Category Archives: quantum decoherence

Single-world interpretation, 7.2

Posted on by

Quantum Mechanics 3

Under the many-worlds interpretation, the Schrodinger equation, or relativistic analog, holds all the time everywhere. An observation or measurement of an object by an observer is modeled by applying the wave equation to the entire system comprising the observer and the object. One consequence is that every observation can be thought of as causing the combined observer-object’s wavefunction to change into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting branches, or split into many “worlds”. Since many observation-like events have happened, and are constantly happening, there are an enormous and growing number of simultaneously existing states.

If a system is composed of two or more subsystems, the system’s state will be a superposition of products of the subsystems’ states. Once the subsystems interact, their states are no longer independent. Each product of subsystem states in the overall superposition evolves over time independently of other products. The subsystems states have become correlated or entangled and it is no longer possible to consider them independent of one another. In Everett’s terminology each subsystem state was now correlated with its relative state, since each subsystem must now be considered relative to the other subsystems with which it has interacted.

— Wikipedia on Many-worlds interpretation

This is insightful, but incorrect. Please refer to my previous post “Single-world interpretation, 7” for details.

The main theme is that the macroscopic reality can never be an eigen-quantum-state. Instead, the macroscopic reality is the resultant effect of the superposition of eigen-quantum-states. For example, without quantum superposition, there would be no Principle of Least Action in classical mechanics.

— Me@2012-12-28 12:52:12 PM

In particular, Sidney explains that our world is a quantum world and any phenomena that look classical are approximate or derived. So it’s really nonsensical to ask for an “interpretation of quantum mechanics”. Instead, one should really discuss the “interpretation of classical physics” and its derivative appearance from the quantum framework.

Of course, Sidney was well aware of the fact – and made this fact explicit – that the people who have problems with these concepts have those problems simply because they believe that underneath quantum mechanics, there is still some classical physics operating.

— Sidney Coleman: Quantum mechanics in your face

— Lubos Motl

2012.12.28 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Small big bang 4

Posted on by

小宇宙大爆炸 4

Arthur Schopenhauer claimed that phenomena have no free will, but the will as noumenon is free.

— Wikipedia on Free will

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.

— On The Freedom Of The Will (1839)

— Arthur Schopenhauer

A will itself cannot be willed because it is the first cause of a causal chain. A first cause is a starting point. Anything can be willed would not be a first cause.

— Me@2012.11.29

2012.11.30 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Superdeterminism 2.1

Posted on by

Paradox 9.2 | Bell’s theorem, 4.1

Bell’s theorem states that if Bell’s inequality is violated by experimental results, then the original quantum mechanics is correct in a sense that no local hidden variable theory is possible to replace it. Nature is either non-local or non-counterfactual-definite (or both).

1. The principle of locality:

There are two possible meanings of “locality” here.

1.1 The principle is correct in a sense that no causal influence can be faster than light.

1.2 The principle is incorrect in a sense that distant particles can be entangled. Correlation without causation can be instantaneous.

Assume that a pair of particles are entangled. Measuring one particle will collapse the wave function, which governs both particles, instantaneously.

2. Counterfactual definiteness:

2.1 It is correct in a sense that an object has a definite quantum state.

2.2 It is incorrect in a sense that, more often than not, the definite quantum state is not corresponding to a definite classical state (aka eigenstate). Instead, that quantum state is a superposition of different eigenstates. 

The meaning of the phrase “counterfactual definiteness” in quantum mechanics or Bell’s theorem is not the same as that in the superdeterminism theory. They are two different concepts.

— Me@2012-11-24 11:21:01 AM

2012.11.25 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Superdeterminism

Posted on by

Paradox 9

In the context of quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a term that has been used to describe a hypothetical class of theories which evade Bell’s theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic. Bell’s theorem depends on the assumption of [non-] counterfactual definiteness, which technically does not apply to deterministic theories. It is conceivable, but arguably unlikely, that someone could exploit this loophole to construct a local hidden variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics.

… in a deterministic theory, the measurements the experimenters choose at each detector are predetermined by the laws of physics. It can therefore be argued that it is erroneous to speak of what would have happened had different measurements been chosen; no other measurement choices were physically possible. Since the chosen measurements can be determined in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light.

— Wikipedia on Superdeterminism

Even if there are no other physical possibilities for a measurement choice, there are other logical possibilities. The goal of quantum mechanics, or science in general, is to consider, for an identical system, what input results what output.

The problem of superdeterminism in quantum mechanics is not “claiming the observers’ action are deterministic”, but by claiming so, claiming also that there is no decoherence (wave function collapse).

When we say that the observer cannot be separated from the observed, we mean that we have to consider the whole (observed + observer), instead of shifting the system from the observed to the observer, and then ignoring the original observed itself.

— Me@2012-11-20 02:11:06 PM

2012.11.23 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Single-world interpretation, 6.2.2

Posted on by

Information lost, 5

In the Many-worlds interpretation (MWI), when we say that “a + b” collapses to “a”, there is a shift of definition of “you”.

MWI is in one sense correct: choice b version of you still exists. But the trick is that he is not in another universe. He is in the environment of this universe.

And perhaps in reverse, you are also part of the environment of him.

— Me@2011.11.20

This environment theory is not totally accurate. For example, in the photon double slit experiment, during the wave function collapse, 

sqrt(2) | left > + sqrt(2) | right >

–> | left >    ,

| right > as the unchosen choice, or the lost information, goes to the environment.      

However, the macroscopic reality of | photon goes left > requires not only the state of the photon but also the state of its environment, including the lost information | right >_micro. Just the lost information itself is not enough to form a macroscopic reality.

— Me@2012.04.03

2012.11.16 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

State

Posted on by

On the assumption that all interactions are local (which is backed up by the analysis of the EPR paradox presented below), one could say that the ideas of “state” and spatiotemporal contiguity are two sides of the same coin: spacetime location determines the possibility of interaction, but interactions determine spatiotemporal structure. The full extent of this relationship, however, has not yet fully been explored.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

2012.11.11 Sunday ACHK

Quantum Mechanics 2

Posted on by

In reality, decoherence explains the “classical character of the position of macroscopic objects” dynamically. The fact that the Moon should be thought of as having a well-defined position follows from the Hamiltonian (and the decoherence calculations), not from a pre-determined special role of the position. Moreover, decoherence (combined with consistent histories) solves many other conceptual problems of the Copenhagen quantum mechanics (especially the emergence of the boundary between “classical” and “quantum”), and therefore the reasons to abandon quantum mechanics keep on converging to zero.

— Saturday, October 16, 2004

— Causality and entanglement

— Lubos Motl
 
 
 
2012.11.03 Saturday ACHK

機會率哲學 1.6

Posted on by

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。

In fact, the spectrum of interpretations in quantum mechanics has a close analogue in probability theory. The “wave function is real” view is analogous to the “frequentist” view of probability theory where probabilities describe “random pheonomena” like rolling dice or radioactive decays and the “wave function represents what you know about the system” view is analogous to the Bayesian view where probability is just a consistent way of assigning [likelihoods] to propositions independent of whether they have anything to do with a “random process.”

— Bayesian Probability Theory and Quantum Mechanics

— John Baez

（安：但是，我又可以這樣追問。「這一部」電視機在第一年內，要麼會損壞，要麼不會損壞。

你說「這一部」電視機，在第一年內故障的機會率是「三千分之一」，究竟是什麼意思呢？難道「這一部」電視機在第一年內，會有三千分之一的部分會損壞嗎？）

你的意思是，既然是討論「個別單一事件」，理應用不上「統計資料」，因為「統計」是眾多案例的歸納。亦即是話，你正在變相追問「機會率」的哲學涵義。有什麼理論基礎，令到我們可以利用「過往眾多事件」的統計資料，來判定「特定事件」的機會率？而那個「機會率」數字，又代表什麼呢？

「機會率」的詮釋問題，其實是對應於「量子力學」的詮釋問題。換句話說，如果你可以搞清「機會率」的真正意義，你就可以搞清「量子力學」的背後原理，反之亦然。

可惜，無論是「機會率詮釋」，還是「量子力學詮釋」，學術界仍然未有終極結論。所以，你的問題走得太遠，已經走到人類現時的知識邊緣。

— Me@2012.11.03

致讀者：我於去年（2011）已經搞清了「機會率」的真正意義。如果你想知道，請參閱本網誌 quantum probability （量子機率）和 single-world interpretation（單重宇宙） 類的文章。你將會得到部分答案。

其中一個核心要點是，「現實世界」是「所有」「可能世界」的疊加。

— Me@2012.11.03

2012.11.03 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Black hole complementarity 2

Posted on by

Instead, an observer can only detect the information at the horizon itself, or inside, but never both simultaneously. Complementarity is a feature of the quantum mechanics of noncommuting observables, and Susskind proposed that both stories are complementary in the quantum sense.

Interestingly enough, an infalling observer will see the point of entry of the information as being localized on the event horizon, while an external observer will notice the information being spread out uniformly over the entire stretched horizon before being re-radiated. To an infalling observer, information and entropy passes through the horizon with nothing strange happening. To an external observer, the information and entropy is absorbed into the stretched horizon which acts like a dissipative fluid with entropy, viscosity and electrical conductivity.

— Wikipedia on Black hole complementarity

2012.10.30 Tuesday ACHK

Black hole complementarity

Posted on by

Leonard Susskind proposed a radical resolution to this problem by claiming that the information is both reflected at the event horizon and passes through the event horizon and can’t escape, with the catch being no observer can confirm both stories simultaneously.

— Wikipedia on Black hole complementarity

2012.10.28 Sunday ACHK

Black hole information paradox, 2

Posted on by

It shouldn’t be so surprising that unitarity survives completely while causality doesn’t. After all, the basic postulates of quantum mechanics, including unitarity, the probabilistic interpretation of the amplitudes, and the linearity of the operators representing observables, seem to be universally necessary to describe physics of any system that agrees with the basic insights of the quantum revolution.

On the other hand, geometry has been downgraded into an effective, approximate, emergent aspect of reality. The metric tensor is just one among many fields in our effective field theories including gravity.

— Black hole information puzzle

— Lubos Motl

2012.04.25 Wednesday ACHK

Consistent histories, 2

Posted on by

Single-world interpretation, 8

The interpretation based on consistent histories is used in combination with the insights about quantum decoherence. Quantum decoherence implies that irreversible macroscopic phenomena (hence, all classical measurements) render histories automatically consistent, which allows one to recover classical reasoning and “common sense” when applied to the outcomes of these measurements.

— Wikipedia on Consistent histories

2012.04.14 Saturday ACHK

Block spacetime, 5

Posted on by

This position has lead him to face the following problem: if time is not part of the fundamental theory of the world, then how does time emerge? In 1993, in collaboration with Alain Connes, Rovelli has proposed a solution to this problem called the thermal time hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, time emerges only in a thermodynamic or statistical context. If this is correct, the flow of time is an illusion, one deriving from the incompleteness of knowledge.

— Wikipedia on Carlo Rovelli

2012.04.12 Thursday ACHK

Single-world interpretation, 7

Posted on by

One consequence is that every observation can be thought of as causing the combined observer-object’s wavefunction to change into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting branches, or split into many “worlds”.

— Wikipedia on Many-worlds interpretation

That is incorrect.

Let’s consider the double-slit experiment. For simplicity, we regard the event “a person reads the device reading” as a classical event.

Before installing the measuring device, we do not know which slit a photon goes through. The photon state is in a superposition of eigenstates: 

| photon > = a | left > + b | right >

(According to the meaning of probability, |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1.) In other words, if we send enough such kind of photons through the double-slit apparatus, we get the interference pattern. 

After installing the measuring device, we know which slit a photon goes through. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, when the photon passes through the double-slit apparatus, the photon-state “collapses” to one of the two eigenstates, such as | left >. However, a more accurate point of view is that, according to the quantum decoherence interpretation, the photon-and-device state becomes a superposition of a lot of eigenstates. Most of such eigenstates are corresponding to the macrostate of passing-through-the-left-slit, |left>_macro_state. 

The above many-worlds-interpretation statement assumes that there is a |right>_macro_state.

It is true in a sense that, since the photon-and-device involves a lot of particles, there are so many eigen-microstates. Some are certainly corresponding to the |right>_macro_state.

It is false in a sense that the weighting of the |right>_macro_state is so small that such macrostate is not meaningful in a macroscopic context, for example:

| photon-and-device > = 10^23 |left>_macro_state + 0.001 |right>_macro_state + other possible macrostates

— Me@2012-04-07 11:03:12 AM

2012.04.09 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

EPR paradox, 3

Posted on by

It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality.

Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining “+” and 50% probability of obtaining “-“, completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets.

Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the “no cloning theorem”, which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting “+” and 50% of getting “-“, regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice’s.

— Wikipedia on EPR paradox

In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects (see reference [6] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities).

— Wikipedia on Delayed choice quantum eraser

2012.04.08 Sunday ACHK