Reading materials on quantum foundations

In summary: After reading Caticha's paper, it seems that the wave function does not merely describe the system, but also "defines" the system. If that is the case, then the wave function can never be "read" or "seen" directly, but must always be inferred.In summary, Caticha's paper provides a compelling argument that the wave function does not merely describe the system, but actually "defines" the system. This is an important distinction, as it suggests that the wave function can never be "read" or "seen" directly, but must always be inferred.
  • #1
WWCY
479
12
Hi all,

I have been trying to read up on quantum foundations after being first introduced to it on this Perimeter Institute page:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/r.../quantum-foundations/more-quantum-foundations

However, I have had difficulty finding notes and papers on this topic. Could anyone provide a few links to notes on the subject that are accessible to an undergraduate reader?

Many thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would start with Matt Leifer's paper here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1570

It proves all of the current major results except the Frauchiger-Renner theorem and the Pusey-Leifer theorem and gives the current terminology used in the field.

I'll be frank, I think unless one knows all the material in that paper well to the point of understanding the proofs, there's no point in talking about Quantum Foundations as you'll be out of date.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, bhobba and WWCY
  • #3
DarMM said:
I would start with Matt Leifer's paper here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1570

It proves all of the current major results except the Frauchiger-Renner theorem and the Pusey-Leifer theorem and gives the current terminology used in the field.

I'll be frank, I think unless one knows all the material in that paper well to the point of understanding the proofs, there's no point in talking about Quantum Foundations as you'll be out of date.
Thank you, appreciate the reference!
 
  • #4
WWCY said:
Thank you, appreciate the reference!
Just to be clear on my last line, you'll find many people on the net talking about the implications of the PBR theorem for example, if you read through that paper you'll see the vast majority of them are wrong. Also people underestimate the scope of the theorems, thinking various ideas might dodge them when they don't. Reading Leifer's gives you a real advantage on quickly assessing who is talking nonsense or not.

If you've any questions about the paper as you read it don't hesitate to ask.
 
  • #6
Those are great papers @Demystifier , I'd read them before what I recommended @WWCY .
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and bhobba
  • #7
Apologies for the late response. Thanks for the additional references @Demystifier !
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #8
I am preparing presentations for introductory lectures on quantum foundations. So far I have prepared 3 of them, so I would like to share them with you. The first is finished completely (the actual talk went well), while the second and third are 95% finished drafts. Possible comments (e.g. typos and suggestions for improvements) would be welcome too.
 

Attachments

  • qfound1.pdf
    78.4 KB · Views: 299
  • qfound2.pdf
    854.6 KB · Views: 248
  • qfound3.pdf
    71.7 KB · Views: 251
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Minnesota Joe, kith, WWGD and 1 other person
  • #9
Demystifier said:
I am preparing presentations for introductory lectures on quantum foundations. So far I have prepared 3 of them, so I would like to share them with you. The first is finished completely (the actual talk went well), while the second and third are 95% finished drafts. Possible comments (e.g. typos and suggestions for improvements) would be welcome too.
Hi @Demystifier , I'll definitely give the slides a read-through. Really appreciate the gesture.

Is the content in these slides a "condensed" version of your "QM: Myth and Facts" paper?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #10
WWCY said:
Is the content in these slides a "condensed" version of your "QM: Myth and Facts" paper?
No. It's quite complementary to Myths and Facts.
 
  • #11
DarMM said:
I would start with Matt Leifer's paper here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1570

It proves all of the current major results except the Frauchiger-Renner theorem and the Pusey-Leifer theorem and gives the current terminology used in the field.

I'll be frank, I think unless one knows all the material in that paper well to the point of understanding the proofs, there's no point in talking about Quantum Foundations as you'll be out of date.
It is a good review, with a lot of useful additional explanations.

But it has a problem, namely, that it misses that an epistemic interpretation of the wave function exists:

Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A 44 , 225303, arxiv:1005.2357

But this seems to be not a problem of Leifer, but of the whole community, which continues to design proofs of the non-existence of something which is already known to exist.

Then, I doubt that issue is only one particular issue, and not the most important one, about the foundations of quantum theory.
 
  • #12
Demystifier said:
Possible comments (e.g. typos and suggestions for improvements) would be welcome too.
Lecture 1:
Interpretation ruled out: - measurement reveales values that existed before the measurement.
Add "every". Kochen-Specker does not rule out that some measurements (say of position in dBB) reveal preexisting values.

Then, reevaluate the part about PBR after reading

Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A 44 , 225303, arxiv:1005.2357

The key point is that in an objective Bayesian interpretation of the wave function the information which defines the pure state is something which really exists - but outside the system itself: The preparation measurement device and its final state (or record of the result). So, the state of reality itself will define the wave function. But not the state of the system, only the state of the whole universe.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #13
Moderator's note: Moved thread to the quantum foundations and interpretations forum.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #14
Elias1960 said:
it misses that an epistemic interpretation of the wave function exists:

Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A 44 , 225303, arxiv:1005.2357
Does it define "epistemic" in the same way as PBR? I think it doesn't.
 
  • #15
Demystifier said:
Does it define "epistemic" in the same way as PBR? I think it doesn't.
It doesn't. This does not change the point that the interpretation of the wave function is epistemic. More epistemic than Caticha is not possible in principle. He comes from the entropic inference community which started, following Jaynes, to reinterpret the whole of statistical physics in terms of the objective Bayesian interpretation as describing our incomplete knowledge instead of microphysics instead of some objective state. The phase of the wave function is explicitly (modulo an #\ln \rho##) defined as an entropy, namely that of some other variables (one can use as these the rest of the universe) given the system is in a particular configuration. All the derivations of the equations follow the scheme of entropic inference, thus, the methods developed especially for the problem of how to handle incomplete knowledge.

What is used in the theorems is the non-overlap condition: Incomplete knowledge means that there may be states of reality belonging to different states of incomplete knowledge. Sounds plausible, but only if one distinguishes the state of the system from the state of the whole universe. Because the whole universe contains, for every pure state, also the preparation procedure and the result it has given, thus, also defines the wave function uniquely, without overlap.
 
  • #16
Demystifier said:
I am preparing presentations for introductory lectures on quantum foundations. So far I have prepared 3 of them, so I would like to share them with you. The first is finished completely (the actual talk went well), while the second and third are 95% finished drafts. Possible comments (e.g. typos and suggestions for improvements) would be welcome too.
Now I have fixed some typos if the first 3 lectures and prepared additional 2 lectures:
 

Attachments

  • qfound1.pdf
    58.9 KB · Views: 247
  • qfound2.pdf
    854.8 KB · Views: 231
  • qfound3.pdf
    71.8 KB · Views: 210
  • qfound4.pdf
    431 KB · Views: 237
  • qfound5.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 242
  • Like
Likes msumm21
  • #17
WWCY said:
Hi all,

I have been trying to read up on quantum foundations after being first introduced to it on this Perimeter Institute page:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/r.../quantum-foundations/more-quantum-foundations

However, I have had difficulty finding notes and papers on this topic. Could anyone provide a few links to notes on the subject that are accessible to an undergraduate reader?
My views on the topic are in the paper linked in the first post here and in the papers and book linked to in the first post here (with a synopsis of the problems primarily in Part I). These cite hundreds of papers of interest, mostly orthogonal to Leiffer's work and to the lectures of Nikolic = Demystifier.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby

1. What is quantum mechanics and why is it important?

Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that studies the behavior of particles at a microscopic level. It is important because it helps us understand the fundamental principles of the universe and has led to numerous technological advancements, such as transistors and lasers.

2. What are the key principles of quantum mechanics?

The key principles of quantum mechanics include superposition, where particles can exist in multiple states at the same time, and entanglement, where particles can become linked and affect each other's behavior even at great distances.

3. What are the main interpretations of quantum mechanics?

The main interpretations of quantum mechanics include the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that particles exist in a state of superposition until measured, and the many-worlds interpretation, which suggests that every possible outcome of a measurement exists in a parallel universe.

4. How does quantum mechanics challenge our understanding of reality?

Quantum mechanics challenges our understanding of reality by showing that particles can behave in ways that are counterintuitive and cannot be explained by classical physics. It also raises questions about the nature of reality and the role of observation in shaping it.

5. What are some current areas of research in quantum foundations?

Some current areas of research in quantum foundations include quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and exploring the boundaries between quantum and classical systems. There is also ongoing research into resolving the inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
516
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
724
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
135
Views
8K
Back
Top