Live data from Hacker News

Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

quantamagazine.org

211–220 of 306 posts

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#211
post #9
post #4

There is an often-repeated statement that different quantum mechanical theories are equivalent. This is an over-simplification. Is wave function collapse is a real thing or just an approximation of what happens when a large system is entangled? Some smart people have tried to make theories where wave function collapse is a real thing. These new experiments are working to rule out those ideas. My feeling is that Evere…

Disproving some form of measurable wave function does not provide evidence for MWI, which is unmeasurable and untestable nearly by definition.

Wait, I'm pretty sure that if these measurements had shown a collapse, that would have to be taken as disproving many worlds. You can't very well have many worlds when your wavefunction is physically collapsing all the time before those worlds can diverge. So it is actually kind of testable, since a test was just performed that could have ruled it out. Maybe you're saying that it's untestable relative to unmeasurable collapses of the wavefunction. But if those collapses are contrived to be unmeasurable, doesn't that make them kind of, well, pointless?

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#212

From a layman’s point of view, it seems like we grasping at straws when it comes to these thorny quantum questions. Is fair to say, for example, that we are about as clueless as our ancestors were with the bubonic plague? To a non-expert it can be difficult to separate which theories lay on solid ground and which theories are highly speculative.

> which theories are highly speculative. So QM itself is on very, very solid ground. You're using it now on your computer. The interpretations of QM and the attempts to reconcile the exceptionally well tested mathematics of QM and the reality that we experience which is not-QM at all are all philosophical with zero evidence. Everyone just tries to make compelling arguments based on things like Occam's razor about why…

Many worlds is absolutely testable, since if we observe collapse in even a single one of these experiments then that completely falsifies many worlds. If one of these experiments discussed in the article had actually observed a collapse, then I have no doubt we'd be seeing headlines like "many worlds theory disproven", and Nobel prizes for the physicists involved. It would be the biggest discovery in physics for decades.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#213
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also prefer the Many Worlds interpretation and I do think that it is gaining popularity in relation to Copenhagen, but I'm not sure what you mean by "today's world view". And who is this "we" that you write about? I prefer Many Worlds because it is a simpler explanation, so I follow Occam's razor. That's it. Consciousness and the existence of qualia remains a fundamental mystery. There is something definitely speci…

MWI is exactly as simple mathematically as CI, so not sure what you mean by "simpler". MWI still postulates the equivalent of wave function collapse, but instead of it happening only for the quantum system being measured, it is happening in the mind of the observer, as each "version" of that mind gets entangled with a single "version" of the outcome. Even if you were to accept that this process is more natural (so no…

>MWI still postulates the equivalent of wave function collapse

It's not postulated, but deduced from the Schrodinger equation. MWI is simpler in a sense that it has one fewer axiom. But Occam's razor isn't really applicable here, because it selects from otherwise equal theories, which CI isn't. There are more important criteria to use before Occam's razor.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#214
This article is a perfect example how science is getting led into dark areas by people who didn't learn quantum mechanics right or people who pretend to understand it, but can only blindly follow the formalism without much understanding of what they actually do. Every such article continuous to mysticize the whole subject by quoting famous scientists who were either puzzled by it at the time or scientists like John von Neumann who clearly gave a dumbed down view of the now called collapse (perhaps on request to skip the math).

I really appreciate this forum - as it is one of the last places that I know of where one can have a civil discussion - and therefore I will take the effort to show that pure quantum mechanics - with no additions - essentially explains the process of measurement which is not at all sudden as the name "collapse" would suggest. The reasoning comes from von Neumann himself, but now sometimes it's attributed also to Wojciech Żurek.

TLDR of below: All processes in nature, including the measuring process are unitary, the "collapse" is just an artifact of our ignorance about the exact state of the measuring aparatus. Here it goes:

For simplicity, let's assume that psi describing our particle is a superposition of two eigenstates: |psi> = c1 |1> + c2 |2>, i.e., |c1|^2 + |c2|^2 = 1. Without loss of generality we can pick: c1 = x and c2 = sqrt(1-x^2) exp(i phi), where x is a real number smaller than 1. The density matrix of this pure state can then be written as rho = |psi>sqrt(1-x^2) exp(i phi) and xsqrt(1-x^2) exp(-i phi).

In the most complete scenario of a measurement, the density matrix of the system can change change in many ways including the diagonal terms of the density matrix. However in this simplistic example, a measurement will by necessity, bring only the non-diagonal terms to zero (I hope most of the interested readers will have enough background to understand why).

Now, the measuring device, as a macroscopic object, will have the number of degrees of freedom far greater than the simple particle which's state we're about to measure. This number will be the order of the Avogadro number (~ 10^23) - even the smallest human visible indicator will be this big. The measurement, by necessity, includes an interaction of our small system with the enormous measuring device.

Before the interaction the whole system (the particle and the measuring device) can be written as a tensor product of the two wavefunctions:

|Omega_before> = |Psi> ⊗ |Xsi> = ( c1 |1> + c2 |2> ) ⊗ |Xsi>

where |Xsi> represents the wavefunction of the measuring device and everything it interacts with before the measurement. When the interaction occurs the state of our measuring device changes unitarily (as everything in nature) according to the full Hamiltonian of the system, and with some regrouping of the terms, we can write the state after the interaction as:

|Omega_after> = c1 |1> ⊗ |Xsi_1> + c2 |2> ⊗ |Xsi_2>

This is the true state of the system as performed by nature. The individual subsystems are no longer in pure states, but the whole system |Omega_after> (if we're able to completely describe it) - is.

Now, comes the final part, which some call the "collapse", but in reality it is just "an average" over all possible states of the bigger (measurement) system *which we declared apriori to not be the system of interest and states of which not able to follow because we measure with it*:

Tr_{over the degrees of freedom of Xsi} |Omega_after>In result we obtain a matrix after the measurement which is just formed with the diagonal elements x^2 and 1-x^2, i.e., the probabilities of the two measurement results and non-diagonal terms being equal to zero.

Why are they zero? Let's inspect one of the non-diagonal elements over which the above trace is taken: x*sqrt(1-x^2)exp(i phi)

It is effectively zero, because the trace over the degrees of freedom of Xsi is a mutliple integral, again of the multiplicity of order of Avogardo number and a similar number functions which change in various ways. It is enough that only a fraction of such integrals will have a value lesser than 1 to guarantee that the product will be equal to zero.

And this is all. Any attempt to change this fact would need to reject quantum mechanics completely, because probability calculus is at the heart of it.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#216
post #9
post #4

There is an often-repeated statement that different quantum mechanical theories are equivalent. This is an over-simplification. Is wave function collapse is a real thing or just an approximation of what happens when a large system is entangled? Some smart people have tried to make theories where wave function collapse is a real thing. These new experiments are working to rule out those ideas. My feeling is that Evere…

Disproving some form of measurable wave function does not provide evidence for MWI, which is unmeasurable and untestable nearly by definition.

Only if you assert that the other worlds are in some way "real". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Deb...

The MWI is a simpler theory than other interpretations because it does not require "collapse" to be a physical process. The "realness" of the other worlds is untestable, but also not part of the theory.

"unreal" MWI should be the null hypothesis given what we know to be true about quantum mechanics. If we find evidence that collapse is a physical process then we can reject it, but otherwise it makes the fewest leaps. At the moment the Copenhagen intepretation is taught instead, which is a problem. To quote wikipedia:

> There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation

And

> the device used to observe a system must be described in classical language, while the system under observation is treated in quantum terms

In other words, it does allow you to predict the result of an experiment, but we know it can't be right because it's impossible to formalize without building this "classical observer" into the model. Attempting to build on this inevitably leads to metaphysical nonsense about consciousness.

In "unreal" MWI there is a universal wave function, and something is "real" to us if it is entangled with us. The "many worlds" terminology makes it easier to visualize but doesn't mean those other worlds are real because whether something is real is subjective in this interpretation. Subjective reality may be a problem for some people, but if you look at the evolution of physical theories, we consistently find that everything is more subjective than we thought it was (see also: relativity).

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out "superdeterminism," first proposed by Bell (of Bell's inequality fame) himself and currently being vigorously pursued by Sabina Hossenfelder. There is no "collapse" per se according to this model and everything is really classical with hidden variables, and the entanglement comes because everything shared the same origin (the big bang). A very fascinating and in my opinion the best explanation, though it's…

The notion that a probabilistic world enables free will in a way that a deterministic one doesn't still confuses me. A coin I flip isn't exercising free will.

Could free will be explained as super-physical phenomena that "haunts" the physical world, w/ choice manifest as which of the branching many worlds' paths consciousness "chooses" to experience?

E.g., I am in some universe taking every possible action right now, but I'm only experiencing the actions which I "chose" to take.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which theories are highly speculative. So QM itself is on very, very solid ground. You're using it now on your computer. The interpretations of QM and the attempts to reconcile the exceptionally well tested mathematics of QM and the reality that we experience which is not-QM at all are all philosophical with zero evidence. Everyone just tries to make compelling arguments based on things like Occam's razor about why…

Many worlds is absolutely testable, since if we observe collapse in even a single one of these experiments then that completely falsifies many worlds. If one of these experiments discussed in the article had actually observed a collapse, then I have no doubt we'd be seeing headlines like "many worlds theory disproven", and Nobel prizes for the physicists involved. It would be the biggest discovery in physics for deca…

You don't get there from WMI though. You get there from trying to prove collapse happens and testing some other theories predictions.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You end up in all of them. Except that I've only ever experienced ending up in one of them, so exactly how did the "I" that is typing this right now wind up here, and not in some other branch? There's an unexplained bifurcation of consciousness implied by MWI which it cannot explain (although I think it suggests the appeal of MWI since it gives enough wiggle room that people think that their free will could control…

You end up in all branches and your consciousness ends up in all branches, where your mind works. MWI works best with physicalism, yep :) Maybe your copy in another branch even posted the same comment.

But how does bifurcation of consciousness happen and how does it diagonalize the state so that we never see a cat in a complex linear superposition of |alive> and |dead> at the same time? 1/sqrt(2) |alive> + 1/sqrt(2) |dead> should be an equally valid outcome of the experiment via purely unitary evolution.

Re: Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness

#220

This article is a perfect example how science is getting led into dark areas by people who didn't learn quantum mechanics right or people who pretend to understand it, but can only blindly follow the formalism without much understanding of what they actually do. Every such article continuous to mysticize the whole subject by quoting famous scientists who were either puzzled by it at the time or scientists like John v…

This is just _one_ interpretation of wave function collapse and the only thing it has going for it is that the dimensionality in which collapse happens can always require another particle, which adds another complex degree of freedom, and always remains out of the realm of what we can compute.

Two particle interactions show nothing like wave function collapse, neither to three of four. Until you say a reasonable number of particles that make up the measuring apparatus where we should see _something_ weird starting to happen theoretically you're not even wrong.

Post reply on HN