Science > Physics > Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brit" |
| Date: |
17 Apr 2006 05:38:43 PM |
| Object: |
Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
What is the relationship of consistent histories and standard
quantum mechanics (as found in textbooks)?
Consistent histories is standard quantum mechanics presented in a
coherent fashion with the ambiguities and lack of clarity found
in the usual textbook presentations replaced with a clear set of
logical rules and principles for reasoning about a quantum
system. It is, in brief, "Copenhagen done right." There is, to be
sure, more that can be said - see the following questions.
What is the role of measurements in standard quantum mechanics
and in consistent histories?
In textbook quantum theory measurements are used to introduce
probabilities into the theory, and this feature is the source of
many conceptual difficulties and paradoxes. In particular, it
gives the misleading impression that one cannot apply statistical
ideas to quantum processes in the absence of measuring devices,
e=2Eg., to the decay of unstable particles in the center of the
sun, or in interstellar space. In addition, a great deal of
fruitless effort has been expended in an effort to resolve the
quantum "measurement problem" that arises when one wants to treat
the measuring apparatus itself as a quantum system.
By contrast, in the consistent histories approach probabilities
are introduced as part of the axiomatic foundations of quantum
theory, with no necessary connection with measurements. Quantum
dynamical processes are inherently stochastic, and the
probabilities can be calculated using a generalization of the
rule originally introduced by Born. Because it does not employ
measurement as a fundamental principle, the consistent histories
approach allows one to analyze, from a fully quantum-mechanical
perspective, what actually goes on in a physical measurement
process. For example, one can show that a properly constructed
measuring apparatus will reveal a property that the measured
system had before the measurement, and might well have lost
during the measurement process. The probabilities calculated for
measurement outcomes (pointer positions) are identical to those
obtained by the usual rules found in textbooks. What is different
is that by employing suitable families of histories one can show
that m easurements a ctually measure something that is there,
rather than producing a mysterious collapse of a wave function
<snip>
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html
Brief Introduction to Consistent (Decoherent) Histories
Modern quantum mechanics is based upon two distinct ideas. One is
that wave functions develop in time according to the equation
invented in 1926 by Erwin Schr"dinger. The other is that wave
functions can be used to calculate probabilities, an idea first
proposed, also in 1926, by Max Born. Combining these two ideas in
a consistent way has turned out to be difficult. The approach
found in many textbooks, in which a wave function is used to
calculate the probability that a measurement carried out on some
quan tum system will yield a particular outcome, is not very
satisfactory, for two reasons. First, one often wants to apply
quantum theory to situations which do not involve a measuring
apparatus; for example, in the center of the sun. Second, all
real measuring instruments are themselves made up of quantum
particles, and should therefore be described in quantum terms.
But trying to do so gives rise to difficulties and
inconsistencies in an approach to quantum theory that is based in
essential way upon the conce pt of a measurement.
The consistent histories approach combines wave functions and
probabilities in a fully consistent way which does not rely upon
the use of measurements. It was first proposed by Robert
Griffiths in 1984, and further developed by Roland Omn=8As in 1988,
and by Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle, who used the term
``decoherent histories'', in 1990. A history is a sequence of
quantum events (i.e., wave functions) at successive times.
Probabilities can be assigned to histories provided certain
consistency condition s are satisfied. Histories can be used to
describe how a particle interacts with a measuring apparatus, and
how the outcome of a measurement (e.g., the position of a
pointer) is related to some property of the particle before the
measurement took place. However, they can also be employed for a
single particle, or any number of particles, in the absence of
any measurement. For example, by using consistent histories it is
possible to assign a probability for the time at which an
unstable particle, such as a r adioactive atom, will decay, even
if it is out in interstellar space far from any measuring device.
Consistent histories can be used to analyze various quantum
paradoxes, such as the interference produced by a particle
passing through a double slit, or the correlated pair of
particles considered by Einstein, Podolksy, and Rosen. This
allows the paradox to be understood in quantum terms, without any
need to invoke peculiar long-range influences or other ghostly
effects. The consistent histories approach has also been employed
to analyze prob lems in quantum computation and quantum
cryptography.
Book at amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521539293/sr=3D8-1/qid=3D1145311842/ref=
=3Dpd_bbs_1/104-1809248-1583100?%5Fencoding=3DUTF8
.
|
|
| User: "greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
18 Apr 2006 02:02:21 AM |
|
|
"Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145313523.272966.215640@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
It is so wrong it is not even wrong -
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
What is the relationship of consistent histories and standard
quantum mechanics (as found in textbooks)?
NONE. Remove from QM any of the intricacies of the real world, reduce it to
a 'toy' status, and that is what you have with consistent histories.
Consistent histories is standard quantum mechanics presented in a
coherent fashion with the ambiguities and lack of clarity found
in the usual textbook presentations replaced with a clear set of
logical rules and principles for reasoning about a quantum
system. It is, in brief, "Copenhagen done right." There is, to be
sure, more that can be said - see the following questions.
The only thing you can call useful about CH is that by stripping reality
away from the theory, some of its more simpler ideas are a bit easier to
understand. But, again, if most people have trouble applying 'normal' QM to
the real world, with all its real world interactions, saying CH makes QM
easier to understand, is akin to saying that Women are made more
understandable by studying Whores in a cathouse. I know some who would agree
with that statement - they are deluded by the same mechanism that makes
misguided folk believe CH makes sense in a real world context.
Book at amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521539293/sr=8-1/qid=1145311842/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1809248-1583100?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Yes, read the book. Just don't believe anything it tells you...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
18 Apr 2006 07:00:12 AM |
|
|
greysky wrote:
"Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145313523.272966.215640@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
It is so wrong it is not even wrong -
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
What is the relationship of consistent histories and standard
quantum mechanics (as found in textbooks)?
NONE. Remove from QM any of the intricacies of the real world, reduce it to
a 'toy' status, and that is what you have with consistent histories.
Consistent histories is standard quantum mechanics presented in a
coherent fashion with the ambiguities and lack of clarity found
in the usual textbook presentations replaced with a clear set of
logical rules and principles for reasoning about a quantum
system. It is, in brief, "Copenhagen done right." There is, to be
sure, more that can be said - see the following questions.
The only thing you can call useful about CH is that by stripping reality
away from the theory, some of its more simpler ideas are a bit easier to
understand. But, again, if most people have trouble applying 'normal' QM to
the real world, with all its real world interactions, saying CH makes QM
easier to understand, is akin to saying that Women are made more
understandable by studying Whores in a cathouse. I know some who would agree
with that statement - they are deluded by the same mechanism that makes
misguided folk believe CH makes sense in a real world context.
Book at amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521539293/sr=8-1/qid=1145311842/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1809248-1583100?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Yes, read the book. Just don't believe anything it tells you...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
FTL radio? You are a nutter.
Brit
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
18 Apr 2006 05:42:38 PM |
|
|
Brit wrote:
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
What is the relationship of consistent histories and standard
quantum mechanics (as found in textbooks)?
Consistent histories is standard quantum mechanics presented in a
coherent fashion with the ambiguities and lack of clarity found
in the usual textbook presentations replaced with a clear set of
logical rules and principles for reasoning about a quantum
system. It is, in brief, "Copenhagen done right." There is, to be
sure, more that can be said - see the following questions.
What is the role of measurements in standard quantum mechanics
and in consistent histories?
In textbook quantum theory measurements are used to introduce
probabilities into the theory, and this feature is the source of
many conceptual difficulties and paradoxes. In particular, it
gives the misleading impression that one cannot apply statistical
ideas to quantum processes in the absence of measuring devices,
e.g., to the decay of unstable particles in the center of the
sun, or in interstellar space. In addition, a great deal of
fruitless effort has been expended in an effort to resolve the
quantum "measurement problem" that arises when one wants to treat
the measuring apparatus itself as a quantum system.
It's hardly fruitless, since that's how we got from
the 1930s idiot theory of vibrator clocks to today's
Laser Theory of clocks.
Since electrons do not only not exist as quantum systems,
they don't even exist anywhere outside of QED.
By contrast, in the consistent histories approach probabilities
are introduced as part of the axiomatic foundations of quantum
theory, with no necessary connection with measurements. Quantum
dynamical processes are inherently stochastic, and the
probabilities can be calculated using a generalization of the
rule originally introduced by Born. Because it does not employ
measurement as a fundamental principle, the consistent histories
approach allows one to analyze, from a fully quantum-mechanical
perspective, what actually goes on in a physical measurement
process. For example, one can show that a properly constructed
measuring apparatus will reveal a property that the measured
system had before the measurement, and might well have lost
during the measurement process. The probabilities calculated for
measurement outcomes (pointer positions) are identical to those
obtained by the usual rules found in textbooks. What is different
is that by employing suitable families of histories one can show
that m easurements a ctually measure something that is there,
rather than producing a mysterious collapse of a wave function
<snip>
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html
Brief Introduction to Consistent (Decoherent) Histories
Modern quantum mechanics is based upon two distinct ideas. One is
that wave functions develop in time according to the equation
invented in 1926 by Erwin Schr"dinger. The other is that wave
functions can be used to calculate probabilities, an idea first
proposed, also in 1926, by Max Born. Combining these two ideas in
a consistent way has turned out to be difficult. The approach
found in many textbooks, in which a wave function is used to
calculate the probability that a measurement carried out on some
quan tum system will yield a particular outcome, is not very
satisfactory, for two reasons. First, one often wants to apply
quantum theory to situations which do not involve a measuring
apparatus; for example, in the center of the sun. Second, all
real measuring instruments are themselves made up of quantum
particles, and should therefore be described in quantum terms.
But trying to do so gives rise to difficulties and
inconsistencies in an approach to quantum theory that is based in
essential way upon the conce pt of a measurement.
The consistent histories approach combines wave functions and
probabilities in a fully consistent way which does not rely upon
the use of measurements. It was first proposed by Robert
Griffiths in 1984, and further developed by Roland Omn=8As in 1988,
and by Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle, who used the term
``decoherent histories'', in 1990. A history is a sequence of
quantum events (i.e., wave functions) at successive times.
Probabilities can be assigned to histories provided certain
consistency condition s are satisfied. Histories can be used to
describe how a particle interacts with a measuring apparatus, and
how the outcome of a measurement (e.g., the position of a
pointer) is related to some property of the particle before the
measurement took place. However, they can also be employed for a
single particle, or any number of particles, in the absence of
any measurement. For example, by using consistent histories it is
possible to assign a probability for the time at which an
unstable particle, such as a r adioactive atom, will decay, even
if it is out in interstellar space far from any measuring device.
Consistent histories can be used to analyze various quantum
paradoxes, such as the interference produced by a particle
passing through a double slit, or the correlated pair of
particles considered by Einstein, Podolksy, and Rosen. This
allows the paradox to be understood in quantum terms, without any
need to invoke peculiar long-range influences or other ghostly
effects. The consistent histories approach has also been employed
to analyze prob lems in quantum computation and quantum
cryptography.
Book at amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521539293/sr=3D8-1/qid=3D1145311842/ref=
=3Dpd_bbs_1/104-1809248-1583100?%5Fencoding=3DUTF8
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
18 Apr 2006 01:00:37 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2006 15:38:43 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
I believe that Consistent Histories (also called Decoherent Histories)
explains that the rest of reality is what limits the wavefunction of
any particular particle. Only those possibilities are realized
that are compatible with the possibilities of the particles
around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of particles,
the range of possibilities gets more and more limited, until at
the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
This is apparently explained in Colin Bruce's book "Schrodinger's
Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes experimental evidence.
An approach closely related to Decoherent Histories known as Quantum
State Diffusion allows numerical simulation of how wavefunctions
evolve and collapse.
Simulation of noise in the diffusion process means that no two runs
are the same, but by repeatedly running a simulation, an investigator
can find out interesting things about the routes a system might
follow to reach different final states.
An introductory paper on the subject is:
"Quantum State Diffusion: from Foundations to Applications"
The full text with no figures is available from:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701024
The following scanned copy has all the figures, but a couple of pages
were incompletely scanned so the ends of lines were cut off.
http://kh.bu.edu/qcl/pdf/gisin__n19971004746f.pdf
Although I did not fully understand this paper, I found it worthwhile
to read the parts I could understand.
Several figures show the convergence of different runs to different
final states.
This seems a big step forward from the Copenhagen Interpretation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
18 Apr 2006 05:19:19 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 15:38:43 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.htm
I believe that Consistent Histories (also called Decoherent Histories)
explains that the rest of reality is what limits the wavefunction of
any particular particle. Only those possibilities are realized
that are compatible with the possibilities of the particles
around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of particles,
the range of possibilities gets more and more limited, until at
the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
I wonder how well they can explain entanglement. But isn't it
Aspect showed that there was some kind of non-locality thing
going on. Or better yet if you follow the Kochen Specker
Theorem reasoning... realism itself is violated instead of local
reality. Consistent Histories reasoning seem to be on the older
EPR mindset than the more modern and updated Aspect
experimental finding. What do you say.
Brit
This is apparently explained in Colin Bruce's book "Schrodinger's
Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes experimental evidence.
An approach closely related to Decoherent Histories known as Quantum
State Diffusion allows numerical simulation of how wavefunctions
evolve and collapse.
Simulation of noise in the diffusion process means that no two runs
are the same, but by repeatedly running a simulation, an investigator
can find out interesting things about the routes a system might
follow to reach different final states.
An introductory paper on the subject is:
"Quantum State Diffusion: from Foundations to Applications"
The full text with no figures is available from:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701024
The following scanned copy has all the figures, but a couple of pages
were incompletely scanned so the ends of lines were cut off.
http://kh.bu.edu/qcl/pdf/gisin__n19971004746f.pdf
Although I did not fully understand this paper, I found it worthwhile
to read the parts I could understand.
Several figures show the convergence of different runs to different
final states.
This seems a big step forward from the Copenhagen Interpretation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
21 Apr 2006 10:40:24 AM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2006 15:19:19 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wonder how well they can explain entanglement. But isn't it
Aspect showed that there was some kind of non-locality thing
going on. Or better yet if you follow the Kochen Specker
Theorem reasoning... realism itself is violated instead of local
reality. Consistent Histories reasoning seem to be on the older
EPR mindset than the more modern and updated Aspect
experimental finding. What do you say.
I can't comment on Consistent Histories, but Nicolas Gisin who
co-authored papers on Quantum State Diffusion, seems to have since
done a lot of work on entanglement and nonlocality.
Two papers by him that review the latter subjects are:
Can relativity be considered complete ? From Newtonian nonlocality to
quantum nonlocality and beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512168
How come the correlations?
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007
I have not encountered an explanation for quantum nonlocality and
entanglement, but I get the impression that experiments have now
fairly conclusively demonstrated that these are natural features of
reality.
So in my mind, what Einstein once called "spooky action at a distance"
has now become "natural action at a distance".
I find this view much more satisfactory.
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
21 Apr 2006 06:30:33 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 15:19:19 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wonder how well they can explain entanglement. But isn't it
Aspect showed that there was some kind of non-locality thing
going on. Or better yet if you follow the Kochen Specker
Theorem reasoning... realism itself is violated instead of local
reality. Consistent Histories reasoning seem to be on the older
EPR mindset than the more modern and updated Aspect
experimental finding. What do you say.
I can't comment on Consistent Histories, but Nicolas Gisin who
co-authored papers on Quantum State Diffusion, seems to have since
done a lot of work on entanglement and nonlocality.
Two papers by him that review the latter subjects are:
Can relativity be considered complete ? From Newtonian nonlocality to
quantum nonlocality and beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512168
How come the correlations?
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503007
I have not encountered an explanation for quantum nonlocality and
entanglement, but I get the impression that experiments have now
fairly conclusively demonstrated that these are natural features of
reality.
So in my mind, what Einstein once called "spooky action at a distance"
has now become "natural action at a distance".
I find this view much more satisfactory.
---
Have you heard of the Kochen Specker Theorem?
It's like this. Can there be another explanations for entanglement that
doesn't involve signalling? Yes. Just imagine your TV, one electron
made up the entire screen. So if the universe can somehow pull
the same stunt where it can project the particles in space/time like
TV, then the correlations in entanglement is not between the particles
but because they are projected with the source causing the
correlations.
But it is also possible that superluminal signalling occurs. But
you need the de_Broglie Bohmian mechanics approach where
the electron stays an electron and it is the pilot wave that controls
their behavior. Now how they do communicate superluminally.
Dr. Tile proposed there is a special particle called Deltron particle
that can bind superluminal and subluminal particles. So imagine
the electron has a deltron particle riding on it that binds it to the
superluminal realm. This is his mechanism for non-locality.
I still can't decide what is the case for the explanations of
entanglement. What other recommendations can you make?
Brit
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
22 Apr 2006 11:53:20 AM |
|
|
In message <1145662233.600055.249890@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Brit
<britnevada@yahoo.com> writes
Have you heard of the Kochen Specker Theorem?
It's like this. Can there be another explanations for entanglement that
doesn't involve signalling? Yes. Just imagine your TV, one electron
made up the entire screen. So if the universe can somehow pull the same
stunt where it can project the particles in space/time like TV, then
the correlations in entanglement is not between the particles but
because they are projected with the source causing the correlations.
This does not make sense as it stands. It's not the state of the
electrons when they are projected which matters. It's the state when one
is changed after projection, in a way which is not applied to the
second, but that changes anyway.
Or do you need to reword your interpretation?
But it is also possible that superluminal signalling occurs. But you
need the de_Broglie Bohmian mechanics approach where the electron stays
an electron and it is the pilot wave that controls their behavior. Now
how they do communicate superluminally. Dr. Tile proposed there is a
special particle called Deltron particle that can bind superluminal and
subluminal particles. So imagine the electron has a deltron particle
riding on it that binds it to the superluminal realm. This is his
mechanism for non-locality.
And does Dr. Tile propose an experiment which might falsify his
conjecture?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
22 Apr 2006 12:28:22 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2006 16:30:33 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Have you heard of the Kochen Specker Theorem?
I just had a quick look at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
so I have now--thanks :)
It's like this. Can there be another explanations for entanglement that
doesn't involve signalling? Yes. Just imagine your TV, one electron
made up the entire screen. So if the universe can somehow pull
the same stunt where it can project the particles in space/time like
TV, then the correlations in entanglement is not between the particles
but because they are projected with the source causing the
correlations.
For that to be true, the universe would have to project the motion of
every single particle in such a way, as to bring about the appropriate
correlations.
Moreover, in an experimental situation, the appropriate correlations
would depend on what the experimenters choose to measure.
Therefore the universe would have to somehow coordinate the choices of
the experimenters with the correlations.
I feel that would be unreasonably complicated.
But it is also possible that superluminal signalling occurs. But
you need the de_Broglie Bohmian mechanics approach where
the electron stays an electron and it is the pilot wave that controls
their behavior.
The interpretation I prefer is that particles always propagate as wave
packets, so the behaviour of particles is determined by wave packet
behaviour.
So why are particles observed as localised in space rather than spread
out as wave packets?. The reason I believe is that during the process
of detection, the wave packet interacts with the detector. This
interaction causes the wave packet to "collapse" to a small region of
space so as to create the effect of detecting a particle.
Now how they do communicate superluminally?
One suggestion I have read is that a pair of entangled particles
(wave-packets) should not be regarded as two separate entities but as
a single distributed entity. Then communication is not required in the
ususal sense of the word.
For example:
Quantum entanglement can be simulated without communication
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410027
Dr. Tile proposed there is a special particle called Deltron particle
that can bind superluminal and subluminal particles. So imagine
the electron has a deltron particle riding on it that binds it to the
superluminal realm. This is his mechanism for non-locality.
I still can't decide what is the case for the explanations of
entanglement. What other recommendations can you make?
I can recommend you look at:
The Prowave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
Explanation of the Experiments
http://www.quantummatter.com/node5.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
23 Apr 2006 01:21:30 PM |
|
|
In message <nfpk42has1gqs4aeslg6e6sb2ag76jrv7l@4ax.com>, Surfer
<surfer@no.spam.net> writes
So why are particles observed as localised in space rather than spread
out as wave packets?. The reason I believe is that during the process
of detection, the wave packet interacts with the detector. This
interaction causes the wave packet to "collapse" to a small region of
space so as to create the effect of detecting a particle.
The transition from pred (e, s1) to pred (e, s2) corresponds exactly to
the transition from the probability statement p (e, s1) to p (e, s2)
where p (a,b) denotes the probability of a given the information b. But
the transition from p(e,s1) to p(e,s2) is, as we have seen, precisely
what quantum theorists have described as a "reduction of the wave
packet". They have suggested that this reduction of the wave packet is
connected with, or dependent on, a) the measuring experiment by which we
obtain new information s2 and b) the realization or actualization of
what was, so far, only potential. (Heisenberg's transition from the
possible to the actual). These two points a) and b) are often combined
in the suggestion c) that it is only under the stimulus of our own
interference with the physical system, only owing to our measuring
experiment, that the transition from the possible to the actual takes
place. In our picture, in contrast, the transition from the possible to
the actual takes place whenever a new state of the world emerges;
whenever a new time-slice is actualized or realised, whether observed,
or measured, or not. (In fact, observations and measurements are so
extremely rare that almost all realizations of potentialities happen
independent of them.)
As long as anything happens, as long as there is any change, it will
always consist in the actualization of certain potentialities. Thus a
new filmstrip, (and with it a new opportunity for a reduction of the
wave packet) appears: whenever any interaction takes place. Whether or
not we know or observe the new state s2, and whether or not we replace
pred (e, s1) by pred (e, s2) in our attempts to predict e, is completely
incidental, and does not in any way bring about the actualization of
potentialities.
*The world changes without reference to us*
.....
Of course, some changes are due to our own experiments, and these are
both practically and theoretically important to us. But it looks to me
very much like a symptom of either myopia or megalomania to allow one's
view of the world, or of science, to be dominated, or even coloured, by
the disturbances created by one's own experiments. Transitions from the
potential to the actual and quantum interactions were going on before
anybody interfered with anything, and they will continue going on long
after we have left off interfering.
If you have read my "Schrodinger's cat" post you will recognise these as
the words of Karl Popper.
Do you find them relevant?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
27 Apr 2006 03:35:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:21:30 +0100, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <nfpk42has1gqs4aeslg6e6sb2ag76jrv7l@4ax.com>, Surfer
<surfer@no.spam.net> writes
So why are particles observed as localised in space rather than spread
out as wave packets?. The reason I believe is that during the process
of detection, the wave packet interacts with the detector. This
interaction causes the wave packet to "collapse" to a small region of
space so as to create the effect of detecting a particle.
The transition from pred (e, s1) to pred (e, s2) corresponds exactly to
the transition from the probability statement p (e, s1) to p (e, s2)
where p (a,b) denotes the probability of a given the information b. But
the transition from p(e,s1) to p(e,s2) is, as we have seen, precisely
what quantum theorists have described as a "reduction of the wave
packet". They have suggested that this reduction of the wave packet is
connected with, or dependent on, a) the measuring experiment by which we
obtain new information s2 and b) the realization or actualization of
what was, so far, only potential. (Heisenberg's transition from the
possible to the actual). These two points a) and b) are often combined
in the suggestion c) that it is only under the stimulus of our own
interference with the physical system, only owing to our measuring
experiment, that the transition from the possible to the actual takes
place. In our picture, in contrast, the transition from the possible to
the actual takes place whenever a new state of the world emerges;
whenever a new time-slice is actualized or realised, whether observed,
or measured, or not. (In fact, observations and measurements are so
extremely rare that almost all realizations of potentialities happen
independent of them.)
As long as anything happens, as long as there is any change, it will
always consist in the actualization of certain potentialities. Thus a
new filmstrip, (and with it a new opportunity for a reduction of the
wave packet) appears: whenever any interaction takes place. Whether or
not we know or observe the new state s2, and whether or not we replace
pred (e, s1) by pred (e, s2) in our attempts to predict e, is completely
incidental, and does not in any way bring about the actualization of
potentialities.
*The world changes without reference to us*
....
Of course, some changes are due to our own experiments, and these are
both practically and theoretically important to us. But it looks to me
very much like a symptom of either myopia or megalomania to allow one's
view of the world, or of science, to be dominated, or even coloured, by
the disturbances created by one's own experiments. Transitions from the
potential to the actual and quantum interactions were going on before
anybody interfered with anything, and they will continue going on long
after we have left off interfering.
If you have read my "Schrodinger's cat" post you will recognise these as
the words of Karl Popper.
Do you find them relevant?
Very much so.
Thanks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories) |
23 Apr 2006 05:57:08 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 21 Apr 2006 16:30:33 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Have you heard of the Kochen Specker Theorem?
I just had a quick look at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
so I have now--thanks :)
It's like this. Can there be another explanations for entanglement that
doesn't involve signalling? Yes. Just imagine your TV, one electron
made up the entire screen. So if the universe can somehow pull
the same stunt where it can project the particles in space/time like
TV, then the correlations in entanglement is not between the particles
but because they are projected with the source causing the
correlations.
For that to be true, the universe would have to project the motion of
every single particle in such a way, as to bring about the appropriate
correlations.
Moreover, in an experimental situation, the appropriate correlations
would depend on what the experimenters choose to measure.
Therefore the universe would have to somehow coordinate the choices of
the experimenters with the correlations.
I feel that would be unreasonably complicated.
Not really. When Confucius uses the abacus ages ago. Can
he forsee that we'd have the Cray Computer at the Pentagon.
Nature can pull stunts we can't imagine. In fact. David Bohm
has a model of the above in the form of Wholeness and Implicate
Order (he has this title in his book) where he shared the
mechanism of how the universe would have to somehow coordinate
the choices of the experimenters with correlations as you described.
So yes, it is possible that the universe could project the motion of
every single particle in such a way, as to bring about the appropriate
correlations. What's wrong with this? We don't decide what nature
can do. Nature decides our laws.
But it is also possible that superluminal signalling occurs. But
you need the de_Broglie Bohmian mechanics approach where
the electron stays an electron and it is the pilot wave that controls
their behavior.
The interpretation I prefer is that particles always propagate as wave
packets, so the behaviour of particles is determined by wave packet
behaviour.
So why are particles observed as localised in space rather than spread
out as wave packets?. The reason I believe is that during the process
of detection, the wave packet interacts with the detector. This
interaction causes the wave packet to "collapse" to a small region of
space so as to create the effect of detecting a particle.
But for the wave packet at multi particle entanglement experiments
to collapse, some superluminal correleration is still needed.
Now how they do communicate superluminally?
One suggestion I have read is that a pair of entangled particles
(wave-packets) should not be regarded as two separate entities but as
a single distributed entity. Then communication is not required in the
ususal sense of the word.
Yes. The usual QM intepretation says that you could regard them
as one entity and not two. But in the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation.
They are separate entities. Here the electrons are always electrons
and the wave function never collapse.
It's just that when you put measuring instruments. The wave
functions becomes complicated as you have to accomodate the
wave functions of the measuring device which is also a quantum
system. Hence the interaction itself can change the measurement.
see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
"Collapse of the Wave Function" which it claimed there was no
collapse because adding the measuring devices changes
the wave function. But my question is why does the intereference
just totally vanish by mere inclusion of a detector. Why does
the wave function have to be so shy that any kind of measuring
device even minimally interacting can collapse it. What do
you think? (pls. take a look at the article first if you still haven't
read it)
For example:
Quantum entanglement can be simulated without communication
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410027
Is this flawless. But Aspect and other experiments can change
the angle or polarization after the photon or electron is sent out.
This is why it can't be just old EPR explanation that they already
have the properties before they are sent out. This is Aspect and
company argued that somehow the correlations are non-local (or
since locality need not be violated... non-realism mediated).
Dr. Tile proposed there is a special particle called Deltron particle
that can bind superluminal and subluminal particles. So imagine
the electron has a deltron particle riding on it that binds it to the
superluminal realm. This is his mechanism for non-locality.
I still can't decide what is the case for the explanations of
entanglement. What other recommendations can you make?
I can recommend you look at:
The Prowave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
Explanation of the Experiments
http://www.quantummatter.com/node5.html
Hmm.... wonder if you have a site with the complete listings of
all Interpretations or summary of them.
Within the mystery of Measurement in quantum mechanics
holds the key to the secrets of secrets.
Brit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
