Coexistence of QT and Relativity

[dkgolfer16]

Since QT violates SR is it safe to say one of the former will be disregarded / revised in the future? See EPR paradox.

 

[Fredrik]

EPR doesn't violate SR since the wavefunction isn't an observable.

 

[dkgolfer16]

Huh? I never said EPR violated SR. EPR isn't a theory its a paradox...

 

[Fredrik]

Huh? Then what in quantum mechanics do you claim is violating SR? And what were you trying to say by mentioning EPR immediately after saying that "QT violates SR"?

 

[jtbell]

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is fully (special-)relativistic. Its predictions so far agree with experiment to very high precision.

 

[Maaneli]

Huh? I never said EPR violated SR. EPR isn't a theory its a paradox...

Then why did you mention EPR?

Also, it is unclear what you mean when you say that QT violates special relativity. You need to be much more specific about what you have in mind.

 

[Maaneli]

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is fully (special-)relativistic.

Well Bell would say that it isn't relativistic in a 'serious' sense, since standard QED is not a beable theory. Beable formulations of QED exist which are not Lorentz invariant on the level of individual beables, but only on the level of statistical ensembles in measurement interactions.

 

[dkgolfer16]

Sorry I'll explain further. Take two particles A and B. The spin of A is unknown until we measure it. When we do measure the spin of A, B's spin wave function then instantaneously collapes to the opposite state. This transaction occurs faster than the speed of light, violating SR.

 

[Maaneli]

Sorry I'll explain further. Take two particles A and B. The spin of A is unknown until we measure it. When we do measure the spin of A, B's spin wave function then instantaneously collapes to the opposite state. This transaction occurs faster than the speed of light, violating SR.

You still haven't explained exactly what about that transaction violates SR. I assume you think it is the fact that the "collapse" occurs faster than light. But I'll just say that in the way you formulated the problem, there is no experimentally observable violation of SR since SR only prohibits superluminal matter and energy transport. The ethereal notion of "collapse of the wavefunction" as you described it does not fall into either category. That doesn't mean there isn't a violation of SR lurking in the EPRB correlations, but you first have to be more specific about what formulation of QM you are using to describe EPRB. That means you have to also state whether you regard the wavefunction as ontological or epistemological, and what proposed solution to the measurement problem you are using.

 

[dkgolfer16]

But I'll just say that in the way you formulated the problem, there is no experimentally observable violation of SR since SR only prohibits superluminal matter and energy transport.

So you're saying SR allows particles to travel faster and communicate at speeds that exceed c? Last time I checked this is a violation of SR so before answering your questions maybe you could elaborate and explain.

 

[Maaneli]

So you're saying SR allows particles to travel faster and communicate at speeds that exceed c? Last time I checked this is a violation of SR so before answering your questions maybe you could elaborate and explain.

In the way you described the problem, no particle is traveling faster than light because the wavefunction collapsing is not a particle, by definition. You still have not provided your interpretation of the wavefunction, i.e. whether it is ontological or epistemological, nor what formulation of QM you are using to analyze EPRB. If you analyze EPRB in de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, or stochastic mechanics, or GRW spontaneous collapse, or two-time quantum mechanics, or textbook QM, they give different answers to your question. So please choose your framework first.

 

[dkgolfer16]

Using textbook QM, Bell's inequality results in non local interactions taking place between particles. Do these non local interactions, which take place at speeds greater than c and in which distance does not effect interaction speed, have no consequence on what SR tells us?

 

[Maaneli]

Using textbook QM, Bell's inequality results in non local interactions taking place between particles. Do these non local interactions, which take place at speeds greater than c and in which distance does not effect interaction speed, have no consequence on what SR tells us?

As textbook QM is a statistical formalism, there is no contradiction with Lorentz invariance in the treatment of EPRB on that level. There may however be a conflict with locality (the property that signals or causal influences cannot propagate faster than c in a vacuum between two spatially separated events). It depends on what physical assumptions of Bell's theorem one chooses to give up; locality or causality (the assumption that the two particles are physically independent of their future detector settings). If one gives up locality, and instead postulates nonlocal causal influences (and therefore correlations) between space-like separated particles, then indeed there is a conflict with special relativity only in the sense that superluminal causal influences are not a property of the local Minkowski spacetime structure in special relativity.

But textbook QM, being only a statistical formalism, can only describe this nonlocality in terms of correlations, since it does not describe what the underlying physical causes those nonlocal entanglement correlations are. To look for explanations of the physical causes of the nonlocal entanglement correlations, and therefore a clearer and deeper understanding of the conflict between SR and nonlocality in QM, you have to analyze EPRB in terms of the beable formulations of quantum theory that I mentioned earlier. It should also emphasize that the textbook QM postulate of instantaneous "collapse of the wavefunction" is different from the nonlocality in the entanglement correlations, since the nonlocal entanglement correlations between the two particles can be expressed without any mention of the quantum mechanics of entangled wavefunctions. For the best expositions of this perspective, I highly recommend the following books:

"Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics"
J.S. Bell

"Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity"
Tim Maudlin

If you choose to keep locality, then you must give up causality; but then you can save special relativity and even make its Minkowski spacetime structure fully compatible with the wavefunction formalism of quantum mechanics - in terms of textbook QM, this has been done with the two-time interpretation of QM developed by Aharonov, Bergemann, Lebowitz, and Goldhaber. In terms of a beable formulation of QM such as the pilot wave theory, this has also been done by Rod Sutherland in what is called a "Causally Symmetric Bohm Model". Both theories are fully consistent with SR and there is no need for irreducibly nonlocal causal influences or correlations.

The Two-State Vector Formalism of Qauntum Mechanics: an Updated Review
Authors: Yakir Aharonov, Lev Vaidman
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105101

Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Authors: Rod Sutherland
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601095

I also recommend the following book by Huw Price on this perspective:

"Time's Arrow and Archimedes Point"
Huw Price

 

[dkgolfer16]

Thanks Maaneli. Your answer makes sense and I look forward to going through the attached suggested reading material you presented. One last question.

But textbook QM, being only a statistical formalism, can only describe this nonlocality in terms of correlations, since it does not describe what the underlying physical causes those nonlocal entanglement correlations are.

So based on textbook QM (the others I admit I have to become more familiar with), because it cannot describe the underlying physical causes of these nonlocal entanglement correlations, we can safely say a conflict does exist between textbook QM (with its nonlocality) and SR (with its constant in all frames speed of c)?

 

[Maaneli]

Thanks Maaneli. Your answer makes sense and I look forward to going through the attached suggested reading material you presented. One last question.



So based on textbook QM (the others I admit I have to become more familiar with), because it cannot describe the underlying physical causes of these nonlocal entanglement correlations, we can safely say a conflict does exist between textbook QM (with its nonlocality) and SR (with its constant in all frames speed of c)?

The fact that textbook QM cannot describe the underlying causes EPRB is not why it is in conflict with SR, since the conflict with SR becomes even more apparent when one constructs a beable description of EPRB (with the assumption of nonlocality held in tact).

Rather, "[even though] it cannot describe the underlying physical causes of these nonlocal entanglement correlations, we can safely say a conflict does exist between textbook QM (with its nonlocality) and SR (with its constant in all frames speed of c)". Recall it is the fact that textbook QM gives up locality in favor of nonlocality in entanglement correlations. The conflict with SR is in the implication of superluminal causal influences, whereas SR only permits local causal influences in its Minkowski spacetime structure.

 

[peter0302]

Nothing about QM inherently violates SR. Depending on certain interpretations of the EPR paradox, the results are difficult to explain interpratively without resort to FTL influence, but FTL itself does not violate SR (tachyons for example can exist within SR's framework). FTL information exchange does violate SR but, as pointed out, is not possible in any interpretation of QM. Moreover, if realism is disregarded (see, e.g., MWI), there is no FTL problem at all.

If an FTL influence were ever unambiguously discovered, it would be a breakthrough for physics, but both QM and SR would likely survive unscathed.

It should also emphasize that the textbook QM postulate of instantaneous "collapse of the wavefunction" is different from the nonlocality in the entanglement correlations, since the nonlocal entanglement correlations between the two particles can be expressed without any mention of the quantum mechanics of entangled wavefunctions

It is different, but actually, and interestingly, I think, one of Einstein's very first challenges to Bohr in their famous exchanges was something along the lines of: "You say the wavefunction evolves and expands out to give a distinct probability of detection at every point on the detector. How does each point on the detector "know" instantaneously that the particle has finally been detected in only one space?

The argument was initially dismissed as silly, but I believe Einstein inherently grasped the fundamental problem in that first question, which was how do we explain instantaneous action, whether it be a wavefunction collapsing like a bubble or entangled particles, without violating locality (the existence and reality of space and localized influence is fundamental to both SR and GR, even more so the latter). Bohr's ultimate solution was essentially to say that it doesn't matter, because the wavefunction is just a tool for predicting experiments, and not necessarily a physical entity, and hence was born the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[humanino]

Since you are raising this, I'll take the opportunity to ask whether somebody has a comment on :
Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
Joy Christian is generally considered to know what he is talking about when it comes to Bell's theorem. Last year, he published :
Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables
Pretty much everything is in the title, he clearly shaw that his model is fully compatible with QM, the problem is with his concept of Clifford-values observables. It's very convincing and very unreasonable at the same time. I have not found anything serious against it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Did you read this?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2038v1.pdf

and this?

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703218v1

Zz.

 

[peter0302]

Wow. How does stuff like that get missed in peer review?

While I was never involved in academic journals when I was in engineering school, I was on the law review in law school, and we meticuloulsy scouered every square inch of a paper to make sure everything was accurate. And we were students, not even peers.

 

[humanino]

Did you read this?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2038v1.pdf

and this?

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703218v1

Zz.

I have, then I read the answers
Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Reply to Critics
and I'm not sure what to think. I'm confused
Marcin Pawlowski and Marek Zukowski have the advantage of being clear, essentially what I was mentioning previously, and since the point is rather obvious and nobody cares to reply, I wonder...

 

[humanino]

Wow. How does stuff like that get missed in peer review?

What has been peer-reviewed ? I know it was submitted, but was it published ?

 

[Maaneli]

FTL information exchange does violate SR but, as pointed out, is not possible in any interpretation of QM.

That's not true that it isn't possible in any interpretation of QM. The pilot wave theory does predict FTL information exchange if there is any violation of quantum equilibrium AKA the Born rule:

Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/A_Valentini/11

Moreover, if realism is disregarded (see, e.g., MWI), there is no FTL problem at all.

That's also not true that MWI disregards realism. It is a realist formulation of QT. What MWI gives up are nonlocal causal influences. It preserves locality:

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds

Remarks on Space-time and Locality in Everett's Interpretation
Bacciagaluppi, Guido
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000504/index.html

Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation
Authors: Frank J. Tipler
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0003146

If an FTL influence were ever unambiguously discovered, it would be a breakthrough for physics, but both QM and SR would likely survive unscathed.

Actually, to the extent that it is possible in some exotic situations in QM, in that case it would imply that the Lorentz invariance of SR is not a fundamental symmetry of spacetime.

Bohr's ultimate solution was essentially to say that it doesn't matter, because the wavefunction is just a tool for predicting experiments, and not necessarily a physical entity, and hence was born the Copenhagen Interpretation.

With the advent of Bell's theorem, it became clear that Bohr's proposed solution was an inadequate riposte.

 

[peter0302]

With the advent of Bell's theorem, it became clear that Bohr's proposed solution was an inadequate riposte.

Ok, now that statement is just totally unsupportable. What was an inadequate riposte was the naive belief in hidden variables, which was never something Bohr or Heisenberg were proponents of. Many people disliked Bohr's published response to EPR as missing the mark, but his and Heisenberg's core arguments which eventually became CI are still running strong.

 

[Maaneli]

Ok, now that statement is just totally unsupportable. What was an inadequate riposte was the naive belief in hidden variables, which was never something Bohr or Heisenberg were proponents of. Many people disliked Bohr's published response to EPR as missing the mark, but his and Heisenberg's core arguments which eventually became CI are still running strong.

You know, I grow tired of correcting you. It seems you've never studied Bell's theorem or read any of his papers on the subject of "hidden variables". That's given away by your arrogant proclamation that the idea of hidden variables is naive (when you don't even understand the simplest hidden variable theory). I see also from your profile that you are a lawyer, not a practicing physicist. Let suggest then that you be a little more cautious about indirectly calling an accomplished physicist, like Bell, naive for thinking the idea of hidden variables as reasonable, when you haven't even studied their arguments.

I will only debate you further on this particular point if you read Bell's original and follow-up papers on his theorem. Until then, from my past interactions with you, it seems that you won't listen to or believe anything I say. You can start with the following:

"Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics"
M. Bell, J.S. Bell

 

[peter0302]

You didn't even read what I wrote. I never said Bell was naive. I said that Bell disproved a naive view of hidden variables.

And by the way, I have read the Bell papers in the very book you like to quote. And I also know that Bell was a fan of DeBroglie-Bohm, although not quite as dedicated as you appear to be.

I have to say your posts are really getting oddly personal - even by this board's standards. Really quite unnecessary.

 

[Maaneli]

I never said Bell was naive. I said that Bell disproved a naive view of hidden variables.

No you didn't that's an obvious lie. This is exactly what you said:

<< What was an inadequate riposte was the naive belief in hidden variables, which was never something Bohr or Heisenberg were proponents of. >>

That clearly has no mention of Bell. You said "the naive belief in hidden variables". That obviously means something different than "a naive view of hidden variables". Now I'm beginning to think you either didn't read what you wrote, or are just now distorting what you said to not admit a mistake.

And by the way, I have read the Bell papers in the very book you like to quote. And I also know that Bell was a fan of DeBroglie-Bohm, although not quite as dedicated as you appear to be.

Actually he pretty much was for his time. You would know that if you actually did read his papers. Read "The Theory of Local Beables", among other papers.

I have to say your posts are really getting oddly personal - even by this board's standards. Really quite unnecessary.

I'm just calling you out on your refusal to concede any obvious errors you make. Really quite necessary.

 

[humanino]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

edit
true it has not been published, but true as well it has been posted on the arXiv by a decent physicist

 

[peter0302]

Hah. Sorry I can't help you as the more advanced hidden variable theories are way over my head.

What I can tell you is that the Bell view that you can't have locality and realism in the same theory has not yet been disproven. I also recall a number of papers cited here suggesting that even non-local, realistic theories don't hold up either, taking Bell a step further. If that's right, then we don't need FTL at all to explain anything, and there is definitely no contradiction with SR. The only contradiction is with our preconceived notions of reality.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

edit
true it has not been published, but true as well it has been posted on the arXiv by a decent physicist

I am allowing it here for this case because I had come across it and several physicists (including, if I'm not mistaken, Zurek) have responded to it so much so that it has become a small part of mainstream discussion.

However, I think that other than the BTSM forum (and some time, high energy physics forum), we need to confine ourselves only to peer-reviewed papers, and not preprints that are waiting for peer-review. So I think that until it is published, we should not discuss it just yet to be consistent with what I've asked others to do.

Zz.

 

[Maaneli]

What I can tell you is that the Bell view that you can't have locality and realism in the same theory has not yet been disproven.

Everyone, that's not the Bell view. The Bell view is that you can't have locality and causality in the same theory. Local realism is entirely possible, independent of detection loopholes, if one's gives up causality as Bell defined it for his theorem.

I also recall a number of papers cited here suggesting that even non-local, realistic theories don't hold up either, taking Bell a step further.

The Leggette inequality only rules out noncontextual hidden variable theories. However, that is a very limited class - and in fact nonlocal HV theories like de Broglie-Bohm, GRW collapse, and stochastic mechanics, are contextual HV theories. Leggette even acknowledges this in his original paper.

 

[Maaneli]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

edit
true it has not been published, but true as well it has been posted on the arXiv by a decent physicist

Sorry man, I don't know anything about this yet. It looks interesting, but it'll take me some time to say anything useful.

 

[humanino]

Sorry man, I don't know anything about this yet. It looks interesting, but it'll take me some time to say anything useful.

Never mind, as Zz indicated this should strictly not have been posted here. I will have to wait and see if he finally manages to publish. But if he does not, then I will not have any "official" rebuttal. I'm not sure whether the problem is with his definition of observable or locality, or both...

 

[Demystifier]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

Actually, I do have a very similar point. By definition, a Clifford valued quantity is not a real valued quantity, so it cannot be observable.

 

[dkgolfer16]

Sorry to bring back an old, beat up topic but I was re-reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time and came upon the following quote (Chapter 1, page 12 in my edition):

"Unfortunately, however, these two theories (Relativity and QM) are known to be inconsistent with each other -they cannot both be correct."

Now with Hawking on my side, can I correctly assume that one will be disregarded / revised in the future?

 

[Haelfix]

Hawkings is talking about General relativity, not Special relativity.

90% of modern physics utilizes framework(s) (Dirac eqn, KG eqn, Field theory, statistical mechanics) which seemlessly mixes special relatiivty and quantum mechanics together, so yes the two coexist and have far and away been the most experimentally successful theories in human history.

In many ways we are more sure that they are correct in their appropriate regime, than we are about even Newtons law.

As for the problems between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, well that's sort of one of the last great frontier of physics but be warned the subject matter is highly technical, complicated and rife with confusion (even amongst Nobel prize winners) and i'd advise first learning the basics before venturing into that great unknown (where many poor laymen get hopelessly lost and flounder)