Why is there no 'classical' interpretation of movements in quantum mechanics?by Xilor Tags: classical, interpretation, mechanics, movements, quantum 

#1
Feb2512, 06:40 AM

P: 90

There are tons of interpretations of quantum mechanics, but I'm unaware of any that are 'classical' as in being local, having realism and determinism.
There is Bells famous work proving that that can't be true for certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but why aren't there any classical interpretation which apply to the movements of particles and which call entanglement just a completely different phenomena? Using a real wave and by using chaos it seems to me that all the movement issues such as the doubleslit experiment but even the quantum erasure experiment or the delayed choice experiment can be described at least conceptually just fine, some of the details would be strange, but far less so than breaking realism is to me. What am I missing here? 



#2
Feb2512, 06:53 AM

P: 159

Did you look at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408 ?




#3
Feb2512, 08:01 AM

P: 90

Unfortunately that goes quite a bit over my head, but from reading through it I couldn't really find any experimental evidence besides Bell work that shows that quantum mechanics can't be solved classically, any arguments seemed to be based on that and not for example particle movements.




#4
Feb2512, 12:18 PM

P: 476

Why is there no 'classical' interpretation of movements in quantum mechanics?It is not true that by using «a real wave and by using chaos» you can describe quantum motion. 5 is not 2+1. 



#5
Feb2512, 01:13 PM

P: 90

Anyway, where does it go wrong using real waves? Which parts of it don't work out? 



#6
Feb2512, 01:24 PM

P: 476

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ph...ics/manyworlds and so on. 



#7
Feb2512, 01:31 PM

PF Gold
P: 779

The Copenhagen interpretation can be ruled out by probing a macroscopic superposition state (again in reference to my love for Ghirardi's thought experiment).




#8
Feb2512, 03:46 PM

P: 90





#9
Feb2512, 04:36 PM

P: 19

Any interpretation of quantum mechanics must be consistent with experiment. A model or interpretation that only works if you ignore or exclude certain phenomena is not a model or interpretation worth pursuing.




#10
Feb2512, 04:55 PM

P: 90





#11
Feb2512, 05:33 PM

P: 724

Why is there no 'classical' interpretation of movements in quantum mechanics?
Is there classical motion in quantum mechanics? 



#12
Feb2512, 06:20 PM

P: 90

There's no motion in straight lines. But classically held notions about realism determinism and locality seem to be be preservable, at least with my limited amount of knowledge. And I'm wondering either why it's impossible like that, or at least why no one really seems to think that models preserving all 3 of those are viable.




#13
Feb2712, 01:45 PM

P: 476

«Real waves» are not used in QM by the same reason that kinetic energies as 1/5 mv^{2} are not used, because world is not made in that way. «At least conceptually» is not a valid scientific argument. Sure that kinetic energy (mv^{2}) is 'conceptually' simpler, but just does not work. It is completely incorrect to use «a real wave like a guiding wave of a particle with a defined position», because even if we were to admit that particle has one always (it does not as QM explains), if we were to ignore mixed states, and if were to confound a pure quantum state with a real wave, this whole mess does not describe particle correlations among other stuff. 



#14
Feb2712, 02:07 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,148

Also, not sure if you use the word "real" in the same context as juanrga does. He means real as opposed to complex. You may real as opposed to mathematical constructs. Or do you mean real as in realistic (which is yet again different) ? 



#15
Feb2712, 02:34 PM

P: 5,634

two basic ideas:
You can argue that there is no 'classical description' of QM in part because they are 'different' theories. The former covers generally large scale apparently, continuous, observations, the other discrete, quantized,discontinuous behavior at small scales. Secondly, we have different mathematical models....we haven't been completely smart enough to unify all our mathematics yet.....so we have [classical] theory for gravity (GR) on one hand and quanum theory for the standard model of particle physics. [Nothing is able to tie those together yet, but 'quantum gravity' is one effort to do so.] wiki introduction on quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty: I would argue that IS a 'classical' description....it bridges a gap between the commutativity and noncommutativy of classical and quantum mathematics... It may make little sense in 'classical' reasoning [that you can't measure two particular observables simultaneously to whatever degree of accuracy your instruments will allow] because we don't such restrictions on large scales....we can make such measurements of,say,planets. Xilor: To some extent you are reasoning from incorrect assumptions and reaching dubious conclusions...we all do that, so take it as a criticism if you must, but after you need do more homework you won't start from such perspectives...example: Since no one else has taken issue, let me: we don't describe entanglement classically because nobody knows how! One simple way to start getting broader perspectives : read the Wikipedia articles on each of those three... realism, determinism,locality....pick out a few things you don't get and question them in the forums...this stuff is subtle and we all gain from reading others descriptions...that's one reason I'm here. 



#16
Feb2712, 07:36 PM

P: 90

I would be convinced that it would be worthy if it wasn't already disproven somehow. What however would be disproving is what I'm mainly asking about, as I do not know. Thanks for clearing that confusion up, I was already wondering why he would respond about kets and complex phases which didn't seem to have a lot to do with what I was trying to ask. The articles which I had red a few times before didn't really spawn any questions, these were luckily not the pages containing maths that probably require a few years of study. Edit: In hindsight, I've always wondered how close true locality would be. Is that only particles less than a Planck length away? Or should particles even overlap? 



#17
Feb2812, 04:58 AM

P: 476





#18
Feb2812, 05:15 AM

P: 476




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Do I need Classical mechanics and waves in order to understand Quantum mechanics????  Academic Guidance  22  
hydrogen atom obeying classical mechanics rather than quantum mechanics  Introductory Physics Homework  6  
The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics  Quantum Physics  1  
Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics  Physics Learning Materials  0 