Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Arguments against instantaneous collapse
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="kurt101, post: 6073943, member: 611935"] 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: [URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/[/URL]Humanino said The cluster decomposition principle is an interpretation of the factorization of the S matric for separated reaction From <[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207[/URL]> 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 <[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207[/URL]> 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 <[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207[/URL]> 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 <[URL]https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-and-epr-correlations.409861/#post-2773207[/URL]> 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Arguments against instantaneous collapse
Back
Top