Does the Quantum Eraser Reverse Its Passage of Time to Erase?

Does the quantum eraser reverse its passage of time to erase information, or is the information deletion instantaneous due to quantum entanglement?

This answer is for Ian Jenkins, who is not a physicist or mathematician but is rather a physician and he has invited/ asked me to explain OR or Orchestrated Reduction by Penrose and Hameroff in my own words. (not going to happen and here is why!) I would obviously attempt to do this on my own or I would not even be on Quora but not without first reading what the experts had to say until I gained some rudimentary understanding I could attempt to share with others who are not Penrose and company. But just in case you (Dr. Jenkins)are too busy here is a summary of almost exactly what I said but stated by Scott Aaronson, quote. Opening the Black Box Alright, look. Roger Penrose is one of the greatest mathematical physicists on Earth. Is it possible that we've misconstrued his thinking? To my mind, the most plausible-ish versions of Penrose's argument are the ones based on an "asymmetry of understanding". namely that, while we know the internal workings of a computer, we don't yet know the internal workings of the brain. I would also like to thank Allan Steinhardt for his answer and brilliant question or observation at the end of this answer of his Allan Steinhardt's answer to Assuming that Quantum entanglement cant send information, what is its role in quantum computing? and far more importantly for introducing me to the work and lecture series by Scott Aaronson who he mentions in his post . Disentangling a quantum mystery. How quantum computing explains how the "classical" world avoids the madness of superposition. Thank you Allan for posting . PHYS771 Quantum Computing Since Democritus which when I finally noticed PHYS771 I should have run realizing this was no Phys or Eng Phys 101, 201, 301, or hell even 401 type of lecture…………. grrrrr. But as Professor Scott’s course requirements were so modest. “Mathematical maturity and some previous exposure to quantum computing.” I gave it a shot. Now I know Dr. Jenkins took great exception to me quoting Penrose and me admitting I would never have the ability or audacity to take on an intellectual giant like Penrose, never mind an anesthesiologist (K Ian I can’t even SPELL it never mind discuss it!). there I admitted it with no hesitation. Yes of course I can right click it but to me that is cheating a little bit. Aside comment=Optional reading My best bud, who I tutored all through high school is now a professor of medicine who studies epidemiology which I cannot spell or say either? Hello Dr. Gordon Doig! Miss ya bud and yes what’s his name is more bat shit crazy than he was 30 years ago-he told me he has a double PhD now in physics and math and works in weapons research…never saw that coming! lol So here in far better English or logical reasoning is a far better answer than i could ever provice you courtesy of Scott Aaronson .) PHYS771 Lecture 10.5. Penrose The image below reminded me of Susskind’s lecture on super symmetry. From Scott Aaronson’s lecture. From Scott Aaronson’s lecture. “ What does any of this have to do with quantum mechanics? I will now attempt the heroic task of making a connection. What I've tried to impress on you is that there are profound difficulties if we want to assume the world is continuous. Take this pen, for example. how many different positions can I put it in on the surface of the table? ? We don't want the answers to "physics" questions to depend on the axioms of set theory!” I read somewhere else that if the world was anything but quantized, it would come to a grinding halt. I think the same may apply to the idea of neural nets, reversible computing and even that question where both you and I imagined only a symmetrical example of an object maintaining a constant speed while enduring varying quantities of acceleration. I immediately thought of a ball on a string (so only a harmonic oscillator) and I completely dismissed a car on cruise control driving through the mountains because that is more of an NP problem. Also from Scott’s lecture . “My own view is that quantum mechanics, like classical probability theory, should be seen as somehow "intermediate" between a continuous and discrete theory. (Here I'm assuming that the Hilbert space or probability space are finite-dimensional.) “ I think he is right and wrong (it cant be both or can it?) because the continuous part is the wave function…(pilot wave theory) with those beautiful harmonic sine curves with that hard little sphere in the middle (discrete). The lecture below by Susskind, shows “trees” where the end points create a form of neural net and simultaneously create Fredkin’s reversible computer. The top of this fractal tree represents a small percentage of the sensory hairs of the human inner ear. Now just imagine I was better with computers so one half would be right the other left ear which would be right beside it if i had more time, skill or both. The above fractal tree represents the neural net that accepts the input from the above inner ear nerual net and decides which muslces to fire in the legs to keep you standing if you lean forward or back. This would require reversible back and forth communication. THe neural net would be mind numbingly more complex than the above example. Are t entangled HELL YES! I have finally a simpler more intuitive way of looking at this. It involves two separate but co joined perspectives. Visually it is far more intuitive. Short Answer.Yes we can but it will have very limited usefulness because it will never allow for anything but choosing a causal patch within the computing subset. IMO Molecular computing will be the better option to pursue.Long answer.SUB Summary in micro italics for people too busy to read the whole thing.From another of your answers, I know you are in agreement with the following, “empty space cannot be infinitely divided but rather there is an agreed upon lower limit on what is the smallest known space that can truly be empty according to HUP. Prima facie, I agree with the statement, but only if one really embraces set theory, fractals and chaos theory, in particular the concepts that explain why eternal inflation versus normal inflation is the only logical mathematical assuming a de Sitter space (and for the truly courageous an anti de Sitter space) mirror image, where all the minima have positive vacuum energy, what happens next and what takes place next to one of these minima, where the n axis represents all the possible different minima. This means accepting time scales not within our limited space but rather time scales that allow a complete picture of everything not just our extremely limited “to our one horizon size” view which honestly at this point we know is wrong based on the curvature of space that is known. So taking into account all the causal patches, we are virtually guaranteed to live in a multiverse so instead of a continuous space time, imagine a tree, beginning at a point, or apex which branches twice for simplicity, although in reality it should be a three type branch to reflect your quantum computing and entanglement question. This will behave as an exponentially proliferating population.Now what really is the begging question here is why, when asked about the very small would I spend this much time on the very large. Because t are the same. We keep assuming there is an end point. HUP says what you can observe, it makes no statement on what can exist without being observed, yet could easily interact in particle on particle collisions WITHOUT being seen by an external observer just being.**(from my original NIAC research paper) on gravity and quantum field theoryReferences.This will then require the P-atic numbering system. REFERENCE/Credit (Wikipedia). “This section is an informal introduction to p-adic numbers, using examples from the ring of 10-adic (decadic) numbers. Although for p-adic numbers p should be a prime, base 10 was chosen to highlight the analogy with decimals. The decadic numbers are generally not used in mathematics. since 10 is not prime, the decadics are not a field. More formal constructions and properties are given below.in - This website is for sale! - below Resources and Information. the standard decimal representation, almost all[note 2] real numbers do not have a terminating decimal representation. For example, 1/3 is represented as a non-terminating decimal as follows.1/3=.333333333333333333…..1 3 = 0.333333 … . {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{3}}=0.333333\ldots .} Lecture References. We visualize every known particle as a sphere of energy “circle” *Brian Greene, but the 3D equivalent while atomic structures except gas and liquids invariably assume a crystalline or tetrahedron pyramid like shape. This is wherein HUP naturally falls out of uncertainty of merging these two models mathematically and ultimately at a physical model level. (Imagine fitting a sphere inside a pyramid ) . If we visualize billiard balls colliding, at impact, one spin stops. It's the mechanistic way of looking at superposition and entanglement.Everything exists simultaneously as matter and antimatter oscillating on an almost infinitely long and slender wire. When t meet in the middle t are super posed to form two instead of one, complete physical reality. Even the most advanced symbology based math using complex, real, irrational, multidimensional, non Euclidean, de Sitter, Minkowski space and so on...cannot compete with a 10>80 Dr. Fredkin, reversible type of three dimensional abacus (tiny spheres- based on his “billiard ball” table reversible computing mode.) Quantum computing and entanglement will push the above two conflicting models to their limit which may or may not be limited by HUP is the pilot wave theory is accurate or representative of the real world.ZPE or quantum foam, can be seen as analogous to being inside of a giant (googolplex) bubble chamber that receives energy in the form of massive gravitational waves.mmiThe above image is actually supposed to be moving with the arrows reversing every oscillation. This image explains broken symmetry in a millisecond. When we try to visualize a 3D object in 3D space, it fails to take into account the loss of the degrees of freedom that effectively remove one dimension, when you add motion.At 10>80 protons, that is easily small enough that we can think of two massive “air” bubbles 10>20* being created at the center, like an air bubble but with a mirror image (so it conserves momentum) and exploding outward but always joined by the same outer membrane that gave birth to them, like a soap bubble but capable of far greater surface tension. *Higgs boson Ben Benjamin McGraw I cut and pasted your comment here but I forgot to save it properly. Your comment is fantastic and I want to use it as a framework or skeleton from which to write my own answer. I hope that is okay Thanks Peter