Tleb wrote:
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"


BOO!!!

Hi Ilja,

I will answer your two postings in one
in order to not have two branches on the same topic.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"Andreas Most" schrieb

I nowhere said that the wave function idea doesn't work. I just said
that interpreting the wave function as a physical object is wrong.
To give an example: The moon is a physical object having e.g mass.
But the moon's orbit is not a pysical object. It has no mass.
It is simply a function of position and time.
However, this function tells me where to look when I want to see the
moon. Thus, the function of the moon's orbit is the information about
where to find the moon.

A strange analogy which proves nothing.

It is not supposed to prove anything. I used this analogy to
illustrate that the wave function is not a physical object that
has mass, energy, momentum, spin etc. It is the electron which has
these properties.

BTW, there things which, similar to the
trajectory of the moon, tell you where to find other objects
(railways for trains).

Good point. If you don't object I will use this example
from now on ;-)

A similar reasoning applies to the quantum mechanical wave function.
It is no physical object. But it tells me what my measurement results
on a quantum mechanical system will be. Therefore it summarizes the
information I have about this system.

A box containing some liquid in equilibrium also, in some sense,
summarizes the information I have about the liquid. Therefore the
box is not a physical object?

This would not tell me anything. You also need to tell me the size
of the box, temperature, type of liquid, entropy etc.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"Andreas Most" schrieb

In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.

That it is not possible to communicate with an EPR device is a proven
theorem. But why do you think no information is transferred?

If information were transferred there would be a way to communicate in a
EPR setup. But there is no indication of any information transfer.
Also the quantum mechanical description works perfectly without
transferring information.

Instead, Bell's theorem proves that, if you insist that no information
is transferred, you have to give up realism. But once you give up
realism, it makes no sense to say that no information is transferred.

It seems as if you have not understood Bell's theorem. Bell proved that
if hidden variables are involved in measurements in quantum mechanics
you have to give up locality.

The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.

To interpret the wave function as a physical object is one of the
possible realistic interpretations of quantum theory. In these
interpretations, we have information transfer.

There is no confusion in these interpretations.

There is no real need to interpret the wave function as a physical
object. Even if it were so it would have no physical impact and
the information transfer would be virtual not real.

Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.

Please present and defend this reasoning.

This should be explained in any good text book about relativity.
I hope you have read one...

Andreas.

TomGee wrote:
To all readers:

I agree with the explanations given of the situations noted above about
quantum spookiness, and with most of the explanations about what really
happens. It's a shame that the OP responds only to emails, as I have
no intention of doing that.

The believers in the Copenhagen Interpretation have gone to extreme
measures to force results that seem to support their claims. They
inject amounts of energy into their experiments that never occur
naturally and then they interpret those results as if they occur in
nature in ordinary ways.

The Copenhagan interoration has gone from an interpreation iof
physics to an interpretation of Blockbuster video.
Since that's the only place it even comes close to
predicting experimental outcomes.




Nevertheless, both sides offer convincing evidence that something
unintuitive occurs, and so the quantum spookiness arguments go on....

"Andreas Most" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"Andreas Most" schrieb
A similar reasoning applies to the quantum mechanical wave function.
It is no physical object. But it tells me what my measurement results
on a quantum mechanical system will be. Therefore it summarizes the
information I have about this system.

A box containing some liquid in equilibrium also, in some sense,
summarizes the information I have about the liquid. Therefore the
box is not a physical object?

This would not tell me anything. You also need to tell me the size
of the box, temperature, type of liquid, entropy etc.

All these are properties of the box. Note we are in equilibrium,
moreover the word "only for water" is written on the box, and all
observations up to now have shown that such boxes are used
only for water.

(Equilibrium is relevant, because from point of Bohmian mechanics
the wave function defines the quantum equilibrium state.)

In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.

That it is not possible to communicate with an EPR device is a proven
theorem. But why do you think no information is transferred?

If information were transferred there would be a way to communicate in a
EPR setup. But there is no indication of any information transfer.

No. There is no reason to assume that some hidden information channel
may be used. And there is a very strong indication - the violation of
Bell's inequality.

Also the quantum mechanical description works perfectly without
transferring information.

The quantum mechanical description (in its minimal interpretation)
is not a realistic one in the sense used by Bell. We can easily
transform it into a realistic interpretation, following BM.
In this case we have a real mechanism transferring information.

Instead, Bell's theorem proves that, if you insist that no information
is transferred, you have to give up realism. But once you give up
realism, it makes no sense to say that no information is transferred.

It seems as if you have not understood Bell's theorem. Bell proved that
if hidden variables are involved in measurements in quantum mechanics
you have to give up locality.

That's another formulation.

"Hidden variables" is a bad word for realism, it sounds like it is not
worth to care if we reject them. Moreover, "is involved" sounds like
it is a very strange idea to "involve" them.

"Locality" is, on the other hand, a very good word for Einstein causality.
Sounds like it is very, very bad to give it up. But let's remember that
Newtonian theory is "nonlocal". Thus, nonlocal theories are nothing
very bad.

There remains nonetheless some difference in the formulations. You
have to take a look at the actual proof. It proves that the results of
the measurements cannot be independend of the decisions of the
experimenters at the other end. As a consequence, if the measurements
are space-like separated, Einstein causality is violated.

(Of course, only Einstein causality on the level of reality.)

The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.

To interpret the wave function as a physical object is one of the
possible realistic interpretations of quantum theory. In these
interpretations, we have information transfer.

There is no confusion in these interpretations.

There is no real need to interpret the wave function as a physical
object. Even if it were so it would have no physical impact and
the information transfer would be virtual not real.

If you want to talk about physical objects at all, without contradicting
yourself, you have a need in a realistic interpretation of your theories.
"Realistic interpretation" simply means that you have to specify (in your
interpretation) which objects of your theory are real physical objects.
Correct?

All realistic interpretations I know of use the wave function as a
real object. Feel free to invent another one to justify your claim.

Once you have done it, we feel free to assume that we can use
the rules of elementary logic and probability theory.

Then, if we assume that the "real objects" which define the behaviour
of the quantum state do not predefine/influence the decisions of the
two experimenters A,B, and that there is no causal influence
A-B or B-A, then Bell's inequality holds.
It is violated, and I conclude A-B or B-A.

"Virtual not real" sounds confusing. I would say "real but
unobservable" would be a more appropriate description.
But the violation of Bell's inequality is an observable effect
of this hidden information transfer. Thus, it is observable in
an indirect way.

Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.

Please present and defend this reasoning.

This should be explained in any good text book about relativity.
I hope you have read one...

LOL.

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"Andreas Most" schrieb

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
...
A box containing some liquid in equilibrium also, in some sense,
summarizes the information I have about the liquid. Therefore the
box is not a physical object?

This would not tell me anything. You also need to tell me the size
of the box, temperature, type of liquid, entropy etc.


All these are properties of the box. Note we are in equilibrium,
moreover the word "only for water" is written on the box, and all
observations up to now have shown that such boxes are used
only for water.

You were talking about some liquid, not water.

(Equilibrium is relevant, because from point of Bohmian mechanics
the wave function defines the quantum equilibrium state.)

Yes, but you would still need to know the temperature, the pressure,
etc.
I think we are not getting to the point with this example. (Nicht alles,
was hinkt, ist auch ein Beispiel...)

In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.

That it is not possible to communicate with an EPR device is a proven
theorem. But why do you think no information is transferred?

If information were transferred there would be a way to communicate in a
EPR setup. But there is no indication of any information transfer.

No. There is no reason to assume that some hidden information channel
may be used. And there is a very strong indication - the violation of
Bell's inequality.

That is what I said!

Also the quantum mechanical description works perfectly without
transferring information.

The quantum mechanical description (in its minimal interpretation)
is not a realistic one in the sense used by Bell. We can easily
transform it into a realistic interpretation, following BM.
In this case we have a real mechanism transferring information.

Now I am confused. You just confirmed that there is no hidden
information channel, but now you are talking again about information
transfer.

Instead, Bell's theorem proves that, if you insist that no information
is transferred, you have to give up realism. But once you give up
realism, it makes no sense to say that no information is transferred.

It seems as if you have not understood Bell's theorem. Bell proved that
if hidden variables are involved in measurements in quantum mechanics
you have to give up locality.

That's another formulation.

"Hidden variables" is a bad word for realism, it sounds like it is not
worth to care if we reject them. Moreover, "is involved" sounds like
it is a very strange idea to "involve" them.

Calling them "realism" is taking "hidden variables" already for granted.

"Locality" is, on the other hand, a very good word for Einstein causality.

Ooops, "locality" and "causality" are two different things. Locality is
assumed because of causality. However, the inverse conclusion doesn't
work.

Sounds like it is very, very bad to give it up. But let's remember that
Newtonian theory is "nonlocal". Thus, nonlocal theories are nothing
very bad.

You should know better than this. Newtonian theory is only an
approximation for small velocities and weak gravitational fields.
In this context you may safely assume that time is absolute and
interactions occur instantaneously. In this approximation the theory
is nonlocal. But it is dangerous to conclude that you can generalize
this concept as it already doesn't work in general relativity.

There remains nonetheless some difference in the formulations. You
have to take a look at the actual proof. It proves that the results of
the measurements cannot be independend of the decisions of the
experimenters at the other end. As a consequence, if the measurements
are space-like separated, Einstein causality is violated.

Causality is not violated because it is not possible to exchange
information with such a setup. And although experimentor A might
already know what B will measure, B must still use a superposed state
for the description of his system. There is no contradiction in doing so.

(Of course, only Einstein causality on the level of reality.)

The confusion only occurs when you intepret the wave function as a
physical object.

To interpret the wave function as a physical object is one of the
possible realistic interpretations of quantum theory. In these
interpretations, we have information transfer.

There is no confusion in these interpretations.

There is no real need to interpret the wave function as a physical
object. Even if it were so it would have no physical impact and
the information transfer would be virtual not real.

If you want to talk about physical objects at all, without contradicting
yourself, you have a need in a realistic interpretation of your theories.
"Realistic interpretation" simply means that you have to specify (in your
interpretation) which objects of your theory are real physical objects.
Correct?

I did that in the previous posts.
The physical reality is what you can measure, i.e. the observables.
The wave function is unobservable. Therefore it makes no sense to
consider the wave function as a physical object.
And btw, this is not "my" interpretation.

All realistic interpretations I know of use the wave function as a
real object. Feel free to invent another one to justify your claim.

I cannot see that any of these interpretations can explain anything
beyond the interpretation, which considers the wave function solely
as a mathematical object.

Once you have done it, we feel free to assume that we can use
the rules of elementary logic and probability theory.

Then, if we assume that the "real objects" which define the behaviour
of the quantum state do not predefine/influence the decisions of the
two experimenters A,B, and that there is no causal influence
A-B or B-A, then Bell's inequality holds.
It is violated, and I conclude A-B or B-A.

You are certainly aware of the fact that this conclusion is a
direct consequence of your assumptions. Namely, that the wave
function is a "real" object. Because of that, I avoid this type
of interpretation.
But I will not keep you from continueing this track. Maybe you
can find a solution to the so called measurement problem by that.
However, when it comes to explain QM to somebody who doesn't know
anything about it, I stay with my explanation.

"Virtual not real" sounds confusing. I would say "real but
unobservable" would be a more appropriate description.
But the violation of Bell's inequality is an observable effect
of this hidden information transfer. Thus, it is observable in
an indirect way.

That is your interpretation of the effect. I can't see a need for
such a hidden information transfer.

Andreas.

Although there is no known mechanism to transport
information without a carrier that has energy, the reasoning for
rejecting propagation of information faster than light deals with
causality, not mass nor energy.

Please present and defend this reasoning.

This should be explained in any good text book about relativity.
I hope you have read one...

LOL.

Ilja

"Andreas Most" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"Andreas Most" schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
...
A box containing some liquid in equilibrium also, in some sense,
summarizes the information I have about the liquid. Therefore the
box is not a physical object?

This would not tell me anything. You also need to tell me the size
of the box, temperature, type of liquid, entropy etc.

All these are properties of the box. Note we are in equilibrium,
moreover the word "only for water" is written on the box, and all
observations up to now have shown that such boxes are used
only for water.

You were talking about some liquid, not water.

I have specified my toy example after your criticism.

(Equilibrium is relevant, because from point of Bohmian mechanics
the wave function defines the quantum equilibrium state.)

Yes, but you would still need to know the temperature, the pressure,
etc.

They may be measured by measuring properties of the box.

I think we are not getting to the point with this example. (Nicht alles,
was hinkt, ist auch ein Beispiel...)

I think for the purpose I have invented it it is already sufficient.
The box allows to describe most of the properties (if not all)
of the water in it, similar to the wave function. Nonetheless it is
a real object. Thus, your argumentation is faulty.

In the EPR case no information is transferred between the two
particles
nor is it possible to communicate with such an EPR setup.

That it is not possible to communicate with an EPR device is a proven
theorem. But why do you think no information is transferred?

If information were transferred there would be a way to communicate in a
EPR setup. But there is no indication of any information transfer.

No. There is no reason to assume that some [should be no] hidden
information channel
may be used. And there is a very strong indication - the violation of
Bell's inequality.

That is what I said!

Sorry, that was a typo.

Also the quantum mechanical description works perfectly without
transferring information.

The quantum mechanical description (in its minimal interpretation)
is not a realistic one in the sense used by Bell. We can easily
transform it into a realistic interpretation, following BM.
In this case we have a real mechanism transferring information.

Now I am confused. You just confirmed that there is no hidden
information channel, but now you are talking again about information
transfer.

Don't be confused, that was just a typo.

Instead, Bell's theorem proves that, if you insist that no information
is transferred, you have to give up realism. But once you give up
realism, it makes no sense to say that no information is transferred.

It seems as if you have not understood Bell's theorem. Bell proved that
if hidden variables are involved in measurements in quantum mechanics
you have to give up locality.

That's another formulation.

"Hidden variables" is a bad word for realism, it sounds like it is not
worth to care if we reject them. Moreover, "is involved" sounds like
it is a very strange idea to "involve" them.

Calling them "realism" is taking "hidden variables" already for granted.

To decide which word is more appropriate - realism or hidden variables -
we have to look into the details. Hidden variables implies that we can
reject all this without much care. Realism implies that we need very strong
arguments to reject it, or that we would better take it for granted.

To be clear, I think we make no error if we take it for granted. It is
IMHO some sort of extended logic of science.

There are things which we have to take for granted to be able to do
science. (For example, the law which forbids contradictions. Without
this, contradictions in our theories are not problems, no problems
are, therefore, left, and there remains no open scientific problem.
Note: Whatever the contradictions in empirical evidence, we will
not reject the logical law that forbids contradictions.)

In a similar reasoning, we can add some other principles. This includes
IMHO classical logic, classical probability theory and some basic
principles of realism.

"Locality" is, on the other hand, a very good word for Einstein
causality.

Ooops, "locality" and "causality" are two different things. Locality is
assumed because of causality. However, the inverse conclusion doesn't
work.

In the original proof of Bell's inequality the additional requirement is
Einstein causality. AFAIU, in considerations about Bell's inequality
locality is used as a sloppy replacement instead of Einstein causality.

If you use another meaning of locality, please explain. If you use it
in another meaning (say, for example, in such a meaning that a
theory with limiting speed of 10^20 c is local), then, of course,
the violation of Bell's equality for space-like separated events
is compatible with local realism.

Sounds like it is very, very bad to give it up. But let's remember that
Newtonian theory is "nonlocal". Thus, nonlocal theories are nothing
very bad.

You should know better than this. Newtonian theory is only an
approximation for small velocities and weak gravitational fields.

I know. Nonetheless, it is a nonlocal theory, that means, nonlocal
theories are legitimate part of science. Maybe only as intermediate
theories until some very big limiting speed will be found.

In this context you may safely assume that time is absolute and
interactions occur instantaneously. In this approximation the theory
is nonlocal. But it is dangerous to conclude that you can generalize
this concept as it already doesn't work in general relativity.

General relativity needs only minor modifications to become
compatible with a preferred frame (named in GR context
preferred foliation).

There remains nonetheless some difference in the formulations. You
have to take a look at the actual proof. It proves that the results of
the measurements cannot be independend of the decisions of the
experimenters at the other end. As a consequence, if the measurements
are space-like separated, Einstein causality is violated.

Causality is not violated because it is not possible to exchange
information with such a setup. And although experimentor A might
already know what B will measure, B must still use a superposed state
for the description of his system. There is no contradiction in doing so.

Assume we observe a situation which allows only two explanations:
Or A gives information to B, or B gives information to A.

In this case we can be sure that there exists some information channel.
But it also follows that we cannot use this hidden channel to transfer
information. To use it to transfer information from A to B is impossible
if the correct explanation is that the information was transferred from
B to A. And reverse.

Your argumentation therefore leads to a contradiction. In a situation
where some hidden channel exists you can show that no such channel
exists.

"Realistic interpretation" simply means that you have to specify (in
your
interpretation) which objects of your theory are real physical objects.
Correct?

I did that in the previous posts.
The physical reality is what you can measure, i.e. the observables.

In this case, QM does not describe reality, but only allows to
compute, without explanation, some probability distributions.

The wave function is unobservable. Therefore it makes no sense to
consider the wave function as a physical object.
And btw, this is not "my" interpretation.

It is the minimal interpretation. Shut up and calculate. What really
happens, what really leads to the observable probability distributions,
remains unexplained.

All realistic interpretations I know of use the wave function as a
real object. Feel free to invent another one to justify your claim.

I cannot see that any of these interpretations can explain anything
beyond the interpretation, which considers the wave function solely
as a mathematical object.

In BM, the probability distributions of QM are derived from
the basic equations, which are deterministic.

Then, if we assume that the "real objects" which define the behaviour
of the quantum state do not predefine/influence the decisions of the
two experimenters A,B, and that there is no causal influence
A-B or B-A, then Bell's inequality holds.
It is violated, and I conclude A-B or B-A.

You are certainly aware of the fact that this conclusion is a
direct consequence of your assumptions. Namely, that the wave
function is a "real" object. Because of that, I avoid this type
of interpretation.

No. It is (part of) Bell's theorem. It does not assume that
the wave function is real. All it assumes is that

1.) There exists some set of possible states of "reality" L
with probability distribution rho(l)

2.) The results of the measurements m depend on this state
and the decisions of experimenters a: m=m(l,a)

so that the resulting probability distribution of measurement
results will be

rho(x,a) = int delta(x-m(l,a)) rho(l) dl

No assumption is made that the wave function is part of l. We
obtain Bell's inequality if we subdivide the decisions of experimenters
and the measurement results into two parts
A=A(l,a,b), B=B(l,a,b) and add as the additional Einstein
causality assumption A=A(l,a), B=B(l,b) only.

But I will not keep you from continueing this track. Maybe you
can find a solution to the so called measurement problem by that.

The measurement problem is solved in standard BM. No
need to search for a solution.

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
All realistic interpretations I know of use the wave function as a
real object. Feel free to invent another one to justify your claim.

You may be right about that, but I'll take you up on your invitation to
invent another one.

The quantities that we can actually measure in quantum mechanics are
probabilities derived from quantum amplitudes of the form

psi_f| e^(iH (t_f - t_i)) |psi_i

This is the amplitude that we will find a system in state psi_f at time t_f
given that we found/prepared it in state psi_i at time t_i. The wave
function that you take as real is

|psi(t) = e^(iH (t - t_i)) |psi_i,

which is defined at every time from the initial preparation to the final
measurement. The measured probability is |psi_f|psi(t_f)|^2.

I propose to take

|psi'(t) = e^(iH (t - t_f)) |psi_f

as real instead. The measured probability is then |psi'(t_i)|psi_i|^2. The
realistic interpretation is that the wave function converges to the measured
eigenstate just before the measurement, and decollapses to a superposition
of eigenstates just after the measurement.

The fact that it works either way means that the apparent thermodynamic
evolution of the wave function is entirely independent of classical
thermodynamic evolution; one can postulate a quantum mechanical arrow of
time that runs backwards from the classical arrow of time, without
contradicting experiment. It's because of this that I think both pictures
are probably wrong.


On a separate note, I worry that your attempts to quantize your ether theory
are doomed to failure for purely practical reasons. Quantizing an ether
version of GR (i.e. a field theory on a fixed background) is the first thing
people tried, and it doesn't work at high energies. As far as I can tell,
what you're doing is exactly the same.

-- Ben

TomGee wrote:
What phenomena are you talking about?


The phenomena is called "superposition".

(TomGee can't count.)

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Tleb" kirjoitti viestissä
...
A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by

Snip, you damnate inept fool.

When we have a long board and we turn it's one end upside down, the other

its, not it's, illiterate retard

end turns at the same moment. Electromagnetic radiation works that way, and
there is no message needed from one end to the other. When we talk about
light as photons whe lose the reality of a light wave.

It's at the local speed of sound, ineducate addlen liar.

Changing polarisation takes gross energy, maybe not net energy.