Arguments against instantaneous collapse

  • I
  • Thread starter kurt101
  • Start date
  • #1
132
16

Main Question or Discussion Point

I strongly disagree with the collapse hypothesis.
Since relativistic local and microcausal QFT, the fundamental starting point for the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, obey the linked-cluster theorem, there cannot be any instantaneous collapse, and there is no "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it.
Why does microcausal QFT obeying the linked-cluster theorem imply there cannot be any instantaneous collapse? Is this the strongest argument against instantaneous collapse?


Is linked-cluster the same concept as cluster decomposition?


I found this discussion on cluster decomposition and EPR: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/


Humanino said
The cluster decomposition principle is an interpretation of the factorization of the S matric for separated reaction
From <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207>


Demystifier said:
Indeed, in Sec. 4.3 Weinberg explicitly says:
"It is one of the fundamental principles of physics ... that experiments that are sufficiently separated in space have unrelated results."
...
"... the cluster decomposition principle states that if multi-particle processes ... are studied in N very distant laboratories, then the S-matrix element for the overall process factorizes."

Clearly, these statements formulated as such are incompatible with EPR correlations, and are therefore wrong.
From <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207>


Demystifier also said:
I would summarize and formalize it this way:
CDP says that if
1. the initial state (of spatially separated subsystems) can be factorized
and
2. the subsystems remain spatially separated all the time
then
the final state can also be factorized.

This is a correct form of CDP in QFT. But this is not the form explicitly stated by Weinberg.
From <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207>


Humanino said:
In this situation, once the initial state (half final state of an EPR exp.) has been measured it becomes separated and the CDP applies.
From <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207>


My understanding of the comments by Humanino and Demystifier is that the CDP applies only after the collapse. So CDP in this case is not an argument against collapse. What am I missing?

Thanks.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
atyy
Science Advisor
13,732
1,879
Why does microcausal QFT obeying the linked-cluster theorem imply there cannot be any instantaneous collapse? Is this the strongest argument against instantaneous collapse?
It does not. The linked cluster theorem enforces no faster-than-light communication. Instantaneous collapse is consistent with the absence of superluminal communication.
 

Related Threads on Arguments against instantaneous collapse

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
546
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
759
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
64
Views
7K
Top