Search results

  1. C

    Quantum interpretations

    Are you sure we will *never* be able to calculate these constants? But that is another question. The point here is that nobody assumes that constants have a physical existence. They only describe the relationship between physical events, but they are not physical themselves. They are...
  2. C

    Quantum interpretations

    I know. It was an argument for that in MWI there *are* parallel universes. I was saying that to see MWI as not having parallel worlds wouldn't make sense. Call them branches, or worlds, it is the same: In MWI there are trillions multiple versions of each human being, each experiencing something...
  3. C

    Quantum interpretations

    If it is, then it is. If not, then not. For me that would be like believing that floating point numbers have a physical existence. But each world would have conscious human beings, you would be conscious in each of many worlds which result from you observing a quantum phenomenon, since there...
  4. C

    Quantum interpretations

    To 1) I'm not talking about decoherence from a mathematical point of view, all the formulas may be there... but they appear as a high-level formula with a missing low-level explanation, which is a problem of the wavefunction in general. A sum of probabilities with a complex amplitude that can...
  5. C

    Quantum interpretations

    To 1) No problem with the surprise factor, the appearance of randomness is a given. However unless there is decoherence (which is the trivial case in both MWI and CI), MWI says the probabilities interact simply by mathematical operation, the physical process, the mechanics are still missing...
  6. C

    Quantum interpretations

    Right. Once the wavefunction is decoherent, the probabilities can't cancel each other out (interact) anymore, as they do in an interference pattern. Let me approach it from a slightly different side: In CI, the selection of a possible result has no mechanics which explains why that result...
  7. C

    Quantum interpretations

    That's a rather long article. As far as I can tell, it explains what happens to the other parts of the wavefunction after measurement. But the wave function still remains an odd thing of complex-interacting probabilities. The fact that the photon appears only in one place is an expression of...
  8. C

    Quantum interpretations

    That's just explaining-away the randomness. To me the real paradox of quantum physics is that the probabilities of flying through either slit will interact with each other, but in the end the photon will appear only in one place, not smeared out like butter. And trying to measure the path will...
  9. C

    Quantum interpretations

    MWI seems to remove the randomness from the collapse, but isn't the collapse still there? In the double-slit experiment, you still register each photon at a specific location on the screen. There is still the wave/particle duality which results in seeing a photon register at a specific...
  10. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Additional to the above comment: Perhaps more specific to the intent of the question, but still speaking generally in terms of the principle: In order to detect an interference pattern at Bob, it is necessary to filter out a specific set of photons. The information required to do so must be...
  11. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    "Random", in the sense of Heisenberg-uncertain, here means that the pattern can be thought of as a superposition (overlay) of multiple interference patterns (at least in the absence of which-way-information) such that the above-average amounts of one interference pattern are canceled out by the...
  12. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Right, there are two questions: 1. Is it possible to create an experiment where interference can be detected depending on an entangled particle, but without classically obtained data from that particle. (Apparently not.) 2. If not, what is the explanation a) specifically within any (thought-)...
  13. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Perhaps, if you apply this idea of converging branches to the measurement process, and find that a measurement of a property in superposition will converge all branches, then you are perhaps back to something like the Copenhagen interpretation. :) Of course, if there are no hidden variables...
  14. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Preliminary answer from a layman: Netpattern1 (interference) consists (except for some noise) of an superposition of multiple interference patterns. Without patternB, the remaining patternA does not have a completely random distribution anymore. Netpattern2 does not contain the same patternA...
  15. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    From my message above: Here is link describing photon emission from a change in electron energy level: http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Planck.html (see at the bottom of the page). Not that I would expect anyone here to actually require this reference, yet I hope University of...
  16. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    That is exactly the question I tried to answer above, especially in the "EDIT:" section. I' look forward to see an answer from someone more qualified (than me).
  17. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Or if one uses quantum random number generators for all the lotteries in the world. :) Everyone who buys a ticket would win in one world. :) Well, that's still a question. The photons still reach you and everything else, and the effects may propagate rather than cancel out. I mean, there is...
  18. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    Yes, no traditional, immediately visible pattern. The known effects of entanglement are always a symmetric relation of otherwise random events. "Random" means subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Their uncertainty is coupled. If the experiment doesn't "allow" the particles to be...
  19. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    So how many copies of yourself would you expect to exist right now? It doesn't seem easy to tell whether things would converge or diverge, or find a balance at some level. Of course, you could easily make them diverge a lot, if you wanted to.
  20. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Sure, sounds interesting. :) EDIT: Don't you have decoherence when the photons hits the screen, since now its location is fixed, and when there was interference, the location is random for a specific observer ?
  21. C

    Interference seen in a member of an entangled pair

    I'm not sure which cases you are referring to, however I think it is worth mentioning that in the "double-double-slit" experiment (which might be just a thought experiment by A.Zeilinger), both particles can (or are expected to) show an entangled interference pattern, however this pattern is...
  22. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    I made no such assumption, and indeed, discussing it would be off-topic. The crucial point regarding this topic is that in photon emission, (at least in some cases), before the emission, the energy, which will be transformed (for lack of a better word) into a photon, is not moving at the speed...
  23. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    I'm not sure why you think it was obvious, as it isn't the case. I knew (or thought) that photons can be created when matter and antimatter meet, and that there are many other particle reactions in which energy is released as photons. However I did (and still do) believe that in a candle the...
  24. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    A long time ago, I've actually studied physics for a couple of years, however what I have read on wikipedia and elsewhere does match my memories, so I am more than surprised that you call these claims "outlandish". Before the emission of photons by valence electrons, the electrons have not...
  25. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Fine, I think this way: "Full of strange paradoxes" means "full of interesting possibilities". Even in MWI, interference and entanglement and other quantum effects are still strange things, and at that point, I'm willing to consider more strangeness. To assume that there are a trillion...
  26. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Welcome! :) Non-determinism may seem to be the end of scientific research, but my impression is that researchers like Anton Zeilinger are (at least) as much on the forefront of research in quantum physics as those who, for example, prefer the deterministic many worlds interpretation (especially...
  27. C

    Deterministic Quantum Mechanics?

    Regarding your first question, there is also work attempting to show that quantum randomness is irreducible: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.4542v1
  28. C

    Entanglement between particles of no common history

    When you say transporting a qubit is a slow process, are you speaking of using the spin of an electron? If you use the polarization of a photon, isn't it the speed of light? So the idea is that if you use multiple pairs with multiple Bell measurements, you can make the connection in a time that...
  29. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    It seems that SR can't handle any of those cases either... :)
  30. C

    FTL communication: might QM entanglement trump relativity?

    By a candle? No, I thought in a candle that would be the only way. It's not a claim at all, just something I've read. Which is why I was wondering what the response on this forum would be, as I was expecting that this could be controversial. However I do have suspicions that FTL necessarily...
Top