Effective Date 0003 Page 4: Fill & Download for Free

Well, the answers below are rather classical. However, the volume of space-time, which can be undefined (that is, the volume of space-time does not have to exist), does not have to be occupied by a wave function or wave functions. It can be nothing.The minimal threshold is the Zero Point (field or energy, take your pick) meaning that it is not possible to have a region of space-time that is empty, Planck's constant being the lowest possible threshold; the stage, floor, baseline, other synonyms can be added at will. Since an existing region of space-time cannot be ‘empty,’ or void, or have a zero value, it is therefore entangled with some other region of space-time, somewhere in space and time from the Big Bang until present in time, as well as any corner of the cosmos.If the region of space-time does not exist, the Zero Point (ZP) is true zero. Since the climb from true zero to Planck’s lowest available energy state is infinite, that is, the distance from true zero to the minimal threshold of the Planck’s Zero Point (ZP) is infinite. The reason for this is that once you pass through Planck’s minimum quanta, you are now slicing space-time into slices finer than normal space-time will allow. The number of slices you can take is ZP/0.We use the Projectively Extended Real Line of Infinitesimal Calsulus: From Larson, Edwards, Calculus, 9th Edition, section 3.5, pg 199, ‘Limits at Infinity.’meaning (I use n instead of c so as not to confuse c with the speed of light) and x^r, when r=1 it is just n/xNote that since both negative and positive infinity result in zero, they are therefore (in Infinitesimal Calculus) equal to one another.As a result, ZP/0 = +/- infinity.The drop from the minimum threshold of space-time (the quanta) to true zero is therefore infinite.As background, I will use Wheeler’s derivation for the Planck (lowest)thresholds:The Planck lengthabout 10^-35 meters.Planck timeabout 10^-44 seconds. I might describe why I am using primes if I have the time. However, note that the square root defines the products, Lp and tp as being+/-Lp and +/-tp.In addition, pi in the denominator is irrational. This irrational value results in both Lp and tp being less discrete than formerly thought. It in fact defines them as simultaneously being separated, yet overlapping, as they have no discrete boundary. This particular feature is of absolute importance, it is the reason space-time ‘flows,’ referred to as the Planck Flow of time, why the ticking of quantized time occurs at all.You cannot slice space nor time any finer. The proof of this is in the Bohr quantized orbital. The electron, upon gaining or losing energy, changes from one orbital to another instantaneously, or possibly in one Planck interval of time (tp). If space-time were infinitely divisible, ‘smooth,’ the electron would have to pass through an infinite number of states in order to jump or drop from one orbital to another. However, one of the very few proven things in physics is that it does not pass through an infinite number of states, it is a true quantized jump.Thus, any argument that space-time is not quantized is forbidden. I see a lot of statements of people who have a ‘cognitive belief,’ a religion, that space-tie is not quantized. To date, no one has provided any compelling math nor model to support that statement. They ‘believe’ space-time is smooth, infinitely divisible. Again, if that were the case, the simple Bohr quantized jump of an electron orbital could not occur, as the electron would have to pass through that infinite number of states to get from A to B.There are a lot of other quantized behaviors that prove this, but the rigidity and common knowledge of the Bohr model is sufficient. Ultimately, if space-time were infinitely divisible, as I reach for my coffee cup, my hand has to pass through an infinite number of states to reach it.Since the Religion of the Infinitely Divisible Church of Smooth Space-Time cannot provide any compelling math nor model, they are dismissed.Furthermore, since Wheeler used these derivations to define the Geometry of of space-time due to gravitation, since Gravitation pervades the visible cosmos, space-time is thus quantized according to gravitation. However, in a weird twist that Wheeler didn’t know at the time, space-time and its geometry (gravitation) are emergent phenomenon of being quantized.What was the question? Oh yeah.The point I am getting to is that the region of quantized space-time does not have to exist. Oddly, if it does not exist, it has a 50/50 chance of existing. The reason is that being an unobservable domain, we cannot say with certainty that it does not exist.Exactly the same principle of two entangled wave functions that would be particles if detected or interact in some way, the probability of<does exist|does not exist>is 50/50 until we somehow observe or detect that it does or does not exist. As weird as that is, that is the way it is because it is that way. This is because there can be no certainty of an unobservable domain.Then we assign each condition as either having information in it, or being void of information. The Verlinde-Nicolini definition for information beingA-ohmega is the ‘world-sheet,’ and note the denominator is quantized. No one has derived this next thing yet, oddly obvious, but in order to define exactly what N is: (what a bit of information is)I don’t know why that is obvious to me but not anyone else.1 ‘bit’ of information in Quantum Theory then is sort of like a trigonal bipyramid. However, reduced to 2 dimensions it is a Schwarzschild surface, where time is not a valid dimension, like a Black Hole’s surface, provided we do not try and assign any shape. The shapeless character is the result of the fact that you can slice any known shape with non-integer values of Lp. A triangle, for instance, has a hypotenuse that is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore cannot exist on a Planck scale, likewise a circle has a diamater to circumference ratio that is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore cannot exist, and so on.So we take our former definition<does exist|does not exist>and say that if it does exist, we’ll call that DE (does exist) and does not exist as DNE. DE has a 50/50 chance of having information in it. We’l say does have information as a, and does not have information as a’.We’ll call the observable (does exist) as X, then we have the two conditionsdefining the wave function psiis given by summing over a’ and a for the observable X, normally written asbecomes the sumThis is a case where N= 0 or 1. If n=1, we are talking about system A, if N=0, then we are talking about system B. System B may or may not exist, it is a spectator, dependent on A as being in one of two states a or a’. So for the non-existing system or domain B, the whole thing simply becomesI’ve only added b to the end as a spectator. Even though it may not exist, it is entangled with a or a’. If X is a, then psi-b is b’, if X is a’, the psi-b is b.Keep in mind, that entanglement involves non-observation; observation then ‘detangles,’ for lack of a better expression. Victor’s word of the month would be an eigenstate, made eiganvalue by way of detection. By non-observation, A is in a state of {a,a’} simultaneously, e.g., entangled. Therefore, when I say that B may or may not exist, like Schrodinger’s Cat, it is superpositioned as {does, does not} exist. Attaching B, as b {does exist}, and b’ {does not exist} prior to observation is no less valid than A being entangled as {a,a’} prior to observation. (So as not to drive Victor crazy, I’ll say, detection).The density matrix for a,a’ isThat is, it is definitely in one state or the other, with a probability density = 1.Since b is a spectator, (entangled, rather it exists or not) thenThe density of B is now 1.Going all the way back to our definition for a bit of information, NWhere the formerly unobservable B was uncertain, it now has a density matrix of 1, meaning it exists. We have just given birth to a new baby B, simply by not observing it.Rather than answering your question and collapsing a wave function, which technically is spread over all of space-time from the Big Bang until present in time, and every corner of the cosmos, simultaneously, I have just created a Planck volume of space-time out of absolute nothingness, just the uncertainty of it existing because I cannot observe it.Going back to our definition for our world sheetIf N=0, then AΩ does not exist, if N=1, then AΩ exists.Thus, space-time is an emergent phenomenon of entanglement. As we saw, we gave birth to a new baby B as a result of the density matrix N=1, or P=1, take your pick, from a blob we know exists, A, which is in a state of a or a’ until measured.The geometry of space-time is a 2-dimensional (Holographic) construct of AΩ, where AΩ is the dependent variable and N is independent. That is, AΩ depends on the size of N, as a pure surface phenomenon.Interestingly, the geometry is the result of AΩ. Entropy is the result of more choices of superposition. Ordiny is the result of less choices of superposition. Thus, superposition defines the entropy or Ordiny of the world-sheet, AΩ.For instance, falling into a gravity well can be thought of as the number of possible superpositions decreasing. In the case of a Black Hole, entropy is absolute on the surface of AΩ, and there are no other superpositions available, you cannot get out.When two electrons repel, the number of possible superpositions increases. When an electron and positron attract, the number of possible superpositions decreases.To equate Quantized Gravitation with the other forces, we look at superposition. In the simplest case, we take the HUPA wave function in its native state exists in a distribution of superpositions (localities). In order to get to each of those supoerpositions, a distributions of velocities also exists.That is the true meaning of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The myth that it has anything to do with a ‘particle’s’ position and momentum is urban myth. The HUP ONLY refers to the wave function. Once it is detected by any means, it collapses into a single outcome (the old term, wave function collapse) and is then a ‘particle,’ e.g. tiny cannon ball, as a term I coin.As for references to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the HUP ONLY refers to these things in their native state, wave functions in fields. ONCE A DETECTION OCCURS, THE HUP IS RENDERED NON-SEQUITUR. The HUP DOES NOT SAY you cannot know a ‘particle’s’ position and velocity. It states that in its native state as a wave function, it is superpostioned, rather, the locality of the wave function is spread across a distribution (almost like a Bell curve) of positions, and superposition of velocities that got each position of the wave function to that superposition.The denominator, which works out to 4pi, is NOT meant to represent that you divide Planck’s constant by that irrational number (pi is not even a rational number, dividing by pi is non-sequitur), resulting in a number that by definition is not possible in this universe. Because, Planck’s constant is indivisible.The 4pi represents two sinusoidal wavelengths. That is, if you are within 1 sinusoidal wavelength, you cannot state that you are in another superposition, you are just somewhere in that local wave function, walking along the wave. You have to be 2 wavelengths in order to qualify as being in more than one position.Keep in mind the real distribution is NOT a standard Bell curve, this is just for visualization. There is a distribution of possible localities for the wave function, ‘x’, and thus a superposition distribution of velocities that got ‘x’ to that distribution of localities.The delta has been since replaced by sigma, as per Kennard, in 1937 I think it was? More or less. Kennard saw the delta as a statistical distribution, rather than a corporeal distribution. So, he suggested sigma-x and sigma-p, which we use today.Once you take a measurement, the HUP is rendered non-sequitur, DOES NOT APPLY, has nothing to do whatsoever with the position and/or velocity-momentum of a corporeal ‘particle.’For example: I have an emitter shooting a beam of electrons, which the double-slit tells us (historically) are wave functions. I know the exact location of the emitter. I push the button at time t, Once I detect the exact location of the electron at time t’ (the wave function then collapses and is now a ‘particle’), I MUST KNOW the velocity that got it to that exact location from the emitter.Moreover, knowing the mass of the electron out to 14 decimal places, I damned well know the momentum. In fact, the more accurately I know the exactness of the electron’s location, the more exactly I know the velocity (and therefore momentum) that got the electron from the emitter to that exact location. I know that I am repeating myself, yet I also know that you are just beginning to realize and visualize in your head what I have been repeating.Where in that experiment do I not know the exact location and velocity of the electron? If your argument (which I know some would argue) is that the HUP defines the denominator as two wavelengths, and this is as accurately as you can know the position, this is incorrect. Because once I detect the electron, it has no wavelength. It is a tiny cannon ball. The I get the argument (from grad students) that the tiny cannon ball could be a meter in radius, which point within the cannon ball do you arbitrarily decide as the location? We arbitrarily select the center of the phenomenon, the center of the tiny cannon ball. The HUP has nothing to do with the ‘particle’ or any volume of space it occupies. It only refers to the native state, a superpostion of localities and velocities that got it to those localities.If I have no clue where or when the electron came from, I set up a detector to measure the electron’s momentum; AKA velocity. The instant the electron strikes the surface of the detector, that is its exact location (as a particle) and since it is a detector to measure momentum, etc. That is, the location is the surface of the detector, the detector is designed to measure the momentum. So, again, I know the exact location and velocity of the electron.Where in these pictures do you fail to know the ‘particle’s’ position and velocity? I cannot even find a grad student who is so incompetent he/she cannot measure each out to an ungodly number of decimal places.In any case, since the velocities are in a distribution of superposition prior to any interaction, it is therefore tie dependent.I now redefine time as being in superposition, and the choices of superpositions are imited by the force, be it gravitation, the geometry of space-time, electromagnetic, even the Internal and Intermediate Strong Force, and Weak Force, all answer to a temporal limiting of superpositions.When the number of temporal superpositions increase, we have entropy, when they decrease, Ordiny. This takes us full cirlce back to our definitions for the quant of the Planck length and time. Because there is a square root on the right of the equation, the left side of the equation becomes:Negative Lp means our world sheet, AΩ is decreasing, Ordiny, less available superpositions, and negative tp is just obvious.You will note I have rendered them as a Fractal. This is because our constant, G, MUST vary according to relativistic time dilation, be it special (a distribution of velocities) or gravimetric (our world sheet AΩ).Holding it constant is for amateurs. We do not nor can we see the variation in G’ because of the Fractal that defines the Planck length and time. However, somewhere else in here I describe the overall effect of G’ as a function of recessional velocity, which dilates t’, and taking it back to 13.8GY G’ falls to exactly zero.But I don’t feel like going through all that again.For the rest, see Bill Bray's answer to How do you explain quantum entanglement to someone in layman's terms?And follow the nested links in there. There are about 300 references to this solution. The original question in the link above.What is the relationship between quantum entanglement and the reduction (collapse) of a wave to a single eigenstate (particle)?The answer is ass-backwards. Whereas we have the phenomenon of a wave function spread out over all of space-time, from the Big Bang until present in time, and every corner of the visible cosmos as seemingly paradoxical, (separated by space-time yet entangled instantaneously from the Big Bang until present in time, and every corner of the visible cosmos): is upside down.The correct answer is that space-time and its geometry, rather than being a paradoxical distance to cross, are emergent phenomenon from entanglement itself.This is Quantum Gravity. Space-time and its geometry emergent from quantized entangled uncertainty of the unobservable.Also note, there is no Higg’s particle or field in this explanation, nor has any Higg’s mechanism ever panned out to resolve anything.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/06...71.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/pubsc...194.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.additionaly1.Thorne, Kip S. (1994). Black Holes and Time Warps.2.W. W. Norton. pp. 494–496. ISBN 0-393-31276-3.3.Ian H., Redmount; Wai-Mo Suen (1994). "Quantum Dynamics of Lorentzian Space-time Foam". Physical Review D 49: 5199. Doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.5199. arXiv:gr-qc/93090174.Moyer, Michael (17 January 2012). "Is Space Digital?:". Scientific American. Retrieved 3 February 2013.5.Baez, John (2006-10-08). "What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?". Retrieved 2007-12-18.6.John Archibald Wheeler with Kenneth Ford. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam. 1995 ISBN 0-393-04642-7[J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuov. Cim. 4, 737 (1972); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974)].