I Nature Physics on quantum foundations

[vanhees71]

You may prefer what you wish. The most successful theory, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, by construction is local, i.e., it excludes the possibility for causal connections between space-like separated events (through the so-called micro-causality constraint imposed on all local observables). The metaphysical baggage is stripped of, when you simply take the probabilistic meaning of the quantum state as well as the microcausality principle seriously.

How else you want to observe the violation of Bell's inequality and thus demonstrate the corresponding correlations than by careful "state preparation" and "measurements" on the so "prepared systems", I don't know.

 

[martinbn]

I find that a rather peculiar notion of locality. I wouldn't call a theory local if it deals with such strange systems, having parts "at arbitrarily far-distant places", as one system. ...

Then any field theory, classical or not, in your view wouldn't be local.

 

[gentzen]

The only theory that's really both microscopic as macroscopic is QT, and Born's rule applies to both microscopic and macroscopic systems.

Do you have a reference for this?

All there is to specify about a concrete physical system in the lab is the quantum state (represented by the statistical operator with the meaning to describe the result of a specific preparation procedure), and the meaning are probabilities for the outcome of specifically given measurement procedures, i.e., quantitative observations on the system with a given measurement device.

Together with locality (i.e., microcausality) of relativistic QFT this implies that ... These correlations are there due to the preparation in the entangled state, and (within local relativistic QFTs) no faster-than-light spooky action at a distance due to the choice of a measurement setup and observations on the values of the measured observables is needed to explain these correlations.

Again here, the problem for me is not so much that what you write is wrong, but that you basically don't care whether there are references backing up your point, or how your interpretation fits with existing interpretations.

I know that you claim that you are just following Ballentine's minimal statistical interpretation, but I don't buy this. You claim more than he does. Those claims themselves are probably defendable, but not the claim that they coincide with Ballentine's position.

 

[vanhees71]

Do you have a reference for this?

Any textbook on quantum many-body theory will do. It uses Born's rule (together with all the other mathematical formalism of Q(F)T) all the time to describe macroscopic systems.

Again here, the problem for me is not so much that what you write is wrong, but that you basically don't care whether there are references backing up your point, or how your interpretation fits with existing interpretations.

My interpretation is simply the minimal statistical interpretation. So it's far from being "my interpretation" to beging with.

I know that you claim that you are just following Ballentine's minimal statistical interpretation, but I don't buy this. You claim more than he does. Those claims themselves are probably defendable, but not the claim that they coincide with Ballentine's position.

What more do I claim? Of course, I argue with relativistic local/microcausal QFT when it comes to the claim of "spooky actions at a distance", and Ballentine is pretty sparse on the interpretation of relativistic QFT in his textbook as well as the RMP article introducing the minimal statistical interpretation, but for me it's pretty obvious that one has to combine the microcausality principle with the minimal interpretation to get a consistent picture about the puzzling features of entangled states in connection with the question, whether there are faster-than-light causal signal propagations necessary to explain the observations, and the pretty obvious result is that this is not the case. I don't think that this is a very original point of view of mine.

 

[gentzen]

Any textbook on quantum many-body theory will do.

No, it will not. This is exactly my point that you claim that your position would be generally accepted, even so it is not and would need to be defended.

My interpretation is simply the minimal statistical interpretation. So it's far from being "my interpretation" to beging with

Again, it is precisely this claim (now made explicit) that I object to.

What more do I claim?

For example:

I didn't change my mind. The state represents a "preparation procedure" for a single system, implying probabilities for the outcomes of measurements via Born's rule, and as such the state refers to an ensemble of equally prepared systems since there's no other way to test the probabilistic predictions than by making repeated measurements on such equally prepared ensembles.

 

[WernerQH]

How else you want to observe the violation of Bell's inequality and thus demonstrate the corresponding correlations than by careful "state preparation" and "measurements" on the so "prepared systems", I don't know.

The scope of quantum theory is much broader than experiments in the laboratory. But please continue to phrase it in funny (anthropocentric) language, if you think there is no better way. :-)

 

[WernerQH]

Then any field theory, classical or not, in your view wouldn't be local.

Lagrangians that depend only on fields and their derivatives enjoy special status and carry the special epithet "local". I don't think of them as fundamental, but rather approximate, Ginzburg-Landau type, or effective theories. Locality is a useful guide for constructing theoretical models, but I doubt it will have significance in the "final theory" of everything.

 

[martinbn]

Then any field theory, classical or not, in your view wouldn't be local.

Just to point out, that I find this strange. The whole idea of fields came about because there are not actions at a distance, but through the medium of a field. To call all field theories non-local seems backwards or at the very least confusing because of already existing terminology.

Why is this strong need for some people to use the word non-local!?

 

[martinbn]

Lagrangians that depend only on fields and their derivatives enjoy special status and carry the special epithet "local". I don't think of them as fundamental, but rather approximate, Ginzburg-Landau type, or effective theories. Locality is a useful guide for constructing theoretical models, but I doubt it will have significance in the "final theory" of everything.

What are examples of non-local fields?

 

[vanhees71]

No, it will not. This is exactly my point that you claim that your position would be generally accepted, even so it is not and would need to be defended.

What of my position contradicts what can be found in any quantum many-body textbook?

Again, it is precisely this claim (now made explicit) that I object to.

What do you think contradicts the standard minimal interpretation?

 

[vanhees71]

Lagrangians that depend only on fields and their derivatives enjoy special status and carry the special epithet "local". I don't think of them as fundamental, but rather approximate, Ginzburg-Landau type, or effective theories. Locality is a useful guide for constructing theoretical models, but I doubt it will have significance in the "final theory" of everything.

This we can discuss as soon as we have this "final theory" ;-)).

 

[WernerQH]

The whole idea of fields came about because there are not actions at a distance, but through the medium of a field.

Yes, it is firmly based on our macroscopic intuitions. We tend to think of a solid as continuous, rather than a cloud of atoms.

Why is this strong need for some people to use the word non-local!?

I don't think of locality as important. It was @vanhees71's insistence on calling QFT "local" ("by construction"!) that irked me. I think it's misleading.

What are examples of non-local fields?

Think of magnetization in a solid. It is not the continuous field that you use in calculations, but rather a statistical characterization of isolated spins. The term "field" is just a convenient idealization.

 

[vanhees71]

Just to point out, that I find this strange. The whole idea of fields came about because there are not actions at a distance, but through the medium of a field. To call all field theories non-local seems backwards or at the very least confusing because of already existing terminology.

Why is this strong need for some people to use the word non-local!?

The point indeed is that fields make interactions local. Who claimed otherwise?

 

[vanhees71]

Yes, it is firmly based on our macroscopic intuitions. We tend to think of a solid as continuous, rather than a cloud of atoms.

I don't think of locality as important. It was @vanhees71's insistence on calling QFT "local" ("by construction"!) that irked me. I think it's misleading.

For me to the contrary, it's misleading to claim that QFT is non-local. The entire standard model by construction is local.

Think of magnetization in a solid. It is not the continuous field that you use in calculations, but rather a statistical characterization of isolated spins. The term "field" is just a convenient idealization.

These are simplifying models. On a fundamental level all many-body physics can be described by local QFTs.

 

[martinbn]

The point indeed is that fields make interactions local. Who claimed otherwise?

Well, @WernerQH said, at least that is how I understood it, that any system that is extended in space has to be called non-local. And my comment was that this would mean that all fields are non-local.

 

[martinbn]

Yes, it is firmly based on our macroscopic intuitions. We tend to think of a solid as continuous, rather than a cloud of atoms.

I don't think of locality as important. It was @vanhees71's insistence on calling QFT "local" ("by construction"!) that irked me. I think it's misleading.

No, I didn't mean you. I had in mind every person who likes Bohmian mechanics. They very strongly insists on the use of the term non-local when it comes to QM.

Think of magnetization in a solid. It is not the continuous field that you use in calculations, but rather a statistical characterization of isolated spins. The term "field" is just a convenient idealization.

I don't understand this example. What is the field here, and why is it non-local?

 

[Demystifier]

Quantum theory is about the statistics of the outcome of measurements. What else should it be about? I didn't claim that a measuring apparatus is microscopic. Nevertheless QT describes both microscopic objects, which can be measured and macroscopic objects, including measurement apparati. There's no "Heisenberg cut", and the same quantum-physical laws work for measurement devices as for any other (macroscopic) piece of matter.

With such a way of thinking it is absolutely impossible to understand what's the purpose of concepts such as "beable" or "ontology". If you really want to understand what those words are supposed to mean, you must look at physics from an entirely different angle, an angle that seems to be totally foreign to you.

 

[vanhees71]

Of course, non-relativistic QM is non-local as is non-relativistic classical physics, because it works with "actions at a distance" as a paradigm. It's, of course, not by chance, that the discovery of local field theory for electromagnetism by Faraday and Maxwell, lead to relativity and the locality principle. The causal structure of relativistic spacetime makes it obviously hard to construct consistent non-local theories since there are none ;-).

 

[vanhees71]

With such a way of thinking it is absolutely impossible to understand what's the purpose of concepts such as "beable" or "ontology". If you really want to understand what those words are supposed to mean, you must look at physics from an entirely different angle, an angle that seems to be totally foreign to you.

Exactly, that's why I don't understand the purpose of introducing new words or insist on ontology.

 

[WernerQH]

I had in mind every person who likes Bohmian mechanics. They very strongly insists on the use of the term non-local when it comes to QM.

Of course, they have to. I can't make sense of Bohmian mechanics, and I especially dislike the features of the quantum potential.

I don't understand this example. What is the field here, and why is it non-local?

Have you looked at applications of QFT or statistical field theory in condensed matter physics? There you can have additional fields popping up when a phase transition occurs, and these fields are not fundamental, but merely a statistical characterization of an underlying discontinuous substrate.

 

[martinbn]

Of course, they have to. I can't make sense of Bohmian mechanics, and I especially dislike the features of the quantum potential.

:) Why do they have to? It only brings confusion.

Have you looked at applications of QFT or statistical field theory in condensed matter physics? There you can have additional fields popping up when a phase transition occurs, and these fields are not fundamental, but merely a statistical characterization of an underlying discontinuous substrate.

No, I haven't seen any of that. But these fields, it seems to me, do not correspond to any system, do they?

 

[Demystifier]

Exactly, that's why I don't understand the purpose of introducing new words or insist on ontology.

It's OK to not understand something and hence to ignore it. But it's not OK then to tell others that they should ignore it too. (For example I don't understand what's so great about Shakespeare, but I don't tell others they should ignore Shakespeare.)

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Regarding debates about quantum theory, a lot of disagreements might lie in a difference of antecedent beliefs, which are not directly addressed in the debate. This sort of disagreements might be partially resolved to my mind if it would be clear whether arguments “for or against” are ontically motivated, viz. emphasizing a viewpoint independent of observers or measurements, or whether arguments “for or against” are epistemically motivated, viz. focusing on what we could know and infer from observed phenomena.

 

[Demystifier]

(For example I don't understand what's so great about Shakespeare, but I don't tell others they should ignore Shakespeare.)

A fun off-topic. Shakespeare is #6 at the list of most academically influential people of the world: https://academicinfluence.com/people/william-shakespeare-1

The same algorithm gives you that #1 is Aristotle, that Einstein is #8 and that I am #1,530,540. You can also check out where are you on the list.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think he suggested that neuroscience can be relevant to quantum interpretations.

He said he was studying neuroscience in the hope of getting more information about the things he mentioned in the post I quoted from, which, at best, might be somewhat related to some QM interpretations. But that in itself is not enough to make neuroscience on topic in this forum. One would have to base discussion in this forum on something in the QM interpretations literature that actually tried to demonstrate how something in neuroscience was relevant.

 

[PeterDonis]

The observable in the SG experiment is the spin of the particle, not the flash on the photo plate

While this is what the simplest mathematical treatment of the SG experiment does, there are complications that this treatment sweeps under the rug.

What does an SG magnet actually do? What it does not do is "observe" the spin of the particle. The operation of the SG magnet, by itself, is a unitary, reversible operation and does not amount to a measurement of anything (to put it another way, it does not cause decoherence). All the SG magnet actually does is to entangle the spin and momentum degrees of freedom of the particles passing through it, so that one output beam corresponds to "up" spin and the other output beam corresponds to "down" spin.

That means that in order to make a measurement of "spin" using an SG magnet, one needs to add a detector that tells which output beam each particle came out in. The photo plate is the usual detector that is used. But that means that, in the actual experiment as it is actually run, the actual measurement--the thing that causes decoherence and makes the process irreversible--is the flash on the photo plate. That flash directly measures which output beam the particle came out in--i.e., its momentum. The fact that the SG magnet entangled momentum and spin then let's us deduce the spin from the measured momentum. Or, to put it another way, since momentum and spin are entangled, decohering the momentum degree of freedom also decoheres the spin degree of freedom and thereby amounts to a "measurement" of spin, but an indirect one.

 

[Morbert]

What does an SG magnet actually do? What it does not do is "observe" the spin of the particle. The operation of the SG magnet, by itself, is a unitary, reversible operation and does not amount to a measurement of anything (to put it another way, it does not cause decoherence). All the SG magnet actually does is to entangle the spin and momentum degrees of freedom of the particles passing through it, so that one output beam corresponds to "up" spin and the other output beam corresponds to "down" spin.

That means that in order to make a measurement of "spin" using an SG magnet, one needs to add a detector that tells which output beam each particle came out in. The photo plate is the usual detector that is used. But that means that, in the actual experiment as it is actually run, the actual measurement--the thing that causes decoherence and makes the process irreversible--is the flash on the photo plate. That flash directly measures which output beam the particle came out in--i.e., its momentum. The fact that the SG magnet entangled momentum and spin then let's us deduce the spin from the measured momentum. Or, to put it another way, since momentum and spin are entangled, decohering the momentum degree of freedom also decoheres the spin degree of freedom and thereby amounts to a "measurement" of spin, but an indirect one.

As I noted in my post in the previous thread in response to yours, the flash on the photo plate is an observable of the system being measured (the particle): it is a measurement of its momentum (by measuring which output beam of the SG magnet the particle came out in). The function of the SG magnet is to entangle the particle's momentum with its spin so that its measured momentum can be used to deduce its spin.

i) I understand the flash on the detector plate to be a classical, irreversible datum expressing the measurement outcome, such that even if we interpret the SGE as a direct measurement of the particle's momentum rather than spin, the flash is still not an observable of the particle. It is the classical record, expressed by the macroscopic apparatus, of the outcome of a measurement of an observable of the system being measured.

ii) I don't think this constitutes an indirect measurement as they are normally presented in literature (even though I understand the way in which you are using the term here). Detectors placed behind two slits in a double-slit experiment do not immediately respond to the particle passing through a slit, but instead to the particle's position after it has already passed through the slits. This position is correlated with which slit the particle has passed through, and so we say the detectors measure which slit the particle went through. I normally see "indirect measurement" reserved for data produced with non-interaction between the measured system and the measurement apparatus

 

[PeterDonis]

I understand the flash on the detector plate to be a classical, irreversible datum expressing the measurement outcome, such that even if we interpret the SGE as a direct measurement of the particle's momentum rather than spin, the flash is still not an observable of the particle.

If you insist, yes, you can draw a distinction between the momentum observable of the particle, and the flash as a "pointer reading" corresponding to a measurement of that observable. That doesn't change the substance of what I am saying.

I don't think this constitutes an indirect measurement as they are normally presented in literature

"Indirect" might not be the precisely correct technical term. My point is that the observable actually measured by the flash on the detector (however you want to interpret what is happening there--see above) is the particle's momentum, not its spin; any information gained about spin is gained by deduction, not direct measurement.

 

[Demystifier]

My point is that the observable actually measured by the flash on the detector (however you want to interpret what is happening there--see above) is the particle's momentum, not its spin

The momentum's direction cannot be inferred from position of the flash, if the two branches of the wave function are made parallel after their split by the magnet (for visualization, think of fork). What the position of the flash is really correlated with is the position of the particle at the time of detection, not its momentum. (And no, this fact has nothing to do with Bohmian interpretation.)

 

[gentzen]

I had in mind every person who likes Bohmian mechanics. They very strongly insists on the use of the term non-local when it comes to QM.

Of course, they have to. I can't make sense of Bohmian mechanics, and I especially dislike the features of the quantum potential.

To "dislike the features of the quantum potential" is actually a good idea. The interesting question is to explain why the version of Bohmian mechanics using the quantum potential is "bad". I didn't know about Antony Valentini (and his approach to BM) before

There are actually two schools of thought on that, the Valentini et al school that it rapidly approaches the equilibrium, and the Durr et al school that it is always in equilibrium. For a review see https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/6/422

After reading more of Valentini and his positions, my preliminary conclusion was that many of his positions feel misguided to me. But his approach does explain why using the quantum potential is "bad". Since even Bohm himself failed to notice this, I am a bit suspicious whether "my" Durr et al school successfully notices that the quantum potential is "bad" (in the sense that some crucial argument would fail to hold for the quantum potential version of BM).