TL;DR: Physicist Angelo Bassi is trying to experimentally test the GRW collapse model [1], which is in fact experimentally testable. Personally, my money is firmly on the side of these experiments failing, but I would not bet my entire life savings on it. These experiments may well succeed, and if they do, that will be the biggest breakthrough in physics in 100 years. It's great that someone is actually testing this.
Nice! This is my favorite theory since it's so conceptually simple (I can actually understand it) but that of course has no bearing about it being reality.
> The imprecise talk of “observer” and a “measurement” that plagues the orthodox interpretation is thus avoided because the wave function collapses spontaneously.
Why? Measurement is just a photon you shoot at something. Or electron. Wikipedia is saying we cannot define what an observer is and what constitutes “measurement” - sure we do, measurement interacts with the quantum mechanical system because we need to use something - a photon or an electron or some particle to see how it interacts with the system.
I'm not knowledgable of QM. But I don't think that's necessarily true, because photons/electrons are interacting with the system at all times, but the wave function doesn't collapse until we actually observe the result of one of those photons/scatters/whatever, right?
my point is that, a photon bouncing off the system doesn't suffice as a measurement, because photons and electrons are always interacting with the system, but the measurement/wave function collapse doesn't occur until there's some other type of observation that occurs, e.g. a photon that's specifically sent and read by the experimenter
Suppose you fire a photon through a polarizing filter. If the photon's polarization is orthogonal to the filter, it will be blocked however if not orthogonal, the photon can pass through with some probability. Does putting the photon through the filter count as a measurement?
Wouldn't checking if photon is polarized or not (using a 2nd filter) count as a measurement? I am not too versed in quantum mechanics, perhaps you can educate?
Suppose you have two polarized filters at 90 degrees to each other. These block out all the light so you could say that this setup is a form of measurement, since it provides knowledge that zero light is passing through.
In classical mechanics, adding a 3rd filter between the two would have no effect since already no light is getting through.
However with quantum putting a 3rd filter between your two original filters at 45 degrees will allow half of the photons to pass through all 3 filters. This is where things get strange and measurement is not very well defined. Are any of the 3 filters now performing a measurement? We know that half the photons will pass through but have no way of determining which will and which won't.
This experiment works with polarized sunglasses btw, quantum in the palm of your hands.
I disagree that quantum mechanics needs fixing. What it requires is understanding. Many people even ones with PhDs don't really have a deep understanding of QM.
Ask a grad student or even a professor of physics what is essentially different about QM verses classical mechanics.
I almost always get one of two answers.
QM has operators acting on a Hilbert space (rigged HS). It's so mysterious because we have to replace everything with operators. well...
Have they heard of the Koopman–von Neumann formulations of classical mechanics? It's CM formulated using HS and ops.
Another answer is uncertainty. QM has uncertainty. Well... so does classical mechanics!
So what is different? That's a very long answer but one thing is the Exclusion principle.
Besides the KvN formulation is it possible to do QM using the equations of CM in the same form?
yes, it is. The Wigner Moyal Weyl formulations of QM. Look it up or Moyal star products.
Lastly, the collapse of the wave function.
Already done long, long ago by John von Neumann in his book on Quantum Mechanics. The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence. Von Neumann's trace operators are used in extreme cases where standard calculations (which involve a tiny bit of cheating) won't work, e.g. black hole entropy.
What's wrong with QM? So far nothing! It's possible someone might find a flaw but it hasn't happened.
The problem is mostly US. We don't understand all the implications of what we already possess. The enormous amount of myth making and lack of understanding surrounding QM obfuscates what the true problems are which in 99% of cases is the most physicists simply haven't studied von Neumann carefully enough.
>QM has uncertainty. Well... so does classical mechanics!
Wait what? I mean sure, at scale CM is not feasible to compute (eg. n body problem). But our inability to precisely compute the otherwise completely predictable events is not the same as QM which can give true randomness.
QM is essentially deterministic. Neither CM or QM allows for true randomness. Maybe at this stage it is only a philosophical issue. In the end Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics are what truly rule the world. There is no hard and fast rule on when QM should kick in. We adjust the rule based on the need, which is why we largely don't need to deal with foundational issues while interpreting the world in QM framework.
The same is not true for CM. QM absolutely allows for true randomness. This has been proven time and time again. I encourage you and the original author to read the above. Look at the Feynman lectures. There are no hidden local variables. This is true randomness.
The only point at which randomness enters is with "measurement" -- interaction with a classical system. But, if you believe in quantum mechanics, there is actually no such thing as a classical system, only large quantum systems.
And with that observation, you're into the Everett interpretation. Also called Many Worlds.
Namely that when an observer observes a quantum mechanical system, you get a quantum mechanical system that can be described as a superposition of parallel observers who each think that they saw something different. Those parallel observers cannot meaningfully interact thanks to thermodynamic considerations.
Of course accepting this description involves believing in quantum mechanics a little more than most feel comfortable believing in it...
Yes. It's been my defaultish interpretation since I've learned quantum mechanics.
There is a wonderful lecture by Harvard Professor Sidney Coleman, called "Quantum Mechanics in Your Face"[1]. In it, he essentially leads into precisely this. It's what happens when you take quantum mechanics seriously.
My issue is that I can't take quantum mechanics seriously, or expect that it's interpretational issues can be sorted out within itself. The problem is that quantum mechanics is "merely" an extremely excellent approximation to quantum field theory. It can be thought of as an "effective theory" in a very similar way to QFTs as low-energy versions of other QFTs. Which means naturally that we should expect the framework of QFT to answer the interpretational issues, especially to provide guidance as to how the changes due to the approximations change the interpretation.
This is all a fine idea, but quantum field theories have even worse interpretational problems.
No. The standard formulation of QM posits a measurement using a pseudo-classical device which generates a probabilistic outcome. This is at the very core. Source: any text on QM.
The wave function evolution is deterministic but that is only a part of the theory.
I think part of the problem (sociologically) is also sharp reluctance on part of funding agencies, and hiring committees. Graduate students are made to feel, in no uncertain terms, that working on quantum foundations equates to career suicide.
It’s like physicists (collectively) have PTSD from a few decades of trying to understand QM, which then crystallized into the maxim “shut up and calculate”. What we’re seeing is the resulting learned helplessness.
If someone has a better way to reduce the mental load of reconciling all experimental data physicists will no doubt adopt it. Until then they are wise to mostly just muse about foundation as personal passtime rather than engage in ideological wars.
Granted, my PhD is in experimental physics, not theoretical. The story as I learned it was that QM is different because CM produced absurd answers for phenomena such as blackbody radiation, line spectra, and the photoelectric effect.
Indeed, I think something that happens is that the weirdness and paradoxes of QM are what get reported and debated, with no mention that people are using routinely it to solve mundane problems with a high rate of success and accuracy.
Quantum mechanics is just statistics, but operations preserve the 2-norm instead of the 1-norm. Instead of case weights (probabilities) adding up to 1, the squares of case weights (amplitudes) add up to 1. Everything else (the uncertainty principle, measurement mattering, no cloning, Bell inequalities, etc, etc, etc) follows.
In many cases, Wikipedia actually lists the analogy for classical probability theory. For several theorems, the proof for Hilbert spaces can be directly brought to the classical world. The main difference to keep in mind is that we have amplitudes, not probabilities, and they can be negative or complex. We recover typical probability theory by taking norms/squares of amplitudes.
The uncertainty principle follows via doing signal analysis on Fourier-transformed wavefunctions. A fun professional treatment from Baez et al. is [0], and 3blue1brown has an excellent two-video visual explanation [1][2]. The uncertainty principle turns out to be a special case of the sampling theorem (yes, that one! [3]), which itself turns out to be a special case of a result in sheaf theory [4].
Measurements matter because "observables don't commute"; taking linear operators on the complex numbers or other Hilbert spaces can have lasting effects which can't easily be undone. Combine this with "conservation of probability", which is formally mostly abstract nonsense [5], and we get mostly to Aaronson's point of view. (I would go further using the Free Will Theorem. [6])
When Aaronson says that the no-cloning principle is provable using probability, but for complex numbers, he's referring to the standard proof [7]. There are two connections to draw to typical probability theory. The first, and bigger, connection is that random variables can't be cloned in typical probability theory either! The second, deeper, connection is that Hilbert spaces give linear logics, which imply conservation laws for the information representing the particles to be cloned.
Finally, for the Bell inequalities, again there is a standard proof on Wikipedia [9] using typical probability theory. I'd like to mention the overlooked Kochen-Specker theorem [8], which forms the backbone of the Free Will Theorem [6]. Measuring a particle is like taking a sample of a random variable: We decide how we want to ask the particle, and the particle chooses a response that is both allowed by its probability distribution and also correctly represents its context.
"Statistics but with the 2 norm" is really just a succinct way of stating the postulates of quantum mechanics, and obviously all effects of quantum mechanics are determined by the postulates. So you shouldn't really see this as a statement that's controversial at all.
Yeah, well the fact that the correspondence principle and the concept of "measurement" is basically a lot of hand wavey horse shit seems wrong to me. But then, nobody else seemed to think so, so I went on to a productive career in the business world.
GRW theory is a fine thing to look into; if it's right, or something like it is right, this would be a very big deal. If he's wrong, people who think "shut up and calculate" is clever will continue to be smug about it. I had always thought these sorts of tests would be done with mesoscopic physics and amplifiers, but whatever: at least someone is looking at fundamental measurements instead of masturbating about imaginary quantum coherent states of matter nobody knows how to build, or whining we need another synchrotron so they can play act like Alvarez or Lawrence.
I agree that it needs better understanding, but to produce this understand would likely still require "fixing" it. As it stands, QM is a bunch of algebra that "works" for unspecified reasons when using some handwavey heuristics for converting CM to QM. It produces a miscellaneous set of implications, not all of which are clearly connected to each other.
Fundamentally, QM is just some special subset of algebra with certain properties. Just like other algebras aren't "physics", QM isn't really physics. It's just a bag of tools with the right algebraic features to solve a wide category of problems physicists often have.
This is fine, but first think of ordinary algebra. It has some interesting implications that took a while for people to wrap their head around. The zero wasn't a widely accepted concept for thousands of years. Negative numbers are already a squirrelly concept. How can you have negative three apples? That was an easy abstraction hurdle to get across, eventually, and now even children understand that the implication of this is that you owe three apples. If you're give five apples, you have to return three to whomever you borrowed apples from, and now you're left with two.
QM is firmly in the group of abstractions where we haven't worked out the mental models quite yet. Talking about complex-valued probabilities makes most people raise their eyebrows quizzically. It doesn't matter how many different ways you demonstrate that the algebra works out, it's still a very difficult concept to internalise.
One interesting mental model I've come across is that classical probabilities are the products of two things, we just haven't noticed. Quantum Mechanics undoes this multiplication, making it in some sense the "square root of classical probabilities", which is not a probability, but something... "else". It's mysterious because in ordinary life we only ever observe the (else×else) products, never the "roots", even though the latter is more fundamental.
I've never heard anyone take this kind of thought all the way to its conclusion. My current extremely tentative notion is that the "roots" represent probabilities in a kind of continuous alternate universe space, along the lines of MWI. Neither the "observer" nor the "observed" are in any one such universe, but smeared across them in some distribution. Their interactions require their many-worlds-distributions to be multiplied to produce a "real" result, which is still a distribution, but now the one we're used to in CM. Self-interactions such as a resonator in a potential well require self×self products, which are simplify to self^2. Quantum mechanics just undoes this squaring in order to model to underlying behaviour across parallel worlds.
But note how to get even this far, this tentative explanation already required a nearly complete rethinking of what QM really is. It's never going to be sufficient to shuffle the algebra around on a page, because algebra isn't physics. Physics is. Quantum Mechanics is still in the "a bunch of algebraic tricks" stage and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into a form that people can intuitively understand in terms of physical concepts, not just mathematical ones.
If QM were a tool, it would be a hammer with a corkscrew for a handle. Sure, it works if you can manage to swing it, but it's really hard to grasp -- has awful mental ergonomics. What distinguishes a true theory (as a mental tool) from a bag of tricks: having that underlying model that we can wrap our minds around.
Some physicists claim it's inevitable because we don't have direct sensory access to quintessential quantum behavior -- we can only have intuitive models for classical physics. I don't buy it -- the human imagination is quite powerful.
I suspect that a superior theory (1) will be mathematically equivalent to QM (2) may suggest obvious extensions that are not equivalent, leading to testable predictions (3) won't result from merely reshuffling equations -- it'll take some serious inspiration.
Another hunch: the decoherence approach is barking up the wrong tree. The lesson of Schroedinger's cat is that realism doesn't emerge from a non-realistic theory. It seems like locality has a better chance of being an emergent property.
> The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence.
The trouble is that decoherence only explains part of the story. With decoherence you end up with the probability density converging into multiple outcomes. But decoherence does not in any way explain that the choice is made to pick one of these outcomes.
As for what is wrong with QM, the main issue for me is the measurement process, which is just posited axiomatically. How measurement works should be explained by the theory but it is just posited. They assume a classical device that does the measurement. Decoherence explains bits of it but much is left hanging loose.
Decoherence describes the spectrum of behavior between quantum and classical.
As you mention, the probability density converges to multiple outcomes, but then I believe that you're in more of an Everett Many Worlds between the outcomes, rather than a "choice."
In practice, it seems like all of the Many Worlds scenarios statistically converge into one world sooner or later anyways (would love this to be formally shown, but have never seen it, so it's just conjecture from me). For example, if you flip a quantum coin, splitting the universe in two in a Many Worlds Interpretation, who cares? Does the Sun notice? Does someone in a town a mile away?
You've created a small bubble of "two universes," in a Many Worlds sense, but that bubble will pop. Quantum mechanics is ambivalent about the direction of time, so it sure seems like worlds are joining as fast as they're splitting, keeping us statistically around one effective universe.
But how can one understand something in terms of some other, more basic, things when it itself is the most basic thing there is, save for the only language in which one can describe it in a meaningful way, math. We understand how atoms work, how semiconductors work, etc. - all in terms of quantum mechanics, but there is nothing else (but math) that can possibly “explain” how quantum mechanics itself “works” the way it does.
The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is totally unnecessary, as the fact that this appears to happen has already been explained with decoherence, which emerges naturally from the fundamental laws. However, I guess there's something to be said for checking every imaginable possible modification of present theories. As far as I know the only modification that's truly motivated is adding gravity to the standard model, which nobody knows how to do, so the next best thing is to imagine extra terms and then try to swat them out with experiments.
I've long suspected that part of the problem is that we don't yet have the right mathematics. The math we do have allows very accurate predictions ... it's right in that sense ... and some (clouded) insight.
Epicycles did work for the solar system. But the modern solution was much simpler.
The Schroedinger equation and the associated linear algebra are pretty fleepin' simple. Turning the crank can be hard but the underlying concepts are already about as simple as they could be.
> Which the parent says is explained via decoherence.
It isn't. To take a simple example, suppose we measure the spin of a single spin-1/2 particle that is in a state such that there is a 50-50 chance of either possible result. Decoherence can explain why the total system--particle plus measuring device plus observer plus environment--ends up in a superposition of "particle with spin up, measuring device measures spin up, observer observes spin up" and "particle with spin down, measuring device measures spin down, observer observes spin down"--in other words, why the interference terms between those two alternatives go away. But decoherence cannot explain why only one of those two results actually occurs.
If you subscribe to an interpretation like the MWI, then yes, you would say both results occur, not just one. But you aren't basing that on decoherence; you're basing that on your chosen interpretation. Decoherence, by itself, is equally consistent with a collapse interpretation that says only one result actually occurs.
MWI is consistent with decoherence, but the choice of MWI vs. other interpretations is not based on decoherence; it can't be, because decoherence is consistent with all QM interpretations, not just the MWI, so decoherence can't possibly be the basis for choosing any one QM interpretation.
> no extra assumptions are required to derive the MWI
Yes, there are; you have to assume the Born rule. Various attempts have been made to derive the Born rule in the context of the MWI, but none of them have gained general acceptance as having been successful.
> Which the parent says is explained via decoherence
No, that's not what the parent says. The parent says:
"The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is totally unnecessary..."
which is true, with the one exception that I noted:
> Except to explain our everyday experience of a SINGLE classical world [emphasis added]
You can get from QM to multiple worlds without any ad hoc assumptions, but you cannot get to a SINGLE classical world that way. You have to give up either linearity or superposition.
The necessary emphasis in the above sentence is OUR EXPERIENCE. If you can accept multiple worlds then you can accept the other ones are populated by different yous each of whom experiences a single world, namely the one they are in
This reminds me of Carl Sagan, who basically said while people believe the beautiful math and wave functions are the fundamental reality and a universal language, he didn’t actually believe this and thought there was something more and very simple behind the math we use to understand/explain our observations and make predictions.
Problem is, math is the only “microscope” we have a hope to peer with into the fundamental reality. On the other hand, the wave function is just as real as, say, the number “3” is.
> the wave function’s numbers have no obvious meaning
A lot of things in physics (or in other model in science, for that matter) have cannot be measured directly. (I think "has no meaning" is a stretch here.)
I can go for ages talking about things in physics that are less intuitive than simple, non-relativistic, quantum mechanics (Poynting vector, anyone?)
But think about something simple and concrete: electric potential. You cannot measure it. But you can measure its difference.
Only the potential difference is physically meaningful. The absolute potential has no effect on anything. You can add 1000 V or 10^6 V to everything and you get exactly the same physics.
Given the (according to me) fact that many worlds (more aptly named the Relative State Interpretation) is true and correct, one can confidently predict that no "collapse" will be found. That, and the fact that people have been looking for actual collapse of the wave function for many decades.
The MWI is a cop-out. The problem of nonlocality just gets handed off to whatever process forks the parallel universes - it has to ensure that every universe has consistent outcomes for both halves of a Bell experiment, for instance.
The probabilities in QM should be viewed as subjective, but physicists hate subjectivity, so they talk about hypothetical ensembles. It baffles me that Everett took those ensembles and decided they were real universes.
Here here! I just met one other person on the internet who sees that the emperor has no clothes. The adherence and attractiveness of MWI to so many CS programmers (and a few physicists) is mind boggling to me.
The MWI van violate Bell inequalities locally by using post-selection; that’s trivial to show.
When the universe splits at two distant measurements it isn’t until those outcomes are brought into contact that the matching of worlds needs to happen.
I know there's math that makes this seem real, but logical arguments make it sound silly.
Does the universe split every time the wave function collapses in any form, for all measurements of all atoms in the universe? Isn't that essentially infinite? And how would you prove it if any of this was real?
81 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] thread[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%...
Why? Measurement is just a photon you shoot at something. Or electron. Wikipedia is saying we cannot define what an observer is and what constitutes “measurement” - sure we do, measurement interacts with the quantum mechanical system because we need to use something - a photon or an electron or some particle to see how it interacts with the system.
In classical mechanics, adding a 3rd filter between the two would have no effect since already no light is getting through.
However with quantum putting a 3rd filter between your two original filters at 45 degrees will allow half of the photons to pass through all 3 filters. This is where things get strange and measurement is not very well defined. Are any of the 3 filters now performing a measurement? We know that half the photons will pass through but have no way of determining which will and which won't.
This experiment works with polarized sunglasses btw, quantum in the palm of your hands.
https://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+bassi+site%3Aarxiv.or...
This one seems relevant to the topic of the NY Times article:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8600
Ask a grad student or even a professor of physics what is essentially different about QM verses classical mechanics.
I almost always get one of two answers.
QM has operators acting on a Hilbert space (rigged HS). It's so mysterious because we have to replace everything with operators. well...
Have they heard of the Koopman–von Neumann formulations of classical mechanics? It's CM formulated using HS and ops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_cl...
Another answer is uncertainty. QM has uncertainty. Well... so does classical mechanics!
So what is different? That's a very long answer but one thing is the Exclusion principle.
Besides the KvN formulation is it possible to do QM using the equations of CM in the same form?
yes, it is. The Wigner Moyal Weyl formulations of QM. Look it up or Moyal star products.
Lastly, the collapse of the wave function.
Already done long, long ago by John von Neumann in his book on Quantum Mechanics. The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence. Von Neumann's trace operators are used in extreme cases where standard calculations (which involve a tiny bit of cheating) won't work, e.g. black hole entropy.
What's wrong with QM? So far nothing! It's possible someone might find a flaw but it hasn't happened.
The problem is mostly US. We don't understand all the implications of what we already possess. The enormous amount of myth making and lack of understanding surrounding QM obfuscates what the true problems are which in 99% of cases is the most physicists simply haven't studied von Neumann carefully enough.
Wait what? I mean sure, at scale CM is not feasible to compute (eg. n body problem). But our inability to precisely compute the otherwise completely predictable events is not the same as QM which can give true randomness.
No it isn't. Even with perfect information and unlimited compute resources you cannot determine the outcome of a simple Bell Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
The same is not true for CM. QM absolutely allows for true randomness. This has been proven time and time again. I encourage you and the original author to read the above. Look at the Feynman lectures. There are no hidden local variables. This is true randomness.
Namely that when an observer observes a quantum mechanical system, you get a quantum mechanical system that can be described as a superposition of parallel observers who each think that they saw something different. Those parallel observers cannot meaningfully interact thanks to thermodynamic considerations.
Of course accepting this description involves believing in quantum mechanics a little more than most feel comfortable believing in it...
There is a wonderful lecture by Harvard Professor Sidney Coleman, called "Quantum Mechanics in Your Face"[1]. In it, he essentially leads into precisely this. It's what happens when you take quantum mechanics seriously.
My issue is that I can't take quantum mechanics seriously, or expect that it's interpretational issues can be sorted out within itself. The problem is that quantum mechanics is "merely" an extremely excellent approximation to quantum field theory. It can be thought of as an "effective theory" in a very similar way to QFTs as low-energy versions of other QFTs. Which means naturally that we should expect the framework of QFT to answer the interpretational issues, especially to provide guidance as to how the changes due to the approximations change the interpretation.
This is all a fine idea, but quantum field theories have even worse interpretational problems.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw
But there could be non-local ones. The Bohm theory, which is perfectly consistent with standard QM, is fully deterministic.
Important point. It is quite unfair to say "nya nya local hidden variable theories cannot replicate QM", when QM is itself radically non-local.
No. The standard formulation of QM posits a measurement using a pseudo-classical device which generates a probabilistic outcome. This is at the very core. Source: any text on QM.
The wave function evolution is deterministic but that is only a part of the theory.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10230/trace-of-a...
It’s like physicists (collectively) have PTSD from a few decades of trying to understand QM, which then crystallized into the maxim “shut up and calculate”. What we’re seeing is the resulting learned helplessness.
Quantum mechanics is just statistics, but operations preserve the 2-norm instead of the 1-norm. Instead of case weights (probabilities) adding up to 1, the squares of case weights (amplitudes) add up to 1. Everything else (the uncertainty principle, measurement mattering, no cloning, Bell inequalities, etc, etc, etc) follows.
Did Aaronson provide a source for that?
The uncertainty principle follows via doing signal analysis on Fourier-transformed wavefunctions. A fun professional treatment from Baez et al. is [0], and 3blue1brown has an excellent two-video visual explanation [1][2]. The uncertainty principle turns out to be a special case of the sampling theorem (yes, that one! [3]), which itself turns out to be a special case of a result in sheaf theory [4].
Measurements matter because "observables don't commute"; taking linear operators on the complex numbers or other Hilbert spaces can have lasting effects which can't easily be undone. Combine this with "conservation of probability", which is formally mostly abstract nonsense [5], and we get mostly to Aaronson's point of view. (I would go further using the Free Will Theorem. [6])
When Aaronson says that the no-cloning principle is provable using probability, but for complex numbers, he's referring to the standard proof [7]. There are two connections to draw to typical probability theory. The first, and bigger, connection is that random variables can't be cloned in typical probability theory either! The second, deeper, connection is that Hilbert spaces give linear logics, which imply conservation laws for the information representing the particles to be cloned.
Finally, for the Bell inequalities, again there is a standard proof on Wikipedia [9] using typical probability theory. I'd like to mention the overlooked Kochen-Specker theorem [8], which forms the backbone of the Free Will Theorem [6]. Measuring a particle is like taking a sample of a random variable: We decide how we want to ask the particle, and the particle chooses a response that is both allowed by its probability distribution and also correctly represents its context.
[0] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spUNpyF58BY
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
[4] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0324
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_current
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem#Proof
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
"Statistics but with the 2 norm" is really just a succinct way of stating the postulates of quantum mechanics, and obviously all effects of quantum mechanics are determined by the postulates. So you shouldn't really see this as a statement that's controversial at all.
Yeah, well the fact that the correspondence principle and the concept of "measurement" is basically a lot of hand wavey horse shit seems wrong to me. But then, nobody else seemed to think so, so I went on to a productive career in the business world.
GRW theory is a fine thing to look into; if it's right, or something like it is right, this would be a very big deal. If he's wrong, people who think "shut up and calculate" is clever will continue to be smug about it. I had always thought these sorts of tests would be done with mesoscopic physics and amplifiers, but whatever: at least someone is looking at fundamental measurements instead of masturbating about imaginary quantum coherent states of matter nobody knows how to build, or whining we need another synchrotron so they can play act like Alvarez or Lawrence.
Fundamentally, QM is just some special subset of algebra with certain properties. Just like other algebras aren't "physics", QM isn't really physics. It's just a bag of tools with the right algebraic features to solve a wide category of problems physicists often have.
This is fine, but first think of ordinary algebra. It has some interesting implications that took a while for people to wrap their head around. The zero wasn't a widely accepted concept for thousands of years. Negative numbers are already a squirrelly concept. How can you have negative three apples? That was an easy abstraction hurdle to get across, eventually, and now even children understand that the implication of this is that you owe three apples. If you're give five apples, you have to return three to whomever you borrowed apples from, and now you're left with two.
QM is firmly in the group of abstractions where we haven't worked out the mental models quite yet. Talking about complex-valued probabilities makes most people raise their eyebrows quizzically. It doesn't matter how many different ways you demonstrate that the algebra works out, it's still a very difficult concept to internalise.
One interesting mental model I've come across is that classical probabilities are the products of two things, we just haven't noticed. Quantum Mechanics undoes this multiplication, making it in some sense the "square root of classical probabilities", which is not a probability, but something... "else". It's mysterious because in ordinary life we only ever observe the (else×else) products, never the "roots", even though the latter is more fundamental.
I've never heard anyone take this kind of thought all the way to its conclusion. My current extremely tentative notion is that the "roots" represent probabilities in a kind of continuous alternate universe space, along the lines of MWI. Neither the "observer" nor the "observed" are in any one such universe, but smeared across them in some distribution. Their interactions require their many-worlds-distributions to be multiplied to produce a "real" result, which is still a distribution, but now the one we're used to in CM. Self-interactions such as a resonator in a potential well require self×self products, which are simplify to self^2. Quantum mechanics just undoes this squaring in order to model to underlying behaviour across parallel worlds.
But note how to get even this far, this tentative explanation already required a nearly complete rethinking of what QM really is. It's never going to be sufficient to shuffle the algebra around on a page, because algebra isn't physics. Physics is. Quantum Mechanics is still in the "a bunch of algebraic tricks" stage and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into a form that people can intuitively understand in terms of physical concepts, not just mathematical ones.
Some physicists claim it's inevitable because we don't have direct sensory access to quintessential quantum behavior -- we can only have intuitive models for classical physics. I don't buy it -- the human imagination is quite powerful.
I suspect that a superior theory (1) will be mathematically equivalent to QM (2) may suggest obvious extensions that are not equivalent, leading to testable predictions (3) won't result from merely reshuffling equations -- it'll take some serious inspiration.
Another hunch: the decoherence approach is barking up the wrong tree. The lesson of Schroedinger's cat is that realism doesn't emerge from a non-realistic theory. It seems like locality has a better chance of being an emergent property.
The trouble is that decoherence only explains part of the story. With decoherence you end up with the probability density converging into multiple outcomes. But decoherence does not in any way explain that the choice is made to pick one of these outcomes.
As for what is wrong with QM, the main issue for me is the measurement process, which is just posited axiomatically. How measurement works should be explained by the theory but it is just posited. They assume a classical device that does the measurement. Decoherence explains bits of it but much is left hanging loose.
As you mention, the probability density converges to multiple outcomes, but then I believe that you're in more of an Everett Many Worlds between the outcomes, rather than a "choice."
In practice, it seems like all of the Many Worlds scenarios statistically converge into one world sooner or later anyways (would love this to be formally shown, but have never seen it, so it's just conjecture from me). For example, if you flip a quantum coin, splitting the universe in two in a Many Worlds Interpretation, who cares? Does the Sun notice? Does someone in a town a mile away?
You've created a small bubble of "two universes," in a Many Worlds sense, but that bubble will pop. Quantum mechanics is ambivalent about the direction of time, so it sure seems like worlds are joining as fast as they're splitting, keeping us statistically around one effective universe.
Except to explain our everyday experience of a single classical world. Then something in QM has to give.
Epicycles did work for the solar system. But the modern solution was much simpler.
Which the parent says is explained via decoherence. Why do you feel that decoherence does not account for the observed phenomenon?
It isn't. To take a simple example, suppose we measure the spin of a single spin-1/2 particle that is in a state such that there is a 50-50 chance of either possible result. Decoherence can explain why the total system--particle plus measuring device plus observer plus environment--ends up in a superposition of "particle with spin up, measuring device measures spin up, observer observes spin up" and "particle with spin down, measuring device measures spin down, observer observes spin down"--in other words, why the interference terms between those two alternatives go away. But decoherence cannot explain why only one of those two results actually occurs.
MWI is consistent with decoherence, but the choice of MWI vs. other interpretations is not based on decoherence; it can't be, because decoherence is consistent with all QM interpretations, not just the MWI, so decoherence can't possibly be the basis for choosing any one QM interpretation.
> no extra assumptions are required to derive the MWI
Yes, there are; you have to assume the Born rule. Various attempts have been made to derive the Born rule in the context of the MWI, but none of them have gained general acceptance as having been successful.
No, that's not what the parent says. The parent says:
"The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is totally unnecessary..."
which is true, with the one exception that I noted:
> Except to explain our everyday experience of a SINGLE classical world [emphasis added]
You can get from QM to multiple worlds without any ad hoc assumptions, but you cannot get to a SINGLE classical world that way. You have to give up either linearity or superposition.
http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor...
A lot of things in physics (or in other model in science, for that matter) have cannot be measured directly. (I think "has no meaning" is a stretch here.)
I can go for ages talking about things in physics that are less intuitive than simple, non-relativistic, quantum mechanics (Poynting vector, anyone?)
But think about something simple and concrete: electric potential. You cannot measure it. But you can measure its difference.
The probabilities in QM should be viewed as subjective, but physicists hate subjectivity, so they talk about hypothetical ensembles. It baffles me that Everett took those ensembles and decided they were real universes.
When the universe splits at two distant measurements it isn’t until those outcomes are brought into contact that the matching of worlds needs to happen.
Does the universe split every time the wave function collapses in any form, for all measurements of all atoms in the universe? Isn't that essentially infinite? And how would you prove it if any of this was real?