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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) foundations, particularly focusing on a paper that presents three measurement problems. Participants express differing views on the adequacy of the paper's arguments and the implications for understanding quantum theory, including the nature of hidden variable theories and the completeness of quantum descriptions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the logical justification of the paper's claim that theories violating certain assumptions are hidden variable theories, suggesting that this may not necessarily follow and that nature could be fundamentally probabilistic.
  • One participant argues that the description of quantum states as purely probabilistic is insufficient and that a complete description must account for individual quantum systems rather than just ensembles.
  • Another participant emphasizes the validity of both wave function and trajectory descriptions in certain experimental contexts, suggesting that the trajectory may contain more information.
  • Concerns are raised about the philosophical implications of the paper, with some participants expressing skepticism about the accuracy of the claims made regarding quantum theory.
  • There is a discussion about the influence of academic authority on foundational topics in QM, with references to specific interpretations and their geographical spread.
  • Some participants defend the author of the paper, asserting that their perspective aligns with historical figures like Einstein, while others express that their notion of a complete description differs from the author's.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the adequacy of the paper's arguments. Disagreements persist about the nature of completeness in quantum descriptions and the implications of various interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the paper's assumptions and the definitions of key terms, such as "observation" and "complete description," which may vary among different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

  • #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