Quantum as potential, 2

Only measurement results (aka physical phenomena) form the physical reality.

Quantum Mechanics is a theory of measurement results.

Quantum Mechanics is a theory of reality.

Quantum Mechanics is not a theory of unobservables (undefined-observables).

.

Quantum mechanics is a story of reality, not a story of story.

— Me@2022-07-27 10:38:32 AM

.

.

2022.07.29 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Quantum as potential

Realist view is wrong.

Before measurement, there are quantum potentials only.

quantum ~ potential

Note that it is NOT the “quantum potential” in the Bohm interpretation.

— Me@2016-08-21 06:13:49 PM

.

A wave function encodes the probabilities of different potential measurement results of a physical experiment. It is not a physical wave.

Quantum superposition is NOT a superposition of realities.

Physics should consider only measurement results and their probabilities. Only measurement results are realities.

No measurement result, aka physical phenomenon, is in a superposition.

For example, in the double-slit experiment, the measurement results are (the locations of) the dots on the final screen. Every dot location is not in a superposition.

— Me@2022-07-25 06:43:05 PM

.

.

2022.07.25 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Schrodinger’s cat, 3.4

A macroscopic system (such as a cat) may evolve over time into a superposition of classically distinct quantum states (such as “alive” and “dead”).

— Wikipedia on Quantum superposition

.

The components of a superposition must be indistinguishable states.

A superposition is neither an AND state nor an OR state.

AND or OR are only possible for more than one state.

AND or OR are only possible for at least 2 (distinguishable) states.

The cat is not in a superposition state of “alive” and “dead”.

Instead, it is in a mixed state of “alive” and “dead”.

A mixed state is an OR state (of at least 2 distinguishable states).

— Me@2022-07-03 11:02:24 AM

.

.

2022.07.03 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The 4 bugs of quantum mechanics popular, 1.5

3.1 Probability value is totally objective. Wrong.

A probability value is not only partially objective, but also partially subjective. When you get a probability value, you have to specify which observer the value is with respect to. Different observers can get different probabilities for the “same” event.

Also, the same observer at 2 different times should be regarded as 2 different observers.

For example, for a fair dice, before rolling, the probability of getting an 2 is \displaystyle{\frac{1}{6}}. However, after rolling, the probability of getting an 2 is either \displaystyle{0} or \displaystyle{1}, not \displaystyle{\frac{1}{6}}. So the same person before and after getting the result should be regarded as 2 different observers.

A major fault of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it uses an unnecessarily complicated language to state an almost common sense fact that any probability value is partially subjective and thus must be with respect to an observer. There is no “god’s eye view” in physics.

— Me@2017-05-10 07:45:36 AM

— Me@2022-02-14 10:36:52 AM

Wave functions encode probabilities. So each wave function is partially objective and partially observer-dependent. In other words, a wave function encodes the relationship between a physical system and an observer/experimenter.

— Me@2022-02-20

.

.

2022.02.22 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

EPR paradox, 11.7

Even in this stranger case, all experimental results are still consistent with special relativity (aka causality), because wave functions are not physical quantities. Instead, they are mathematical quantities for calculating probabilities, which themselves are also mathematical quantities, for predicting experimental results.

physical definition

~ define the microscopic events in terms of observable physical phenomena such as the change of readings of the measuring device

~ define unobservable events in terms of observable events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

(Me@2022-02-17 03:34:27 PM: I think I have the answer now. I plan to publish it soon. But I keep the following as a record of thoughts.)

A further strangeness is that

~ How come the results are always consistent when the EPR pair has no definite states before measurement the activation of at least one detector?

~ How does the universe to do such bookkeeping for a system exists across several light-years when the physical variables are still in superposition when the pair is emitted from the source?

~ … when the difference of possible values (such as the difference of spin-up and spin-down) still have no physical definition yet?

~ … when the difference of possible values have not yet defined by the difference of possible readings of a detector (before any detector is allowed to be installed-and-activated)

.

However, this kind of strangeness also happens in classical physics, for example:

1. How come energy is always conserved? How is energy conservation “executed”?

2. How does probability work? How does the universe work to fulfill the predicted probability patterns?

— Me@2022-02-11 12:47:14 AM

.

A clue (but not yet the whole final solution) is that probability is with respect to observers.

— Me@2022-02-11 10:13:36 AM

A probability is partially objective and partially subjective. So a wave function, which is used for calculating probabilities, is also partially objective and partially subjective.

A major fault of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it uses an unnecessarily complicated language to state an almost common sense fact that any probability value is partially subjective and thus must be with respect to an observer.

— Me@2022-02-14 10:36:52 AM

— Me@2022-02-14 10:35:27 AM

.

.

2022.02.17 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

EPR paradox, 11.6

What is more difficult to understand is the non-classical part:

What if, instead of turning on a detector before the time of emitting, we turn it on after the pair is emitted but before either of them has reached its destination?

In the common (but inaccurate) language, the action of activating a detector has collapsed the wave function of the system.

Would the pair of (such as) spin values be correlated?

.

(Me@2022-02-16 12:07:25 AM: I think I have the answer now. I plan to publish it soon. But I keep the following as a record of thoughts.)

There are 2 possibilities.

(I do not know which of them is true, because I have not yet found an actual experiment that has tested against them.)

[guess]

1.

They are correlated only in the statistical sense.

2.

Every pair is correlated.

This is stranger than the first case, because if the two detectors are several light-years apart, the whole system exists across those light-years. The strangeness is the fact that even for a system-across-light-years, operations at one end can influence the probability of an event at the other end.

.

For the time being, I guess that the second case is the true one.

Even if the first case is the true one, it is still strange because it implies that an action at one part of the system influences the statistical properties of another part, which may be several light-years away.

[guess]

Even in this stranger case, all experimental results are still consistent with special relativity (aka causality), because wave functions are not physical quantities. Instead, they are mathematical quantities for calculating probabilities, which themselves are also mathematical quantities, for predicting experimental results.

— Me@2022-02-11 12:47:14 AM

.

Bug fixes:

1.1  It is not the particle’s state that is in a superposition or not, but the system’s state.

2.1  We need to specify which observer that the wave function is with respect to.

A wave function is for an observer to calculate the probabilities of different possible results in an experiment.

2.2  There is no “god’s eye view” in physics.

Every physical event must be described with respect to an observer. Every physical event, even if the event is “to compare observation results”, must be described with respect to an observer. — Me@2017-05-10 07:45:36 AM

2.3  A wave function is mathematical, not physical.

It is a mathematical function for an observer to calculate the probabilities. It is not something existing in physical spacetime. Thus superposition is also not something existing in physical spacetime. So it is meaningless to ask if the system state is in a superposition at a particular time.

Instead, whether a system is in superposition or not (with respect to a particular variable) is an intrinsic property of your experimental setup design, which includes not just objects and devices, but also operations.

“Wave function collapse” is not a physical event that happens during the operation of the experiment. Instead, it “happens” when you replace one experiment design with another.

— Me@2022-02-16 10:45:01 AM

.

.

2022.02.16 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

EPR paradox, 11.5

Black hole information paradox, 2.2.5

.

What is more difficult to understand is the non-classical part:

What if, instead of turning on a detector before the time of emitting, we turn it on after the pair is emitted but before either of them has reached its destination?

Since neither of the detectors at the two end destinations is activated in the beginning, the entangle variables are still physically-undefined (i.e. in a superposition) at that moment the pair is emitted.

However, while the particles are still on the way, at the moment one of two detectors is first activated, the entangled variables get their physical definitions. The system state is no longer in a superposition state. Instead, it becomes a mixed state. In other words, the system has become a classical system (with respect to those entangled variables).

In the common (but inaccurate) language, the action of activating a detector has collapsed the wave function of the system.

Would the pair of (such as) spin values be correlated?

.

(Me@2022-02-16 12:07:25 AM: I think I have the answer now. I plan to publish it soon. But I keep the following as a record of thoughts.)

There are 2 possibilities.

(I do not know which of them is true, because I have not yet found an actual experiment that has tested against them.)

[guess]

1.

They are correlated only in the statistical sense.

Individual pair of values may be not correlated, but a lot of pairs that have the same superposition (at time of emitting) will form that statistical pattern that is indistinguishable from the one that predicted with the assumption that every pair is correlated.

In analogy, in the double-slit experiment, an individual dot on the final screen cannot tell whether the particle was in a superposition. It is only after a lot of dots forming on the final screen, we can check whether there is an interference pattern. When the interference appears (and we assume that the wave function that governs every particle is the same), we say that every particle is in a superposition state. Or put it more accurately, the system is in the same superposition state before each particle has reached the screen.

2.

Every pair is correlated.

[guess]

— Me@2022-02-11 12:47:14 AM

.

.

2022.02.16 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

EPR paradox, 11.4

Black hole information paradox, 2.2.4

.

physical definition

~ define the microscopic events in terms of observable physical phenomena such as the change of readings of the measuring device

~ define unobservable events in terms of observable events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

In the EPR experiment, if at least one of the detectors at the two end destinations is already turned on at the time of emitting, then (the system that contains) the pair is NOT in a superposition since the beginning.

The entangled variables (that the detector measures) are already physically defined by the detector’s potential behaviors. The system state is already a mixed state, not a superposition.

superposition

~ lack of the existence of measuring device to provide the physical definitions for the (difference between) microscopic events

— Me@2022-01-31 08:33:01 AM

— Me@2022-02-12 10:22:09 AM

With respect to that pair of entangled variables, the experiment setup is just a classical one, which directly follows Aristotle’s 3 laws of logic.

For any proposition \displaystyle{A}, either \displaystyle{A} is true or \displaystyle{\text{NOT}~A} is true, but not both.

There is nothing non-classical about the correlation between the (such as) spin values of the pair.

.

What is more difficult to understand is the non-classical part:

What if, instead of turning on a detector before the time of emitting, we turn it on after the pair is emitted but before either of them has reached its destination?

— Me@2022-02-11 12:47:14 AM

.

.

2022.02.14 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Single-world interpretation, 11

Brian T. Johnston

All well and fine, but tunnel diodes work and they can’t unless there is MW

Luboš Motl

LOL, such a connection is at most a fairy-tale for kindergarten-age children

.

You need multiple worlds to explain one single world?

Are you stupid?

— Me@2017-07-17 02:58:25 PM

.

.

2021.03.16 Tuesday ACHK

Single-world interpretation, 10

If the operators corresponding to two observables do not commute, they have no simultaneous eigenstates and they obey the uncertainty principle. A state where one observable has a definite value corresponds to a superposition of many states for [another] observable.

— Wikipedia on Quantum superposition

.

That is a major mistake of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

— Me@2021-03-07 06:11:22 PM

.

.

2021.03.08 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Cosmic computer

Consistent histories, 9

.

There is a cosmic computer there

which is responsible to make sure that

quantum mechanics (laws) will always give consistent measurement results,

such as the ones of the EPR entangled pairs.

.

NO. That is wrong.

.

Instead, quantum mechanics itself is THAT cosmic computer that renders all the measurement results consistent.

— Me@2021-01-27 3:54 PM

.

.

2021.01.29 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Pointer state, 3

Eigenstates 3.3 | The square root of the probability, 3

.

In calculation, if a quantum state is in a superposition, that superposition is a superposition of eigenstates.

However, real superposition does not just include eigenstates that make macroscopic senses.

.

That is the major mistake of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

— Me@2017-12-30 10:24 AM

— Me@2018-07-03 07:24 PM

— Me@2020-12-18 06:12 PM

.

Mathematically, a quantum superposition is a superposition of eigenstates. An eigenstate is a quantum state that is corresponding to a macroscopic state. A superposition state is a quantum state that has no classical correspondence.

The macroscopic states are the only observable states. An observable state is one that can be measured directly or indirectly. For an unobservable state, we write it as a superposition of eigenstates. We always write a superposition state as a superposition of observable states; so in this sense, before measurement, we can almost say that the system is in a superposition of different (possible) classical macroscopic universes.

However, conceptually, especially when thinking in terms of Feynman’s summing over histories picture, a quantum state is more than a superposition of classical states. In other words, a system can have a quantum state which is a superposition of not only normal classical states, but also bizarre classical states and eigen-but-classically-impossible states.

A bizarre classical state is a state that follows classical physical laws, but is highly improbable that, in daily life language, we label such a state “impossible”, such as a human with five arms.

An eigen-but-classically-impossible state is a state that violates classical physical laws, such as a castle floating in the sky.

For a superposition, if we allow only normal classical states as the component eigenstates, a lot of the quantum phenomena, such as quantum tunnelling, cannot be explained.

If you want multiple universes, you have to include not only normal universes, but also the bizarre ones.

.

Actually, even for the double-slit experiment, “superposition of classical states” is not able to explain the existence of the interference patterns.

The superposition of the electron-go-left universe and the electron-go-right universe does not form this universe, where the interference patterns exist.

— Me@2020-12-16 05:18:03 PM

.

One of the reasons is that a quantum superposition is not a superposition of different possibilities/probabilities/worlds/universes, but a superposition of quantum eigenstates, which, in a sense, are square roots of probabilities.

— Me@2020-12-18 06:07:22 PM

.

.

2020.12.18 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Consistent histories, 8

Relationship with other interpretations

The only group of interpretations of quantum mechanics with which RQM is almost completely incompatible is that of hidden variables theories. RQM shares some deep similarities with other views, but differs from them all to the extent to which the other interpretations do not accord with the “relational world” put forward by RQM.

Copenhagen interpretation

RQM is, in essence, quite similar to the Copenhagen interpretation, but with an important difference. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the macroscopic world is assumed to be intrinsically classical in nature, and wave function collapse occurs when a quantum system interacts with macroscopic apparatus. In RQM, any interaction, be it micro or macroscopic, causes the linearity of Schrödinger evolution to break down. RQM could recover a Copenhagen-like view of the world by assigning a privileged status (not dissimilar to a preferred frame in relativity) to the classical world. However, by doing this one would lose sight of the key features that RQM brings to our view of the quantum world.

Hidden variables theories

Bohm’s interpretation of QM does not sit well with RQM. One of the explicit hypotheses in the construction of RQM is that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, that is it provides a full account of the world. Moreover, the Bohmian view seems to imply an underlying, “absolute” set of states of all systems, which is also ruled out as a consequence of RQM.

We find a similar incompatibility between RQM and suggestions such as that of Penrose, which postulate that some processes (in Penrose’s case, gravitational effects) violate the linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation for the system.

Relative-state formulation

The many-worlds family of interpretations (MWI) shares an important feature with RQM, that is, the relational nature of all value assignments (that is, properties). Everett, however, maintains that the universal wavefunction gives a complete description of the entire universe, while Rovelli argues that this is problematic, both because this description is not tied to a specific observer (and hence is “meaningless” in RQM), and because RQM maintains that there is no single, absolute description of the universe as a whole, but rather a net of inter-related partial descriptions.

Consistent histories approach

In the consistent histories approach to QM, instead of assigning probabilities to single values for a given system, the emphasis is given to sequences of values, in such a way as to exclude (as physically impossible) all value assignments which result in inconsistent probabilities being attributed to observed states of the system. This is done by means of ascribing values to “frameworks”, and all values are hence framework-dependent.

RQM accords perfectly well with this view. However, the consistent histories approach does not give a full description of the physical meaning of framework-dependent value (that is it does not account for how there can be “facts” if the value of any property depends on the framework chosen). By incorporating the relational view into this approach, the problem is solved: RQM provides the means by which the observer-independent, framework-dependent probabilities of various histories are reconciled with observer-dependent descriptions of the world.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

.

.

2020.09.27 Sunday ACHK

Superposition always exists, 2

Decoherence means that the different components in the superposition do not interact with each other, but it does not mean that the components separate to form different macroscopic realities.

.

Just like when a 100-soldier army’s marching gets interrupted, the decoherent soldiers do not form a single army anymore, because their actions become out of sync.

However, they do not become 100 armies either.

Instead, they form a group of 100 random people in the street.

Although now they are out of sync with each other, all original soldiers still exist, forming the (new) average result; all or most of them have become part of the environment.

.

But it is an analogy only. It has an important distinction.

In quantum superposition, we discuss the relationships between different component states of the superposition. Those states exist not in physical space, but in a mathematical space.

In the army analogy, we discuss the relationships between the actions between different material items (solders in this case). Those material items exist in physical space.

.

The unselected eigenstates do not cooperate with other particles to form macroscopic realities.

Although the spirit of the statement is correct, the statement itself is incorrect in multiple senses.

First, an eigenstate is a quantum state. It interferes with other eigenstates, not other particles.

Second, although the “unselected” eigenstates seem to disappear, they actually still exist; they entangles with the environment, which includes the apparatus and measurement devices of that experiment.

— Me@2013.01.01

— Me@2020-02-26 06:49:46 AM

.

In “decoherence means that the different components do not interact with each other”, the meaning of “interact” is not defined yet.

The word should probably be “interfere”, instead of “interact”.

— Me@2020-02-25 10:44:23 PM

.

interference ~ superposition with pattern

Decoherence means that the phase differences between different components in a superposition are not constants anymore. It does not mean that there is no superposition anymore.

Superposition is always there.

What disappears is the interference pattern, not the superposition.

— Me@2019-09-20 06:48:55 AM

.

.

2020.02.26 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Pointer state, 2

Eigenstates 3.2

.

Microscopically, a state can be definite or indefinite. Even if it is indefinite, the overlapping of superpositions of states of a lot of particles, or the superposition of a lot of system-microstates gives a definite macrostate.

If a state is definite, it is corresponding to one single system-macrostate directly.

I am referring to the physical definition, not the mathematical definition.

— Me@2012-12-31 09:28:08 AM

.

If a microstate is definite, it is called an “eigenstate”. It is corresponding to one single system-macrostate directly.

However, the microstate is NOT the macrostate. The microstate is just corresponding to that macrostate.

— Me@2019-09-20 07:02:10 AM

.

In quantum Darwinism and similar theories, pointer states are quantum states, sometimes of a measuring apparatus, if present, that are less perturbed by decoherence than other states, and are the quantum equivalents of the classical states of the system after decoherence has occurred through interaction with the environment. ‘Pointer’ refers to the reading of a recording or measuring device, which in old analog versions would often have a gauge or pointer display.

— Wikipedia on Pointer state

.

In quantum mechanics, einselections, short for environment-induced superselection, is a name coined by Wojciech H. Zurek for a process which is claimed to explain the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the emergence of classical descriptions of reality from quantum descriptions.

In this approach, classicality is described as an emergent property induced in open quantum systems by their environments. Due to the interaction with the environment, the vast majority of states in the Hilbert space of a quantum open system become highly unstable due to entangling interaction with the environment, which in effect monitors selected observables of the system.

After a decoherence time, which for macroscopic objects is typically many orders of magnitude shorter than any other dynamical timescale, a generic quantum state decays into an uncertain [in the sense of classical probability] state which can be decomposed into a mixture of simple pointer states. In this way the environment induces effective superselection rules. Thus, einselection precludes stable existence of pure superpositions of pointer states. These ‘pointer states’ are stable despite environmental interaction. The einselected states lack coherence, and therefore do not exhibit the quantum behaviours of entanglement and superposition.

Advocates of this approach argue that since only quasi-local, essentially classical states survive the decoherence process, einselection can in many ways explain the emergence of a (seemingly) classical reality in a fundamentally quantum universe (at least to local observers). However, the basic program has been criticized as relying on a circular argument (e.g. R. E. Kastner). So the question of whether the ‘einselection’ account can really explain the phenomenon of wave function collapse remains unsettled.

— Wikipedia on Einselection

.

Here I simply review the basic approach to ‘deriving’ einselection via decoherence, and point to a key step in the derivation that makes it a circular one.

— Ruth E. Kastner

.

We should not derive einselection via decoherence. Instead, they should be regarded as different parts or different presentations of the same theory.

In other words, “einselection” and “decoherence” are synonyms.

— Me@2019-09-21 05:53:53 PM

.

There has been significant work on correctly identifying the pointer states in the case of a massive particle decohered by collisions with a fluid environment, often known as collisional decoherence. In particular, Busse and Hornberger have identified certain solitonic wavepackets as being unusually stable in the presence of such decoherence.

— Wikipedia on Einselection

.

.

2019.09.22 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Multiverse

A physics statement is meaningful only if it is with respect to an observer. So the many-world theory is meaningless.

— Me@2018-08-31 12:55:54 PM

— Me@2019-05-11 09:41:55 PM

.

Answer me the following yes/no question:

In your multi-universe theory, is it possible, at least in principle, for an observer in one universe to interact with any of the other universes?

If no, then it is equivalent to say that those other universes do not exist.

If yes, then those other universes are not “other” universes at all, but actually just other parts of the same universe.

— Me@2019-05-11 09:43:40 PM

.

.

2019.05.11 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The problem of induction 3.2

The meaning of induction is that

we regard, for example, that

“AAAAA –> the sixth is also A”

is more likely than

“AA –> the second is also A”

 

We use induction to find “patterns”. However, the induced results might not be true. Then, why do we use induction at all?

There is everything to win but nothing to lose.

— Hans Reichenbach

If the universe has some patterns, we can use induction to find those patterns.

But if the universe has no patterns at all, then we cannot use any methods, induction or else, to find any patterns.

.

However, to find patterns, besides induction, what are the other methods?

What is meaning of “pattern-finding methods other than induction”?

— Me@2012.11.05

— Me@2018.12.10

.

.

2018.12.10 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK