Problems with Paper on QM Foundations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Foundations Paper Qm
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the critique of a paper discussing quantum mechanics (QM) foundations, specifically addressing the claims made by the author regarding hidden variable theories and the completeness of quantum descriptions. Participants argue that the author's assertions lack logical justification, particularly in the context of individual quantum systems versus ensemble interpretations. The consensus emphasizes that quantum theory, supported by high-precision Bell tests, is fundamentally probabilistic and that interpretations like the minimal statistical interpretation are sufficient. The discussion also highlights the philosophical implications of QM interpretations, referencing notable figures such as Einstein and Maudlin.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, including wave functions and measurement processes.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of hidden variable theories and probabilistic interpretations in QM.
  • Knowledge of Gleason's Theorem and its implications for quantum state descriptions.
  • Awareness of foundational debates in quantum theory, including perspectives from Einstein and Maudlin.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Gleason's Theorem in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore the minimal statistical interpretation of quantum theory.
  • Study the results and significance of high-precision Bell tests in validating quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate the philosophical perspectives on quantum mechanics as discussed in Maudlin's book, "Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory" (2019).
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, philosophers of science, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of foundational issues and interpretations within quantum theory.

  • #91


Call the first, middle, and last filters E G and F respectively.

A conventional description of the photon as is passes through the three filters would present these 4 possibilities*:

i) A photon is absorbed by filter E
ii) A photon passes through filter E and is forced into a vertical polarisation, and is absorbed by filter F
iii) A photon passes through the filter E and is forced into a vertical polarisation, passes through the filter F and is forced into a 45 degree polarisation, and is absorbed by the filter G
iv) A photon passes through the filter E and is forced into a vertical polarisation, passes through the filter F and is forced into a 45 degree polarisation, and passes through the filter G and is forced into a horizontal polarisation

We can see that, in these descriptions, the interaction with a filter is what creates the corresponding polarisation property.

QM let's us write down each of these possibilities as a string of time-ordered projectors. If the time of interaction for E G and F are t1, t2, and t3 then the possibilities can be written down as

i) ##\left[E',F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot I_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot I_{t_3+\delta t}##
ii) ##\left[\uparrow,E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[E,F',G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot I_{t_3 + \delta t}##
iii) ##\left[\uparrow,E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[\nearrow,E,F,G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot\left[E,F,G'\right]_{t_3+\delta t}##
iv)##\left[\uparrow,E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[\nearrow,E,F,G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot\left[\rightarrow,E,F,G\right]_{t_3+\delta t}##

QM will return probabilities for these possibilities no problem. But a consistent historian** would say you can move the polarisation projectors to before the filter interactions like so:
i) ##\left[E',F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot I_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot I_{t_3+\delta t}##
ii) ##\left[\uparrow\right]_{t_1-\delta t}\odot\left[E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[E,F',G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot I_{t_3 + \delta t}##
iii) ##\left[\uparrow\right]_{t_1-\delta t}\odot\left[E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[\nearrow\right]_{t_2-\delta t}\odot\left[E,F,G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot\left[E,F,G'\right]_{t_3+\delta t}##
iv)##\left[\uparrow\right]_{t_1-\delta t}\odot\left[E,F_0,G_0\right]_{t_1+\delta t}\odot\left[\nearrow\right]_{t_2-\delta t}\odot\left[E,F,G_0\right]_{t_2 + \delta t}\odot\left[\rightarrow\right]_{t_3-\delta t}\odot\left[ E,F,G\right]_{t_3+\delta t}##

These, according to CH, would correspond to the possibilities:

i) A photon is absorbed by filter E
ii) A photon passes through filter E already having a vertical polarisation and is absorbed by F.
iii) A photon passes through the filter E already having a vertical polarisation, passes through F already having a 45 degree polarisation, and is absorbed by the filter G
iv) A photon passes through the filter E already having a vertical polarisation, passes through F already having a 45 degree polarisation, and passes through G already having a horizontal polarisation.

and QM will still return consistent probabilities for these possibilities.

So what happens when you remove the filter F? You lose the ability to infer anything about 45 degree polarisation between filters E and G because the possibilities will no longer decohere, and QM will refuse to return consistent probabilities, analogous to the way that, in the double-slit experiment, paths that specify one slit or the other will not decohere when a detector is not present. It's not that removing the filter retroactively changes the polarisation of photons. It's that you lose the ability to address polarisations at certain times without certain filters in place.

* For expediency I've omitted possibilities that are consistent but return probability 0

** I should make it clear that Griffiths's CH account of measurements revealing pre-existing properties is not standard among all CH proponents.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
7K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
15K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
9K