- #1

- 1,015

- 3

Taking aside the fact that a complex probability amplitude is not something we can picture, is the Schrödinger equation local and deterministic at once?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Gerenuk
- Start date

- #1

- 1,015

- 3

Taking aside the fact that a complex probability amplitude is not something we can picture, is the Schrödinger equation local and deterministic at once?

- #2

- 525

- 7

There is, however, a major practical obstruction that prevents us from actually calculating this time evolution for any macroscopic system. This is partically because it is practically impossible to determine the initial state of a macroscopic system. But even if we did know this state or if we are somehow able to finetune it, the time-evolution itself is a many-body problem which is, again, computationably intractable.

We therefore always need to resort to some form of approximation, e.g. a statistical description of the system or ignoring a large number of degrees of freedom. Such a statistical description automatically introduces a degree of 'uncertainty' which manifests itself as a non-determinstic description of the system.

So even if you put the whole measurement problem aside, you still end up with a non-deterministic description of macroscopic systems due to practical limitations.

- #3

- 1,015

- 3

- #4

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,755

- 3,963

- #5

- 1,015

- 3

But what's wrong about saying the Schrödinger equation is local and deterministic?

Mathematically it does look so.

- #6

- 1,460

- 1

But what's wrong about saying the Schrödinger equation is local and deterministic?

Mathematically it does look so.

I believe you said it, "...the fact that a complex probability amplitude is not something we can picture..." is the reason. Well, if it can only exist as math, it's not physics, just math. So, from the perspective of a mathematician... it is as you say. From the perspective of a Physicist... it is too, but it's not useful if it can't be made to do work. Hence all of the rest... so I'd say to answer your question: To avoid confusion.

- #7

- 1,015

- 3

I guessed so. Now I'm trying to get some ideas to understand how determinism gets lost.... :)

- #8

- 1,460

- 1

I guessed so. Now I'm trying to get some ideas to understand how determinism gets lost.... :)

See, that's not too hard, because Determinism is lost when we have to calculate positions, velocities, etc... as probabilites. It all comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), now backed up by the CMB surveys.

- #9

- 136

- 0

See, that's not too hard, because Determinism is lost when we have to calculate positions, velocities, etc... as probabilites. It all comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), now backed up by the CMB surveys.

I don't agree that the UP supports an external indeterminism in events; The UP does highlight however our lack of knowledge on a system. Just because there is a lack of knowledge from our behalf should not suggest that the universe is not deterministic.

- #10

- 1,460

- 1

I don't agree that the UP supports an external indeterminism in events; The UP does highlight however our lack of knowledge on a system. Just because there is a lack of knowledge from our behalf should not suggest that the universe is not deterministic.

The CMB would beg to differ, barring a superdeterministic uneven distribution of "stuff" at 360K years post-BB...

- #11

- 1,015

- 3

So if ppl wouldn't try to squeeze QM into basic probability theories, then QM would be local, deterministic and even linear?

Maybe some sophisticated ingredient can make even the probabilities logical again.

- #12

- 1,460

- 1

So if ppl wouldn't try to squeeze QM into basic probability theories, then QM would be local, deterministic and even linear?

Maybe some sophisticated ingredient can make even the probabilities logical again.

Time to start building the AI's that can find that... maybe they'll even be nice enough to try and explain it to us!

- #13

- 136

- 0

The CMB would beg to differ, barring a superdeterministic uneven distribution of "stuff" at 360K years post-BB...

No i beg to differ, because the UP is in light of what we can know - its a limitation of knowledge which does not impede determinism.

- #14

- 1,460

- 1

No i beg to differ, because the UP is in light of what we can know - its a limitation of knowledge which does not impede determinism.

Ok... then how is it that something which is a limitation on KNOWLEDGE managed to effect the (should-have-been-EVEN) distribution of "stuff" in the early universe? The HUP explains that nicely, as does SUPERdeterminism. The HUP + Determinism = Horse****.

- #15

- 642

- 15

- #16

- 1,460

- 1

Yeah... sadly yes... and the Bohmian interpretation replaces that issue with a Pilot wave of "unknown origin and constitution" as you put it so well. Welcome to QM... I need some aspirin.

EDIT: Hence us left with 50-50 chances, or worse, 50-50-1! Never good when you get 101% in a physical theory...

- #17

- 136

- 0

Ok... then how is it that something which is a limitation on KNOWLEDGE managed to effect the (should-have-been-EVEN) distribution of "stuff" in the early universe? The HUP explains that nicely, as does SUPERdeterminism. The HUP + Determinism = Horse****.

You do realize that particles are simply statistical averages right? Physics in general is a statistical theory at best yes? It's statistical because we don't have all the knowledge on a quanum system, but this is because of our lack of knowledge, not because there needs to be an indeterministic world externally of our limited knowledges.

- #18

DrChinese

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,439

- 1,241

You do realize that particles are simply statistical averages right? Physics in general is a statistical theory at best yes? It's statistical because we don't have all the knowledge on a quanum system, but this is because of our lack of knowledge, not because there needs to be an indeterministic world externally of our limited knowledges.

You keep saying this, but this is generally rejected as a viewpoint. The HUP is not about lack of knowledge, although at one time that was a common belief. It is generally held that particles have attributes only within the context of a measurement.

- #19

- 1,460

- 1

You do realize that particles are simply statistical averages right? Physics in general is a statistical theory at best yes? It's statistical because we don't have all the knowledge on a quanum system, but this is because of our lack of knowledge, not because there needs to be an indeterministic world externally of our limited knowledges.

To paraphrase DrChinese in my own words, representing my own opinion, "No, I don't realize that, because observational data has shown the HUP is a physical law, not merely a statistal event horizon for observers."

- #20

- 128

- 0

Taking aside the fact that a complex probability amplitude is not something we can picture, is the Schrödinger equation local and deterministic at once?

Classical determinism: Repeating the same experiment many times always has the same result. Classical mechanics allows us to determine that result.

Quantum determinism: Repeating the same experiment many times yields a unique probability distribution of all possible results. Quantum mechanics allows us to determine that probability distribution.

Quantum mechanics does not predict the experimental result; it is not deterministic in the classical sense.

Locality is a property of the space-time of classical physics. It is classical in nature. The wavefunction (probability amplitude) is defined in a Hilbert space. It seems to me that locality is an issue only if the wavefunction propagates in space-time, as many believe.

In the classical sense, quantum mechanics is neither deterministic nor local.

- #21

- 81

- 0

I guessed so. Now I'm trying to get some ideas to understand how determinism gets lost.... :)

Hello Gerenuk,

The answer to your question is simple and i am surprised that nobody has given it yet.

The quantum theory relies on two processes. One deterministic process, called U, like Unitary, governed by Schrödinger's equation, and a probabilistic process, called R, like Reduction, governed by Born's rule.

Both are needed for the theory to actually work. The loss of determinism occurs inside the R process, which has nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation.

- #22

- 1,015

- 3

I'd be very, very careful with such a statement ;-)Hello Gerenuk,

The answer to your question is simple and i am surprised that nobody has given it yet.

Usually the guys crying out "it's so easy!", don't have the slightest clue what the problem is about.

This observation doesn't apply here, but it is one thing to remember :)

To my knowledge the R process is ill-defined, so it's hard to use it for arguments. I mean when is an observation an observation? Why don't we consider the human being as quantum objects and thus have U processes only?Both are needed for the theory to actually work. The loss of determinism occurs inside the R process, which has nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation.

And how does this R process lose locality or determinism?

For me it's very important not to just know a keyword, but to really understand where mathematically either locality or determinism is lost. Or why at all some people say it is lost, whereas all the theory seems to be based on local and deterministic concepts?

- #23

SpectraCat

Science Advisor

- 1,395

- 2

Hello Gerenuk,

The answer to your question is simple and i am surprised that nobody has given it yet.

The quantum theory relies on two processes. One deterministic process, called U, like Unitary, governed by Schrödinger's equation, and a probabilistic process, called R, like Reduction, governed by Born's rule.

Well, that is no longer agreed upon I think, since decoherence is now a well-established experimental and theoretical phenomenon that shows it is possible to have very rapid processes that proceed in a unitary fashion according to the TDSE, yet produce observations that are consistent with the original "collapse" (or reduction) theories. In fact, you will see the phrase "there is no collapse" thrown around a lot on this forum.

Both are needed for the theory to actually work. The loss of determinism occurs inside the R process, which has nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation.

I would say that it is very much an open question whether or not there is in fact a loss or determinism as you claim.

- #24

- 81

- 0

To my knowledge the R process is ill-defined, so it's hard to use it for arguments. I mean when is an observation an observation? Why don't we consider the human being as quantum objects and thus have U processes only?

Because the R process makes experimental predictions that the U process doesn't. Example, that YOU will get this or that result when you measure a given system in a given way. If you keep the U process only and use it to built a many world interpretation, you loose the definition of "you", and the above experimental prediction is no more defined.

And how does this R process lose locality or determinism?

The R process lacks determinism in its axiomatic definition, and says nothing about locality.

Later, Bell, CHSH, GHZ, and Mermin (excuse me if I forget some), have shown that locality and determinism could not coexist. In a larger context, we can say that locality, determinism and realism can't coexist in quantum mechanics.

Some people however have suggested workarounds. Mark Rubin, for example, in his article about local realism in the Heisenberg picture of operators in the MWI, or JesseM in this forum, with his idea about pasting parallel universe when their future light-cones meet (which is more or less the same idea, as far as I understand). These ideas deserve to be developed. I'm working on JesseM's idea in my spare time.

For me it's very important not to just know a keyword, but to really understand where mathematically either locality or determinism is lost. Or why at all some people say it is lost, whereas all the theory seems to be based on local and deterministic concepts?

They are lost when you violate Bell's inequality in an EPR-like experiment. No modelization of the experiment have been given yet that

1) Describe what happens in terms of realistic objects

2) Predicts the violation of the inequality by means of the above description

Well, that is no longer agreed upon I think, since decoherence is now a well-established experimental and theoretical phenomenon that shows it is possible to have very rapid processes that proceed in a unitary fashion according to the TDSE, yet produce observations that are consistent with the original "collapse" (or reduction) theories.

Consistent yes, but with not as much predictive power. They do not predict the violation of the inequality without completing decoherence with the last part of the R process, which consists in picking one of the possible results out of many, in an undeterministic way.

I would say that it is very much an open question whether or not there is in fact a loss or determinism as you claim.

I don't disagree, but Gerenuk's question was simple, and I gave the simple answer, from which we can go on and start further discussions

- #25

- 1,015

- 3

I don't think this R process idea is a satisfactory explanation. And the many attempts for interpretations probably share the same view. It's not well defined when someone is measuring and when he isn't and what reality means.Because the R process makes experimental predictions that the U process doesn't. Example, that YOU will get this or that result when you measure a given system in a given way.

I do not want to discuss their work. I'll go through it later, but I know they all make their own hidden assumptions. Anyway:Later, Bell, CHSH, GHZ, and Mermin (excuse me if I forget some), have shown that locality and determinism could not coexist. In a larger context, we can say that locality, determinism and realism can't coexist in quantum mechanics.

If I let the universe run for a long time governed by the Schrödinger equation, and if I make one measurement in the end, then everything was a local and deterministic U process to the very end and I can extract probabilities from this l&d process? Right?

And then someone else comes along and says, I'm only a stupid quantum process and he is the real observer and waiting for an even longer time than me before he does the measurement. So in his theory everything was l&d an even longer time?!

It seem everything is l&d at all times. (unless you insist on removing the wavefunction and introduce real probabilities)

Share:

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K