Questions on Entanglement and Double-Slit Experiment

[RProgrammer]

Ok, I have a handful of questions:

1. Particles A and B are entangled, measuring A colapses the wave function of B, right?

2. The double-slit experiment produces different outcome based on whether or not a particle has been measured, right?

 

[starkind]

I am a student of these things also, but if welcome here would like to explore them along with you.

1. that is my reading also, altho I am uncertain of the meaning of the collapse of the wavefunction. Yes, yes, I am aware that the measurement causes the eigenvalues to take on a single measured value. In this entanglement, I should like to know, physically, what is going on, as I expect should many other people. Shall we assume that the entangled particles inhabit linked timespace, or is the connection more intimate? Is it even possible that the entanglement is some kind of identity, and our notion of separation is an illusion?

2.That is also my understanding. I have read that Feynman irritated his lecturers by presuming that there could be three slits, or four, or an infinite number. In this logic he formed his famous path integral formulation, and the basis of QED. IIRC I read this in a paper of John Baez. I could find the link if anyone is interested.

S.

 

[RandallB]

Ok, I have a handful of questions:

1. Particles A and B are entangled, measuring A colapses the wave function of B, right?

2. The double-slit experiment produces different outcome based on whether or not a particle has been measured, right?

NO
Your have a few ideas just tossed together there. Look up the detail on a few of the words I capitalize here. Use a thread search here where you can review the debate (and there is an ongoing debate) on these matters. Or use Google, library, WikiP etc.
You need to understand what these things are and where they apply, before you understand the debates, so take your time in looking them up.
By the way welcome to the forum, - you will find it works best for you if you take the time to understand an issue or term as clearly as you can, so you can ask an informed more specific question.

#1
ENTANGLEMENT is part of both A & B together the WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE doesn’t just go in one because of the other, it is that they are somehow part of each other.
That part is what is being affected.
How can two different things have a common part??
Try SUPERPOSTION – the idea that each A & B are made up of a SUPERPOSTION and a part of that remains common to both of them as long as they are ENTANGLED.
That shared part of SUPERPOSTION is what will collapse if either A or B is “touched” in a way that could result in a measurement.

#2
Has nothing to do with entanglement because it is just one photon at a time going by that still manages to create the pattern. Here again is SUPERPOSTION but not entangled just somehow working within the one particle to act as if it were a wave approaching two slits. BUT IF you disturb it near just one of the two slits, even if doesn’t go though the slit where you place the disturbance (measurement) it will not produce the pattern of a wave. How? SUPERPOSITION! Or some other interpertation (that how you get debates!).

Are these “Correct” descriptions of the reality of physics??
Can’t say but you can form an opinion as you learn the details of those terms.

 

[DrChinese]

Ok, I have a handful of questions:

1. Particles A and B are entangled, measuring A colapses the wave function of B, right?

2. The double-slit experiment produces different outcome based on whether or not a particle has been measured, right?

Welcome to PhyscisForums, RProgrammer!

1. Yes, this is correct.

2. The different outcomes are triggered by whether you know - or could know - which of the 2 slits the particle traveled through.

Both of these experiments exhibit properties of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

[RProgrammer]

Two more questions

Thanks for your responses, and RandallB: I worded my first question poorly, I know entanglement can apply to many more aspects than location or physical properties.
And I know my second question didn't have anything to do with entanglement, I just didn't want to post two separate threads.
I said I had a handful, I was just waiting for some answers to the first two.

These two are about electron spin.
C. Can someone entangle two electrons by their spins, (Google didn't yield very promising results so if someone could point me a link..)

D. If no one measured the results of a Stern-Gerlach experiment, would the input electrons be in a superposition of both deflected paths?


NB: I also know that other particles besides electrons have quantized spins, I just picked electrons because of their popularity.

 

[selfAdjoint]

C. Can someone entangle two electrons by their spins, (Google didn't yield very promising results so if someone could point me a link..)

I don't think they know how to do this technically yet. When someone discovers how, you will see a ton of expermints based on it, and he current photon experiments will become less key for showing quantum reality. What you need is something functionally equivalent to "Parametric Down-Conversion" but for electrons/spin rather than photons/phase.

D. If no one measured the results of a Stern-Gerlach experiment, would the input electrons be in a superposition of both deflected paths?

How would you ever know? It's long been observed that automatic recording of data works to make quantum things happen. Suppose no-one looked at the photpaper target of the double slit experiment till the next day. The spots or interference patterns would still be there. Or look at the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=135098" on the attempt by the desigers of the delayed choice quantum eraser to remove the decision making from human control. No reason to think it wouldn't work the same way for Stern-Gerlach.

NB: I also know that other particles besides electrons have quantized spins, I just picked electrons because of their popularity.

They are I believe the lightest particles that are
- Fermions, so quantum spin can be observed
- Charged, so that they can be manipulated with electromagnetism (the only force we really control)
- Observable in isolation (isolated quarks, for example, aren't)

 

[RandallB]

C. Can someone entangle two electrons by their spins, (Google didn't yield very promising results so if someone could point me a link..)

I don't think they know how to do this technically yet. When someone discovers how, you will see ...

You may want to double check me on this but Stern-Gerlach experiments on electron spin were the fist Bell tests. PDC’s just make Bell tests much easier to do, so much so you don’t see much of the Stern-Gerlach spin tests.

Oddly enough one of the best short layman’s explanations of this can be found in “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”.
But be warned, this book is full of philosophical non-science interpretations (entanglement comes under Enlightenment – The End of Science) and does little to separate the two. So it’s a bit of a chore to be sure you just pick out just the science in the book.

Also, RProgrammer, when you do learn how to separate Science from the philosophical you will see your question “D” doesn’t belong here but in one of the Philosophy Forums.

 

[Simon 6]

By my understanding, quantum entanglement requires two events that may be spatially separate, but connected in a way that allows them to be described as one event.

I would submit that the twin slit experiment does provide evidence of entanglement.

Consider: a particle has been fired and the resulting interference pattern surrounds both slits. The moment you take a reading at one slit, the interference pattern will vanish at both simultaneously - regardless of the distance between them.

Now although we are only talking about one particle here, the collapse of it's wave function in respect to it's possible location does seem to make this a demonstration of both the uncertaintly principle and quantum entanglement.

If this is the case, then I believe the twin-slit experiment may offer possiblities for faster than light communication via entanglment - more so than the example of measuring two particles with different quantised spins.

Simon

 

[DrChinese]

Now although we are only talking about one particle here, the collapse of it's wave function in respect to it's possible location does seem to make this a demonstration of both the uncertaintly principle and quantum entanglement.

If this is the case, then I believe the twin-slit experiment may offer possiblities for faster than light communication via entanglment - more so than the example of measuring two particles with different quantised spins.

Simon

A couple of points:

1. By definition, entanglement is where multiple particles are sharing a single wave function. Entanglement has been demonstrated with 2, 3, 4 and I think even more particles. But a single particle cannot be entangled, even though it is in a mixed state.

2. There is no known mechanism for transmitting information FTL, either with a double slit setup or by entangled particles. All the schemes you can develop have some catch that ultimately leaves you with nothing. But trying never hurts...

 

[RandallB]

I would submit that the twin slit experiment does provide evidence of entanglement.
Consider: a particle has been fired and the resulting interference pattern surrounds both slits. The moment you take a reading at one slit, the interference pattern will vanish at both simultaneously - regardless of the distance between them.

I think you need to consider more carefully exactly what you’ve said here and the impossible things you have assumed within the statement.

1 - How does the interference pattern get established by just one particle hitting your observation screen just one time – it cannot.

2 - A interference pattern of many hits does not “vanish” at a “moment” you start taking readings at one slit – a future pattern fails to build as long as you are disturbing the area of one of the slits enough to be able to take a reading, but you do not have to actually take the readings.

The idea that resolves the paradox of how an individual particle can participate in building up a pattern without knowledge of or help from other particles is called SUPERPOSITION.

No other experiment outside of Bell implies Entanglement.
But, it is not hard to argue that Entanglement and Superposition must somehow be related, but they are not the same thing.

 

[RProgrammer]

Last question.. (Hopefully)

One (hopefully) final question:

E. In the double slit experiment, would an interference pattern develop if a third party knew, or could know which slit the particles went through?

 

[selfAdjoint]

One (hopefully) final question:

E. In the double slit experiment, would an interference pattern develop if a third party knew, or could know which slit the particles went through?

If the wave function was reduced, whether in the retina of a human being or in some abiotic interaction, then the ambiguity would be resolved and the interference wouldn't happen. This covers all machines, transmissions, third parties, presumably teleportation of photons etc. Although I'll bet experimenters would love to try that last one, just to show they could, and rule out the possibility that there was non-QM physics there.

 

[Simon 6]

Dr Chinese and RandalB:

Yes I'm aware that the cited examples of entanglement involve two or more particles quantised in spin-up and spin-down positions.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia defines entanglement as a phenomenon

"in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated."

If this description is accurate, it may open the door to interpreting twin slit superposition as an example of such entanglement. I completely recognise that this is debateable and the two are not usually classed together.

What I've been arguing is that, through the occurence of an interference pattern, the two slits now qualify as spacially separate objects whose quantum states have to be described with reference to each other.

RandallB wrote:

How does the interference pattern get established by just one particle hitting your observation screen just one time – it cannot.

Really?

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds as though you are rejecting the very quantum dillemma that lies at the heart of twin slit superposition.

We're agreed that the twin slit experiment is performed by projecting a beam of particles, usually photons. However, the interference pattern is the result of the superposition of each individual particle and its potential journey through one slit or the other - not by one particle interfering with another. Indeed, the projecting beam can be dimmed so the photons enter the slits one at a time. The interference pattern still occurs.

Agreed, the wave function doesn't have to be collapsed by a measurement. Just blocking off one slit will do it. But as I understand it, a photon detector that isn't powered can be placed close to one of the slits and still not eliminate the interference. Once activated, however, the pattern dissappears - regardless of whether it detected a particle there or not. It's potential to detect a particle was enough to collapse the wave function and force the particle to 'decide' exactly which slit it entered - even if it went through the other one. Thus, a photon detector at Slit A, by not getting a reading, establishes by default that the photon entered Slit B. This eliminates the interference pattern.

RProgrammer: this probably answers your question too. Knowledge and detection seem inseparable. If an observer knows that a particle entered one slit, it can only be because it was detected.

What might be interesting is to imagine a microbe sized observer by one of the slits, who does have such knowledge. From his perspective, there is no interference pattern. From the human observer's viewpoint there is. This ties in with a slightly Einsteinian idea that wave functions and their collapse may be observer dependent.

As regards faster-than-light transmissions, I think the jury is still out on that one.

 

[ZapperZ]

Dr Chinese and RandalB:

Yes I'm aware that the cited examples of entanglement involve two or more particles quantised in spin-up and spin-down positions.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia defines entanglement as a phenomenon

If this description is accurate, it may open the door to interpreting twin slit superposition as an example of such entanglement. I completely recognise that this is debateable and the two are not usually classed together.

What I've been arguing is that, through the occurence of an interference pattern, the two slits now qualify as spacially separate objects whose quantum states have to be described with reference to each other.

Then could you please write down the entangled wavefunction of the double-slit experiment?

Zz.

 

[JesseM]

What I've been arguing is that, through the occurence of an interference pattern, the two slits now qualify as spacially separate objects whose quantum states have to be described with reference to each other.

The analysis of the double-slit experiment does not even consider the state of the slits, you only consider the state of the photon, the slits represent restrictions on the allowable paths for the photon.

What might be interesting is to imagine a microbe sized observer by one of the slits, who does have such knowledge. From his perspective, there is no interference pattern. From the human observer's viewpoint there is. This ties in with a slightly Einsteinian idea that wave functions and their collapse may be observer dependent.

Interference is not observer-relative in this way; if at any point the photon interacts with another system (a detector, a microbe, whatever) such that an examination of that system could in principle tell you what path the photon took, then all observers will see the interference destroyed. For example, in the version of the double-slit experiment which uses electrons instead of photons, the experiment must be done in a vacuum or else the electrons' interactions with the air destroy the interfarence, in spite of the fact that in practice no human experimenter could deduce the path the electron took by examining all the air molecules immediately after the electron passed through them.

As regards faster-than-light transmissions, I think the jury is still out on that one.

I believe it's actually been proven that according to the known laws of QM, entanglement can never be used for FTL transmissions.

 

[RandallB]

One (hopefully) final question:

E. In the double slit experiment, would an interference pattern develop if a third party knew, or could know which slit the particles went through?

Your still dealing with some kind of philosophy answer, like maybe the moon isn’t there if you don’t take the time to look at it. Measurement is not the point, it is whatever is used to effect that measurement that matters. A rain shower or a beam of light in front of just one slit, that will cast a trail of water or detectable shadow on the floor but still allow the particle to go through the slit to mark a spot on the wall. It still doesn’t matter if you, a 3rd, 100 or zero that look at the shadow on the floor to take a measurement. The fact the something was crossing the opening that can be affected by the particele as it pass is all it takes to stop the pattern from building up. Not that any actual measurement of any effect is made let alone known by anybody.

As to Simon 6 thinking that slits need to be entangled (?), not that a particle that has Superposition, is so far off the mark – all I can suggest is go back and keep reading.

And both of you need to remember, you are trying to understand an interpretation of what is happening here – superposition & entanglement have not been proven to be facts.

 

[RProgrammer]

My point

So, what all this has been leading up to is this:

I have heard numerous places that Faster Than Lishgt information transfer cannot be achieved.
So, I would like to further my understandings of quantum physics from someone explaining to me what prevents this scenario from succeeding:



Given that you can entangle two electrons by their spins, you do.

The two Electrons (Signal and Recipient) are sent their separate ways, to the transmitter (signal) and to the reciever (recipient).

On the transmitter's side, he either measures or does not measure the spin of the signal, based on the value of the binary bit he wishes to transfer.

On the recievers side, there is an apparatus similar to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which changes the course of an electron based on its spin.
There is also a double slit setup, which the previous device is connected to.
They are set up in such a way that based on the spin of the electron, it will travel into a specific slit.


My hypothesis is that if the transmitter does not measure the spin (and thus know the recipient's spin) then an interference pattern will develop from the electron being in a superposition of both deflections.
And corrsepondingly the superposition would collapse if the transmitter measured his signal electron and thus cause a particle pattern, which would be observable by the reciever.



So, that being said, I would like to know why and how this setup cannot effect Faster Than Light transfer.

 

[JesseM]

So, what all this has been leading up to is this:

I have heard numerous places that Faster Than Lishgt information transfer cannot be achieved.
So, I would like to further my understandings of quantum physics from someone explaining to me what prevents this scenario from succeeding:
Given that you can entangle two electrons by their spins, you do.

The two Electrons (Signal and Recipient) are sent their separate ways, to the transmitter (signal) and to the reciever (recipient).

On the transmitter's side, he either measures or does not measure the spin of the signal, based on the value of the binary bit he wishes to transfer.

On the recievers side, there is an apparatus similar to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which changes the course of an electron based on its spin.
There is also a double slit setup, which the previous device is connected to.
They are set up in such a way that based on the spin of the electron, it will travel into a specific slit.My hypothesis is that if the transmitter does not measure the spin (and thus know the recipient's spin) then an interference pattern will develop from the electron being in a superposition of both deflections.
And corrsepondingly the superposition would collapse if the transmitter measured his signal electron and thus cause a particle pattern, which would be observable by the reciever.
So, that being said, I would like to know why and how this setup cannot effect Faster Than Light transfer.

Very clever, I think you've basically reinvented the delayed choice quantum eraser, unless you'd already heard of this sort of experiment before. The answer is somewhat subtle--basically, you'll never see any interference in the total pattern of electrons that go through the double-slit, but if you do a coincidence count between the subset of electrons on the screen whose entangled double was measured in such a way that it becomes impossible to tell which slit the first electron went through, you will see an interference pattern in this subset. But since you don't know in advance which electrons' doubles will be measured in this way and which won't (you could prearrange it, but that would defeat the purpose of FTL communication), you can't see this interference pattern in the coincidence count until the experimenter at the other end has sent you an ordinary message at light speed or slower telling you which electrons he measured in which way.

I remember some old threads from way back which had longer discussions of the same sort of idea:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106770
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=107134
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108015

 

[DrChinese]

So, what all this has been leading up to is this:

I have heard numerous places that Faster Than Lishgt information transfer cannot be achieved.
So, I would like to further my understandings of quantum physics from someone explaining to me what prevents this scenario from succeeding:



Given that you can entangle two electrons by their spins, you do.

The two Electrons (Signal and Recipient) are sent their separate ways, to the transmitter (signal) and to the reciever (recipient).

On the transmitter's side, he either measures or does not measure the spin of the signal, based on the value of the binary bit he wishes to transfer.

On the recievers side, there is an apparatus similar to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which changes the course of an electron based on its spin.
There is also a double slit setup, which the previous device is connected to.
They are set up in such a way that based on the spin of the electron, it will travel into a specific slit.


My hypothesis is that if the transmitter does not measure the spin (and thus know the recipient's spin) then an interference pattern will develop from the electron being in a superposition of both deflections.
And corrsepondingly the superposition would collapse if the transmitter measured his signal electron and thus cause a particle pattern, which would be observable by the reciever.



So, that being said, I would like to know why and how this setup cannot effect Faster Than Light transfer.

As JesseM points out, this gets a little tricky. But I had once proposed the exact same setup (using photons) previously, only to realize that you don't get interference from entangled particles! You can see this in this enlightening article by Anton Zeilinger, p. 290, Figure 2.

Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics

 

[RandallB]

So, what all this has been leading up to is this:
.....My hypothesis is that ....
... I would like to know why and how this ...

So you’ve been baiting us all along – just to give us THIS! (Lame)

Come on RP you can’t just ignore everything you were suppose to be learning from your “Lead up” questions just so you can reveal the great inspiration you’ve been holding back since the OP anyway. When what you should have learned was more than enough to tell you that this is just non-sense.

Take a good look at the links JesseM offered and you will see yours will not come close to matching a “delayed choice quantum eraser". You need to address losing the pattern by messing with just one side of the slit. Here you ask us to force feed the double slit by messing with both sides and only allowing selective photons to one slit or the other based on a measurement! It’s been well demonstrated that intervention of much small amounts is more than enough to void any possiblity of producing a pattern and you doing it on both ends of the “quasi entanglement test”.

The “delayed choice quantum eraser" test do not force such selections – there they duplicate a double slit using a half-mirror allowing the photon to go though or deflect. The experamantor does not select which way photons go though.

At least try to use or think about the information you’ve already been given - if you had you’d have figured this on your own easily enough.

 

[JesseM]

So you’ve been baiting us all along – just to give us THIS! (Lame)

Come on RP you can’t just ignore everything you were suppose to be learning from your “Lead up” questions just so you can reveal the great inspiration you’ve been holding back since the OP anyway. When what you should have learned was more than enough to tell you that this is just non-sense.

Take a good look at the links JesseM offered and you will see yours will not come close to matching a “delayed choice quantum eraser". You need to address losing the pattern by messing with just one side of the slit. Here you ask us to force feed the double slit by messing with both sides and only allowing selective photons to one slit or the other based on a measurement! It’s been well demonstrated that intervention of much small amounts is more than enough to void any possiblity of producing a pattern and you doing it on both ends of the “quasi entanglement test”.

The “delayed choice quantum eraser" test do not force such selections – there they duplicate a double slit using a half-mirror allowing the photon to go though or deflect. The experamantor does not select which way photons go though.

Ah, I hadn't caught the fact that RProgrammer's use of a Stern-Gerlach device would mean you'd already be measuring the spin of every electron that went through the double-slit, regardless of what was done to its entangled twin, since sending an electron through a Stern-Gerlach device and observing which direction it's deflected is a textbook way of measuring the spin along whatever axis the SG device is oriented along. So you're right, this experiment isn't going to show anything interesting about entanglement, although I think the idea RProgrammer was aiming for was probably something more like the delayed choice quantum eraser setup where the which-path info for the particle that goes through the slit is either known or not known depending on what happens to the entangled twin.

 

[Simon 6]

The analysis of the double-slit experiment does not even consider the state of the slits, you only consider the state of the photon, the slits represent restrictions on the allowable paths for the photon.

Agreed. It is the two possible paths of the photon that are behind twin-slit interference. No dispute there.

What seems apparent, however, is that the photon's choice of paths means it will definitely have interacted with one part of the screen or the other. Such an interaction will, arguably, have a very tiny but still measurable effect. It remains a matter of indeterminacy, until an examination is made, which slit actually encountered the photon. Thus, I'm suggesting that what might be at stake is not just the path of the photon but the state of the screen as well.

So with apologies to RandalB, I would ask a question that I hope is not too wide off the mark.

Before the wave function is reduced by examination, could it not be said that, due to the possible path of the photon, the condition of one part of the screen is interlinked in a quantum sense - dare I say even entangled - with the condition of the other?

The rebuttal to this would be that when a photon enters a slit, it has no measurable effect on the screen at all. If that is so, I accept that only the photon is in a state of indeterminacy. Nevertheless, I ask the question.

Interference is not observer-relative in this way; if at any point the photon interacts with another system (a detector, a microbe, whatever) such that an examination of that system could in principle tell you what path the photon took, then all observers will see the interference destroyed. For example, in the version of the double-slit experiment which uses electrons instead of photons, the experiment must be done in a vacuum or else the electrons' interactions with the air destroy the interfarence, in spite of the fact that in practice no human experimenter could deduce the path the electron took by examining all the air molecules immediately after the electron passed through them.

Yes indeed. I recall that version of the twin-slit experiment and don't dispute what you say.

I don't actually endorse the 1930s Copenhagen notion that sentient observers are required. 'Observer' is perhaps a misnomer, but I meant it in loose sense to include interaction with another system. 'Point of view' might be a better term.

Nevertheless, for me it remains an area of uncertainty exactly what level of interaction is required to reduce a wave function, and whether there are circumstances in which it may indeed be 'point of view' dependent.

As for FTL communication, I know it is the accepted wisdom in quantum theory that entanglement doesn't allow it. All the same, there are plenty still exploring this subject.

ZapperZ wrote:

Could you please write down the entangled wavefunction of the double-slit experiment?

No I can't.

 

[ZapperZ]

No I can't.

Then you have no business making such claims. The concept of "entanglement" starts from the mathematical description of the state of the system, NOT the other way around. You don't FORCE the concept onto something then then try to figure out if it is mathematically correct.

Go look EVERY single claim and work in this field. The state function is clearly written down so that everyone reading it can clearly see what is being "entangled" and how. This is the ONLY unambiguous part of this whole mess. The words you are using are, on the other hand, very ambiguous since they are clearly underfined, at least from the way you are using it (and please don't quote me some Wikipedia entry until you can tell me who wrote it).

Quantum mechanics may have differing interpretations, but what isn't ambiguous is the mathematical formalism that it uses to describe something. You ought to learn that FIRST before attempting to use it.

Zz.

 

[Simon 6]

Then you have no business making such claims. The concept of "entanglement" starts from the mathematical description of the state of the system, NOT the other way around. You don't FORCE the concept onto something then then try to figure out if it is mathematically correct.

I think "claim" is too strong a word. I submitted it as a proposition to be considered, even scrutinised. I knew it would not be endorsed as an authoritative statement - nor should it be.

I wouldn't accept that all ideas must be preceeded by equations, but I do accept that unambiguous formulas are usually required to promote a hypothesis to even a working theory.

In my defence, I have been using the subjunctive tense when crossing that difficult boundary between what has been established in quantum theory and what hasn't.

I retain it as a question: "Could twin slit interference also be an example of quantum entanglement"?

Admittedly, I did originally submit it as an argument rather than a question. Nevertheless, that is the spirit in which I meant it.

Can such a question be raised without formulating the precise equation to describe the wave function?

I hope so. I believe questions and ideas do have a role in science, even before theories are arrived at.

Simon

 

[ZapperZ]

I think "claim" is too strong a word. I submitted it as a proposition to be considered, even scrutinised. I knew it would not be endorsed as an authoritative statement - nor should it be.

I wouldn't accept that all ideas must be preceeded by equations, but I do accept that unambiguous formulas are usually required to promote a hypothesis to even a working theory.

In my defence, I have been using the subjunctive tense when crossing that difficult boundary between what has been established in quantum theory and what hasn't.

I retain it as a question: "Could twin slit interference also be an example of quantum entanglement"?

And my response to that is that you don't seem to appear to know anything about "entanglement". First of all, what PROPERTY is being entangled? You can't just say "I have these two things that are entangled". That makes zero sense. In a parametric down conversion generation of 2 photons, it is the spin of each of the two photons that are being "entangled" simply due to conservation of spins. Thus, people who claim such a thing can write down the state function of such a process, and the REST of us can say "Ah hah! We know what property we are looking at that is entangled".

You did no such thing. Not only are you not able to give us the mathematical description of the state of the system, you also didn't describe what particular property that is "entangled". Is it the location of the slit that is entangled? Is it the transverse momentum of the photon after it passed by that is entangled by the slits? What? What if I have 3, 4, 5, ... N number of slits? Do you then have the ablity to detect the GHZ inequality violation with such a configuration?

In physics, WHAT we ask and HOW we ask a question is often equally important as the ANSWERS that we get. We MUST be able to clearly ask a question before knowing the answers, because if not, we will be fighting with ambiguities on what exactly it is that we got. You'll have answers to something that could come from a number of non-unique questions.

Can a double slit be thought of as an example of quantum entanglement? Simple answer: NO.

Why? Because we currently know that the double slit is a clear illustration of the SUPERPOSITION principle of QM. This principle is an integral aspect of the "weirdness" of entanglement that isn't contained in a simple "conservation of angular momentum" classical scenario.

Zz.

 

[Simon 6]

Zapper, I totally accept the legitimacy of your answer - especially if it is correct.

I still defend the legitimacy of my question – certain aspects of which have yet to be dealt with.

I do have more than a passing interest in quantum theory. Our exchange has raised another question. Should a lack of expertise in this very controversial subject be considered good grounds not to ask certain questions until my knowledge reaches a certain level? That’s debatable in its own right. My only answer is, I’m too fascinated by the subject to be discouraged from doing so.

But back to the business at hand.

What you appear to be saying is that because twin-slit interference is already known to represent superposition - something we’re agreed on - it therefore cannot also be an example of entanglement. Or, if it is, I haven’t yet explained why.

My suggestion that it might be hinges on something that was discussed in another thread. It is whether a photon that traverses the slit actually interacts with an area of the screen or not.

If it doesn’t, then the concept of quantum entanglement does not seem applicable.
If it does, and an interference pattern still occurs, then that was the basis for my hypothesis.

If you collapse the position of the photon after it has traversed a slit, have you also collapsed the state of the screen – specifically the two areas of the screen where the photon traversed?

Now the wave function equation for the superposition of twin-slit particles has already been formulated. Is it possible that a similar wave function might be applied to the two alternative states of the screen, which may have been caused by the two possible traversions of the photon through the slits?

If so, I might be forgiven for suggesting that such a wave function could represent quantum entanglement. After all, two spatially separate areas of the screen would now appear to be in a state of indeterminacy until the path of the photon is established.

That, in any event, was where I was coming from.

Regards
Simon

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper, I totally accept the legitimacy of your answer - especially if it is correct.

I still defend the legitimacy of my question – certain aspects of which have yet to be dealt with.

I do have more than a passing interest in quantum theory. Our exchange has raised another question. Should a lack of expertise in this very controversial subject be considered good grounds not to ask certain questions until my knowledge reaches a certain level? That’s debatable in its own right. My only answer is, I’m too fascinated by the subject to be discouraged from doing so.

There is a distinct difference between asking to learn and simply asserting something without any physical basis. You were doing the latter. Furthermore, and this is where you yourself have to understand, you are using concepts that have well-established definitions based on underlying mathematical formulation. In fact, in many parts of QM, it is the mathematical formulation that came FIRST, and then the normal human language and description that came second. So without understanding the mathematical aspect of QM, you are nothing more than a blind person being described the idea of "color". It doesn't mean that in your own way, you have no concept of color, but you certainly do not have the same concept in ways that the seeing-eye people do! This is the part that you seem to not have realized.

So when you talk about something being entangled, I have to ask exactly what property is being entangled. This is the requirement for everyone who either publish, or talk about entanglement, and thus, is a requirement of you also. If you cannot clearly write down and describe the state function of this entangled system, then we have nothing to talk about because your concept is either non-existent, or ambiguous. Now how productive of a discussion do you think that can lead to when the starting point is already questionable at best?

But back to the business at hand.

What you appear to be saying is that because twin-slit interference is already known to represent superposition - something we’re agreed on - it therefore cannot also be an example of entanglement. Or, if it is, I haven’t yet explained why.

My suggestion that it might be hinges on something that was discussed in another thread. It is whether a photon that traverses the slit actually interacts with an area of the screen or not.

If it doesn’t, then the concept of quantum entanglement does not seem applicable.
If it does, and an interference pattern still occurs, then that was the basis for my hypothesis.

If you collapse the position of the photon after it has traversed a slit, have you also collapsed the state of the screen – specifically the two areas of the screen where the photon traversed?

Now the wave function equation for the superposition of twin-slit particles has already been formulated. Is it possible that a similar wave function might be applied to the two alternative states of the screen, which may have been caused by the two possible traversions of the photon through the slits?

If so, I might be forgiven for suggesting that such a wave function could represent quantum entanglement. After all, two spatially separate areas of the screen would now appear to be in a state of indeterminacy until the path of the photon is established.

That, in any event, was where I was coming from.

Regards
Simon

You seem to also not realize that this observation really has NOTHING to do with even the slit. For example, I could get the IDENTICAL interference pattern from a supercurrent going through two different paths and then meeting against at the same point. If I look at the current spectrum, I see the same Faunhoffer pattern. Don't believe me? Look at the superconducting quantum interference (SQUID) device that are already been widely used. If I apply the concept of superposition of all possible paths, I could explain the double slit, multi-slit, SQUIDs, the Delft/Stony Brook experiments, etc... etc. Now see if you can apply your double slit explanation too all these things? What are the "screen" equivalent in the SQUID device to be able to match the same observation? The supercurrent interacting with the "walls of the conductor"? That would be very odd and would require that you rewrite the entire description of superconductivity.

You can't do physics simply by looking at one specific example and tayloring your explanation ONLY to that example, while being ignorant to a whole zoo of phenomena that share the same principle, concept, and results. In every case, a description that has the widest, most general applicability will have a greater degree of validity that something that can only be valid with just one observation. Many people who do not understand physics are not able to make such generalized description, because it requires a mastery of a large body of evidence that are already out there. This is what I find missing in your attempt to re-describe the double slit.

Zz.

 

[JesseM]

I do have more than a passing interest in quantum theory. Our exchange has raised another question. Should a lack of expertise in this very controversial subject be considered good grounds not to ask certain questions until my knowledge reaches a certain level? That’s debatable in its own right.

There's nothing "controversial" about how the rules of QM are applied to a particular problem like the double-slit experiment, the controversy only arises in the interpretation of what these rules mean in terms of some underlying physical reality (like the question of whether particles might actually have well-defined positions and momenta at all times even though the rules say you can never measure them simultaneously). And no one's telling you not to ask questions, just to accept that if you are told that one of your sketchy ideas doesn't match how things actually work in the mathematical formalism, then your idea must be wrong (although I doubt anyone would mind if you continue to ask for more explanation of why it's wrong, as long as you are not trying to argue that your idea could actually be right when you have no expertise in the subject).

What you appear to be saying is that because twin-slit interference is already known to represent superposition - something we’re agreed on - it therefore cannot also be an example of entanglement. Or, if it is, I haven’t yet explained why.

I'm sure he's not making any such general statement, since an entangled system can certainly be in a superposition of states.

My suggestion that it might be hinges on something that was discussed in another thread. It is whether a photon that traverses the slit actually interacts with an area of the screen or not.

Do you mean the screen which contains the slits, or the screen where the interference pattern is observed? If you mean the screen with the slits, I think the main ways for it to interact with the screen would preclude the photon going through the slits, like if the photon was absorbed by the screen or scattered back in the direction it was sent. The slit itself is simply an area where the screen is not present, so how could the photon become entangled with a slit itself, any more than any other region of empty space? It might be possible for it to scatter off the edge of a slit and still go through, so perhaps a really detailed analysis would involve the possibility of the photon becoming entangled with some atom on the edge of the slit, but my guess is that the usual analysis of the double-slit experiment does not need to take into account this possibility to get an accurate prediction about the probabilities that photons going through the slit will be detected at different positions.

 

[RandallB]

I still defend the legitimacy of my question – certain aspects of which have yet to be dealt with.

... collapsed the state of the screen – specifically the two areas of the screen where the photon traversed?
...
After all, two spatially separate areas of the screen would now appear to be in a state of indeterminacy until the path of the photon is established.

That, in any event, was where I was coming from.

As a novice you still need to think though your questions or statements to be sure they are rational to you. You seem to have convinced yourself there is some evidence of screen “entanglement” because of “specifically the two areas of the screen where the photon traversed” !

What two areas of the detection screen 2 feet or more away from the slits did any individual photon ever actually traverse?
There is only where the photon would have gone if the two slits were only one slit; and that is not to a second area but to a wide group of unknown spots that includes the spot it did hit having a chance of having being hit again.
All based on the uncertainty of the one photon – no uncertainty of the screen can be justified in affecting the result.

At a minimum when creating new ideas, apply the principle of parsimony (ockham's razor) before you start promoting them and be able to respond to it.

 

[Simon 6]

Bohr once said that anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.

For example, one point of division between quantum theorists I am familiar with is the single universe/many worlds debate about superposition and quantum indeterminacy.

Granted, these are interpretations. Nevertheless, the responses here indicate that my questions are considered irrational in so far as I am taking such interpretations seriously.

At the back of my mind, when I talk about a photon being in a state of superposition I’m aware that there is yet to be a consensus on what this represents. Is it one reality in which a photon has no certain position until measured (Bohr) or two realities in which the photon does have a certain position both before and after measurement (Everett)? The latter seems to rescue Einstein’s view that reality really is out there.

Zapper, you cited examples where twin path superposition of a particle can occur without interaction with anything. I accept that, just as I accept that a single particle cannot be said to be in a state of entanglement. What I was saying – rightly or wrongly – is that in cases where a particle is in a state of superposition and has interacted with other particles – it is those other particles that may be entangled. I based that on a working definition of entanglement, where “the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.” To me, this appeared to be the case in the original twin-slit set-up.

Jesse, you asked for clarification. What I would say is this. In so far as a given particle interacts with anything at all on it’s possible journeys through the slits, then surely any state of indeterminacy that applies to the photon must also apply to whatever it interacted with. When I first submitted my argument, I had in mind both the slit screen and the observation screen.

So yes Randall: I was suggesting that the uncertainty of a photon’s position transfers to whatever it interacts with on the two possible paths.

Whether I put it in the form of an argument or a question, the idea is the same. For each particle, are there now two spatially separate areas of the observation screen, and possibly the slit screen, that are now connected while the interference pattern occurs. Or to put it another way: are there two possible states in one area of the screen intertwined with two possible states of the other?

If this notion is indeed wide off the mark, then a little further explanation is required.

 

[ZapperZ]

Bohr once said that anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.

For example, one point of division between quantum theorists I am familiar with is the single universe/many worlds debate about superposition and quantum indeterminacy.

Granted, these are interpretations. Nevertheless, the responses here indicate that my questions are considered irrational in so far as I am taking such interpretations seriously.

Again, you are seeing the back end of the animal and NOT the whole animal itself. If you wish to tackle such interpretation issues, then shouldn't you at least start by understanding the mathematical formalism that is the SOURCE of such interpretation. NONE of these differing interpretation disagree on the mathematics. Period! All they are trying to do is make sense of what the mathematics is trying to convey in terms of ordinary human language and understanding. You are trying to do this without understanding the source of the whole issues. Do you see how irrational of an approch this is? No? Yes?

At the back of my mind, when I talk about a photon being in a state of superposition I’m aware that there is yet to be a consensus on what this represents. Is it one reality in which a photon has no certain position until measured (Bohr) or two realities in which the photon does have a certain position both before and after measurement (Everett)? The latter seems to rescue Einstein’s view that reality really is out there.

Zapper, you cited examples where twin path superposition of a particle can occur without interaction with anything. I accept that, just as I accept that a single particle cannot be said to be in a state of entanglement. What I was saying – rightly or wrongly – is that in cases where a particle is in a state of superposition and has interacted with other particles – it is those other particles that may be entangled. I based that on a working definition of entanglement, where “the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.” To me, this appeared to be the case in the original twin-slit set-up.

Then WRITE DOWN THE ENTANGLED QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTION! I've been asking you to do this since the very beginning, the very first post that I wrote in this thread. The fact that you can't tells me that you are one of those people who Bohr talked about - haven't fully understood QM. This means that your "astonishment" about QM is really based on ignorance and superficial knowledge of QM via 2nd or even 3rd hand information. It is why I find it very hard and frustrating in trying to explain stuff to you, because you understand it differently when what it really means.

Again, tell me in no uncertain terms what are the "interaction" that occurs in the supercurrent for the SQUID experiment that produces the IDENTICAL interference pattern as the double slit.

Zz.

 

[Simon 6]

Zapper, it has to be acknowledged that we're not communicating too well.

It would take weeks, perhaps months, of intensive study for me to master the mathematics of quantum equations. If you do feel that this limitation disqualifies me from testing out a proposition or prevents me from asking the right questions, then so be it.

Recognising what I don't know is something I am prepared to do. The first three words in my initial post on this thread were: "By my understanding" - a phrase that expressed that recognition.

I'm going to give it one more attempt, and then perhaps we'll call it a day. (Others replies are welcome too.)

You have already made the case - very convincingly - that an interference pattern based on particle superposition does not demonstrate entanglement. I accept that. As far as I am aware, the SQUID experiment makes your arguement. It entails no interaction by the particle. If so, there is no question of entanglement, only superposition.

My point is a more basic one: in any scenario where the superposition of a particle is also attended by undetermined interaction with another system (e.g parts of a screen), then does not the superposition also apply to whatever system it may have interacted with?

This question is based on the principle of logical extension. If a given particle's location is undetermined, and there are two possible areas of a screen it could have interacted with, then aren't the two possible conditions of one part of the screen interdependent on the two possible conditions of the other?

I am prepared for a any answer to this. For example, the reply might be: "yes, the screen is in a state of superposition as you describe, but the term entanglement is inapplicable because it must refer to a specific property." If that's the answer, case closed.

Simon

 

[ZapperZ]

My point is a more basic one: in any scenario where the superposition of a particle is also attended by undetermined interaction with another system (e.g parts of a screen), then does not the superposition also apply to whatever system it may have interacted with?

This question is based on the principle of logical extension. If a given particle's location is undetermined, and there are two possible areas of a screen it could have interacted with, then aren't the two possible conditions of one part of the screen interdependent on the two possible conditions of the other?

I am prepared for a any answer to this. For example, the reply might be: "yes, the screen is in a state of superposition as you describe, but the term entanglement is inapplicable because it must refer to a specific property." If that's the answer, case closed.

Simon

OK, so now it is getting confusing. You are now talking about a 'screen' and not the 'slits'? It now the screen that is "interacting". If that is the case, then why would there be only "2" possible location on the screen for the photon to be detected? The interference pattern covers a wide area of the screen.

Again, without the proper mathematical description, what you are describing is extremely vague and hard to understand. You are also doing what I described earlier at trying to focus on a possible "special case" (...in any scenario where the superposition of a particle is also attended by undetermined interaction...) where it isn't necessary at all to explain a whole class of phenomena. Superposition is sufficient to explain your double slit and a whole zoo of others. So think on why your insistance of some form of entanglement is necessary to JUST explain the double slit?

In all of this, I still don't know what property is being "entangled" here, and frankly, I don't think you do either.

Zz.

 

[ttn]

Again, you are seeing the back end of the animal and NOT the whole animal itself. If you wish to tackle such interpretation issues, then shouldn't you at least start by understanding the mathematical formalism that is the SOURCE of such interpretation. NONE of these differing interpretation disagree on the mathematics. Period! All they are trying to do is make sense of what the mathematics is trying to convey in terms of ordinary human language and understanding.

That's not true. Orthodox QM has a Schroedinger type equation (for evolving states when no measurement is happening) and a collapse equation (for evolving states when a measurement is happening). GRW gets rid of the latter but adds a nonlinear stochastic term to the Schroedinger equation. MWI gets rid of the latter and leaves the Schroedinger equation unchanged. Bohm gets rid of the latter and adds a new equation for the dynamics of the particles.

I agree that one must know the formalism to profitably approach foundational questions. But it's definitely not true that different interpretations are merely different words or feelings about the same exact set of equations. Indeed, more precise language would be to think of the different versions of QM as distinct *theories* which give different accounts of what happens physically, contain different dynamical equations, and (in some cases) make subtly different predictions for what will be observed. Of course, the reason these are still considered viable is that they all make the same predictions for what should be observed in the kinds of cases that have actually been examined experimentally.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's not true. Orthodox QM has a Schroedinger type equation (for evolving states when no measurement is happening) and a collapse equation (for evolving states when a measurement is happening). GRW gets rid of the latter but adds a nonlinear stochastic term to the Schroedinger equation. MWI gets rid of the latter and leaves the Schroedinger equation unchanged. Bohm gets rid of the latter and adds a new equation for the dynamics of the particles.

I agree that one must know the formalism to profitably approach foundational questions. But it's definitely not true that different interpretations are merely different words or feelings about the same exact set of equations. Indeed, more precise language would be to think of the different versions of QM as distinct *theories* which give different accounts of what happens physically, contain different dynamical equations, and (in some cases) make subtly different predictions for what will be observed. Of course, the reason these are still considered viable is that they all make the same predictions for what should be observed in the kinds of cases that have actually been examined experimentally.

I disagree. When I say "classical mechanics", I do not need to specify if I'm talking about Newton's Laws, or Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. Yet, these two are very different approaches to solving the dynamical system. In the end, they are solving the same thing. So to me, they are "classical mechanics" mathematical formalism.

I use the same thing when talking about "quantum mechanics". I don't have to specify if I'm talking about Schrodinger Equation, matrix mechanics, Feynman path integral, Second Quantization, etc... etc. I'm not doing anything different by solving it using second quantization versus matrix mechanics.

I do not want to go into MWI and Bohm theory AGAIN! It has been talked to death. I will simply point out to you that when we have actual problems to solve beyond JUST basic QM issues, we resort back to STANDARD QM. I'll ask you to point out a single condensed matter, nuclear physics, atomic physics, etc paper that make use of non-standard QM formalism. Till that happens, we ALL know what is meant when I say "standard QM", don't we?

Or do I need to be explictly clear EVERY time we tackle and make use of the name "quantum mechanics"?

Zz.

 

[ttn]

I disagree. When I say "classical mechanics", I do not need to specify if I'm talking about Newton's Laws, or Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. Yet, these two are very different approaches to solving the dynamical system. In the end, they are solving the same thing. So to me, they are "classical mechanics" mathematical formalism.

I use the same thing when talking about "quantum mechanics". I don't have to specify if I'm talking about Schrodinger Equation, matrix mechanics, Feynman path integral, Second Quantization, etc... etc. I'm not doing anything different by solving it using second quantization versus matrix mechanics.

I do not want to go into MWI and Bohm theory AGAIN! It has been talked to death. I will simply point out to you that when we have actual problems to solve beyond JUST basic QM issues, we resort back to STANDARD QM. I'll ask you to point out a single condensed matter, nuclear physics, atomic physics, etc paper that make use of non-standard QM formalism. Till that happens, we ALL know what is meant when I say "standard QM", don't we?

Or do I need to be explictly clear EVERY time we tackle and make use of the name "quantum mechanics"?

Zz.

I pointed out that the different interpretations don't all share the same formalism. I gather that your first paragraph is meant to express disagreement with that claim. But then I'm at a loss to understand what you think the issue is that you're addressing in the later paragraphs. If, according to you, Copenhagen, MWI, Bohm, GRW, etc., are all just different touchy feely ways of looking at the same exact formalism, there wouldn't even be any *difference* between solving some condensed matter problem using "standard QM" and solving it using Bohm or whatever.

You can't have it both ways. Either you define things in such a way that these are really all just the same theory (in which case it's hardly rational to be so adamantly in favor of one of them and so adamantly against the others), or you define things in such a way that these are really distinct theories (in which case it's hardly rational to support one merely because lots of people use it, in spite of the fact that others make the same predictions and are actually superior qua physics theories).

 

[JesseM]

I agree that one must know the formalism to profitably approach foundational questions. But it's definitely not true that different interpretations are merely different words or feelings about the same exact set of equations. Indeed, more precise language would be to think of the different versions of QM as distinct *theories* which give different accounts of what happens physically, contain different dynamical equations, and (in some cases) make subtly different predictions for what will be observed. Of course, the reason these are still considered viable is that they all make the same predictions for what should be observed in the kinds of cases that have actually been examined experimentally.

In what situations do they "make subtly different predictions for what will be observed"? I thought they all made identical predictions for the results of all possible measurements, which is why they are called "interpretations" and not "theories".

 

[ZapperZ]

I pointed out that the different interpretations don't all share the same formalism. I gather that your first paragraph is meant to express disagreement with that claim. But then I'm at a loss to understand what you think the issue is that you're addressing in the later paragraphs. If, according to you, Copenhagen, MWI, Bohm, GRW, etc., are all just different touchy feely ways of looking at the same exact formalism, there wouldn't even be any *difference* between solving some condensed matter problem using "standard QM" and solving it using Bohm or whatever.

You can't have it both ways. Either you define things in such a way that these are really all just the same theory (in which case it's hardly rational to be so adamantly in favor of one of them and so adamantly against the others), or you define things in such a way that these are really distinct theories (in which case it's hardly rational to support one merely because lots of people use it, in spite of the fact that others make the same predictions and are actually superior qua physics theories).

But you can't have it both ways either.

If you claim that they ARE different, both philosophically AND in their formalism, then the "others" have a major stumbling block in the sense that they are NOT being used at all in high-degree-of-certainty fields such as condensed matter. Point out to me a condensed matter paper that do make use of MWI formalism if you claim it is distinctly different than the standard QM. You'll find NONE.

If you claim that they are the same, then what are we arguing about?

This is going OFF TOPIC. You have had your chance, plenty of it, to do this in other threads. You should not need such flimsy excuse to continue this here.

Zz.

 

[ttn]

But you can't have it both ways either.

If you claim that they ARE different, both philosophically AND in their formalism, then the "others" have a major stumbling block in the sense that they are NOT being used at all in high-degree-of-certainty fields such as condensed matter. Point out to me a condensed matter paper that do make use of MWI formalism if you claim it is distinctly different than the standard QM. You'll find NONE.

If you claim that they are the same, then what are we arguing about?

This is going OFF TOPIC. You have had your chance, plenty of it, to do this in other threads. You should not need such flimsy excuse to continue this here.

Zz.

Fine, I don't want to pursue it either. I just wanted to point out the error in your statement that different versions of QM all share the same formalism. That isn't true, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[ZapperZ]

Fine, I don't want to pursue it either. I just wanted to point out the error in your statement that different versions of QM all share the same formalism. That isn't true, and I'll leave it at that.

Then they are NOT the "QM" that you think I was referring to, because, whoa, they are NOT used in any practical aspect that require them to be CORRECT before they can be used in utmost confidence.[1]

How about them apples?

Zz.

[1] D.F. Styer et al. Am. J. Phys. v.70, 288 (2002).

 

[ttn]

Then they are NOT the "QM" that you think I was referring to, because, whoa, they are NOT used in any practical aspect that require them to be CORRECT before they can be used in utmost confidence.[1]

How about them apples?

Zz.

[1] D.F. Styer et al. Am. J. Phys. v.70, 288 (2002).

So you're saying the different formulations actually make different predictions for what should happen in your precious condensed matter experiment? That, because their formalisms differ from "standard QM", they are not "CORRECT", and that this is why condensed matter physicists don't use them?

If so you're an illiterate idiot. Come down off your high horse and actually learn what you're talking about. You might start by reading from the abstract of the paper you tried to throw in my face:

"The various formulations differ dramatically in mathematical and conceptual overview, yet each one makes identical predictions for all experimental results."

(This, however, is not an endorsement of the papers of Styer et al's foundational papers. Their "common misconceptions" paper is notoriously full of ... misconceptions ... about things like Bell's theorem.)

 

[ZapperZ]

So you're saying the different formulations actually make different predictions for what should happen in your precious condensed matter experiment? That, because their formalisms differ from "standard QM", they are not "CORRECT", and that this is why condensed matter physicists don't use them?

I said NOTHING of that sort. You were the one who claimed that they are different! And who said anything about "condensed matter EXPERIMENT"? You don't think there's any "theoretical" work in condensed matter at all? Try looking at a few papers and point out to me where non-standard QM that isn't part of Styer's paper have ever been used? Why? Because the formulation hasn't been tested to the most rigorous extent as to be USED with utmost confidence. Nowhere in any theoretical description of ANY condensed matter systems are there any usage of non-standard QM. This last part is not an opinion, whether you like it or not.

If so you're an illiterate idiot. Come down off your high horse and actually learn what you're talking about. You might start by reading from the abstract of the paper you tried to throw in my face:

"The various formulations differ dramatically in mathematical and conceptual overview, yet each one makes identical predictions for all experimental results."

But that is what I've been trying to say from the very beginning! It is why I brought up the different approaches in classical mechanics. The different formulations of QM are not "different QM", the same way Newton Laws are not different classical mechanics from Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics! You were the one who indicated that they produce "subtly DIFFERENT predictions"!

(This, however, is not an endorsement of the papers of Styer et al's foundational papers. Their "common misconceptions" paper is notoriously full of ... misconceptions ... about things like Bell's theorem.)

Talk is cheap. I see that you didn't write any rebuttal to that paper that they have published. Why is it that whenever there is a published paper that someone finds something "wrong", the best he/she can do is diss about it on some place like this, rather than staking one's reputation and write a rebuttal?

[I will overlook your personal attack on me this time. However, unless you wish for this thread to go down the gutter, I will onlywarn you just once to cease resorting to such thing.]

Zz.

 

[Careful]

Nowhere in any theoretical description of ANY condensed matter systems are there any usage of non-standard QM. This last part is not an opinion, whether you like it or not.

The reason why, Zapper, is that it would be far too complex to calculate for example the Bohmian trajectories of cooper pairs in a superconductor; if you ever tried to do something far easier than this, then you would figure out that this is a fairly obvious reason.

But that is what I've been trying to say from the very beginning! It is why I brought up the different approaches in classical mechanics. The different formulations of QM are not "different QM", the same way Newton Laws are not different classical mechanics from Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics! You were the one who indicated that they produce "subtly DIFFERENT predictions"!

Newtonian mechanics is not equivalent to the Lagrangian formalism, eg. not every force equation can be written as the Euler Lagrange equation for some Lagrangian.

Talk is cheap. I see that you didn't write any rebuttal to that paper that they have published. Why is it that whenever there is a published paper that someone finds something "wrong", the best he/she can do is diss about it on some place like this, rather than staking one's reputation and write a rebuttal?

Even though you did not ask this question to me, I will answer that one. First, if one were to write rebuttals against every rubbish paper that is published on the arxiv, that would be more than a fulltime job. Second, you continue to confuse ``talk'' with argumented opposition, a forum like this seems perfectly suited for the latter.

Careful

 

[ZapperZ]

The reason why, Zapper, is that it would be far too complex to calculate for example the Bohmian trajectories of cooper pairs in a superconductor; if you ever tried to do something far easier than this, then you would figure out that this is a fairly obvious reason.

So forget about "cooper pairs in a semiconductor". Use it to do something a lot simpler, like deriving the Landau Fermi Liquid model!

I'm not arguing if it is easy or not, or possible or not. I'm arguing that in the literature, no where are any of these so-touted formalism are ever used in condensed matter, plasma physics, atomic/molecular physics, etc... etc... i.e. all the subject area in which QM is used as an APPLICATION. This lack of usage seems to be completely ignored in any of the argument touting their strength. It's like a 3000 lb gorrilla that no one seems to talk about. Or maybe it is because one looks down on such "applied fields" that they bare no importance whatsoever in considering the validity of such description? And *I* am the one who is on some "high horse"?

Newtonian mechanics is not equivalent to the Lagrangian formalism, eg. not every force equation can be written as the Euler Lagrange equation for some Lagrangian.

Eh?

In principle, for every equation of motion that one solves with the Newtonian mechanics, one would get the identical equation of motion using Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. You are welcome to show me an example where it doesn't. There are no "subtle difference" in the outcome of each approach as far as the final result is concerned.

Even though you did not ask this question to me, I will answer that one. First, if one were to write rebuttals against every rubbish paper that is published on the arxiv, that would be more than a fulltime job. Second, you continue to confuse ``talk'' with argumented opposition, a forum like this seems perfectly suited for the latter.

Careful

I never care about rebuttals for anything appearing on ArXiv. That's absured considering that I do not consider such format as a peer-reviewed medium. It is why I gave the complete published citation to Styer's paper. So send a rebuttal to AJP. And no, this forum is NOT suited for such idle comments like that when one cannot make a valid supporting argument. We require that people to base their arguments on valid physics, and that requires supporting documents. Saying Styer's paper is itself full of misconception says NOTHING, because that is a superficial statement with zero explanation and documentation. If one truly has a valid argument, then I'd rather see it being published as a rebuttal, and see how Styer and the rest of the physics community respond to that. That is how physics is done, NOT in open forums such as this, especially when there's a conflict of opinion!

Now I KNOW for certain that someone is going to come up and accuse me of trying to stop all "questioning" of current ideas. I will put it to you that that is not even close to what I'm asking. However, and you know who you are, there are people who are adamant in pushing whatever it is they're pushing that somehow the rest of us who continue to use the standard formalism are ignorant and stupid. To me, it is obvious that these people have already made up their minds and decisions, and thus, know that they are correct. I want them to put their money where their mouths are. Stop dissing this and that, and go put your reputation on the line. For once, do something that counts rather than just wasing your valuble talent on an open forum that will do nothing to enhance your standing as a physicist (or whatever it is that you are choosing to be). There are TONS of published papers that clearly disagree with whatever it is you're pushing. Send rebuttals! Can't do for all of them, try 2, 3, 4... etc. Pick the most important ones, the ones that a lot of people are citing in some prestigious journals. Go burst that big bubble! Go on! I dare you!

Zz.

 

[DrChinese]

First, if one were to write rebuttals against every rubbish paper that is published on the arxiv, that would be more than a fulltime job.

Be fair: ZapperZ's reference was not one from the arxiv.

D.F. Styer et al. Am. J. Phys. v.70, 288 (2002)

At this point, alternative interpretations are NOT making any testable predictions involving their different "formalisms". In fact, it seems to me more the opposite. They lay the groundwork to prove that they do reduce to the QM formalism so they at least get a chance to be taken seriously.

And this makes perfect sense, considering the experimental validation of QM to date.

 

[Careful]

So forget about "cooper pairs in a semiconductor". Use it to do something a lot simpler, like deriving the Landau Fermi Liquid model!

I'm not arguing if it is easy or not, or possible or not. I'm arguing that in the literature, no where are any of these so-touted formalism are ever used in condensed matter, plasma physics, atomic/molecular physics, etc... etc... i.e. all the subject area in which QM is used as an APPLICATION.

Right, and the reason is that this would be way too difficult : I recall you the recent paper I referred you to about atomic transitions of electrons in BM for the H atom.

Eh?

In principle, for every equation of motion that one solves with the Newtonian mechanics, one would get the identical equation of motion using Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. You are welcome to show me an example where it doesn't. There are no "subtle difference" in the outcome of each approach as far as the final result is concerned.

Look again at the conditions on the force function in d'Alembert's derivation of the Euler Lagrange equation from Newton's second law. For suitable force functions (eg. conservative force fields), both appraoches agree of course ... (the restriction obviously is that you cannot play the trick of increasing the number of dynamical variables, or add Lagrange multipliers or so... ).

Saying Styer's paper is itself full of misconception says NOTHING, because that is a superficial statement with zero explanation and documentation. If one truly has a valid argument, then I'd rather see it being published as a rebuttal, and see how Styer and the rest of the physics community respond to that. That is how physics is done, NOT in open forums such as this, especially when there's a conflict of opinion!

I did not read this paper, neither did I read the comments offered by ttn; it was just a general remark based upon the assumption that ttn had done his homework.

I want them to put their money where their mouths are. Stop dissing this and that, and go put your reputation on the line. For once, do something that counts rather than just wasing your valuble talent on an open forum that will do nothing to enhance your standing as a physicist (or whatever it is that you are choosing to be). .

The reason for me to be on this forum from time to time is my own business. And yes, I am still working on QM and making some progress recently ; only I do know very well how hard it is to do something truly original and *useful* on such a longstanding problem. As I once said, it is not difficult at all to think of local realist scenario's behind entanglement (holography, extra dimensions and so on), but it is damn difficult to find a plausible one !

Cheers,

Careful

 

[ZapperZ]

Right, and the reason is that this would be way too difficult : I recall you the recent paper I referred you to about atomic transitions of electrons in BM for the H atom.

Is it really?

If you look at the stuff listed in Styer's papers, at some stage, some area of physics makes use of a particular formalism. I have seen the standard "Schrodinger" method, the Heisenberg matrix method, density matrix, path integral, variational method, second quantization, etc... etc. In other words, at some point, one of these approaches were used in condensed matter, atomic/molecular physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, etc... I would think it would raise a lot of eyebrows if a particular technique is (i) "too hard" and (ii) isn't missed at all such that it isn't used in the applied field. I mean, with such variety of applications and usage, there's not even ONE single area in which such formalism would be the least bit useful to be used? What one has "invented" then is something that is utterly useless other than to make someone's philosophical view of the world better. It sounds like something that would qualify for an Ig Nobel.

Zz.

 

[Careful]

Is it really?

If you look at the stuff listed in Styer's papers, at some stage, some area of physics makes use of a particular formalism. I have seen the standard "Schrodinger" method, the Heisenberg matrix method, density matrix, path integral, variational method, second quantization, etc... etc. In other words, at some point, one of these approaches were used in condensed matter, atomic/molecular physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, etc... I would think it would raise a lot of eyebrows if a particular technique is (i) "too hard" and (ii) isn't missed at all such that it isn't used in the applied field. I mean, with such variety of applications and usage, there's not even ONE single area in which such formalism would be the least bit useful to be used? What one has "invented" then is something that is utterly useless other than to make someone's philosophical view of the world better. It sounds like something that would qualify for an Ig Nobel.
Zz.

First, you know very well that in order to compute the trajectories, one would first need to solve the full dynamical problem (since as far as I remember these trajectories show chaotic behavior), which is very hard to do even just for a system of radiating electrons. Second, I have always agreed with the statement that as far as I am concerned all popular existing alternatives to standard QM such as MWI, BM are window dressing as they stand now, so yes I can also imagine from that point of view why people did not care so much. There are exceptions such as the work of Adler and GRW, but these are all explicitely nonlocal, Barut self field is for now the only local exception, but it isn't QFT. However, a good local realist theory behind QM would for sure be useful for quantum gravity and for the sake of understanding physics. However, I doubt it would be useful for computations in condensed matter physics; likewise we do not use deterministic microphysics when dealing with macroscopic systems, we have thermodynamics for that.

Careful

 

[ttn]

What one has "invented" then is something that is utterly useless other than to make someone's philosophical view of the world better. It sounds like something that would qualify for an Ig Nobel.

Zz.

You're talking about Bohmian Mechanics here, right? You truly don't get it. Bohmian Mechanics and orthodox QM make identical predictions (at least in cases where the predictions of the latter are unambiguous). So it begs the question to just dismiss Bohm's theory as you do here. One could equally well dismiss orthodox QM (i.e., all the idiotic philosophical ramblings of Bohr) on the same basis -- namely, that what Copenhagen adds to the rigorous formulation of the pilot wave approach is just a bunch of used-to-be-trendy positivist, anti-realist, existentialist-motivated philosophical mumbo jumbo whose only function is to make some moron feel better about their anti-scientific philosophical view of the world. If you actually have any serious interest in this issue, you might start by reading Jim Cushing's book "Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony". Or if you don't have any serious interest, maybe you shouldn't discuss them in public.

As to your big challenge that I should publish a rebuttal to Styer's "misconceptions" paper, see section IV of

http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/norsen_ajp_73_164_05.pdf

This is all particularly ironic given the following:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/undernetphysics/message/857

 

[JesseM]

You're talking about Bohmian Mechanics here, right? You truly don't get it. Bohmian Mechanics and orthodox QM make identical predictions (at least in cases where the predictions of the latter are unambiguous). So it begs the question to just dismiss Bohm's theory as you do here. One could equally well dismiss orthodox QM (i.e., all the idiotic philosophical ramblings of Bohr) on the same basis

They aren't really comparable, at least not if "orthodox QM" is taken to mean the ordinary shut-up-and-calculate version (which is basically what the purely positivist version of the Copehagen interpretation is, although some people use 'Copehagen interpretation' to mean the view that the collapse of the wavefunction is a real physical event), which is just a recipe for making predictions about probabilities without any assumptions (one way or another) about hidden variables, other worlds, or any other aspect of reality that can't be tested directly. Of course, you could also use the formalism of Bohmian mechanics as a recipe for making predictions, without any assumptions about the "reality" of hidden variables or the pilot wave, but this isn't what people usually mean by Bohmian mechanics.