- #36
Question69
- 43
- 7
So just the Schrodinger equation evolving forever?vanhees71 said:The minimal statistical interpretation, i.e., QT without unnecessary philosophical extensions.
So just the Schrodinger equation evolving forever?vanhees71 said:The minimal statistical interpretation, i.e., QT without unnecessary philosophical extensions.
vanhees71 said:It's just taking the probabilistic interpretation of the quantum state as described with the standard quantum-theoretical postulates, seriously. There's also no "quantum-classical cut", but the classical behavior of macroscopic systems follows by standard quantum-statistical arguments and no collapse as a physical process.
Yeah, you would get many worlds out of that unless you say the WF is nomological, but that would mean taking superposition as nomological too.vanhees71 said:It's just taking the probabilistic interpretation of the quantum state as described with the standard quantum-theoretical postulates, seriously. There's also no "quantum-classical cut", but the classical behavior of macroscopic systems follows by standard quantum-statistical arguments and no collapse as a physical process.
StevieTNZ said:@DrChinese - Even without introducing collapse theories, there have been challenges to the notion of "delayed choice entanglement swapping"* which is what I believe you're describing in post #28. See for example: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10007/1/manuscript_final.pdf
(Egg, M. (2013). Delayed-choice experiments and the metaphysics of entanglement. Foundations of Physics, 43(9), 1124-1135.)
* and I certainly agree, alongside Bernard d'Espagnat, in private email correspondence with me that the Zeilinger et al experiment in 2012 was not delayed choice entanglement swapping. Presumably, entanglement needs to exist between the two pairs to swap, which is actually broken when measured by Alice and Bob first before a bell-state measurement occurs on the other two photons.
I happen to agree the experiment shows entanglement swapping, only if Alice and Bob's first 'measurement' (which is just entanglement of the photon with the apparatus) does not cause wave function collapse. It then becomes entanglement swapping between two apparatus and two photons. Otherwise, if entanglement is gone by Alice and Bob's measurement first, what is there to swap? As William Wootters emailed me, you need entanglement in order to swap it.DrChinese said:Second, I vehemently disagree that delayed swapping is not swapping.
Yay, we agree (at least halfway)!StevieTNZ said:I happen to agree the experiment shows entanglement swapping, only if Alice and Bob's first 'measurement' (which is just entanglement of the photon with the apparatus) does not cause wave function collapse. It then becomes entanglement swapping between two apparatus and two photons. Otherwise, if entanglement is gone by Alice and Bob's measurement first, what is there to swap? As William Wootters emailed me, you need entanglement in order to swap it.
If you have a reference to an objective collapse model that makes different predictions from standard QM, you can give the reference here as a basis for discussion. My statement that you quoted was in reference to interpretations of standard QM, which all make the same experimental predictions.vanhees71 said:So it's forbidden to discuss about alternative ansatzes like the here discussed objective-collapse postulates?
Here are the models: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/PeterDonis said:If you have a reference to an objective collapse model that makes different predictions from standard QM, you can give the reference here as a basis for discussion. My statement that you quoted was in reference to interpretations of standard QM, which all make the same experimental predictions.
Do you have any physics references? As in, physics textbooks or peer-reviewed papers? For example, there are some referenced in the SEP article; you should be using those as your primary sources for what the models in question say.Question69 said:Here are the models: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/
DrChinese said:OK, I can see that objective collapse might not occur often if the parameter was "small" for a single particle. ...
Question69 said:The collapse happens under the context of a parameter.So for example the bigger a system is, the bigger the chance of a collapse is for that.Smaller things have a very, very low chance of collapsing.If we have a big entangled system, that will have a very big chance of collapse.
https://books.google.de/books/about...ton&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&redir_esc=yPeterDonis said:Do you have any physics references? As in, physics textbooks or peer-reviewed papers? For example, there are some referenced in the SEP article; you should be using those as your primary sources for what the models in question say.