Do the SQUID experiments falsify Bohmian mechanics?

[f95toli]

Are theoretical physicists lagging behind the experiemntalists and researchers?

No, because O'Connell &co did not actually observe their MEMS resonator while it was in a superposition of states; whenever a measurement is done, it always gives the result that the resonator is either of these states. From these measurement you can then infer that it was in superposition, but this is still an "indirect" statistical measurement.
Btw, their measurement scheme was more or less identical to the way you read out a flux qubit (it is possible to read out a MEMS resonator using a superconducting qubit as the "sensor").

Never thought i'd see such fierce opposition for something i thought was commonly accepted among the specialsts and especially experimentlists(and grounded in experimental evidence). As to what it means or would mean or whether it would be logically inconsistent(whatever that means in a quantum mechanical setting), well that'd be a whole different topic.

But "what it means" is what we are arguing about! Your claim was that these experiments favour one interpretation over the others, but what we are saying is that this is not the case. If you don't care about what it means then there is no need to worry about interpretations in the first place.

 

[Maui]

No, because O'Connell &co did not actually observe their MEMS resonator while it was in a superposition of states; whenever a measurement is done, it always gives the result that the resonator is either of these states. From these measurement you can then infer that it was in superposition, but this is still an "indirect" statistical measurement.

No question that it's an indirect statistical inference, the question is - is it valid? There is more than one that have been performed, so the experimental evidence is strong.

But "what it means" is what we are arguing about! Your claim was that these experiments favour one interpretation over the others, but what we are saying is that this is not the case. If you don't care about what it means then there is no need to worry about interpretations in the first place.

I had in mind what it meant for reality, not what it physically or observationally might mean. Superpositions are inobservable(unmeasureable) directly, but so is the Sun's surface temperature. We can only infer from other supporting circumstantial evidence about them. At any rate, the other option sounds too conspirational - currents that conspire to act as if they were flowing both ways whenever valid inference were in principle possible.

 

[f95toli]

No question that it's an indirect statistical inference, the question is - is it valid? There is more than one that have been performed, so the experimental evidence is strong.

Yes, it is valid. There are lots of groups working on similar experiments (even I have been involved in some similar work), The group O'Connell worked in was just the first to observer this. The result was not in any way surprising, everyone was just waiting for somone to do it first. There is nothing "surprising" about the result since it agrees with basic QM predictions, you just have to get used to the idea of QM effects at the macroscopic scale.

I had in mind what it meant for reality, not what it physically or observationally might mean. Superpositions are inobservable(unmeasureable) directly, but so is the Sun's surface temperature. We can only infer from other supporting circumstantial evidence about them. At any rate, the other option sounds too conspirational - currents that conspire to act as if they were flowing both ways whenever valid inference were in principle possible.

"What is real" is a very complicated question in QM, and one which can't be answered by any known experiment. Again, this is what interpretations is all about.
The problem here is that "currents flowing both ways" make no sense whatsoever accoriding to classical physics, and it is not strictly speaking what the math is saying either. Note that a flux qubit can be put into ANY state on the Bloch sphere,you also have to take the phase into account, "currents flowing both ways" only works as a classical "explanation" for some of the experiments you can do. I am not sure how you would do it for e.g. a Ramsey type experiment.

 

[Dadface]

Thanks to those who replied to my previous question.There seems to be some differences of opinion here.The quote referred to by Maui (as written in the letters to Nature) certainly seems to suggest that the currents flow in opposite directions but also seems to suggest that the superposition is that of the flux states only.

Trying to get more clarification I continued searching and came across the following:

"the most striking experimental results to date being the observation of a superposition between clockwise and counter-clockwise currents in a superconducting quantum interference device."This is part of a sentence written in the introduction of a paper authored by Y.P.Huang and M.G Moore(see paper title below)

"Creation,detection and decoherence of macroscopic quantum superposition states in double-well Bose-Einstein condensates"

Published by PHYSICAL REVIEW A,023606

This paper was published in 2006 and the letter to Nature published in 2000

 

[yoda jedi]

"What is real" is a very complicated question in QM, and one which can't be answered by any known experiment.

beyond QM.


.

 

[Demystifier]

"Here we present experimental evidence that a superconducting
quantum interference device (SQUID) can be put into a superposition
of two magnetic-¯ux states: one corresponding to a few
microamperes of current ¯owing clockwise, the other corresponding
to the same amount of current ¯owing anticlockwise."

That only confirms what I (and f95toli) am telling you repeatedly, but you fail to digest.

To me, this sounds like "aiming to prove that currents can be inferred to be flowing both ways at once"

Maybe it sounds so to you, but as I repeated several times here, this is neither what they say nor what they mean.

Please read my post #26, especially point 3).

If you still don't understand it, repeat point 3) until you get used to it.
After that, "superposition" should no longer sound to you as "both at once". If it still does, come here again for a new prescription.

 

[Maui]

That only confirms what I (and f95toli) am telling you repeatedly, but you fail to digest.

You keep repeating what standard quantum mechanics and the what the formalism says happens. Yet, those who actually run the experiements say, as is visible in the exact quotes, that you are wrong. Superposition of states have been indirectly observed at least several times(whether through putting the system in the ground state or measuring flux states) and the motivation to start the thread was that, to my knowledge, superpositions don't occur in the Bohmian Interpretation.

Maybe it sounds so to you, but as I repeated several times here, this is neither what they say nor what they mean.

You are entitled to your own opinion, whether right or wrong is a totally different issue.

 

[Maui]

Please read my post #26, especially point 3).

If you still don't understand it, repeat point 3) until you get used to it.
After that, "superposition" should no longer sound to you as "both at once". If it still does, come here again for a new prescription.

So if the experiment doesn't agree with the standard interpretation, the experiment is wrong, not the theory. Where did you get the weird idea that the standard interpretation is the complete and final Truth?

How different are "...corresponds to n Amperes of currents flowing both ways at once" and "...n Amperes of currents are flowing both ways at once"? Or "500 cubic meters of water displaced by a vessel, corresponds to 200 tonnes of actual weight of the ship" and " the ship is 200 tonnes of actual weight"? Does qm conspire to act as if there are currents flowing both directions? Who says what is "logically inconsistent" in Nature, as you replied earlier to ZapperZ? You?

BTW, arrogance isn't a nice way of making an argument. If anything, it degrades its value(even if it had such).

 

[Demystifier]

Maui, I admit, I was somewhat arrogant and I apologize for that. It was caused by my frustration steming from impression that you ignored what I was telling you. Now I see that you didn't ignore it. You simply did not understood what I am telling you, which may very well be my fault.

But still, point 3) in post #26 is, in my opinion, crucial for correct understanding of standard QM.

You seem to think that the SQUID experiment falsifies not only the Bohmian interpretation, but also the standard interpretation. As you can see, nobody in this forum shares that opinion with you.

 

[Demystifier]

So if the experiment doesn't agree with the standard interpretation, the experiment is wrong, not the theory. Where did you get the weird idea that the standard interpretation is the complete and final Truth?

I am saying that experiment DOES agree with standard interpretation (as well as with Bohmian interpretation).

How different are "...corresponds to n Amperes of currents flowing both ways at once" and "...n Amperes of currents are flowing both ways at once"?

That's irrelevant, because neither of those two statements can be found in the original scientific paper. In particular, they do not use the words "at once".

Does qm conspire to act as if there are currents flowing both directions?

It may look so, but only to someone who does not understand the meaning of superposition in QM (either standard, Bohmian, or many-worldian).

Who says what is "logically inconsistent" in Nature, as you replied earlier to ZapperZ? You?

Logical consistency (or inconsistency) is not a property of nature. It is a property of human language. So if ZapperZ uses a logically inconsistent language in one sentence (despite the fact that otherwise he understands QM very well), it may be useful for him to draw his attention to it. I also sometimes use logically inconsistent language, and I am grateful when somebody warns me for that.

 

[Dadface]

Even though many "standard physicists" have a tendency to say what you are saying here, I insist that standard interpretation of QM is not saying it. Instead, standard interpretation of QM is saying that

1) In the SQUID experiments we have a SUPERPOSITION of two different eigenstates of the observable described by the current operator.
2) A superposition of eigenstates of the current operator is NOT an eigenstate of the current operator.
3) When a system is not in an eigenstate of an observable, then the value of that observable IS NOT SPECIFIED.

Thus, standard QM does not say that current goes in both directions. Instead, it says that the direction of current is not specified. And please, just because it is said by me, don't conclude that the above has anything to do with Bohmian QM, because it don't. It is standard QM, not Bohmian QM, that says that values of observables are not specified in states which are not eigenstates of the observable.

If it is two eigenstates that are in superposition does it mean that there are two possible observational outcomes (clockwise or anticlockwise current direction) which are in superposition,an actual direction being pinned down only when an observation is made?

 

[Demystifier]

Superposition of states have been indirectly observed at least several times(whether through putting the system in the ground state or measuring flux states) and the motivation to start the thread was that, to my knowledge, superpositions don't occur in the Bohmian Interpretation.

EVERY state is a superposition of some other states. A state which is not a superposition does not exist. Therefore, superpositions are observed in ALL experiments on QM. Likewise, ALL wave functions in Bohmian interpretation are superpositions.

You should distinguish superpositions in general from superpositions of macroscopically distinct states. The former is impossible NOT to have, while only the later are difficult to achieve in practice.

 

[Demystifier]

If it is two eigenstates that are in superposition does it mean that there are two possible observational outcomes (clockwise or anticlockwise current direction) which are in superposition,an actual direction being pinned down only when an observation is made?

Yes, exactly, with the emphasis on the word ONLY, and specification that it must be an observation of the current itself, not of some other related quantity.

Now please, can you explain that to Maui? (Because my methods do not work for him.)

 

[Maui]

Yes, exactly, with the emphasis on the word ONLY, and specification that it must be an observation of the current itself, not of some other related quantity.

Now please, can you explain that to Maui? (Because my methods do not work for him.)

Your methods don't work with reality as well, as qm in its standard minimalist form is certainly not wrong but is incomplete. It doesn't account for the wave-like phenomenon that goes through both slits at the same time in a double slit experiment, that we infer to be a superposition of photon or electron states. As you say - your viewpoint is logically inconsistent.

In post 29, i gave you a few references of similar experiments and the authors wording word for word(see the bolded part). You are of course free to stick to your scroll of interpretational truths, which at least in these experiments, appear to belong in the past.

You seem to think that the SQUID experiment falsifies not only the Bohmian interpretation, but also the standard interpretation. As you can see, nobody in this forum shares that opinion with you.

How many agreed with - "the standard interpretation of qm is the complete description of reality"? None.

That's irrelevant, because neither of those two statements can be found in the original scientific paper. In particular, they do not use the words "at once".

They used "simultaneously" and "at the same time"(see bolded the part in post 29), which is the same as saying "at once". If you don't agree, i will provide a dictionary reference. I would say that your whole paragraph is irrelevant.

Yes, exactly, with the emphasis on the word ONLY, and specification that it must be an observation of the current itself, not of some other related quantity.

Yes, with no measurement, nothing goes through both slits and the interference pattern is just God's way of saying "the standard minimalist interpretation is the truth"

 

[f95toli]

Your methods don't work with reality as well, as qm in its standard minimalist form is certainly not wrong but is incomplete. It doesn't account for the wave-like phenomenon that goes through both slits at the same time in a double slit experiment, that we infer to be a superposition of photon or electron states. As you say - your viewpoint is logically inconsistent.

Standard QM work very well and can predict the outcome of experiments with incredibly good precision. Whether or not one considers it to be "incomplete" is to some extent up to ones idea of what science should be about, Demystifier and others worry about interpretations etc. because they think science should describe "reality" (whatever that means), others(including me) don't agree or simply do not care.

In post 29, i gave you a few references of similar experiments and the authors wording word for word(see the bolded part). You are of course free to stick to your scroll of interpretational truths, which at least in these experiments, appear to belong in the past.

I don't think those were the word used in the actual article (and if it was, it was wrong). many people (including me) use simplified explanations when we explain what we work on; but in discussions like this we have to be more precise.

How many agreed with - "the standard interpretation of qm is the complete description of reality"? None.

So what? I don't even see that as a problem. I am an experimentalist, as long as I can use QM to design and predict the outcome of my experiments I am happy.

Yes, with no measurement, nothing goes through both slits and the interference pattern is just God's way of saying "the standard minimalist interpretation is the truth"

[/quote]
Possibly. We can't know for sure. What is true is not a question for science.

 

[Demystifier]

In post 29, i gave you a few references of similar experiments and the authors wording word for word(see the bolded part).

I've told you explicitly in post #19 (before your post #29) that statements by journalists (New Scientist is written by journalists) and wikipedia do not count, which is why these bolded parts do not count.

I will no longer try to reply to any of your other objections, because my replies apparently don't have any positive effect on you.

 

[Maui]

I've told you explicitly in post #19 (before your post #29) that statements by journalists (New Scientist is written by journalists) and wikipedia do not count, which is why these bolded parts do not count.

I will no longer try to reply to any of your other objections, because my replies apparently don't have any positive effect on you.

You keep ignoring the fact that the abstract i quoted several times now is from a peer reviewed paper published in Nature:

"Here we present experimental evidence that a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406043a0.html

Here are the "journalists" you keep talking about:

-Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo & J. E. Lukens
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794-3800, USA
If you need further reference of indirectly 'observed' quantum behavior(mezoscopic) - just look at the double slit experiment carried out with the C60 molecule. I guess you'd say without a measurement no C60 molecule ever passed the slits, even though an ensemble had been emitted one after one and left an interference pattern on the screen?

 

[Maui]

You should distinguish superpositions in general from superpositions of macroscopically distinct states. The former is impossible NOT to have, while only the later are difficult to achieve in practice.

So here you agree that macroscopically distinct states have been indirectly 'observed'? If so, what are you objecting to, considering you say 'observing' quantum macroscopic behavior is technically possible? If it's possible, you don't necessarily need an observation to extract information about the system and 'collapse' it to an eigenstate of the wavefunction.

 

[Demystifier]

To quote myself:

I will no longer try to reply to any of your other objections, because my replies apparently don't have any positive effect on you.

 

[f95toli]

"Here we present experimental evidence that a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406043a0.html

This is getting boring. Where in that quote do they say that the superposition corresponds to the current flowing in both directions at once? No one is disputing the fact that the two states correspond to clockwise and counter-clockwise currents (this is just a "classical" effect, the same is true for a regular SQUID operated in the classical regime), which is all they are saying in that quote.

By that logic, the superposition of states for a charge qubit would correspond to half an electron on the island. Or, the the superposition of spins for an electron to correspond to it "spinning" (in terms of angular momentum transfer) in both directions at once...etc. etc

Here are the "journalists" you keep talking about:

-Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo & J. E. Lukens
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794-3800, USA

And they were writing for a popular magazine, they used a common way of explaining how qubits works; but it is not an accurate description. I am somewhat familiar with the work of Luken's group; and I am 100% sure that they know that.

If you need further reference of indirectly 'observed' quantum behavior(mezoscopic) - just look at the double slit experiment carried out with the C60 molecule. I guess you'd say without a measurement no C60 molecule ever passed the slits, even though an ensemble had been emitted one after one and left an interference pattern on the screen?

Without a measurement you can't say anything. This is the whole point of "common" QM. You can't say anything about what the C60s were doing while passing the slits, if you could the interference pattern would disappear!

 

[Maui]

This is getting boring. Where in that quote do they say that the superposition corresponds to the current flowing in both directions at once? No one is disputing the fact that the two states correspond to clockwise and counter-clockwise currents (this is just a "classical" effect, the same is true for a regular SQUID operated in the classical regime), which is all they are saying in that quote.

Clockwise and counter-clockwaise currents flow in opposite directions with the relevant amperes they managed to infer. It seems their inference describes something real, that also goes through both slits and leaves an interference pattern.

By that logic, the superposition of states for a charge qubit would correspond to half an electron on the island. Or, the the superposition of spins for an electron to correspond to it "spinning" (in terms of angular momentum transfer) in both directions at once...etc. etc

As you say, without a measurement it's hard to say what really happens in superpositional states, but some progress is being made and maybe more clues will be available soon. I think quite a few teams are exploring that domain at this time(as it's left to people's imagination and personal interpretations at present). Quite possibly, classical intuition will be relegated to the past.

Without a measurement you can't say anything. This is the whole point of "common" QM. You can't say anything about what the C60s were doing while passing the slits, if you could the interference pattern would disappear!

I think this is more or less correct(though at face value it seems to deny the reality of an outside world) but it appears that the notion that information about a system in superposition cannot be indirectly extracted without causing a 'collpse' of the wavefunction is wrong. I think the situation is changing and the principle will be put in practice in the near future. And it seems more weight will be given to certain classes of interpretations :)

 

[Dadface]

You keep ignoring the fact that the abstract i quoted several times now is from a peer reviewed paper published in Nature:

"Here we present experimental evidence that a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406043a0.html




Here are the "journalists" you keep talking about:

-Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo & J. E. Lukens
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794-3800, USA



If you need further reference of indirectly 'observed' quantum behavior(mezoscopic) - just look at the double slit experiment carried out with the C60 molecule. I guess you'd say without a measurement no C60 molecule ever passed the slits, even though an ensemble had been emitted one after one and left an interference pattern on the screen?

I think a major problem we have here is one of interpretation.The quote you refer to is,to me,ambiguous.The authors seem to claim that it is magnetic flux states that are in superposition.Although they state that each flux state corresponds to,eg is compatible with, a current,they do not state that the currents are in superposition.

The quote I gave in post 34 seems to be clearer with Huang and Moore referring directly to the currents being in superposition.One wonders if this is a conclusion based on how they interpreted the findings of the original experiment.

I think what we could do with here is an even bigger dose of clarification.

For what it's worth,I think that the superpositions that have been claimed here and in the past and which I have some familiarity with are,to put it in archaic cockneyese,"a load of old toffee"

 

[Cthugha]

Clockwise and counter-clockwaise currents flow in opposite directions with the relevant amperes they managed to infer. It seems their inference describes something real, that also goes through both slits and leaves an interference pattern.

Does it seem so? I disagree. That is not what they said. They just say that they can prepare a superposition of the two states as mentioned and what these two states are. They do not say that the superposition means that both states are real at the same time. They do not even infer that.

As you say, without a measurement it's hard to say what really happens in superpositional states, but some progress is being made and maybe more clues will be available soon. I think quite a few teams are exploring that domain at this time(as it's left to people's imagination and personal interpretations at present). Quite possibly, classical intuition will be relegated to the past.

I know of no serious team of physicists working on what "really happens in superpositional states" in the manner you understand it because every serious physicist knows that these questions on reality are not accessible by experiment. The only people working on that are crackpots. Or as f95toli correctly said: "What is true is not a question for science."

I think this is more or less correct(though at face value it seems to deny the reality of an outside world) but it appears that the notion that information about a system in superposition cannot be indirectly extracted without causing a 'collpse' of the wavefunction is wrong. I think the situation is changing and the principle will be put in practice in the near future. And it seems more weight will be given to certain classes of interpretations :)

Personally, I do not like the Bohmian interpretation because I do not find it "inspiring" with respect to the special topic I work on. Nevertheless all interpretations predict exactly the same results for experiments in standard physics. Therefore assuming that some interpretations will be ruled out soon, shows some lack of understanding the difference between interpretations and physical theories.

How many agreed with - "the standard interpretation of qm is the complete description of reality"? None.

Really? Then make that a one now. Although I think "a complete description" would be more appropriate than "the complete description".

 

[Maui]

Does it seem so? I disagree. That is not what they said. They just say that they can prepare a superposition of the two states as mentioned and what these two states are. They do not say that the superposition means that both states are real at the same time. They do not even infer that.

They said their superpositions correspond to n amperes of clockwise and anti-clockwise current. Ampere is a measure of flow.

I know of no serious team of physicists working on what "really happens in superpositional states" in the manner you understand it because every serious physicist knows that these questions on reality are not accessible by experiment. The only people working on that are crackpots. Or as f95toli correctly said: "What is true is not a question for science."

That's not what i said, what i said that certain ongoing research will likely shed additional light on the interpretational issues(e.g. quantum computing)

Personally, I do not like the Bohmian interpretation because I do not find it "inspiring" with respect to the special topic I work on. Nevertheless all interpretations predict exactly the same results for experiments. Therefore assuming that some interpretations will be ruled out soon, shows some lack of understanding the difference between interpretations and physical theories.

No, you misunderstand what i said - different interpretations might predict the same results, but they treat the nature of the wavefunction in a different manner.

Really? Then make that a one now. Although I think "a complete description" would be more appropriate than "the complete description".

No problem with that, this thread has been mostly opinions(some of them served as facts as happens in many other threads here). Though i'd still wonder what it is that causes an interference pattern in a double slit experiement if standard qm were a complete description of reality.

 

[Cthugha]

They said their superpositions correspond to n amperes of clockwise and anti-clockwise current. Ampere is a measure of flow.

No, they do not say that their superposition corresponds to that. They say that "[...]can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise."

It is not the superposition, but the two states from which the superposition is composed of, which correspond to clockwise and anti-clockwise current. Saying that the superposition of two states is just the sum of the properties of its constituents is a giant leap and not necessarily correct. More is different as Anderson said.

By the way in optics a huge part of the confusion beginners typically have comes from a similar intuitive mistake. They consider a two-photon state as just the sum of two single photon states and then run into several counterintuitive traps because that assumption is not justified for entangled states, Fock states or NOON-states.

Therefore I am very careful when it comes to drawing conclusions that seem intuitive like identifying a superposition of two states with simultaneous reality of the two states which form the basis for the superposition. This can go very wrong.

No problem with that, this thread has been mostly opinions(some of them served as facts as happens in many other threads here). Though i'd still wonder what it is that causes an interference pattern in a double slit experiement if standard qm were a complete description of reality.

Yes, I agree. Being more clear on what is opinion and what is fact might help, but it is very complicated as our everyday language works differently.

These "what causes XXX?"-questions do not really lead anywhere as one could always go one step beyond and ask "what causes the cause for XXX?". In standard qm it is the interference of probability amplitudes for indistinguishable events which creates the interference pattern. I can understand that this may not be satisfying from an ontological point of view for some people. However, it is not the necesssity of a physical theory to answer ontological questions to everyone's satisfaction. Being in accordance with experimental results while using a small number of assumption is enough.

 

[Maui]

No, they do not say that their superposition corresponds to that. They say that "[...]can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise."

But the superconducting quantum interference device(macroscopic) was put in two states, that's the cruicial part and the point to be made in the experiment - showing(inferring) truly quantum behavior at the macroscopic scale. The other point is that the inferred quantum behavior corresponds to something 'real' even though it behaves non-classically, and is not caused and brought forward by statistics(we are not living in the Matrix, are we?).

It is not the superposition, but the two states from which the superposition is composed of, which correspond to clockwise and anti-clockwise current. Saying that the superposition of two states is just the sum of the properties of its constituents is a giant leap and not necessarily correct. More is different as Anderson said.

Could be, i am not arguing. But it's beside the main point being made.

Yes, I agree. Being more clear on what is opinion and what is fact might help, but it is very complicated as our everyday language works differently.

These "what causes XXX?"-questions do not really lead anywhere as one could always go one step beyond and ask "what causes the cause for XXX?". In standard qm it is the interference of probability amplitudes for indistinguishable events which creates the interference pattern. I can understand that this may not be satisfying from an ontological point of view for some people. However, it is not the necesssity of a physical theory to answer ontological questions to everyone's satisfaction. Being in accordance with experimental results while using a small number of assumption is enough.

That's right, i was asking for an account of the C60 double slit experiement(also done recently) that also highlights the same issue - we have emission of electrons, we have interference on the screen(it makes little sense to conclude nothing went through the slits). Without the experimentalists and those who don't know what is in principle impossible by the standard interpretation and what the general perceptions among theoretical physicists are, physics would still be in the 1920's.

Here is one more case(a copy of a paper published by Science) of Schroedinger's cat-like quantum state, done on a single atom level(nothing novel, just another case of indirectly obsered quantum behavior).

http://www.quantumsciencephilippines.com/seminar/seminar-topics/SchrodingerCatAtom.pdf

Most of their papers are peer-reviewed so it's probably worth of attention, even just for the principle.

 

[Demystifier]

Personally, I do not like the Bohmian interpretation because I do not find it "inspiring" with respect to the special topic I work on.

May I ask what topic do you work on?

 

[Cthugha]

But the superconducting quantum interference device(macroscopic) was put in two states, that's the cruicial part and the point to be made in the experiment - showing(inferring) truly quantum behavior at the macroscopic scale.
[...]
Could be, i am not arguing. But it's beside the main point being made.

I disagree. It is the main point (as also the others here tried to tell you) that putting something (i) into a superposition state is not the same as putting something (ii) into two states at once. This is ok as a loose and unprecise usage of language, but it is strictly speaking not correct. The authors claim only (i), not (ii).

That's right, i was asking for an account of the C60 double slit experiement(also done recently) that also highlights the same issue - we have emission of electrons, we have interference on the screen(it makes little sense to conclude nothing went through the slits).

It makes little sense to conclude anything without an experiment showing direct eveidence what is happening. As that does not seem possible, a conclusion on what is happening "in between" seems pointless without having testable predictions. You can of course create an interpretation instead of a conclusion.

May I ask what topic do you work on?

Hmm, I try not to post or link to my own stuff here to avoid being too easily identifyable using google. So let me instead link to a link of one of my papers which ZapperZ posted a while ago in the newsworthy papers section when I was still pretty new to these forums.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2275080&postcount=85

Basically, I am working on the border between optics and semiconductor physics with a special interest in photon statistics and collective phenomena. As to the "inspiring" part I find it pretty neat that in standard qm you can treat (in rough terms) photon bunching, stimulated emission and stimulated scattering on the one hand and the exclusion principle and antibunching on the other hand on pretty much the same footing as there is just a sign changing between bosons and fermions leading to constructive or destructive interference of the probability amplitudes for events leading to species of the same type ending up in indistinguishable states. Also the "more is different" aspect of collective phenomena comes out quite clear.

Anyway I am aware that you can also treat these topics well in BM. Some of the approaches are just not my cup of tea. For example it is interesting and makes sense that degeneracy pressure can be attributed to a quantum force in BM, but it seems odd to consider the reverse process for bosons causing photon bunching. While it is consistent to treat them similarly ( and I am sure that are more sophisticated takes on the topic in BM which may be more elegant), a quantum force pushing massless photons together is just not intuitive for me.

 

[Maui]

I disagree. It is the main point (as also the others here tried to tell you) that putting something (i) into a superposition state is not the same as putting something (ii) into two states at once. This is ok as a loose and unprecise usage of language, but it is strictly speaking not correct. The authors claim only (i), not (ii).

I respect your opinion and the ones previously expressed in the thread(i am mostly learning and trying to separate the physics from philosophy, it's really hard, as everyone is pushing their own ideas and viewpoints).
If i am wrong, so be it.

If we disregard their inference that their flux states correspond to n-Amperes of clockwise and anti-clockwise currents(whatever that means according to your interpretation of the experiment, namely probabilities producing interference), we are still left with the dazzling inadequacy of addressing the C60 issue, namely -- emission - slits - interference pattern on the absorbtion plate. We can't just turn our heads and pretend this obvious problem doesn't exist, for as soon as you get back to it, it's still there. As i stated earlier even more trouble would be coming for this viewpoint from the area of quantum computing.

It makes little sense to conclude anything without an experiment showing direct eveidence what is happening. As that does not seem possible, a conclusion on what is happening "in between" seems pointless without having testable predictions. You can of course create an interpretation instead of a conclusion.

The interference pattern is direct evidence of something passing the slits after emission from the device(this is a minimalist, almost no assumption statement)

 

[f95toli]

I think a major problem we have here is one of interpretation.The quote you refer to is,to me,ambiguous.The authors seem to claim that it is magnetic flux states that are in superposition.Although they state that each flux state corresponds to,eg is compatible with, a current,they do not state that the currents are in superposition.

this is not really ambiguous. That the persistent current in the loop correspond to a certain flux follows from "classical" SQUID physics (flux quantization). you can find more about this in any standard textbook on superconductivity (say Tinkham's book).
The 3 junction SQUID used as a qubit is not in any way fundamentally different from a normal 2 junction SQUID. If you calculate the potential energy of the system you will find that the addition of an "extra" small junction gives rise to a double well potential, with the two wells corresponding to clockwise and counter-clockwise persistent currents flowing in the loop, respectively. If you then plug this potential energy into the Schrodinger equation you get what is more or less a complete description of the system (minus the effect of decoherence), anyone who has done say a first course in QM at university can do this.

I am going to be lazy and just refer to the following paper on the arXiv where you can find a brief summary and some references, just ignore the bit about the resonator. I am sure there are better references, but I can't think of one now.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0727