Graduate Hidden Measurements Interpretation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of Hidden Measurements Interpretation (HMI) as presented in the paper by Aerts et al. The participants express skepticism regarding the extension of HMI to multiparticle states and its implications for non-locality in quantum mechanics. Key concerns include the lack of clarity on how independent measurement devices correlate and the assumption of non-locality without addressing locality restoration in larger systems. The conversation highlights the perceived similarities between HMI and the Copenhagen interpretation, particularly in their treatment of measurement results as probabilistic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics principles, including measurement theory.
  • Familiarity with Bell's Theorem and Bell inequalities.
  • Knowledge of macroscopic quantum machines and their implications.
  • Basic grasp of non-locality in quantum physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Hidden Measurements Interpretation" and its foundational claims.
  • Explore "Bell's Theorem" and its significance in quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate "macroscopic quantum machines" and their experimental realizations.
  • Study the "Copenhagen interpretation" and compare it with HMI.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics, and students seeking to understand the implications of measurement interpretations in quantum theory.

michael879
Messages
696
Reaction score
7
I've been reading up on HMI, and the claims its proponents make are pretty impressive. I'm struggling to understand some details though, so I'm hoping someone here is more familiar with it.

In http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1998Berlin.pdf, the authors describe a "macroscopic quantum machine", which for a single particle state does an impressive job of replicating QM. I can't quite see how the machine can be extended to multiparticle states though.. They mention extending this to an EPR-type experiment but they don't go into any details on exactly how two independent measurement devices would be represented macroscopically.

It seems to me like there would necessarily be a serious non-locality to any version of this theory, since the random measurement processes need to be correlated with each other, even though they can have an arbitrarily large space-like separation. Introducing real non-locality requires some limiting mechanism so that locality will be restored in larger systems, and I can't find any attempt to address this in HMI
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Give me time and I'll dig up some emails I had with one of the people who worked with Aerts on experiments regarding his HM interpretation.
 
StevieTNZ said:
Give me time and I'll dig up some emails I had with one of the people who worked with Aerts on experiments regarding his HM interpretation.

Awesome, that would be great!
 
Reading the paper, this interpretation just sounds like a roundabout way of saying measurement results are probabilistic.

They make a big deal out of defining a "machine" that acts like a spin, but that's not a hard task. Computers can trivially simulate single spins, and I don't see how doing it with an elastic stretched across a sphere adds much to that conclusion. The hard thing isn't simulating spins, it's simulating entangled spins; making a machine that violates Bell inequalities under space-like separations. Of course they don't do that, they simply assume non-locality.

So I'm really not sure how this interpretation differs from Copenhagen. It just seems like a mechanization of collapse. Do they at least manage to discard the interactions with a hazily defined "classical world"?
 
Strilanc said:
The hard thing isn't simulating spins, it's simulating entangled spins; making a machine that violates Bell inequalities under space-like separations. Of course they don't do that, they simply assume non-locality.

This pretty much sums up my response to the paper, which is why I made this post. I would hope that we're simply missing something, based on the claims made by supporters of this interpretation. Maybe it is really just as trivial as it sounds, but if there is something more to it I'd like to know
 
Anyone?
 
michael879 said:
Anyone?
If anyone could shed some further light on this that would be great, Stevie?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Alternative model for counterfactual definiteness in Bohm-like EPR
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
565
Undergrad Can anti-realism really save nonlocality?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Undergrad Non-local preparation in entanglement swapping experiments
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
5K
Graduate Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Graduate Is there a local interpretation of Reeh-Schlieder theorem?
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
15K
Undergrad Could Tim Maudlin's Views on Bell and QM Be Flawed?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Graduate Does Everettian QM imply solipsism according to Travis Norsen and Sean Carroll?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding the Fundamental Difference in Interpretations of QM
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
Undergrad Confusion about the thermal interpretation's account of measurement
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
9K
Undergrad QFT made Bohmian mechanics a non-starter: missed opportunities?
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
23K