Thermodynamical cost of some interpretations of quantum theory

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 16, 2015, 11:38 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #7

senekerim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The influence may be negligible, but it's theoretically there. The decision-maker is part of the same system (decision is happening within a system of neurons augmented with electronic tools, all of which exist in the same physical reality).

There are no neurons involved, essentially random number generators are making the decisions and in such experiments usually in the nanosecond range while particles are in flight between source and detector to ensure that the decision can not influence the creation and preparation process. And by using a source of randomness billions of light years away it becomes very unlikely that the particle source and the source…

Post by jeremyjh » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 3:38 AM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #7

senekerim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The influence may be negligible, but it's theoretically there. The decision-maker is part of the same system (decision is happening within a system of neurons augmented with electronic tools, all of which exist in the same physical reality).

There are no neurons involved, essentially random number generators are making the decisions and in such experiments usually in the nanosecond range while particles are in flight between source and detector to ensure that the decision can not influence the creation and preparation process. And by using a source of randomness billions of light years away it becomes very unlikely that the particle source and the source…

Post by n4r9 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 8:41 AM UTC

lukeqsee wrote: post #15

Science aside, I found the authorship fascinating and encouraging; it is composed of individuals from five different countries and cultures (Sweden, Germany, UK, Spain, and China). Is this typical for science?

Post by n4r9 » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 9:56 AM UTC

tjradcliffe wrote: post #13

rubidium wrote: post #2

To save others some time. Input 1: authors check out (PRL, Nature pubs). Not a one-off crazy posting to arXiv. Input 2: Unless this your field, I'd be surprised if you get much from the paper other than interpretation of quantum mechanics is still an active field and information theory / thermodynamics has an important role in that field. Input 3: After a few reads, I don't like the phrasing the authors put on Type-I…

I agree on the phrasing issue. Both there "types" seem to require Bohr's classical observer, but as soon as you assume that observers are classical you've swept the big question under the carpet, which is, "Why is there a classical world at all?" Decoherence and similar approaches at least try to address this question, and don't fit at all well with their two-Type scheme. Or to put it another way: observers are intri…

Post by effie » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

catpolice wrote: post #8

senekerim wrote: post #4

I haven't read the paper, nor am I an expert, but the assumption (i) sounds fishy "the decision of which measurement is performed on a quantum system can be made independently of the system". By fishy, I mean obviously false. Which means being incompatible with this assumption is OK. I'm probably missing something...

"Independently" is also a loaded word - one could mean that there's no direct causal connection between the state of the system and the state of the measurement apparatus, or one could mean that those two states are (in ensemble experiments) independent in the statistical sense. In order for Bell's theorem (and a lot of subsequent quantum theory) to work, we have to interpret causal and statistical independence as be…