Can ambiguity in the word "measurement" allow contradictions in QM?

In summary: This is the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of two people, P1 and P2, drawing different conclusions about the outcome of an experiment involving a Stern-Gerlach device and an electron's spin. P1 believes the electron's spin collapses to a mixed state, while P2 argues that it remains in a pure, entangled state. The conversation also touches on the paper of Frauchiger and Renner, which claims that different observers can draw different conclusions with "correct" quantum mechanical reasoning. However, there is a logical contradiction in this claim, as correct reasoning should lead to the same conclusions. The conversation concludes by discussing the potential for interference effects in the entangled state, but ultimately agrees
  • #1
msumm21
218
16
Take 2 people P1 and P2. P1 claims that a Stern-Gerlach device collapsed an electron’s spin to + or - (mixed state if P1 doesn’t know which) while P2 may say it did not collapse, but instead remains in a pure, entangled state. If we continue this sort of thinking (2 people applying different criteria for measurement) in a more complicated situation (maybe requiring interference), could P1 and P2 end up with “disjoint” probabilities for future outcomes. By disjoint here I mean the set of possible (non zero probability) outcomes are disjoint? I.e. the actual outcome will prove at least one of them “wrong.” Presumably this can’t happen, but has it been proven? Reference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...an-enhanced-theory-or-just-philosophy.973442/

The question is connected to the paper of Frauchiger and Renner. The authors claimed that various observers can draw different conclusions with "correct" quantum mechanical reasoning.

I think there is a logical contradiction in the very claim of the paper: if people do correct reasoning, then they draw the same conclusions.

In your example case, if P1 calculates that the probability of an outcome X is zero, but P1 anyway observes that X happened, then P1 made a calculation error.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and vanhees71
  • #3
msumm21 said:
Take 2 people P1 and P2. P1 claims that a Stern-Gerlach device collapsed an electron’s spin to + or - (mixed state if P1 doesn’t know which) while P2 may say it did not collapse, but instead remains in a pure, entangled state. If we continue this sort of thinking (2 people applying different criteria for measurement) in a more complicated situation (maybe requiring interference), could P1 and P2 end up with “disjoint” probabilities for future outcomes. By disjoint here I mean the set of possible (non zero probability) outcomes are disjoint? I.e. the actual outcome will prove at least one of them “wrong.” Presumably this can’t happen, but has it been proven? Reference?

Yes, they will disagree about the outcome statistics if they attempt to unitarily reverse the SG measurement and then measure the qubit on the original preparation basis. This is basically the difference between the predictions of quantum versus GRW theory.

Heikki Tuuri said:
I think there is a logical contradiction in the very claim of the paper: if people do correct reasoning, then they draw the same conclusions.

In your example case, if P1 calculates that the probability of an outcome X is zero, but P1 anyway observes that X happened, then P1 made a calculation error.

Of course if the experiment is actually done, whoever is wrong changes their opinion. The issue is we can't do this experiment, it has way too many degrees of freedom to control, so we can't empirically determine whose reasoning is correct. We can only ask if anyone's logical consistency falls apart when extrapolating their beliefs to thought experiments.
 
  • #4
msumm21 said:
P1 claims that a Stern-Gerlach device collapsed an electron’s spin to + or - (mixed state if P1 doesn’t know which) while P2 may say it did not collapse, but instead remains in a pure, entangled state.

You're leaving out an important part of this: P2 has to say the electron is entangled with the measuring apparatus. And P2 also has to say that the two branches of the entangled wave function of electron + apparatus are decohered, meaning they can't interfere with each other, because otherwise he would predict interference effects that obviously do not occur.

Also, P1 says that the electron's state collapsed, but so did that of the measuring apparatus (otherwise the apparatus would be entangled with the electron and the electron wouldn't be collapsed, which is what P2 is saying). And P1 says that this explains why no interference effects are observed with other possible measurement results.

So both P1 and P2 still agree on the actual observable: that no interference effects are ever observed between different possible results of the same measurement. Hence, they can never resolve their disagreement by experiment.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #5
Thanks, here are some followups:

Heikki Tuuri said:
I think there is a logical contradiction in the very claim of the paper: if people do correct reasoning, then they draw the same conclusions.

I'd looked over that paper a few months ago but also thought there were some mistakes in the analysis. It maybe what got me wondering if this proof exists.

PeterDonis said:
You're leaving out an important part of this: P2 has to say the electron is entangled with the measuring apparatus. And P2 also has to say that the two branches of the entangled wave function of electron + apparatus are decohered, meaning they can't interfere with each other, because otherwise he would predict interference effects that obviously do not occur.

If P2 concludes it's a pure, entangled state couldn't there still be interference taking the whole system into account? I realize this entanglement makes it very complicated including all the entangled entities, but nevertheless theoretically possible, right?
 
  • #6
msumm21 said:
If P2 concludes it's a pure, entangled state couldn't there still be interference taking the whole system into account?

The entangled state is a state of the whole system--the electron and the measuring apparatus. The different entangled branches of the state can't interfere with each other because they are decohered.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba

1. What is the definition of "measurement" in quantum mechanics?

In quantum mechanics, "measurement" refers to the process of determining the state of a quantum system by interacting with it, which causes the system to collapse into one of its possible states.

2. How does ambiguity in the word "measurement" affect quantum mechanics?

The ambiguity in the word "measurement" has led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation, and the Bohmian interpretation. These interpretations have different explanations for the role of measurement in quantum mechanics and can lead to contradictions in the understanding of the theory.

3. Can contradictions arise in quantum mechanics due to ambiguity in the word "measurement"?

Yes, the different interpretations of quantum mechanics resulting from the ambiguity in the word "measurement" can lead to contradictions in the understanding of the theory. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation states that the act of measurement causes the collapse of the wave function, while the Many-Worlds interpretation argues that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches into parallel universes.

4. How do scientists address the issue of ambiguity in the word "measurement" in quantum mechanics?

Scientists continue to debate and research the different interpretations of quantum mechanics to gain a better understanding of the role of measurement in the theory. Some propose new experiments to test the different interpretations, while others work on developing a unified theory that can reconcile these interpretations and eliminate contradictions.

5. Is there a consensus among scientists on the issue of ambiguity in the word "measurement" in quantum mechanics?

No, there is no consensus among scientists on the issue of ambiguity in the word "measurement" in quantum mechanics. Different scientists have different opinions and interpretations, and the debate is ongoing. Some argue that the ambiguity is inherent in the theory, while others believe that a more precise definition of measurement is needed to avoid contradictions.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
833
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
976
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
605
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Back
Top