[jerry40]

Does it mean we can create some machine (let's call it timegraph):

- before some sport event (NBA finals 7th match) we write a question 'who will win, A (1st team name) or B (2nd team name)?'

- do 2 experiments with photon and slits:

* (A)

* (B)

- do not measure their results until tomorrow

- tomorrow (after the match is over) you measure result of the experiment of the team that won and destroy results of the another experiment

- (returning to the previous day): look which experiment shows inteference and which doesn't

[yorwba]

> look which experiment shows inteference and which doesn't

This is also a kind of measurement, and one you can't meaningfully perform before the other. By the time you know the interference pattern, it's already too late to decide whether you want to measure the intermediate position.

You might try to measure without looking at the results, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that the interaction happened. (Superpositions do not collapse by being observed by a human, they collapse by interacting with the rest of the world.)

[jerry40]

> Superpositions do not collapse by being observed by a human, they collapse by interacting with the rest of the world.

But the article says: "Measuring which slit such a particle goes through will invariably indicate it only goes through one—but then the wavelike interference (the “quantumness,” if you will) vanishes. The very act of measurement seems to “collapse” the superposition." "Aharonov’s approach is called the two-state-vector formalism (TSVF) of quantum mechanics, and postulates quantum events are in some sense determined by quantum states not just in the past—but also in the future. "

Doesn't it mean that future measurement 'pushes' superposition into a definite state in the past?