Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Hidden Measurements Interpretation

  1. May 18, 2016 #1
    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
  2. jcsd
  3. May 18, 2016 #2
    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.
  4. May 18, 2016 #3
    Awesome, that would be great!
  5. May 19, 2016 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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"?
  6. May 19, 2016 #5
    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
  7. Jun 1, 2016 #6
  8. Jun 7, 2016 #7
    If anyone could shed some further light on this that would be great, Stevie?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted