY FORGET everything you have heard.Just to clarify: when we got to describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, that erased all doubt that the conscious observer plays a role in the system, not merely an inert detector. Again, no mechanistic argument otherwise has been awarded the awaiting Nobel, therefore counter arguments otherwise simply ideologically contradict the outcome of the experiments. The current verbiage uses the term ‘entangled with the past’ rather than outwardly state ‘retro causality,’ or causality violation.’ Among the countless claims of an explanation, none have occurred. In 2012 Wineland and Haroche were awarded a Nobel for scaling the phenomenon up to the macroscopic scale. [Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012] Some have misidentified this with a Nobel for a mechanistic explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. This development led to the current Quantum Computing model.Essentially, what Wineland and Haroche accomplished was to hit an atom with exactly half of the photon energy to move it to another position. What resulted was the atom being in both locations simultaneously. Normally such a superposition is limited to a single photon or electron. However, scaling it up to atomic proportions was a Nobel piece of work.To make it more clear, Superposition is an observed phenomenon. There are countless mathematical descriptions of it. HOWEVER, there is NO explanation what or why it is. To use superposition as an explanation is non-sequitur. Superposition is not defined, albeit there are tons of mathematical equations describing the behavior by way of observation; that is not an explanation of what or why it is. The math only describes what it may or may not do.In the double slit phenomenon, why does superposition occur at one or both slits rather than anywhere else in the cosmos? Even according to all of the current mathematical descriptions of superposition, there is a wide distribution of possible localities extending out to infinity. While there is a greater probability that it is superpositioned across a more narrow choice of locations, there is no equation on Earth that describes that there are exactly two possible superpositions, oddly at each slit. (Except for those that are fudge).The answer being superposition (with respect to spacial locality), then, is a billion times more mysterious than the original question. That is, the choices in superposition of localities is infinite, and inexplicably result in one or both slits; the odds are exactly infinity to 1 that this is the correct answer. It is in fact so absurd, that it is embarrassing to watch.In the Delayed Choice portion of Kim et al’s setup, why does superposition occur 8ns back in time at detector D-zero rather than any other time in the universe? The answer, again, of the magic black box superposition then becomes a billion times more mysterious than the original question; again. Yes, the wave function is superpositioned in time, and again, the choice of possible localities in time is ultimately spread across (this differs a little) from the Big Bang until the exact present. Why it is superpositioned at exactly two localities in time and not smeared equally across 4 x 1027 (the number of nanoseconds of the age of the current cosmos) temporal localities is a thousand, trillion, trillion times less likely to be the correct answer. That is, the temporal location in superposition is a smear, rather than a distinct locality. In spacial locality, there are one or two outcomes, and we’re OK with that. In temporal locality, (like Bob and Alice) once two positions materialize, the temporal order between them becomes a smear, not distinct. If the temporal localities were distinct, normal ‘signaling’ between Bob and Alice would be observed, taking time; and Quantum Entanglement would not be observed. Again, this suggestion is so bizarre it is embarrassing to watch someone say it. (Like you’re the one who is embarrassed when the comedian or performer on stage sucks, an oddity in human empathy).Part of what Wineland and Wickham achieved was in fact, getting an atom to superposition where they wanted it to be. However, their methodology is in no way related to the Delayed Choice or the Quantum Eraser phenomenon.Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and claims of observed, yet unexplained phenomenon being an answer is only embarrassing to watch and hear. No one has explained what or why superposition is, there is only math describing the way it behaves after observing it for a century. There is a degree of predictability, but there is no such (non-fudged) equation that places the outcomes at exactly both of the spacial localities of Kim, et al’s setup (which was an arbitrary choice) and temporal localities of exactly 8 nanoseconds apart in Kim’s choice of placement of detector Dx and D0, which was also chosen arbitrarily.It is akin to stating that the God of Superposition was watching over Kim and his colleagues, and taking very careful measurements of their setup while they were not looking, so as to befuddle mankind’s understanding of reality.That is, the only Nobel on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is scaling it up in size to the real world. There is no universally accepted model which removes the conscious observer from the system. However, those who do render such arguments are quite vocal and zealous. They make claims of ‘closed time loops,’ the HUP, pure probability, and so on, but again, no universally acceptable answer.“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” - Max Planck [Kahn, Boundless Paradox, Dec 4, 2015]Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and calm dismissals, there is no such answer the removes the conscious observer from the system. You can and will find countless arguments to this effect, but the best that has been achieved is to scale the phenomenon up is size to the atomic.I have read a lot of dismissals of the DCQE as some mechanistic argument, none work. Regarding the photon as superpositioned in space and time (which it is) does not dismiss the result, especially in light of the fact that this phenomenon has been scaled up to the macroscopic.Then, go on to this answer to review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The explanation will undoubtedly raise hell because of the urban myths that have prevailed since childhood. Nonetheless, this is the correct meaning of the HUP: https://www.quora.com/The-double-slit-experiment-proved-that-direct-observation-altered-results-What-would-happen-if-the-sensors-recorded-results-but-the-results-werent-accessible-by-humans-For-example-what-if-a-computer-put-an/answer/Bill-Bray-6In that answer, you can see that causality was never a ‘property’ of physics. There is no linearity to time. We choose to perceive time in this way (linear) because we are quantumly weird.For instance, I do not want you to drag this information into your frame of reference and homogenize it with your view, you MUST move into this frame of reference of the explanation, else, walk away with nothing but another confabulated myth. That is, don’t try and validate your concepts via these explanations, forget everything you know and move into this new frame of reference with me.Then we get to Quantum Gravity. You need to know this because, rather than the Higg’s having to do with anything, it appears in current thinking that space-time and its geometry (gravitation), and hence the forces and constants, properties and so on, are emergent phenomenon as a direct result of quantum entanglement.First you need to understand the Planck units: Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In another text, I’m not sure where, I take the -1 Law of Thermodynamics (That’s negative 1 law of thermodynamics), ‘Information cannot be destroyed,’ as per Susskind’s statement, and express what information is according to Bekenstein’s Black Hole entropy, Wheeler’s work on it, and eventually led to Verlinde’s definition:Where ‘N’ represents the number of bits of information, AΩ represents a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (like the surface of a Black Hole), and I believe by now we have discussed Lp. Therefore, I extrapolate this such that we can determine what ‘N’ is: (no one has outwardly stated what scope ‘N’ is, but it is obvious)Furthermore, as a natural number, we set ‘c’ equal to 1, such that Lp = tpTo simplify, we think of entropy as an increase in the number of possible outcomes of a superposition of that wave function, and Ordiny as a decrease in the number of possible outcomes of that superposition. As the area AΩ increases, the number of possible outcomes of a superposition increases, entropy increases. As AΩ decreases, the number of possible superpositions decreases, Ordiny, or Gravitation. This then extends out to the other forces as well. Each force demonstrates either, ultimately, an increase in the number of possible superpositions (entropy) or decrease in the possible number of superpositions (Ordiny). We see Ordiny as an ‘attractive force,’ and entropy as repellent.So we take 1 bit, N, 4Lp^2, like a trigonal pyramid, but shape is impossible on a Planck scale, because, for instance, a triangle's hypotenuse is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore a triangle cannot exist, likewise for a circle, with pi diameters, and every other possible shape, and so on. Everything at the Planck scale - the Planck scale is a shapeless domain.This would be a good time to look at: Bill Bray's answer to Does Planck length go against the idea of a continuous space and time?This image was used to try and visualize quantized space on a Planck scale:In any case, you can see that a triangle, which therefore has a hypotenuse ofa is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore impossible. A circle has a relationship to its diameter of pi, also not an integer of Lp, and so on with every possible normal shape.Then you can review : Bill Bray's answer to Is there a way how natural wormholes could form?This describes the ‘quantum foam,’ a characteristic of space-time that describes the dynamic structure on the Planck scale. There is a short review of this by wilczek, who actually measured the quantum foam’s effect on the strong and weka forces (for which he earned a Nobel, at 48 minutes into:In this bit, N, we either have information in it, or there is no information in it. If there is information in it, it by definition is entangled with some other bit of information somewhere. As the distance between these two bits N and N’ increases, the probability that they are quantum entangled decreases, because the wave function in the HUP limits the amount of time such a thing can exist. If N is entangled with N’, then each has an element a or its symmetric partner a’.If there is no N’ then there is no space-time in this scenario. If there is an N’, then time limits us to the probability that it contains either a or a’. From this time constraint, the number of possible superpositions is defined, and so the size of our world sheet, AΩ.This is how space-time is then an emergent form from information entropy vs. Ordiny. You may also note that ‘c’ is not a velocity, it defines the relationship between the world-sheet AΩ with respect to Lp and tp (space and time). It is not a ‘speed limit’ it is the definition of space-time.1.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.2.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:3.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.4.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.5.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.6.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.7.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.8.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.9.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.10.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.11.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.12.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.13.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.14.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.15.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.16.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.17.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.18.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.19.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.20.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.21.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.22.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.23.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.24.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.25.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.26.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.27.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.28.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.29.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.30.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.31.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.32.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.33.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.34.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."35.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.36.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.37.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.38.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.39.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.40.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.41.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.42.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.43.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.44.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.45.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.46.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.47.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.48.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.49.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.50.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-251.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.52.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).53.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.54.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)55.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel56.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.57.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.58.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.59.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 1061064260.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.61.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.62.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.04210563.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-364.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 199465.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 200466.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)67.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)68.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.69.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)70.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/061209971.A. I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light72.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).73.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.74.A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing75.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.76.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.77.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.78.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.79.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.80.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.81.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference82.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.83.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.84.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.85.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.86.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.87.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.88.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.89.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.90.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.91.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.92.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.93.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.94.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.95.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.96.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.97.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.98.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.99.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.100.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067101.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.102.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973103.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264104.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955105.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.106.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955107.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010108.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).109.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.110.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.111.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.112.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.113.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320114.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)115.A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)116.C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)117.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)118.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)119.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)120.A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)121.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)122.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)123.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.124.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)125.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997126.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43127.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1128.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)129.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010130.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.131.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3132.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.133.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.134.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913135.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.136.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8137.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.138.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71139.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.140.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.141.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.142.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010143.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015144.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.145.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell146.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0147.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017148.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675149.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9150.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149151.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer152.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002153.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0154.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.155.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673156.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505157.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.158.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation.159.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)160.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.161.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).162.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,163.pp365-383 (1962).164.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.165.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.166.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.167.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.168.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997169.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)170.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.171.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).172.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)173.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.174.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975175.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.176.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.177.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.178.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.179.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.180.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.181.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."182.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.183.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.184.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.185.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.186.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.187.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.188.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.189.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.190.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.191.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977192.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955193.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubscans/VI-50.pdf194.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213195.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.