'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance'

  • Thread starter bugatti79
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Magic
In summary, the paper argues that single state quantum systems cannot be described using classical physics, and that this is due to the fact that non-local effects must be mediated by classical variables.
  • #1
bugatti79
794
1
Folks,

I found this article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm"

What are your comments on this? Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here is the actual paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4481

It uses the same joint probabilities Bell's theorem takes advantage of, only here it is used to show classical physics cannot even describe a single state quantum system using non-contextual hidden variable models.

If single state quantum systems have this property it makes it difficult to attach nonlocal properties as any sort of mechanism for getting such results. In fact the nonlocality assumption appears to me to be predicated on some classical variable exceeding light speed to trigger a coincidence that was not already inherent in the individual particle properties. It is just as hard to define a FTL mechanism to trigger Bell's violations as it is to define a local mechanism.
 
  • #3
my_wan said:
Here is the actual paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4481

It uses the same joint probabilities Bell's theorem takes advantage of, only here it is used to show classical physics cannot even describe a single state quantum system using non-contextual hidden variable models.

If single state quantum systems have this property it makes it difficult to attach nonlocal properties as any sort of mechanism for getting such results. In fact the nonlocality assumption appears to me to be predicated on some classical variable exceeding light speed to trigger a coincidence that was not already inherent in the individual particle properties. It is just as hard to define a FTL mechanism to trigger Bell's violations as it is to define a local mechanism.

I agree with what you are saying. Non-locality is no automatic solution to the puzzle. Because it begs the question: where are the rest of the non-local effects?

Anyway, this is a cool experiment and one of a number of ongoing attacks on classical realism. All of which demonstrate that there is no meaning for non-commuting properties outside of the HUP.
 
  • #4
DrChinese,
Given the measurability issues independent variables would pose, as you rightly pointed out in Hume’s Determinism Refuted, what would you say about the realism status of such variables if they only intermittently interacted stochastically? If our physical model is built from such stochastic interactions 'alone' the interaction rate in pre-quantized space would define our empirical variables as the energy equivalent of such interactions, defined by the mass energy relation. This would give empirical variables a relativistic signature [itex]\propto c^2[/itex] (rather than the classical [itex]v^2/2[/itex]) of the underlying realistic hidden variables, meaning the empirical properties cannot commute with the hidden variables (by means you articulated). Such stochastic interactions of many such hidden variables with a [itex]c^2[/itex] empirical signature would mimic both HUP and the Born rule at the empirical level if these are defined by mean stochastic interaction rates defined by the mean velocities of the underlying hidden variables. Would you call a model like this, which makes explicit use of the measurability issues you articulated for independent variables, realistic? Does ontological realism require the naked noncontextual variables of the model to have empirically accessible measurable properties themselves, or to produce such empirically accessible noncontextual variables, in spite of the impossibility you articulated of measuring such independent variable even if they existed?

A number of authors use very similar devices under the name of "statistically complete variables" etc. I think the non-realism stance often short changes the work of these authors by demanding they produce exactly what you articulated quiet well why such cannot be empirically produced even if it existed. Yet the inability to empirically demonstrate a non-contextual variable does not prevent the modeling of such variables to produce the more usual contextual variables. The admission that on one hand such independent noncontextual variables would not be 'directly' measurable while on the other hand demanding realist to produce measurable non-contextual variables from their models to make their point sounds to me like having non-real pie and eating it to.

Certainly such models fall short in the needed breadth of descriptive power. But I would much rather see skeptical rebuttals that went beyond, since the measurables are contextual there is no realism in your model. I would say the jury is still out on the realism issue, though certainly dead in the EPR conception of directly measurable non-contextual ontological entities. Such noncontextual entities would have to be required, both by first principles (you articulated) and empirical constraints, to produce purely contextual stochastic variables at the empirical level.

So my main question here is which of these constraints actually rules out realistic ontological models when your own article hinges not on whether independent variables exist or not, but on there measurability status in the intervals between interactions, or anything other than a point-like stochastic fluctuation in the event of an interaction?
 

Related to 'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance'

1. What is "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance"?

"Quantum Magic" refers to the phenomena observed in quantum mechanics, where particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously and exhibit behaviors that cannot be explained by classical physics. "Spooky Action at a Distance" is a concept that Einstein referred to as the "entanglement" of particles, where two particles can be connected in a way that their states are dependent on each other even when separated by large distances. "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" refers to the idea that quantum phenomena can occur without the need for entanglement or any other form of non-local connection between particles.

2. How does "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" work?

"Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" is based on the principles of quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of particles on a microscopic level. These principles include superposition, where particles can exist in multiple states at the same time, and probability, where the exact state of a particle cannot be determined until it is observed. By understanding and manipulating these principles, scientists are able to perform experiments and create technologies that harness the power of "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance".

3. Can "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" be used for practical applications?

Yes, "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" has already been used for practical applications such as quantum cryptography, quantum computing, and quantum teleportation. These technologies take advantage of the unique properties of quantum mechanics, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform tasks that are not possible with classical computing or communication systems.

4. Is "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" a proven concept?

While the principles of quantum mechanics have been extensively tested and confirmed through experiments, the concept of "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" is still a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists. Some theories, such as the many-worlds interpretation, suggest that entanglement and non-local connections may still play a role in explaining quantum phenomena. However, advancements in technology and further experiments continue to support the idea that "Spooky Action at a Distance" is not necessary for "Quantum Magic" to occur.

5. How does "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" impact our understanding of the universe?

"Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance" challenges our traditional understanding of cause and effect, as well as our perception of reality. It also has implications for fields such as philosophy and metaphysics, as it raises questions about the nature of existence and the role of consciousness in the universe. By studying and harnessing the power of "Quantum Magic" without any "Spooky Action at a Distance", we continue to expand our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
6K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
799
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top