DOCSLIB.ORG

Gerard 'T Hooft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gerard 'T Hooft Fundamental Theories of Physics 185 Gerard ’t Hooft The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Fundamental Theories of Physics Volume 185 Series Editors Henk van Beijeren, Utrecht, The Netherlands Philippe Blanchard, Bielefeld, Germany Paul Busch, York, United Kingdom Bob Coecke, Oxford, United Kingdom Dennis Dieks, Utrecht, The Netherlands Bianca Dittrich, Waterloo, Canada Detlef Dürr, München, Germany Ruth Durrer, Genève, Switzerland Roman Frigg, London, United Kingdom Christopher Fuchs, Boston, USA Giancarlo Ghirardi, Trieste, Italy Domenico J.W. Giulini, Bremen, Germany Gregg Jaeger, Boston, USA Claus Kiefer, Köln, Germany Nicolaas P. Landsman, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Christian Maes, Leuven, Belgium Mio Murao, Tokyo, Japan Hermann Nicolai, Potsdam, Germany Vesselin Petkov, Montreal, Canada Laura Ruetsche, Ann Arbor, USA Mairi Sakellariadou, London, United Kingdom Alwyn van der Merwe, Denver, USA Rainer Verch, Leipzig, Germany Reinhard Werner, Hannover, Germany Christian Wüthrich, Geneva, Switzerland Lai-Sang Young, New York City, USA The international monograph series “Fundamental Theories of Physics” aims to stretch the boundaries of mainstream physics by clarifying and developing the the- oretical and conceptual framework of physics and by applying it to a wide range of interdisciplinary scientific fields. Original contributions in well-established fields such as Quantum Physics, Relativity Theory, Cosmology, Quantum Field Theory, Statistical Mechanics and Nonlinear Dynamics are welcome. The series also pro- vides a forum for non-conventional approaches to these fields. Publications should present new and promising ideas, with prospects for their further development, and carefully show how they connect to conventional views of the topic. Although the aim of this series is to go beyond established mainstream physics, a high profile and open-minded Editorial Board will evaluate all contributions carefully to ensure a high scientific standard. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6001 Gerard ’t Hooft The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Gerard ’t Hooft Institute for Theoretical Physics Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands ISSN 0168-1222 ISSN 2365-6425 (electronic) Fundamental Theories of Physics ISBN 978-3-319-41284-9 ISBN 978-3-319-41285-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016952241 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016. The book is published open access. Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Interna- tional License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Foreword When investigating theories at the tiniest conceivable scales in Nature, almost all researchers today revert to the quantum language, accepting the verdict that we shall nickname “the Copenhagen doctrine” that the only way to describe what is going on will always involve states in Hilbert space, controlled by operator equations. Returning to classical, that is, non quantum mechanical, descriptions will be forever impossible, unless one accepts some extremely contrived theoretical contraptions that may or may not reproduce the quantum mechanical phenomena observed in experiments. Dissatisfied, this author investigated how one can look at things differently. This book is an overview of older material, but also contains many new observations and calculations. Quantum mechanics is looked upon as a tool, not as a theory. Exam- ples are displayed of models that are classical in essence, but can be analysed by the use of quantum techniques, and we argue that even the Standard Model, together with gravitational interactions, might be viewed as a quantum mechanical approach to analyse a system that could be classical at its core. We explain how such thoughts can conceivably be reconciled with Bell’s theorem, and how the usual objections voiced against the notion of ‘superdeterminism’ can be overcome, at least in princi- ple. Our proposal would eradicate the collapse problem and the measurement prob- lem. Even the existence of an “arrow of time” can perhaps be explained in a more elegant way than usual. Utrecht, The Netherlands Gerard ’t Hooft May 2016 v Preface This book is not in any way intended to serve as a replacement for the standard theory of quantum mechanics. A reader not yet thoroughly familiar with the basic concepts of quantum mechanics is advised first to learn this theory from one of the recommended text books [24, 25, 60], and only then pick up this book to find out that the doctrine called ‘quantum mechanics’ can be viewed as part of a marvellous mathematical machinery that places physical phenomena in a greater context, and only in the second place as a theory of Nature. This book consists of two parts. Part I deals with the many conceptual issues, without demanding excessive calculations. Part II adds to this our calculation tech- niques, occasionally returning to conceptual issues. Inevitably, the text in both parts will frequently refer to discussions in the other part, but they can be studied sepa- rately. This book is not a novel that has to be read from beginning to end, but rather a collection of descriptions and derivations, to be used as a reference. Different parts can be read in random order. Some arguments are repeated several times, but each time in a different context. Utrecht, The Netherlands Gerard ’t Hooft vii Acknowledgements The author discussed these topics with many colleagues; I often forget who said what, but it is clear that many critical remarks later turned out to be relevant and were picked up. Among them were A. Aspect, T. Banks, N. Berkovitz, M. Bla- sone, Eliahu Cohen, M. Duff, G. Dvali, Th. Elze, E. Fredkin, S. Giddings, S. Hawk- ing, M. Holman, H. Kleinert, R. Maimon, Th. Nieuwenhuizen, M. Porter, P. Shor, L. Susskind, R. Werner, E. Witten, W. Zurek. Utrecht, The Netherlands Gerard ’t Hooft ix Contents Part I The Cellular Automaton Interpretation as a General Doctrine 1 Motivation for This Work ....................... 3 1.1 Why an Interpretation Is Needed ................. 5 1.2 Outline of the Ideas Exposed in Part I ............... 8 1.3A19thCenturyPhilosophy.................... 12 1.4BriefHistoryoftheCellularAutomaton............. 14 1.5 Modern Thoughts About Quantum Mechanics . ........ 16 1.6Notation.............................. 17 2 Deterministic Models in Quantum Notation ............. 19 2.1 The Basic Structure of Deterministic Models . ........ 19 2.1.1 Operators: Beables, Changeables and Superimposables . 21 2.2 The Cogwheel Model ....................... 22 2.2.1 Generalizations of the Cogwheel Model: Cogwheels with N Teeth........................ 23 2.2.2 The Most General Deterministic, Time Reversible, Finite Model ........................... 25 3 Interpreting Quantum Mechanics ................... 29 3.1 The Copenhagen Doctrine . .................. 29 3.2TheEinsteinianView....................... 31 3.3 Notions Not Admitted in the CAI ................. 33 3.4 The Collapsing Wave Function and Schrödinger’s Cat ...... 35 3.5 Decoherence and Born’s Probability Axiom . ........ 37 3.6 Bell’s Theorem, Bell’s Inequalities and the CHSH Inequality . 38 3.7 The Mouse Dropping Function .................. 42 3.7.1 Ontology Conservation and Hidden Information ..... 44 3.8FreeWillandTimeInversion................... 45 4 Deterministic Quantum Mechanics .................. 49 4.1 Introduction ............................ 49 4.2TheClassicalLimitRevisited................... 52 xi xii Contents 4.3 Born’s Probability Rule ...................... 53 4.3.1TheUseofTemplates..................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected]
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Faculty Articles and Research Research 2016 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected] Eliahu Cohen Tel Aviv University Tomer Shushi University of Haifa Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles Part of the Quantum Physics Commons Recommended Citation Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., & Shushi, T. (2016). Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will. Quanta, 5(1), 53-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Research at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Comments This article was originally published in Quanta, volume 5, issue 1, in 2016. DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/334 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov 1;2, Eliahu Cohen 1;3 & Tomer Shushi 4 1 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Schmid College of Science, Chapman University, Orange, California, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Bell's Theorem and Its Tests
    PHYSICS ESSAYS 33, 2 (2020) Bell’s theorem and its tests: Proof that nature is superdeterministic—Not random Johan Hanssona) Division of Physics, Lulea˚ University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea˚, Sweden (Received 9 March 2020; accepted 7 May 2020; published online 22 May 2020) Abstract: By analyzing the same Bell experiment in different reference frames, we show that nature at its fundamental level is superdeterministic, not random, in contrast to what is indicated by orthodox quantum mechanics. Events—including the results of quantum mechanical measurements—in global space-time are fixed prior to measurement. VC 2020 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-33.2.216] Resume: En analysant l’experience de Bell dans d’autres cadres de reference, nous demontrons que la nature est super deterministe au niveau fondamental et non pas aleatoire, contrairement ace que predit la mecanique quantique. Des evenements, incluant les resultats des mesures mecaniques quantiques, dans un espace-temps global sont fixes avant la mesure. Key words: Quantum Nonlocality; Bell’s Theorem; Quantum Measurement. Bell’s theorem1 is not merely a statement about quantum Registered outcomes at either side, however, are classi- mechanics but about nature itself, and will survive even if cal objective events (for example, a sequence of zeros and quantum mechanics is superseded by an even more funda- ones representing spin up or down along some chosen mental theory in the future. Although Bell used aspects of direction), e.g., markings on a paper printout ¼ classical quantum theory in his original proof, the same results can be facts ¼ events ¼ points defining (constituting) global space- obtained without doing so.2,3 The many experimental tests of time itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner
    entropy Article Quantum Errors and Disturbances: Response to Busch, Lahti and Werner David Marcus Appleby Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; [email protected]; Tel.: +44-734-210-5857 Academic Editors: Gregg Jaeger and Andrei Khrennikov Received: 27 February 2016; Accepted: 28 April 2016; Published: 6 May 2016 Abstract: Busch, Lahti and Werner (BLW) have recently criticized the operator approach to the description of quantum errors and disturbances. Their criticisms are justified to the extent that the physical meaning of the operator definitions has not hitherto been adequately explained. We rectify that omission. We then examine BLW’s criticisms in the light of our analysis. We argue that, although the BLW approach favour (based on the Wasserstein two-deviation) has its uses, there are important physical situations where an operator approach is preferable. We also discuss the reason why the error-disturbance relation is still giving rise to controversies almost a century after Heisenberg first stated his microscope argument. We argue that the source of the difficulties is the problem of interpretation, which is not so wholly disconnected from experimental practicalities as is sometimes supposed. Keywords: error disturbance principle; uncertainty principle; quantum measurement; Heisenberg PACS: 03.65.Ta 1. Introduction The error-disturbance principle remains highly controversial almost a century after Heisenberg wrote the paper [1], which originally suggested it. It is remarkable that this should be so, since the disagreements concern what is arguably the most fundamental concept of all, not only in physics, but in empirical science generally: namely, the concept of measurement accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy Found
    Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy Found. Phys. 41:1521-1531 (2011), arXiv:1105.4326 [quant-ph] Sabine Hossenfelder Nordita What is Superdeterminism? • No free will: Not possible to chose detector settings independent of prepared state. • “Conspiracy” theories: misleading expression. • Really: Nonlocal correlations necessary, but • Not necessarily spooky at a distance. • Hidden variables, yes, but not necessarily realist. Nonlocality “A theory will be said to be locally causal if the probabilities attached to values of local beables in a space-time region 1 are unaltered by specification of values of local beables in a space-like separated region 2, when what happens in the backward light cone of 1 is already sufficiently specified, for example by a full specification of local beables in a space-time region 3…” ~ J. S. Bell Why Superdeterminism? • Because I like it. • Because it’s possible and hasn’t been ruled out since Bell’s theorem can’t be used. • Logically: Can never be ruled out, but certain models can be ruled out. • Try to be as model-independent as possible. What kind of Superdeterminism? • Assume: Hidden variables come from environment. • Assume: dofs beyond experiment’s scale decouple. • Assume: Born rule fulfilled. • No assumptions about collapse or likewise. How to test Superdeterminism? • Main difference to standard QM: The same initial state will lead to the same outcome. No indeterminism. • But “the same state” now means “the same hidden variables”. So we don’t know how to prepare the “same” state twice. • Avoid problem by repeating measurements on one state. Use non-commuting variables. Testing Superdeterminism • Repeatedly measure non-commuting variables on one state.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Notion of Coexistence in Quantum Mechanics
    This is a repository copy of On the notion of coexistence in quantum mechanics. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/42665/ Article: Busch, P. orcid.org/0000-0002-2559-9721, Kiukas, J. and Lahti, P. (2010) On the notion of coexistence in quantum mechanics. MATHEMATICA SLOVACA. pp. 665-680. ISSN 0139- 9918 https://doi.org/10.2478/s12175-010-0039-1 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ promoting access to White Rose research papers Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ This is an author produced version of a paper published in MATHEMATICA SLOVACA White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 42665 Published paper Title: On the notion of coexistence in quantum mechanics Author(s): Busch, P; Kiukas, J; Lahti, P Source: MATHEMATICA SLOVACA Volume: 60 Issue: 5 Pages: 665- 680 Published: 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/s12175-010-0039-1 White Rose Research Online [email protected] ON THE NOTION OF COEXISTENCE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS PAUL BUSCH, JUKKA KIUKAS, AND PEKKA LAHTI Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Superdeterminism
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 06 May 2020 doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00139 Rethinking Superdeterminism Sabine Hossenfelder 1 and Tim Palmer 2* 1 Department of Physics, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt, Germany, 2 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This “measurement problem” indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory—good as far as it goes, but missing a piece—or, more radically, is in need of complete overhaul. Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement Edited by: problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics. Most Karl Hess, importantly, we will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States model independent way.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy 2020 11 26 Stylia
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Stylianou, Nicos Title: On 'Probability' A Case of Down to Earth Humean Propensities General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. On ‘Probability’ A Case of Down to Earth Humean Propensities By NICOS STYLIANOU Department of Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in ac- cordance with the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Faculty of Arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Structures in the Set of Quantum Observables: Coexistence, Unsharpness, Approximation
    Structures in the Set of Quantum Observables: Coexistence, Unsharpness, Approximation Paul Busch∗ In the abstract of their seminal paper on quantum logic [1], Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann refer to the joint measurement problem for noncommuting quantum observables: “One of the aspects of quantum theory which has attracted the most general attention, is the novelty of the logical notions which it presupposes. It asserts that even a complete mathematical description of a physical system S does not in general enable one to predict with certainty the result of an experiment on S, and that in particular one can never predict with certainty both the position and the momentum of S (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). It further asserts that most pairs of observations are incompatible, and cannot be made on S simultaneously (Principle of Non-commutativity of Observations).” The object of the present paper is to consider what approximate solution one may hope to find to the joint measurement problem. Our main conclusion, based on a rigorous notion of unsharp observable, is that one can reasonably expect to find approximate joint measurements for any pair of noncommuting sharp observables, provided a trade-off in the sense of a Heisenberg uncertainty relation for measurement inaccuracies is taken into account. In addition, it will be seen that as a consequence of the noncom- mutativity of the given observables, the approximating observables must have degrees of unsharpness that obey yet another trade-off relation in the spirit of Heisenberg’s principle. These connections will be illustrated for pairs of simple qubit observables. This contribution is based on collaborative work published in [2]–[5].
    [Show full text]
  • SIC-Povms and Compatibility Among Quantum States
    mathematics Article SIC-POVMs and Compatibility among Quantum States Blake C. Stacey Physics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-617-287-6050; Fax: +1-617-287-6053 Academic Editors: Paul Busch, Takayuki Miyadera and Teiko Heinosaari Received: 1 March 2016; Accepted: 14 May 2016; Published: 1 June 2016 Abstract: An unexpected connection exists between compatibility criteria for quantum states and Symmetric Informationally Complete quantum measurements (SIC-POVMs). Beginning with Caves, Fuchs and Schack’s "Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignments", I show that a qutrit SIC-POVM studied in other contexts enjoys additional interesting properties. Compatibility criteria provide a new way to understand the relationship between SIC-POVMs and mutually unbiased bases, as calculations in the SIC representation of quantum states make clear. This, in turn, illuminates the resources necessary for magic-state quantum computation, and why hidden-variable models fail to capture the vitality of quantum mechanics. Keywords: SIC-POVM; qutrit; post-Peierls compatibility; Quantum Bayesian; QBism PACS: 03.65.Aa, 03.65.Ta, 03.67.-a 1. A Compatibility Criterion for Quantum States This article presents an unforeseen connection between two subjects originally studied for separate reasons by the Quantum Bayesians, or to use the more recent and specific term, QBists [1,2]. One of these topics originates in the paper “Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignments” [3] by Caves, Fuchs and Schack (CFS). Refining CFS’s treatment reveals an unexpected link between the concept of compatibility and other constructions of quantum information theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics Vacuum State
    Quantum Mechanics_vacuum state In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero- point field is sometimes used[by whom?] as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field. According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5] The QED vacuum of Quantum electrodynamics(or QED) was the first vacuum of quantum field theory to be developed. QED originated in the 1930s, and in the late 1940s and early 1950s it was reformulated by Feynman, Tomonaga andSchwinger, who jointly received the Nobel prize for this work in 1965.[6] Today theelectromagnetic interactions and the weak interactions are unified in the theory of theElectroweak interaction. The Standard Model is a generalization of the QED work to include all the known elementary particles and their interactions (except gravity).Quantum chromodynamics is the portion of the Standard Model that deals with strong interactions, and QCD vacuum is the vacuum ofQuantum chromodynamics. It is the object of study in the Large Hadron Collider and theRelativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[7] Contents 1 Non-zero expectation value 2 Energy 3 Symmetry 4 Electrical permittivity 5 Notations 6 Virtual particles 7 Physical nature of the quantum vacuum 8 See also 9 References and notes 10 Further reading Non-zero expectation value Main article: Vacuum expectation value The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Sabine Hossenfelder Superdeterminism
    The Forgotten Solution Sabine Hossenfelder Superdeterminism This is a talk about the foundations of quantum mechanics, not about interpretations of quantum mechanics. For details and references, see: SH, Tim N. Palmer “Rethinking Superdeterminism,” arXiv:1912.06462 [quant-ph] Quantum Mechanics is Incomplete Quantum mechanics is arguably a successful theory but it cannot be how nature fundamentally works. Not because it is unintuitive or ugly, but because it is axiomatically inconsistent. Quantum mechanics uses two equations as dynamical law. The Schrödinger equation and the measurement update (the “collapse” of the wave-function). This leads to the measurement problem. The Measurement Problem Quantum mechanics is not an ensemble theory. It is a theory for individual particles. But a particle that is 50% measured is not a thing. This means the update of the wave-function is necessary to describe what we observe. Decoherence does not solve the problem. The Measurement Problem (cont’d) The measurement process in quantum mechanics is not linear. This means it is incompatible with the Schrödinger equation. It cannot be derived from it. But if quantum mechanics was a fundamental theory, the measurement postulate should be unnecessary. The behavior of macroscopic objects like detectors should be derivable. (This, or one has to give up reductionism for which there isn’t even a theory.) The Measurement Problem is Unsolved ! (Neo-)Copenhagen approaches bring back the problem in new clothes by referring to terms like “knowledge” held by “agents”. ! Many Worlds requires a postulate equivalent to the measurement postulate. No improvement. ! Collapse models solve the problem only after specifying what state to collapse into.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of a Classical Ontology for Quantum Mechanics?
    entropy Article The End of a Classical Ontology for Quantum Mechanics? Peter W. Evans School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; [email protected] Abstract: In this paper, I argue that the Shrapnel–Costa no-go theorem undermines the last remaining viability of the view that the fundamental ontology of quantum mechanics is essentially classical: that is, the view that physical reality is underpinned by objectively real, counterfactually definite, uniquely spatiotemporally defined, local, dynamical entities with determinate valued properties, and where typically ‘quantum’ behaviour emerges as a function of our own in-principle ignorance of such entities. Call this view Einstein–Bell realism. One can show that the causally symmetric local hidden variable approach to interpreting quantum theory is the most natural interpretation that follows from Einstein–Bell realism, where causal symmetry plays a significant role in circumventing the nonclassical consequences of the traditional no-go theorems. However, Shrapnel and Costa argue that exotic causal structures, such as causal symmetry, are incapable of explaining quantum behaviour as arising as a result of noncontextual ontological properties of the world. This is partic- ularly worrying for Einstein–Bell realism and classical ontology. In the first instance, the obvious consequence of the theorem is a straightforward rejection of Einstein–Bell realism. However, more than this, I argue that, even where there looks to be a possibility of accounting for contextual ontic variables within a causally symmetric framework, the cost of such an account undermines a key advantage of causal symmetry: that accepting causal symmetry is more economical than rejecting a classical ontology.
    [Show full text]