DOCSLIB.ORG

Dynamical Relaxation to Quantum Equilibrium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dynamical Relaxation to Quantum Equilibrium Dynamical relaxation to quantum equilibrium Or, an account of Mike's attempt to write an entirely new computer code that doesn't do quantum Monte Carlo for the first time in years. ESDG, 10th February 2010 Mike Towler TCM Group, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/∼mdt26 and www.vallico.net/tti/tti.html [email protected] { Typeset by FoilTEX { 1 What I talked about a month ago (`Exchange, antisymmetry and Pauli repulsion', ESDG Jan 13th 2010) I showed that (1) the assumption that fermions are point particles with a continuous objective existence, and (2) the equations of non-relativistic QM, allow us to deduce: • ..that a mathematically well-defined ‘fifth force', non-local in character, appears to act on the particles and causes their trajectories to differ from the classical ones. • ..that this force appears to have its origin in an objectively-existing `wave field’ mathematically represented by the usual QM wave function. • ..that indistinguishability arguments are invalid under these assumptions; rather antisymmetrization implies the introduction of forces between particles. • ..the nature of spin. • ..that the action of the force prevents two fermions from coming into close proximity when `their spins are the same', and that in general, this mechanism prevents fermions from occupying the same quantum state. This is a readily understandable causal explanation for the Exclusion principle and for its otherwise inexplicable consequences such as `degeneracy pressure' in a white dwarf star. Furthermore, if assume antisymmetry of wave field not fundamental but develops naturally over the course of time, then can see character of reason for fermionic wave functions having symmetry behaviour they do. { Typeset by FoilTEX { 2 Pair correlation functions in silicon VMC VMC 0 0 g r r n g r r n "" "# r at b ond center r at b ond center 0 0 r in plane r in plane 1 0.9 1 1.02 0.7 0.97 0.5 0.92 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.87 0.1 0.82 * * * * * 0.8 * * * 0 * * * * * * { Typeset by FoilTEX { 3 Required characteristics of force giving rise to `Pauli repulsion'? When we say `this is not explicable classically; it is a quantum effect' (degeneracy pressure, covalent bonding, Aharanov-Bohm effect, etc..) can we be more specific about what we mean? Strategy: Work with statistical distribution ρ since particle positions unknown. Assuming classical Newtonian trajectories, derive differential equation giving time evolution of ρ. Can we deduce from this anything about form of force in quantum case? • Probability distribution ρ must obey usual continuity equation @ρ/@t = −∇ · (ρv) so that it remains normalized as it changes shape over time (here v is velocity vector). • Assume particles obey classical dynamics. To calculate trajectories, don't use Newtonian F = ma 2 @S (rS) formulation; instead use the entirely equivalent Hamilton-Jacobi equation − @t = 2m + V - where S is related to the `action'. For convenience, combine continuity and classical Hamilton-Jacobi equations (two real equations, note) p iS into a single complex equation. To do this, introduce general complex function Ψ = reiθ = ρe h¯ with h¯ an arbitrary constant giving a dimensionless exponent. Complex equation that results is: 2 ! 2 2p @Ψ h¯ 2 h¯ r ρ ih¯ = − r + V − Q Ψ with Q = − p : @t 2m 2m ρ This is the time-dependent Schr¨odingerequation - straight out of QM - with one difference: something like a potential (`Q') is subtracted off the Hamiltonian. Note Ψ has same interpretation as in QM: a particle probability density. Tells us that if particles are to follow Newtonian trajectories, must subtract off an extra `quantum force' −∇Q (apparently due to a `wave field’ pushing the particles) from the usual classical force. { Typeset by FoilTEX { 4 Derive the same thing directly in QM 2 • Wave field evolution from Schr¨odingerequation i¯h@Ψ = PN − h¯ r2Ψ + V Ψ. @t i=1 2mi i Evolving quantum system behaves like `probability fluid’ of density jΨj2 = ΨΨ∗ h¯ ∗ with an associated time-dependent quantum probability current j = mIm(Ψ rΨ). h¯ • Suspect particle trajectories follow streamlines of current: velocity v = mImr ln Ψ (current/density). Using complex polar form Ψ = jΨj exp[iS=¯h], the wave function phase S(x1;:::; xN ; t) is given by S = ¯hIm ln Ψ (similar to velocity expression). Thus deduce trajectories xi(t) given by de Broglie guidance equation for velocity: dxi riS vi = = dt mi • Can write in 2nd-order `F = ma' form by taking t derivative: mi¨xi = −∇i(V + Q), where 2 2 P h¯ ri jΨj Q = − (quantum potential). Extra `quantum' force −∇iQ (big if large curvature i 2mi jΨj in wave field). Non-classical dynamics since particles `pushed along' by wave along trajectories perpendicular to surfaces of constant phase, as well as by classical force from other particles. • Guidance equation identical to trajectory equation in Hamilton-Jacobi theory - a standard form of classical mechanics like Hamiltonian or Lagrangian dynamics. There S is indefinite integral of classical Lagrangian with respect to t (note the `action' is the definite integral with fixed endpoints). Suggests immediately how to obtain the classical limit, i.e. when Q = rQ = 0 the wave component of matter is passive and the particles follow classical trajectories (impossible in orthodox QM!). { Typeset by FoilTEX { 5 It's a dead theory! Stationary electrons \The biggest problem is the electron in hydrogen not moving - Copenhagen does not need to invoke QED to explain lack of radiation from atoms and the spherical symmetry of the charge. Up to that point then I did not think that [the theory] was dead just that it was just as flawed as everything else - but I do find it difficult to see how a single electron can be `aware' of the wave and yet have nothing really to do with. [sic]" [MCP email to MDT] Strictly speaking, Copenhagen states Nature is inherently probabilistic; cannot pick and choose which particles it applies to as we do in TCM where most nuclei not only objectively exist but follow Newtonian trajectories. Despite Bohr, it is perfectly consistent to say that electrons/light nuclei exhibit `quantum effects’ because they follow non-classical trajectories due to the influence of the wave field. In the extremely unlikely event of preparing a proton-electron stationary state (H!) in completely field- free space then indeed the particles are motionless, held in equilibrium by opposing forces (classical and quantum). In classical electrostatics, this is a dipole, and a nearby `test charge' will be repelled. Two possible explanations for QM behaviour: (1) say the electron simultaneously occupies every position it could possibly be measured in; the resulting spherical symmetry implies no dipole force, or (2) there is another equal and opposite force due to the wave field which holds the test charge in equilibrium. At this level (apart from the first option being a bit weird) there is no reason to prefer either option. Recall though, that Schr¨odingertheory is for spin-zero particles (we can only do spin-polarized calculations through a kind of cheating). If you take the non-relativistic limit of a relativistic wave equation such as the Dirac equation which correctly incorporates spin one finds an extra spin-dependent term in the guidance equation, and the classical and quantum forces never balance.. { Typeset by FoilTEX { 6 It's a dead theory! Radiation \The biggest problem is the electron in hydrogen not moving - Copenhagen does not need to invoke QED to explain lack of radiation from atoms and the spherical symmetry of the charge. Up to that point then I did not think that [the theory] was dead just that it was just as flawed as everything else - but I do find it difficult to see how a single electron can be `aware' of the wave and yet have nothing really to do with. [sic]" [MCP email to MDT] • The wave field can be thought of as a time-dependent distribution of energy-momentum in space. Because the wave field is a repository of energy it can exert a force on the particles. Depending on the circumstances, some (or all) of a particle's energy-momentum can be transferred and temporarily stored in its wave field. Once stored in the field, energy-momentum can be returned to the particle if circumstances change, and its KE will increase (it will accelerate). The motion of a quantum particle thus need not be in a straight line even if there is no external field present. • If the pilot-wave passes an obstacle (such as a couple of slits) then its form will change (it will develop an interference pattern in this case) and energy will be transferred to and from the particle travelling through it; the electron trajectory will then deviate from its classical (Newtonian) path. It gets guided into places where there is constructive interference in the wave.. • When classical equations of motion (for charges, electromagnetic fields) are satisfied then accelerated charges necessarily radiate. However, the laws of motion discussed here are not the classical ones. The wave field affects not only the electrons, but photons as well. It turns out this influence is such that it completely prevents radiation when the wave field is an energy eigenstate. • As usual, Copenhagen pretends to solve a problem by refusing to address the issue of what actually exists (after all, the `acceleration operator' usually has a non-zero mean, so..) { Typeset by FoilTEX { 7 Usual objections to particle trajectories Because von Neumann proved `hidden variables' were impossible. However, `such was the momentum of the Copenhagen interpretation and von Neumann's reputation that when Grete Hermann pointed out in 1935 that the supposed proof contained a blatant and devastating fallacy, she was simply ignored, and the Copenhagen interpretation remained the almost unquestioned accepted interpretation for decades.' It was left to Bell to rediscover the flaw in 1966.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us About the Role of Providence in Nature 247 Bruce L
    Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies JBTSVOLUME 2 | ISSUE 2 Christianity and the Philosophy of Science Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature 247 Bruce L. Gordon [JBTS 2.2 (2017): 247-298] Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature1 BRUCE L. GORDON Bruce L. Gordon is Associate Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Houston Baptist University and a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture Abstract: Modern science has revealed a world far more exotic and wonder- provoking than our wildest imaginings could have anticipated. It is the purpose of this essay to introduce the reader to the empirical discoveries and scientific concepts that limn our understanding of how reality is structured and interconnected—from the incomprehensibly large to the inconceivably small—and to draw out the metaphysical implications of this picture. What is unveiled is a universe in which Mind plays an indispensable role: from the uncanny life-giving precision inscribed in its initial conditions, mathematical regularities, and natural constants in the distant past, to its material insubstantiality and absolute dependence on transcendent causation for causal closure and phenomenological coherence in the present, the reality we inhabit is one in which divine action is before all things, in all things, and constitutes the very basis on which all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). §1. Introduction: The Intelligible Cosmos For science to be possible there has to be order present in nature and it has to be discoverable by the human mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes in Physics
    Lecture Notes in Physics Editorial Board R. Beig, Wien, Austria J. Ehlers, Potsdam, Germany U. Frisch, Nice, France K. Hepp, Zurich,¨ Switzerland W. Hillebrandt, Garching, Germany D. Imboden, Zurich,¨ Switzerland R. L. Jaffe, Cambridge, MA, USA R. Kippenhahn, Gottingen,¨ Germany R. Lipowsky, Golm, Germany H. v. Lohneysen,¨ Karlsruhe, Germany I. Ojima, Kyoto, Japan H. A. Weidenmuller,¨ Heidelberg, Germany J. Wess, Munchen,¨ Germany J. Zittartz, Koln,¨ Germany 3 Berlin Heidelberg New York Barcelona Hong Kong London Milan Paris Singapore Tokyo Editorial Policy The series Lecture Notes in Physics (LNP), founded in 1969, reports new developments in physics research and teaching -- quickly, informally but with a high quality. Manuscripts to be considered for publication are topical volumes consisting of a limited number of contributions, carefully edited and closely related to each other. Each contribution should contain at least partly original and previously unpublished material, be written in a clear, pedagogical style and aimed at a broader readership, especially graduate students and nonspecialist researchers wishing to familiarize themselves with the topic concerned. For this reason, traditional proceedings cannot be considered for this series though volumes to appear in this series are often based on material presented at conferences, workshops and schools (in exceptional cases the original papers and/or those not included in the printed book may be added on an accompanying CD ROM, together with the abstracts of posters and other material suitable for publication, e.g. large tables, colour pictures, program codes, etc.). Acceptance Aprojectcanonlybeacceptedtentativelyforpublication,byboththeeditorialboardandthe publisher, following thorough examination of the material submitted. The book proposal sent to the publisher should consist at least of a preliminary table of contents outlining the structureofthebooktogetherwithabstractsofallcontributionstobeincluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0908.1787V1 [Quant-Ph] 13 Aug 2009 Ematical Underpinning
    August 13, 2009 18:17 Contemporary Physics QuantumPicturalismFinal Contemporary Physics Vol. 00, No. 00, February 2009, 1{32 RESEARCH ARTICLE Quantum picturalism Bob Coecke∗ Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, OX1 3QD Oxford, UK (Received 01 02 2009; final version received XX YY ZZZZ) Why did it take us 50 years since the birth of the quantum mechanical formalism to discover that unknown quantum states cannot be cloned? Yet, the proof of the `no-cloning theorem' is easy, and its consequences and potential for applications are immense. Similarly, why did it take us 60 years to discover the conceptually intriguing and easily derivable physical phenomenon of `quantum teleportation'? We claim that the quantum mechanical formalism doesn't support our intuition, nor does it elucidate the key concepts that govern the behaviour of the entities that are subject to the laws of quantum physics. The arrays of complex numbers are kin to the arrays of 0s and 1s of the early days of computer programming practice. Using a technical term from computer science, the quantum mechanical formalism is `low-level'. In this review we present steps towards a diagrammatic `high-level' alternative for the Hilbert space formalism, one which appeals to our intuition. The diagrammatic language as it currently stands allows for intuitive reasoning about interacting quantum systems, and trivialises many otherwise involved and tedious computations. It clearly exposes limitations such as the no-cloning theorem, and phenomena such as quantum teleportation. As a logic, it supports `automation': it enables a (classical) computer to reason about interacting quantum systems, prove theorems, and design protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite Potential Show Title: Generic Show Episode #101 Date: 3/17/20 Transcribed by Daily Transcription Tre
    INFINITE POTENTIAL SHOW TITLE: GENERIC SHOW EPISODE #101 DATE: 3/17/20 TRANSCRIBED BY DAILY TRANSCRIPTION_TRE 00:00:28 DAVID BOHM People talked about the world, and I said, "Where does it end?" and, uh, uh... MALE And what answer did they give? DAVID BOHM Well, they-I never, uh, I don't remember. It wasn't terribly convincing I suppose. [LAUGH] DR. DAVID C. It was, uh, a night, and we were SCHRUM walking under the stars, black sky, and he looked up to the stars, and he said, "Ordinarily, when we look to the sky and look to the stars, we think of stars as objects far out and vast spaces between them." He said, "There's another way we can look at it. We can look at the vacuum at the emptiness instead as a planum, as infinitely full rather than infinitely empty. And that the material objects themselves are like little bubbles, little vacancies in this vast sea." 00:01:25 DR. DAVID C. So David Bohm, in a sense, was SCHRUM using that view to have me look at the stars and to have a sense of the night sky all of a sudden in a different way, as one whole living organism and these little bits that we call matter as sort to just little holes in it. DR. DAVID C. He often mentioned just one other SCHRUM aspect of this, that this planum, in a cubic centimeter of the planum, there's more, uh, energy matter than in the entire visible Page 2 of 62 universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot-Wave Theory, Bohmian Metaphysics, and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Lecture 8 Bohmian Metaphysics: the Implicate Order and Other Arcana
    Pilot-wave theory, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mechanics Lecture 8 Bohmian metaphysics: the implicate order and other arcana Mike Towler TCM Group, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/∼mdt26 and www.vallico.net/tti/tti.html [email protected] – Typeset by FoilTEX – 1 Acknowledgements The material in this lecture is largely derived from books and articles by David Bohm, Basil Hiley, Paavo Pylkk¨annen, F. David Peat, Marcello Guarini, Jack Sarfatti, Lee Nichol, Andrew Whitaker, and Constantine Pagonis. The text of an interview between Simeon Alev and Peat is extensively quoted. Other sources used and many other interesting papers are listed on the course web page: www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/∼mdt26/pilot waves.html MDT – Typeset by FoilTEX – 2 More philosophical preliminaries Positivism: Observed phenomena are all that require discussion or scientific analysis; consideration of other questions, such as what the underlying mechanism may be, or what ‘real entities’ produce the phenomena, is dismissed as meaningless. Truth begins in sense experience, but does not end there. Positivism fails to prove that there are not abstract ideas, laws, and principles, beyond particular observable facts and relationships and necessary principles, or that we cannot know them. Nor does it prove that material and corporeal things constitute the whole order of existing beings, and that our knowledge is limited to them. Positivism ignores all humanly significant and interesting problems, citing its refusal to engage in reflection; it gives to a particular methodology an absolutist status and can do this only because it has partly forgotten, partly repressed its knowledge of the roots of this methodology in human concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Quantum
    Beyond the Quantum Antony Valentini Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. email: [email protected] At the 1927 Solvay conference, three different theories of quantum mechanics were presented; however, the physicists present failed to reach a consensus. To- day, many fundamental questions about quantum physics remain unanswered. One of the theories presented at the conference was Louis de Broglie's pilot- wave dynamics. This work was subsequently neglected in historical accounts; however, recent studies of de Broglie's original idea have rediscovered a power- ful and original theory. In de Broglie's theory, quantum theory emerges as a special subset of a wider physics, which allows non-local signals and violation of the uncertainty principle. Experimental evidence for this new physics might be found in the cosmological-microwave-background anisotropies and with the detection of relic particles with exotic new properties predicted by the theory. 1 Introduction 2 A tower of Babel 3 Pilot-wave dynamics 4 The renaissance of de Broglie's theory 5 What if pilot-wave theory is right? 6 The new physics of quantum non-equilibrium 7 The quantum conspiracy Published in: Physics World, November 2009, pp. 32{37. arXiv:1001.2758v1 [quant-ph] 15 Jan 2010 1 1 Introduction After some 80 years, the meaning of quantum theory remains as controversial as ever. The theory, as presented in textbooks, involves a human observer performing experiments with microscopic quantum systems using macroscopic classical apparatus. The quantum system is described by a wavefunction { a mathematical object that is used to calculate probabilities but which gives no clear description of the state of reality of a single system.
    [Show full text]
  • Signal-Locality in Hidden-Variables Theories
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CERN Document Server Signal-Locality in Hidden-Variables Theories Antony Valentini1 Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, England.2 Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Augustus College, 14 Augustus Road, London SW19 6LN, England.3 We prove that all deterministic hidden-variables theories, that reproduce quantum theory for an ‘equilibrium’ distribution of hidden variables, give in- stantaneous signals at the statistical level for hypothetical ‘nonequilibrium en- sembles’. This generalises another property of de Broglie-Bohm theory. Assum- ing a certain symmetry, we derive a lower bound on the (equilibrium) fraction of outcomes at one wing of an EPR-experiment that change in response to a shift in the distant angular setting. We argue that the universe is in a special state of statistical equilibrium that hides nonlocality. PACS: 03.65.Ud; 03.65.Ta 1email: [email protected] 2Corresponding address. 3Permanent address. 1 Introduction: Bell’s theorem shows that, with reasonable assumptions, any deterministic hidden-variables theory behind quantum mechanics has to be non- local [1]. Specifically, for pairs of spin-1/2 particles in the singlet state, the outcomes of spin measurements at each wing must depend instantaneously on the axis of measurement at the other, distant wing. In this paper we show that the underlying nonlocality becomes visible at the statistical level for hypothet- ical ensembles whose distribution differs from that of quantum theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of the Quantum Theory Annales De L’I
    ANNALES DE L’I. H. P., SECTION A D. BOHM Non-locality in the stochastic interpretation of the quantum theory Annales de l’I. H. P., section A, tome 49, no 3 (1988), p. 287-296 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=AIHPA_1988__49_3_287_0> © Gauthier-Villars, 1988, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Annales de l’I. H. P., section A » implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam. org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, Vol. 49, n° 3, 1988, 287 Physique theorique Non-Locality in the Stochastic Interpretation of the Quantum Theory D. BOHM Department of Physics, Birkbeck College (London University), Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX ABSTRACT. - This article reviews the stochastic interpretation of the quantum theory and shows in detail how it implies non-locality. RESUME . - Cet article presente une revue de 1’interpretation stochas- tique de la theorie quantique et montre en detail en quoi elle implique une non-localite. 1. INTRODUCTION It gives me great pleasure on the occasion of Jean-Pierre Vigier’s retire- ment to recall our long period of fruitful association and to say something about the stochastic interpretation of the quantum theory, in which we worked together in earlier days. Because of requirements of space, however, this article will be a condensation of my talk (*) which was in fact based on a much more extended article by Basil Hiley and me [1 ].
    [Show full text]
  • Discerning “Indistinguishable” Quantum Systems
    Discerning \indistinguishable" quantum systems Adam Caulton∗ Abstract In a series of recent papers, Simon Saunders, Fred Muller and Michael Seevinck have collectively argued, against the folklore, that some non-trivial version of Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles is upheld in quantum mechanics. They argue that all particles|fermions, paraparti- cles, anyons, even bosons|may be weakly discerned by some physical re- lation. Here I show that their arguments make illegitimate appeal to non- symmetric, i.e. permutation-non-invariant, quantities, and that therefore their conclusions do not go through. However, I show that alternative, sym- metric quantities may be found to do the required work. I conclude that the Saunders-Muller-Seevinck heterodoxy can be saved after all. Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Getting clear on Leibniz's Principle . 2 1.2 The folklore . 4 1.3 A new folklore? . 5 2 Muller and Saunders on discernment 6 2.1 The Muller-Saunders result . 6 2.2 Commentary on the Muller-Saunders proof . 8 ∗c/o The Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, UK, CB3 9DA. Email: [email protected] 1 3 Muller and Seevinck on discernment 10 3.1 The Muller-Seevinck result . 10 3.2 Commentary on the Muller-Seevinck result . 12 4 A better way to discern particles 14 4.1 The basic idea . 14 4.2 The variance operator . 14 4.3 Variance provides a discerning relation . 16 4.4 Discernment for all two-particle states . 18 4.5 Discernment for all many-particle states . 22 5 Conclusion 24 1 Introduction 1.1 Getting clear on Leibniz's Principle What is the fate of Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles for quantum mechanics? It depends, of course, on how the Principle is translated into modern (enough) parlance for the evaluation to be made.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing in the De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Picture
    Quantum Computing in the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Picture Philipp Roser September 2010 Blackett Laboratory Imperial College London Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science of Imperial College London Supervisor: Dr. Antony Valentini Internal Supervisor: Prof. Jonathan Halliwell Abstract Much attention has been drawn to quantum computing and the expo- nential speed-up in computation the technology would be able to provide. Various claims have been made about what aspect of quantum mechan- ics causes this speed-up. Formulations of quantum computing have tradi- tionally been made in orthodox (Copenhagen) and sometimes many-worlds quantum mechanics. We will aim to understand quantum computing in terms of de Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory by considering different sim- ple systems that may function as a basic quantum computer. We will provide a careful discussion of Pilot-Wave Theory and evaluate criticisms of the theory. We will assess claims regarding what causes the exponential speed-up in the light of our analysis and the fact that Pilot-Wave The- ory is perfectly able to account for the phenomena involved in quantum computing. I, Philipp Roser, hereby confirm that this dissertation is entirely my own work. Where other sources have been used, these have been clearly referenced. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory 8 2.1 Motivation . 8 2.2 Two theories of pilot-waves . 9 2.3 The ensemble distribution and probability . 18 2.4 Measurement . 22 2.5 Spin . 26 2.6 Objections and open questions . 33 2.7 Pilot-Wave Theory, Many-Worlds and Many-Worlds in denial .
    [Show full text]
  • The Spirit and the Intellect: Lessons in Humility
    BYU Studies Quarterly Volume 50 Issue 4 Article 6 12-1-2011 The Spirit and the Intellect: Lessons in Humility Duane Boyce Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq Recommended Citation Boyce, Duane (2011) "The Spirit and the Intellect: Lessons in Humility," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 50 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol50/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Studies Quarterly by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Boyce: The Spirit and the Intellect: Lessons in Humility The Spirit and the Intellect Lessons in Humility Duane Boyce “The only wisdom we can hope to acquire is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.” —T. S. Eliot1 Whence Such Confidence? I have friends who see themselves as having intellectual problems with the gospel—with some spiritual matter or other. Interestingly, these friends all share the same twofold characteristic: they are confident they know a lot about spiritual topics, and they are confident they know a lot about various intellectual matters. This always interests me, because my experience is very different. I am quite struck by how much I don’t know about spiritual things and by how much I don’t know about anything else. The overwhelming feeling I get, both from thoroughly examining a scriptural subject (say, faith2) and from carefully studying an academic topic (for example, John Bell’s inequality theorem in physics), is the same—a profound recognition of how little I really know, and how significantly, on many topics, scholars who are more knowledgeable than I am disagree among themselves: in other words, I am surprised by how little they really know, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Parallels Between, and Modal Realism Underlying Einstein and Everett Relativities
    Historical Parallels between, and Modal Realism underlying Einstein and Everett Relativities Sascha Vongehr National Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China A century ago, “ past ” and “ future ”, previously strictly apart, mixed up and merged. Temporal terminology improved. Today, not actualized quantum states, that is merely “ possible ” alternatives, objectively “exist ” (are real) when they interfere. Again, two previously strictly immiscible realms mix. Now, modal terminology is insufficient. Both times, extreme reactions reach from rejection of the empirical science to mystic holism. This paper shows how progress started with the relativization of previously absolute terms, first through Einstein’s relativity and now through Everett’s relative state description, which is a modal realism. The historical parallels suggest mere relativization is insufficient. A deformation of domains occurs: The determined past and the dependent future were restricted to smaller regions of space-time. This ‘light cone description’ is superior to hyperspace foliations and already entails the modal realism of quantum mechanics. Moreover, an entirely new region, namely the ‘absolute elsewhere’ was identified. The historical precedent suggests that modal terminology may need a similar extension. Discussing the modal realistic connection underlying both relativities, Popper’s proof of future indeterminism is turned to shatter the past already into many worlds/minds, thus Everett relativity is merely the
    [Show full text]