External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
What is the quantum measurement problem?
Trying to educate us axil ?
I got the book of Dr. Hossenfelder, very informative.
Does the quantum state effect the real world ("ontic") or is it just a probability of some event happening (epistemic).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1570
QuoteTowards the end of 2011, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph derived a theorem that aimed to show that the quantum state must be ontic (a state of reality) in a broad class of realist approaches to quantum theory. This result attracted a lot of attention and controversy. The aim of this review article is to review the background to the Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph Theorem, to provide a clear presentation of the theorem itself, and to review related work that has appeared since the publication of the Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph paper. In particular, this review: Explains what it means for the quantum state to be ontic or epistemic (a state of knowledge); Reviews arguments for and against an ontic interpretation of the quantum state as they existed prior to the Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph Theorem; Explains why proving the reality of the quantum state is a very strong constraint on realist theories in that it would imply many of the known no-go theorems, such as Bell's Theorem and the need for an exponentially large ontic state space; Provides a comprehensive presentation of the Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph Theorem itself, along with subsequent improvements and criticisms of its assumptions; Reviews two other arguments for the reality of the quantum state: the first due to Hardy and the second due to Colbeck and Renner, and explains why their assumptions are less compelling than those of the Pusey--Barrett--Rudolph Theorem; Reviews subsequent work aimed at ruling out stronger notions of what it means for the quantum state to be epistemic and points out open questions in this area. The overall aim is not only to provide the background needed for the novice in this area to understand the current status, but also to discuss often overlooked subtleties that should be of interest to the experts.
I have seen in LENR reaction experimentation a formative issue that has greatly influenced my understanding of the LENR reaction. It involves the workings of the superposition mechanism of quantum mechanics.
This issue is illustrated in this question:
QuoteDisplay MoreIf a complex multistep process occurs under a state of superposition, then only the final result of that complex process will be detectable at the termination of that superposition state.
The intermediate results will not be visible to the observer when the state of superposition is ongoing.
For example, in a complication of the dead cat thought experiment, if the cat is killed by and exploding bomb when the cat dies under a state of superposition, then the heat and blast produced by the explosion is not detectable by the outside observer. Only the final results of the action of the exploding bomb on the cat will be observed when the state of superposition is terminated.
In another real world example, if a fusion, fission reaction or particle decay occurs under a state of superposition, then none of the intermediate products of these reactions would be observed. This means that neither the energy nor the secondary particles produced by the reaction would be detectable while the superposition state is ongoing.
If this state of affairs is true, how do the energy and the intermediate particles affect the world both while and after the long duration state of superposition is in place?
What is the quantum measurement problem?
It's basically this: "How does wave function collapse occur?"
I think it's the result of an optical Fourier transform. I talked about it here: http://physicsdetective.com/the-double-slit-experiment/
Image from Steven Lehar’s intuitive explanation of Fourier theory
When you detect the electron at the screen, you perform something akin to an optical Fourier transform on it, so you convert it into something pointlike, and you see a dot on the screen. Then when you detect the electron at one of the slits, you perform something akin to an optical Fourier transform on it, so you convert it into something pointlike. So it goes through that slit only. So the interference patterns disappears.
Art Hobson gave a similar explanation of the double slit experiment in his 2013 paper There are no particles, there are only fields. I was surprised I'd never heard about it before.
https://www.inquisitr.com/5339…-may-not-exist-after-all/
A Wild New Quantum Physics Experiment Suggests That Objective Reality May Not Exist After All
Does this result support that quantum measurement is it just a probability of some event happening (epistemic)?
Art Hobson gave a similar explanation of the double slit experiment in his 2013 paper There are no particles, there are only fields. I was surprised I'd never heard about it before.
It is somewhat hard to see this line of thinking still being espoused when we have much better starting point. Quotes from that Hobson paper:
It's easy to explain if each quantum (photon or electron) is an extended field that comes through both slits.
>> There is plenty of evidence that an electron is a real thing. That electrons form bubbles in superfluid helium - of different sizes. They move through these environments at rates we can clock by hitting them with photons. I showed many of the problems of electrons in my article "Is Physics Missing Something Simple?". Back to the bubble experiment by Maris et al this is what it looks like.
g
Now usually when we see moose tracks in snow we say "HEY THERE IS A MOOSE THERE." But not in physics these days. Reality doesn't have to make sense, its not for engineers! These bubbles formed various small sizes NOT EXPLAINABLE BY quantum mechanics.
Maris and company could not solve these small bubbles and suggested in exasperation we have electrons breaking apart into smaller electrons. There we go again, anything is possible with the right math and then we debate the reality of it. From the Maris 2015 paper where they state "fission of the wavefunction" may be possible.
Each of these explanations has difficulties but as far as we can see, of the three, fission is the only plausible explanation of the results which have been obtained."
The bubbles problem is so confounding journal editors asked Mills to supply a paper. They didn't ask him because he has no reputation but because at the top they know he's real. Mills paper shows a physical model of electrons and photons. The short summary is: Unlike the hydrogen atom, when an electron bubble captures light as a photon, the photon shields the negative electric field of the electron itself, allowing it to shrink. This shrinkage comes with an increase in angular velocity of the electron current.
Back to the Hobson paper:
If a quantum is a field that is extended over both slits, there's no problem. But could a particle coming through just one slit obtain this information by detecting physical
forces from the other, relatively distant, slit?
What is so hard to believe about electrons and photons interacting at the slit surface? What is so hard to believe that there is no interference at all, but just diffraction?
Doesn't it seem this is more evidence that the photon and electron are real extended particles (that are themselves waves).
https://www.quora.com/How-can-…without-quantum-mechanics (i answered this question recently youll have to find my answer)
https://advanceseng.com/study-…e-electron-wave-function/
Maris 2015 on bubbles - suggesting that fission of the wave function is the only possible explanation. He has been doing this since 2000 and attracted a lot of interest.
Note that this is the weird world of liquid helium - a superfluid where counter-intuitive macroscopic QM effects abound!
Navid here cites Maris15 as evidence that electrons are real.
Leave aside what that means - I think it is some type of rejection of QM. Unless I'm doing Navid an injustice. Of course QM electrons are (very) real with the properties of both particles and waves that everyone understands.
Anyway these He bubble experiments are interesting and not fully understood (by Maris) and weird. IN THIS SITUATION no-one should make assumptions - except to note a lack of understanding - without doing a citation check.
90% of the time these experimental peculiarities get solved by subsequent experiments from the originator or others. Sometimes by a more realistic and imaginative theoretical model as well.
I did this with Maris a year ago or so. Why? Because his data and explanation seemed so weird, andhe has being doing this stuff since 2000.
OK, so it took me a long time originally, if I can reconstruct it here quickly I will do so:
Entangled bubbles (not fractional): https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0012370.pdf Jackiw et al 2000 (Jackiw was I think the first person who suggested that QM entanglement could make a single electron cause two bubbles).
exotic self-trapped states of electron https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10909-015-1314-x Elser 2015
We explore the possibility that the fast and exotic negative ions in superfluid helium are electrons bound to quantized vortex structures, the simplest being a ring. In the states we consider, the electron energy is only slightly below the conduction band minimum of bulk helium. To support our proposal, we present two calculations. In the first, we show that the electron pressure on the vortex core is insufficient to cavitate the helium and form an electron bubble. In the second, we estimate the equilibrium radius of the vortex ring that would bind an electron and find it is much smaller than the electron bubble, about 7 Å. The many exotic ions reported in experiments might be bound states of an electron with more complex vortex structures.
Elser Commenting on Maris fission:
A more speculative proposal, Maris’ fissioned electron bubble [5], is not a tenable model as it is based on the adiabatic principle of quantum mechanics in a situation where it does not apply [6, 7].
(I agree)
QM stuff developed to see what QM entangled wave function electrons would be like in He:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10909-016-1599-4 Wei2016
Exotic ions are negatively charged objects which have been detected in superfluid helium-4 at temperatures in the vicinity of 1 K. Mobility experiments in several different labs have revealed the existence of at least 18 such objects. These ions have a higher mobility than the normal negative ion and appear to be singly charged and smaller. We summarize the experimental situation, the possible structure of these objects, and how these objects might be formed.
Khrapak 2019 Electron Self-Trapping in Vortex Rings in Superfluid Helium https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8796648
The mobility of electrons injected in the majority of nonpolar dielectric liquids is a few orders of magnitude higher than the mobility of positive ions. However, the behavior of electrons in liquid helium is anomalous. The electron mobility is a few orders of magnitude lower than the value expected according to the classical Langevin theory and even a few times lower than the mobility of positive ions. The reason is that it is energetically favorable for an electron to be localized in nanobubble owing to a strong exchange repulsion from helium atoms. In addition to ordinary electron bubbles, two more types of negative charge carriers were discovered many years ago in superfluid helium: “fast” and “exotic” ions. The mobility of fast ions is approximately seven times higher than the mobility of electron bubbles, whereas the mobility of a family of exotic ions (more than ten members) lies between these two values. In the present work a model according to which fast and exotic negative ions in superfluid helium represent the localized states of electrons in vortex rings is presented. The quantization of radial and longitudinal motions of electrons inside the vortex core and the quantization of the vortex motion of liquid helium around the charged complex lead to the existence of a whole family of excited states of electron vortices with different radii and quanta of vorticity. The proposed simple model of autolocalization of injected electrons in vortex rings allows to understand the nature of fast and exotic ions in superfluid helium.
OK - so that is all I can do quickly. To summarise, Khrapak has a mundane solution for the apparently mind-boggling results. instead of the mobility variation being from different electron charge, it is from quantised vortices in He around a (single, whole) electron. This neatly explains the fact that electron mobility here is so low and the fact that mobility is not quantised the way you would expect if it was just from electron quantisation.
THH
Now usually when we see moose tracks in snow we say "HEY THERE IS A MOOSE THERE." But not in physics these days. Reality doesn't have to make sense, its not for engineers! These bubbles formed various small sizes NOT EXPLAINABLE BY quantum mechanics.
Navid,
please see my post above, read the refs, and then engage with me if you still think physics is so broken, or physicists behaving so badly?
These bubbles have been a real mystery, and resulted in many explanations, some sillier than others, but none of been positively rejected. Still, the vortex rings have it, don't you think? A neat explanation of a mystery!
I already explained here, that nothing counterintuitive is about electron bubbles in helium and whole this problem is actually handled well by quantum mechanics.
QuoteIt's basically this: "How does wave function collapse occur?" I think it's the result of an optical Fourier transform.
It's consequence of mutual interaction of wave functions of observer and object observed. Despite quantum mechanics doesn't mention it explicitly, one cannot exclude wave function of observer from thoughts. In dense aether model collapse of wave function occurs, when wave function of observer gets synchronized in phase with wave function of object observed. Once both waves undulate in unison, no relative undulation can be observed and both objects get actually entangled. Collapse of wave function is actually normal consequence of entanglement, just observed from perspective of observer.
If you don't believe me, try to answer this (easier) question first: "What does happen during quantum entanglement?"
And you'll see, that the explanation of wave function collapse follows naturally from the answer.
If you don't believe me, try to answer this (easier) question first: "What does happen during quantum entanglement?"
And you'll see, that the explanation of wave function collapse follows naturally from the answer.
That is only true if you suppose some non-physical and (obviously) arbitrary distinction between the measured system and the measurer.
In reality all is a quantum system, and coherence ensures that all measurements are consistent, with linear time evolution of the QM state.
Collapse is an anthropomorphic idea forced only because we subjectively experience this. The physics does not require it, and since when it happens is not well defined, it is at best an unhappy philosophical device.
I already explained here, that nothing counterintuitive is about electron bubbles in helium and whole this problem is actually handled well by quantum mechanics.
Zephyr, check the literature I reference (and there is quite a lot more.
The issue us that quantisation of charge on these bubbles appears to require fractional electron charge.
However, it does not, the vortex idea, allowing quantised vorticial angular momentum, solves the mystery.
We could dig deeper into this if you like, it is interesting. Also an example of how experimental results that appear anomalous can be resolved by more realistic interpretation. (In this case you need to add quantised vortices that slow down the bubbles).
QuoteCollapse is an anthropomorphic idea forced only because we subjectively experience this
Nope, it's real measurable phenomena and it cannot be derived from (time dependent) Schrodinger equation of single quantum object - this result is thus adhoced in every quantum simulation of single quantum object. If some theory cannot predict outcome of experiment from its fundamental equation, it just means its formulation is incomplete and physics thus "needs" to complete it.
What I'm saying is, everything what one has to do is the quantum simulation of two objects, not just single one, because every observation (not just quantum one) is result of interaction of two objects. Such a wrong ansatz and misunderstanding of problem cannot be replaced by philosophical twaddling that "physics doesn't actually need it". Quantum mechanics can actually handle it quite completely without any philosophy. For example it can precisely simulate establishing of entanglement between pair of objects fixed in certain distance.
QuoteThe issue us that quantization of charge on these bubbles appears to require fractional electron charge
Where quantization of charge on these bubbles occurs (link)? What is observed are quantized states of these bubbles, but these bubbles still contain the very same charge.
Quotequantised vorticial angular momentum
Could you get more specific? Google returns zero number of results for this termite...
If you don't believe me, try to answer this (easier) question first: "What does happen during quantum entanglement?"
And you'll see, that the explanation of wave function collapse follows naturally from the answer.
There is no entanglement. Photon correlation is not spooky action at a distance. We are trying to prove this out.
Thus there is no quantum computing.
Nope, it's real measurable phenomena and it cannot be derived from (time dependent) Schrodinger equation of single quantum object - this result is thus adhoced in every quantum simulation of single quantum object. If some theory cannot predict outcome of experiment from its fundamental equation, it just means its formulation is incomplete and physics thus "needs" to complete it.
What I'm saying is, everything what one has to do is the quantum simulation of two objects, not just single one, because every observation (not just quantum one) is result of interaction of two objects. Such a wrong ansatz and misunderstanding of problem cannot be replaced by philosophical twaddling that "physics doesn't actually need it". Quantum mechanics can actually handle it quite completely without any philosophy. For example it can precisely simulate establishing of entanglement between pair of objects fixed in certain distance.
LOL
Sure, it is a measurable phenomenon. But measurements require more than one quantum object. And apparent wavefunction collapse (as determined by any examination of system past history) does happen as result of linear evolution.
I'm not entirely sure what is your argument. My point is that the simplest model (linear evolution, no collapse) exactly predicts the results of experiments, so why invoke an additional, complex, and physically identical mechanism?
Entanglement is a fact of quantum mechanics. it requires no simulation, it is a direct result of the dynamics.
There is no entanglement. Photon correlation is not spooky action at a distance. We are trying to prove this out.
Thus there is no quantum computing.
Navid, since entanglement, and quantum computing, both exist, this seems a surprisingly counterfactual attempt.
Where quantization of charge on these bubbles occurs (link)? What is observed are quantized states of these bubbles, but these bubbles still contain the very same charge.
Could you get more specific? Google returns zero number of results for this termite...
Zephir, you could read my post above where I gave you all the links? In particular Maris 2015 which summarises Maris's earlier work (from 2002 I think) claiming that he has observed bubbles with fractional electron charge, and the more recent vortex explanation of the same phenomenon.
It is fascinating - but you do need to read the papers.
Navid, since entanglement, and quantum computing, both exist, this seems a surprisingly counterfactual attempt.
Entanglement and spooky action at a distance is claimed to exist, Huxley. But take note of the 2007 New Scientist article written by Mark Buchanan called Quantum Entanglement: Is Spookiness Under Threat? He referred to a paper by Joy Christian entitled Disproof of Bell’s Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables. Joy Christian said John Bell got his famous theorem wrong because he assumed that hidden variables commute. However Bell didn’t consider rotations, which do not commute. Joy Christian received opprobrium for this, from the likes of Scott Aaronson, an advocate of quantum computing. See Aaronson’s 2012 blog post entitled I was wrong about Joy Christian. And before you mention quantum supremacy, I recommend you read the Nature article and pay careful attention to this:
“The team challenged its computer, known as Sycamore, to describe the likelihood of different outcomes from a quantum version of a random-number generator. They do this by running a circuit that passes 53 qubits through a series of random operations. This generates a 53-digit string of 1s and 0s — with a total of 253 possible combinations (only 53 qubits were used because one of Sycamore’s 54 was broken). The process is so complex that the outcome is impossible to calculate from first principles, and is therefore effectively random. But owing to interference between qubits, some strings of numbers are more likely to occur than others. This is similar to rolling a loaded die — it still produces a random number, even though some outcomes are more likely than others”.
That’s no calculation. That’s rolling 53 loaded dice, then saying a real computer can’t calculate how they’ll turn up. It isn't quantum supremacy. By the way, here's a depiction of a qubit:
Qubit image from The Future of Computing – Quantum & Qubits by Sam Sattel autodesk
And here's a couple of depictions of an electron. The spin is hidden because it looks like a standing wave with a standing field. Rotation is the hidden variable:
Gif courtesy of Adrian Rossiter’s torus animations, S-orbital image from the 2010 Encyclopaedia Britannica
