I wonder what Schrödinger would have thought of the Free Will Theorem: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0604079.pdf
Do electrons think? (1949)
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels…
Why do you think this disproves pilot wave theory? > Physicists also compulsorily reject Bohm’s construction because it explicitly builds nonlocality into its framework—even though violations of Bell’s inequality have conclusively shown that the stage of our universe is nonlocal. This is perplexing. Nonlocality is unavoidable in any theory that recovers the predictions of quantum theory. Therefore, any criticism of a…
> even though violations of Bell’s inequality have conclusively shown that the stage of our universe is nonlocal
They have not. What they have shown is that the universe cannot be local and deterministic at the same time.
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#13Note that, contrary to popular understanding, it isn't even established that quantum mechanics is indeterminate or not subject to strict cause-and-effect. It's indeterminate according to the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation, but de Broglie–Bohm theory [1] ("pilot wave theory") is an interpretation that is entirely deterministic, and its assumptions result in exactly the same final equations as the Copenhagen one.…
In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels…
> Wherein the authors show, using previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, that maintaining realist interpretations of quantum mechanics (such as pilot-wave theory) as a fundamental concept require the introduction of locality-defying 'action at a distance' actions.
Not sure what the big revelation is supposed to be here. Everyone knows that Bohmian mechanics is non-local, that's exactly the point!
> The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels. I'm not a physicist, but the language that they are using quite a few papers leads me to believe that these channels have been closed, and the realists are out of remaining options for maintaining realism.
No, no and no.
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels…
Why do you think this disproves pilot wave theory? > Physicists also compulsorily reject Bohm’s construction because it explicitly builds nonlocality into its framework—even though violations of Bell’s inequality have conclusively shown that the stage of our universe is nonlocal. This is perplexing. Nonlocality is unavoidable in any theory that recovers the predictions of quantum theory. Therefore, any criticism of a…
Because pilot wave theory assumes realism and determinism[1], and the authors of the first paper I listed conclude that their result "suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."
Their conclusions could be wrong, of course, but if they are not, according to the authors' interpretation physicists should abandon realist theories like pilot-wave theory.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory#Principles
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels…
It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.
Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft:
Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1
"...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#16No.
From the article:
> To think that such a particle can think is so absurd, that I might give the answer “No” and have my talk over. However, (...)
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels…
It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.
Isn't special relativity a serious mathematical problem for Bohmian mechanics?
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.
Isn't special relativity a serious mathematical problem for Bohmian mechanics?
Relativistic extensions aren't pleasant in standard QM either.
Bohmian formalism would require something perhaps no less aesthetically repulsive, but surely more alien: a preferred foliation of spacetime to avoid a preferred reference frame. Turns out it wouldn't have to be an artificial choice, as it can be derived from the wave function itself https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714 (that would also mean this preference existing within QM irrespective of any interpretation).
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.
Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 "...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "
This isn't relevant because Bohm's theory isn't local. There are much stronger results like PBR ruling out a large class of non-local realist theories, but that also doesn't include pilot wave theory.
No known experiment can rule it out because it's predictions equal those of Copenhagen.
Re: Do electrons think? (1949)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would help if these weren't all from the same single source: Zeilinger's Vienna group and friends. On the other hand formalism works seamlessly mathematically, which cannot be said of standard quantum mechanics. Even this year's Fields medalist Figalli has a paper on how good things are in Bohmian land.
Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 "...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "
This is something different. Zeilinger paints himself disproving realism alone and has a well known philosophical stance/bias here. Local realism testing here however is about being both local and realist, and pilot waves aren't local to begin with.