Hidden Measurements Interpretation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hidden Measurements Interpretation (HMI) of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on its implications for macroscopic quantum machines and the challenges in extending the theory to multiparticle states. Participants express curiosity about the theory's claims and its relation to established interpretations like Copenhagen.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the macroscopic quantum machine described in the referenced paper can be extended to multiparticle states, noting a lack of detail on representing independent measurement devices macroscopically.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of non-locality in HMI, suggesting that correlated random measurement processes would necessitate a mechanism to restore locality in larger systems, which seems unaddressed in the theory.
  • Another participant critiques the interpretation as potentially being a convoluted way of stating that measurement results are probabilistic, arguing that simulating entangled spins is the real challenge, which the theory does not adequately address.
  • There is skepticism regarding the novelty of HMI compared to the Copenhagen interpretation, with a participant questioning whether it effectively discards interactions with a "classical world."
  • Some participants express a desire for clarification and further insights into the interpretation, indicating a hope that there may be more depth to it than initially perceived.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the validity and implications of the Hidden Measurements Interpretation. Some express skepticism while others seek further understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current understanding of HMI, particularly regarding its treatment of non-locality and the challenges of simulating entangled states. There are unresolved questions about the theory's distinctions from other interpretations of quantum mechanics.

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
1K
Graduate Game theory, quantum physics and the Bell inequality (paper)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Undergrad Non-local preparation in entanglement swapping experiments
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
7K
Undergrad Can anti-realism really save nonlocality?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Graduate Is there a local interpretation of Reeh-Schlieder theorem?
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
16K
Graduate Does Everettian QM imply solipsism according to Travis Norsen and Sean Carroll?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Graduate Schrödinger's original interpretation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Undergrad Could Tim Maudlin's Views on Bell and QM Be Flawed?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Undergrad Understanding the Fundamental Difference in Interpretations of QM
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K