I "Single-world interpretations.... cannot be self-consistent"

[Truecrimson]

A new preprint by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner argues that any interpretation of quantum theory that posits only a single world gives contradictory predictions provided that an observer (which makes predictions) can be observed (Wigner's friend scenarios). This might be of interest to participants in this subforum. Have anyone read this? What do you think?

This certainly sounds like a very big claim so I've been trying to read the preprint to find out about all the fine prints. Below is my attempt to summarize their basic argument based on my first pass at the preprint. I simplify it a bit which may leave some room for ambiguity.

There are 4 players. Wigner (W), his assistant (A), his friend 1 (F1) and friend 2 (F2). I can think of them all as robots that do quantum experiments, record the outcomes in some physical states, and process that information to make predictions. No consciousness is required, and in particular, I don't have to assume that macroscopic conscious human beings can be put into a superposition.

Step 1 F1 observes one of two possible outcomes from measuring the state $$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} |H\rangle + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} |T\rangle $$ in the "Head" $|H\rangle$ or "Tail" $|T\rangle$ basis. F1 then coherently prepares a spin down state $|\downarrow \rangle$ if she observes Head or $|\rightarrow \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} = |\uparrow \rangle + |\downarrow \rangle$ if she observes Tail, resulting in the entangled state $$ | \psi \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} ( | H \rangle | \downarrow \rangle + | T \rangle | \downarrow \rangle + | T \rangle | \uparrow \rangle ). $$ She sends the spin state to F2.

Step 2 F2 measures the spin in the Z basis (up or down).

Step 3 A projectively measures F1 (the whole laboratory) and declares success if he gets the outcome $$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} (| H \rangle - | T \rangle ) $$ or failure if he gets the orthogonal outcome.

Step 4 W projectively measures F2 and declares success if he gets the outcome $$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} (| \downarrow \rangle - | \uparrow \rangle ) $$ or failure if he gets the orthogonal outcome.

The preprint analyzes the situation where both A and W succeed. This is possible because of the nonzero overlap of the projection operator $$ \frac{1}{2} (| H \rangle - | T \rangle ) \otimes (| \downarrow \rangle - | \uparrow \rangle ) $$ and the state $$ |\psi \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} [ ( | H \rangle + | T \rangle ) | \downarrow \rangle + | T \rangle | \uparrow \rangle ] . $$ It is the rightmost term that contributes to the nonzero overlap. Given that both A and W succeed, A infers that the spin must be in the up state, which means that F1 observed the outcome Tail. But if the result comes out tail then Wigner must fail! because projecting the state $|\psi \rangle$ onto $$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} |T \rangle ( | \uparrow \rangle + | \downarrow \rangle ) $$ means that Wigner will never succeed. Q.E.D.

The step that seems problematic to me is the retrodiction that the spin has a definite (up) value. This seems to be reminiscent of Aharonov and Vaidman's Three-Box Paradox.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Thanks for sharing! I've had correspondence in the past with Renato Renner, regarding other papers he has published.

 

[atyy]

Another interesting paper might be

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9712044
Quantum and classical descriptions of a measuring apparatus
Ori Hay, Asher Peres
"This article examines whether these two different descriptions are mutually consistent. It is shown that if the dynamical variable used in the first apparatus is represented by an operator of the Weyl-Wigner type (for example, if it is a linear coordinate), then the conversion from quantum to classical terminology does not affect the final result. However, if the first apparatus encodes the measurement in a different type of operator (e.g., the phase operator), the two methods of calculation may give different results."

But Hay's and Peres's result was not considered to overturn Copenhagen or de Broglie Bohm - it just means that the folklore that the classical quantum cut can be placed anywhere is not absolutely true - and makes sense from both Copenhagen and dBB viewpoints where some "common sense" is needed to say that FAPP we do know what a "macroscopic measurement apparatus" is.

I believe that even von Neumann was aware of this, so the cut at an arbitrary place along the von Neumann chain is not always a classical/quantum cut, but in some cases has to be a quantum/quantum cut. Wiseman and Milburn's textbook also mentions that placing the classical/quantum cut in the wrong place gives experimentally incorrect results.

 

[bhobba]

A new preprint by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner argues that any interpretation of quantum theory that posits only a single world gives contradictory predictions provided that an observer (which makes predictions) can be observed (Wigner's friend scenarios). This might be of interest to participants in this subforum. Have anyone read this? What do you think?

Without looking at the detail it looks highly dubious to me.

In QM you need a framework of system being observed and something doing the observing. Its not a contradiction that different frameworks may give different results. Its one of the weird things about QM, although this is the first paper I have seen that describes such a situation. That said I personally doubt such an experiment can actually be performed, but I will leave that up to experimental types to comment. The difficulty in doing it would seem to explain why in the world around us we never notice such a possibility of different frameworks giving different outcomes.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

it just means that the folklore that the classical quantum cut can be placed anywhere is not absolutely true

Well Von Neumann proved it rigorously so it's not exactly folklore.

But like you I suspect there are some caveats involved to do with differing frameworks of observer and observed. That would certainly be the decoherent histories viewpoint which requires non mutually contradictory frameworks. That is usually enforced by decoherence, but its possible to perhaps come up with a way around it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

Well Von Neumann proved it rigorously so it's not exactly folklore.

But like you I suspect there are some caveats involved to do with differing frameworks of observer and observed. That would certainly be the decoherent histories viewpoint which requires non mutually contradictory frameworks. That is usually enforced by decoherence, but its possible to perhaps come up with a way around it.

But actually even if one thinks of it from say Schlosshauer's discussion of decoherence, his point is that decoherence plus some additional criteria gives us objective ways to say where we can place the cut (usually must be far out enough), then we can see that decoherence itself suggests the cut cannot be too early.

 

[Truecrimson]

I agree that where the cut is can't be arbitrary. With decoherence, one can't place the cut too early before decoherence has occurred. The Wigner's friends scenario though doesn't explicitly has decoherence. Then one probably has to have a rule for co-existing viewpoints as bhobba pointed out. (I don't know what the axioms of decoherent histories are.) In particular, the conclusion of Frauchiger and Renner probably comes about by combining viewpoints that you shouldn't combine.

I need to read the paper atyy brought up. Thank you.

 

[Demystifier]

A new preprint by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner argues that any interpretation of quantum theory that posits only a single world gives contradictory predictions provided that an observer (which makes predictions) can be observed (Wigner's friend scenarios). This might be of interest to participants in this subforum. Have anyone read this? What do you think?

I had an extensive discussion about that paper with one of the authors, so I think I can tell what is the main problem with their idea. One of their assumptions is that new measurements delete information about the outcomes of previous measurements, and in my opinion this assumption is unjustified.

 

[Truecrimson]

One of their assumptions is that new measurements delete information about the outcomes of previous measurements...

It's 1 am over here so I need to go to bed. I will think about the paper and this statement some more when I have time. Thank you.

 

[bhobba]

I agree that where the cut is can't be arbitrary.

As I said Von Neumann did prove it rigorously and he is no mean mathematician. But of course not infallible as his supposed proof of no hidden variables showed. I only suspect there is an out.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

But actually even if one thinks of it from say Schlosshauer's discussion of decoherence, his point is that decoherence plus some additional criteria gives us objective ways to say where we can place the cut (usually must be far out enough), then we can see that decoherence itself suggests the cut cannot be too early.

Another important thing about decoherence is that it is FAPP irreversible. Therefore information about outcomes of previous measurements is not deleted by new measurements, in contradiction with the crucial assumption used in the paper under discussion.

 

[bhobba]

Another important thing about decoherence is that it is FAPP irreversible.

Hmmmm. The delayed choice experiment?

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

Hmmmm. The delayed choice experiment?

The delayed choice is reversible precisely because it does not involve decoherence.

 

[bhobba]

The delayed choice is reversible precisely because it does not involve decoherence.

Got it.

It ties in with a discussion about entanglement and decoherence. Its easy to get the two confused.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

Got it.

It ties in with a discussion about entanglement and decoherence. Its easy to get the two confused.

Yes. Decoherence always involves entanglement, but not the vice versa.

 

[Demystifier]

Step 3 A projectively measures F1 (the whole laboratory) and declares success if he gets the outcome $$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} (| H \rangle - | T \rangle ) $$ or failure if he gets the orthogonal outcome.

The problem with the paper is that they do not explain what does it mean to measure the whole laboratory. Certainly the whole laboratory cannot be in the state
$$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} (| H \rangle - | T \rangle ) $$
Instead, it should involve something like
$$ \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} (| H \rangle - | T \rangle ) \otimes | {\rm detector \;\; shows\;\;} H-T \rangle$$
where the second factor is a macroscopic state that cannot be easily destroyed by a new measurement.

 

[S.Daedalus]

My main issue with the paper is that I don't understand how it's justified to have the value of z be an element of the story of A, before A has carried out any measurement. To A, and hence (to my understanding), in any story about A's experiment, before they perform a measurement on the system F2, the total system F1 + F2 should be in a superposition, with components having both $$|z=+\frac{1}{2}\rangle$$ and $$|z=-\frac{1}{2}\rangle$$ elements; that is, a state to which one could not assign any definite value of z, at least if one wants to keep the eigenvalue-eigenstate link.

Yet, they consider $$(n:20,*,z,*)$$ to be a 'plot point' of A's story (in their notation, this roughly means that at time n:20, there exist some values for the asterisks such that the completed element is part of the set of events that characterize A's experiment). I don't see how that is justified; in particular, A could, instead of the measurement they perform in the paper, perform an interference experiment, which would tell them that indeed a superposed state is present (even after the measurement of F2). So it seems to me more natural to add some rule to the effect that 'quantities only have a definite value in X's story if the system is in an eigenstate of the relevant operator as described by X', which, it seems, would rule out the definiteness of $z$, and block the proof in the paper; thus, with such a rule in place, one could indeed find a consistent single-world interpretation. Or am I way off base here?

 

[Giulio Prisco]

Very interesting!

The authors provide a simple summary:

Main result (informal version)
There cannot exist a physical theory T that has all of the following properties:
(QT) Compliance with quantum theory: T forbids all measurement results that are forbidden by standard quantum theory (and this condition holds even if the measured system is large enough to contain itself an experimenter).
(SW) Single-world: T rules out the occurrence of more than one single outcome if an experimenter measures a system once.
(SC) Self-consistency: T's statements about measurement outcomes are logically consistent (even if they are obtained by considering the perspectives of different experimenters).

 

[Truecrimson]

Let's see if I understood this correctly.

Recall the state before any measurement by F2, A, and W: $$ |\psi \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} (|H\rangle |\downarrow \rangle + |T\rangle |\downarrow \rangle + |T\rangle |\uparrow \rangle) $$ After the measurements, there are associated memory states which record the value of the spin and whether both A and W succeeded. For example, $|\uparrow ,\checkmark \rangle$ means that the spin was measured to be up and A and W succeeded. Hence the total state will have 3 terms: $$ (|H\rangle +|T\rangle ) |\downarrow \rangle |\downarrow , \times \rangle, $$ $$ |T\rangle |\uparrow \rangle |\uparrow ,\checkmark \rangle ,$$ $$ |T\rangle |\uparrow \rangle |\uparrow ,\times \rangle $$ Given that A and W succeeded, putting the Heisenberg cut after F2's spin measurement or after A and W's measurements makes no difference. (You just collapse to the state to $|T\rangle |\uparrow \rangle |\uparrow ,\checkmark \rangle$.)

However A and F2 can't infer that because the spin is up, the outcome Tail must had happened because this entails a different set of memory states, one of which may look like this: $$ |T\rangle |\rightarrow \rangle |\rightarrow ,\times \rangle . $$ (F2 can make a measurement with 3 POVM elements: $|\uparrow \rangle$, $|\leftarrow \rangle$ and another one to complete the resolution of the identity. This way, she will never confuse the states $|\downarrow \rangle$ and $|\rightarrow \rangle$ but the price to pay is that the third POVM element gives an inconclusive result.) The point is that they have to undo the measurement and

the [last] factor is a macroscopic state that cannot be easily destroyed by a new measurement.

Or even if they can undo the measurement, that memory A and W succeeded will no longer be there. So no one will predict that A and W succeed, and the contradiction cannot be reached.

Does this look remotely right?

 

[Truecrimson]

My main issue with the paper is that I don't understand how it's justified to have the value of z be an element of the story of A, before A has carried out any measurement. To A, and hence (to my understanding), in any story about A's experiment, before they perform a measurement on the system F2, the total system F1 + F2 should be in a superposition, with components having both $$|z=+\frac{1}{2}\rangle$$ and $$|z=-\frac{1}{2}\rangle$$ elements; that is, a state to which one could not assign any definite value of z, at least if one wants to keep the eigenvalue-eigenstate link.

That was the point that I was suspicious of too. But now I wonder if it matters in this case? Sure, it is wrong to place the Heisenberg cut (and infer a definite value of an observable) too early, but conditional upon the success of A and W, this doesn't seem to affect the argument (as I mentioned in #19 above).

 

[Demystifier]

Recall the state before any measurement by F2, A, and W: $$ |\psi \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} (|H\rangle |\downarrow \rangle + |T\rangle |\downarrow \rangle + |T\rangle |\uparrow \rangle) $$

Now I noticed that this is nothing but the Hardy state, which is well known to lead to paradoxes if interpreted naively. See e.g.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163
the discussion around Eq. (43) and references therein. See also
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...d-joint-weak-measurement.298924/#post-2712422

 

[Ilja]

I think this is an exercise for finding the conceptual error, nothing more. Because we have a counterexample to the claim with dBB theory. Define the configuration space as containing all observers with all their possible outcomes in all possible combinations. Then, define whatever wave function you like on this configuration space. Then look how it evolves. In dBB, we have a wave function on the universe, so measuring some Schrödinger сat state is possible and not a problem, because the state of the observer itself and the state of the wave function are different, independent things. I have to admit that I was unable to get the idea how they try to construct a contradiction.

I would guess they think in many worlds terms and confuse, therefore, wave functions or some parts of them with observers. But the observers in dBB are configurations, not wave functions.

 

[jambaugh]

The measurement process is an inherently thermodynamic one ( think signal amplification if you need a paradigm) and so fundamentally you cannot (sharply) observe the observer.

 

[Demystifier]

I think this is an exercise for finding the conceptual error, nothing more. Because we have a counterexample to the claim with dBB theory. Define the configuration space as containing all observers with all their possible outcomes in all possible combinations. Then, define whatever wave function you like on this configuration space. Then look how it evolves. In dBB, we have a wave function on the universe, so measuring some Schrödinger сat state is possible and not a problem, because the state of the observer itself and the state of the wave function are different, independent things. I have to admit that I was unable to get the idea how they try to construct a contradiction.

I would guess they think in many worlds terms and confuse, therefore, wave functions or some parts of them with observers. But the observers in dBB are configurations, not wave functions.

The problem is that many people (including the authors) accept the claim that BM makes the same predictions as standard QM, but do not understand why exactly it makes the same predictions. To understand that, it is necessary to understand some elements of the quantum theory of measurement (e.g. von Neumann scheme, decoherence, and related stuff) which most physicists don't understand. Not because they are not smart enough (they usually understand many other, more difficult aspects of QM), but because most QM textbooks say nothing about it.

 

[atyy]

In dBB, we have a wave function on the universe, so measuring some Schrödinger сat state is possible and not a problem, because the state of the observer itself and the state of the wave function are different, independent things. I have to admit that I was unable to get the idea how they try to construct a contradiction.

I don't think they mean dBB is inconsistent in the normal sense of the word. I think they mean "inconsistent" in some rather strange technical sense, so it's not clear to me that dBB is a counterexample.

But it's not so clear why the strange sense is that interesting, so perhaps even though the paper could be correct, it's not very interesting.

 

[Demystifier]

I don't think they mean dBB is inconsistent in the normal sense of the word. I think they mean "inconsistent" in some rather strange technical sense, so it's not clear to me that dBB is a counterexample.

But it's not so clear why the strange sense is that interesting, so perhaps even though the paper could be correct, it's not very interesting.

Here is the crucial quote from their paper, Sec. 6.3:
"It is certainly unsatisfactory if a theory is not self-consistent. One may therefore ask
whether there is an easy fix. One possibility could be to restrict the range of applicability
of the theory and add the rule that its predictions are only valid if an experimenter who
makes the predictions keeps all relevant information stored. While we do not normally
impose such a rule when using theories to make predictions, this would, at least in the
case of Bohmian mechanics, remove the inconsistency."

So they say that predictions of Bohmian mechanics are consistent, provided that one keeps all information that is relevant for making predictions. And I agree with this, but I consider it trivial. That can be said even for classical mechanics (CM). You can easily make inconsistent predictions with CM if you don't keep some relevant information. It seems that the authors think that QM is somehow different from CM because information is somehow naturally deleted by quantum measurements, and not by classical measurements. But this is wrong. The results of QM measurements are recorded by mechanisms which are essentially classical (e.g. by ink on the paper), so information is typically not deleted by new measurements. There is no need to impose such a rule as something additional, because that rule is already there.

 

[Ilja]

But there would be also no inconsistency if you forget information. The configuration space defines a set of consistent descriptions of what is possible at a particular moment. And this description is a global, observer-independent and consistent one. And dBB defines, at any moment, a consistent element of it, q(t). It also defines a wave function. And this wave function has to assign some non-zero probability to q(t). Which is all one needs. If the observer had memories about some past measurement result, this information would be part of the complete description q(t) now. If it is not, he now has no such information.

 

[stevendaryl]

I don't think they mean dBB is inconsistent in the normal sense of the word. I think they mean "inconsistent" in some rather strange technical sense, so it's not clear to me that dBB is a counterexample.

But it's not so clear why the strange sense is that interesting, so perhaps even though the paper could be correct, it's not very interesting.

Here is the crucial quote from their paper, Sec. 6.3:
"It is certainly unsatisfactory if a theory is not self-consistent. One may therefore ask
whether there is an easy fix. One possibility could be to restrict the range of applicability
of the theory and add the rule that its predictions are only valid if an experimenter who
makes the predictions keeps all relevant information stored. While we do not normally
impose such a rule when using theories to make predictions, this would, at least in the
case of Bohmian mechanics, remove the inconsistency."

So they say that predictions of Bohmian mechanics are consistent, provided that one keeps all information that is relevant for making predictions. And I agree with this, but I consider it trivial. That can be said even for classical mechanics (CM). You can easily make inconsistent predictions with CM if you don't keep some relevant information. It seems that the authors think that QM is somehow different from CM because information is somehow naturally deleted by quantum measurements, and not by classical measurements. But this is wrong. The results of QM measurements are recorded by mechanisms which are essentially classical (e.g. by ink on the paper), so information is typically not deleted by new measurements. There is no need to impose such a rule as something additional, because that rule is already there.

I'm not sure I understand at all what they mean by "keep all relevant information stored". Are they saying that it is important that the information be in the form of a persistent record (which is sometimes considered important for something to count as an observation in QM)?

 

[Demystifier]

Are they saying that it is important that the information be in the form of a persistent record (which is sometimes considered important for something to count as an observation in QM)?

Yes, I think that this is what they are saying.

 

[Demystifier]

But there would be also no inconsistency if you forget information. The configuration space defines a set of consistent descriptions of what is possible at a particular moment. And this description is a global, observer-independent and consistent one. And dBB defines, at any moment, a consistent element of it, q(t). It also defines a wave function. And this wave function has to assign some non-zero probability to q(t). Which is all one needs. If the observer had memories about some past measurement result, this information would be part of the complete description q(t) now. If it is not, he now has no such information.

Nature is, of course, consistent if a person forgets information. But the predictions by such a person may not be. For instance, a meteorologist can make some weather predictions based on results of performed measurements, then he can forget the results of these measurements, and consequently make new predictions which differ from the initial ones. In such a case, the meteorologist makes two mutually contradictory predictions, so he is inconsistent. This, of course, is trivial, but it seems to me that the results in the paper are not much more different than that.

 

[stevendaryl]

Yes, I think that this is what they are saying.

Well, in that case, I would say that this is different from similar considerations in classical mechanics. In classical mechanics, nothing physically important follows from the fact that information was not recorded. But in quantum mechanics, persistent records have a physical effect: there can be no interference between alternatives that have different persistent records. Of course, having a persistent record is not necessary for destroying interference, as decoherence and other kinds of entanglement show, but it is certainly sufficient.

 

[Brage]

Without looking at the detail it looks highly dubious to me.

In QM you need a framework of system being observed and something doing the observing.

I am not too sure of this. As we are on the subject of many worlds, Hughe Everett's work (many worlds theorem) describes definite outcomes (wave function collapse) in terms of corrolation of states and as such no oberver is needed, and different observations would just be different corrolations of states. Of course in his formulation it would be impossible for two observers to obtain contradictory results from the SAME experiment, as this would mean the observers themselves were in different uncorrolated states and thus could not communicate these results with each other.

Brage

 

[bhobba]

corrolation of states and as such no oberver is needed,

Every interpretation contains the standard formalism which has observables and that includes MW. Observers in QM are something much more general than observers used in general language and this leads to a lot of semantic difficulties. In modern times an observation is anything that leads to decoherence.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Brage]

Every interpretation contains the standard formalism which has observables and that includes MW.

Thanks
Bill

Yes but the theory predicting observables does not mean observers are central to the theory, although I suppose you could argue in Everetts case any particle will itself be an observer.

Cheers

 

[bhobba]

observers are central to the theory

Observers in QM is something much more general than in normal usage - I added that refinement a bit later in my post.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Brage]

Observers in QM is something much more general than in normal usage - I added that refinement a bit later in my post.

Thanks
Bill

ok yes I understand what you mean then!

 

[bhobba]

ok yes I understand what you mean then!

The language used in QM is a BIG problem

Thanks
Bill

 

[Talisman]

Yes. Decoherence always involves entanglement, but not the vice versa.

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but can you help me understand when entanglement does not lead to decoherence? Would you say that in the state |0>|0> + |1>|1>, the first qubit exhibits decoherence when measured in the { |0> + |1>, |0> - |1> } basis?

 

[bhobba]

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but can you help me understand when entanglement does not lead to decoherence? Would you say that in the state |0>|0> + |1>|1>, the first qubit exhibits decoherence when measured in the { |0> + |1>, |0> - |1> } basis?

Do you understand what a mixed state is? Express it in terms of that and you will understand the answer. If you don't, and considering this is an I level thread then unfortunately it can't be answered at your level.

The answer is entangled systems, when you observe just one part exhibit the property of being in a mixed state so in that sense can be considered an example of decoherence. But decoherence has one other aspect - irreversibly which requires a more complex interaction/entanglement.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but can you help me understand when entanglement does not lead to decoherence? Would you say that in the state |0>|0> + |1>|1>, the first qubit exhibits decoherence when measured in the { |0> + |1>, |0> - |1> } basis?

The first qubit is in a mixed state, but that fact by itself is not decoherence. Decoherence will take place when the first qubit is measured, but that's because of the entanglement with the measuring apparatus.

 

[Talisman]

Thanks. I can see that the first qubit is in a mixed state, and so when it is measured, will exhibit decoherence. But I'm still missing something here. At what point should we consider the qubit to have been measured? For example, we can just say that the system evolves into |0>|0>|A> + |1>|1>|B>, right? And then once again, that fact by itself is not decoherence. Of course if I, the experimenter, am the measuring device, then I will see it "collapse" irreversibly into one state or the other. But that just seems to take us back to the fundamental question of what can be considered a measurement or collapse. Nonetheless, from my perspective as the experimenter, the system (apart from me) does continue to evolve in a reversible way. Which is why, I suppose, we require it be FAPP irreversible.

Does that sound about right?

 

[jambaugh]

They way I think about it is that decoherence is an increase in the system entropy. Whenever the system couples with another system it potentially becomes entangled with that system and, unless you expand your system definition, the system entropy increases. That system expansion is problematic when the other system is the environment (if your system entangles with light headed outward into the great beyond, there's little hope of manipulating that part of a meta-system). The coupling is irreversible and you get decoherence/entropy in the system.

You can even imagine that all entropy is exactly a system's entanglement with its environment and that the entropy of the "universe as a whole" is zero. It is only when we consider the universe subdivided into subsystems that we see positive entropy among those subsystems. However I don't think this last part is disprovable enough to have much scientific meaning. But taking it as an academic exercise it emphasizes the connection between entanglement, entropy, and decoherence.

 

[Talisman]

Thanks, that does clarify some things. In particular, in the state |0>|0> + |1>|1>, if we consider the second sub-system to be "the environment," and for whatever reason we cannot practically unentangle it, then it makes sense to consider the first particle as having decohered. But when it is explicitly written in the form above, and we are considering it as still part of the system under consideration, then it makes sense to say it isn't yet decoherent, because it is reversible.

So ultimately it comes down to practical definitions (hence, FAPP). There is no well-defined (or at least well-accepted) boundary beyond which it is fundamentally irreversible (which we already know as "the measurement problem"), and hence no well-defined boundary for decoherence.

 

[jambaugh]

@Talisman
Right, I find in contemplating this that I must constantly remind myself that many qualifiers we use do not refer to system observables. We must be very cautious when considering systems which we say are entangled, in superposition, coherent/decoherent, or having a specific entropy that we understand that these are really applied to our mode of system description, how we define the basis (eigen-basis of which observables), how we factor composite systems into components, and how thoroughly we have observed the system.

There is a tendency to reify these concepts in the physical state sense because we know that they are physically meaningful and not "just in our heads" but this is where a proper operational interpretation of physics is necessary. When we assert that the meanings of our terms must derive from references to sets of operations we do in the laboratory/observatory then we understand that when we simply say system X has observable A of value alpha, we are asserting that a physical constraint or physical act of measurement has occurred. This is an active pragmatic interpretation and not an ontological one, and thereby qualifiers about the statements themselves gain physical meaning where none exists in the purely ontological interpretation.

For example if we are purely ontological as in the classical sense, then ascribing a probability distribution to our classical system is simply our admitting ignorance, though only partial ignorance about the systems singular state. Then also the entropy of that probability distribution should have no physical meaning... the second law of thermodynamics as derived from statistical mechanics is simply an assertion that over time our ignorance about a system in isolation (from us) must grow. This for obvious reasons doesn't sit well with the physics student and I recall my own despair at ever understanding this. Then when I studied QM it was even worse until my PhD thesis advisor set me straight. Once we give physical correspondence to our assertions about system observables (physical acts of observation which require physical interactions with the system), then qualifiers about our assertions themselves have more directly physical meaning.

This also is why you'll find me quite reactive in the various QM Interpretation discussions. The orthodox (CI) interpretation is a shift from ontic(object state based) to praxic (positivistic, operational, process based) interpretation and it resolves this as well as the mysteries of e.g. EPR in a less sexy but far more consistent way. But then again what would Star Trek episodes do without the MWI as a plot device!

There really is a great deal of philosophy in those PhD's we get... more than I ever imagined back in the day.

 

[stevendaryl]

This also is why you'll find me quite reactive in the various QM Interpretation discussions. The orthodox (CI) interpretation is a shift from ontic(object state based) to praxic (positivistic, operational, process based) interpretation and it resolves this as well as the mysteries of e.g. EPR in a less sexy but far more consistent way.

I guess my feeling about it is that the orthodox interpretation doesn't actually resolve any of the mysteries of quantum mechanics, but instead takes the point of view that you don't need to resolve them in order to get on with the task of doing physics.

 

[Talisman]

Thanks, that all makes sense.

If we say that entanglement causes decoherence only when it is irreversible "FAPP," then it seems we are indeed just kicking the can down the road.

 

[jambaugh]

I guess my feeling about it is that the orthodox interpretation doesn't actually resolve any of the mysteries of quantum mechanics, but instead takes the point of view that you don't need to resolve them in order to get on with the task of doing physics.

Realizing a "mystery" isn't really one is a form of resolution.

QM Mystery: "How do distant measurements of EPR pairs communicate FTL and even causally backward through time?"
Orthodox Resolution: "There's nothing in the physics that says they do and the only reason one might think they do is because one is trying to fit an additional classical objective state based interpretation on the quantum physics."

and to show it's not only about quantum theory:

Classical Mystery: "If two twins are traveling at appreciable speeds relative to each other each sees the other aging slower... but which one is actually slower?"
Relativity Resolution: "There is no mystery here but rather an ill posed question... the "which one is actually slower" part presupposes absolute time and simultaneity. Each twin is actually moving slower through time as defined by the other observer in the same sense that one twin on the pole and the other at 45deg lat each see the others "height" as shorter due to their relative vertical direction.

Note that with the aether based explanation for Lorentz transformations there really is a younger twin, the one moving faster relative to the aether but there's no physical way to tell which one that is. It too "resolves" the mystery but not in a way that has any physically observable meaning. Enter Occam, stage right, brandishing a razor.

Such explanations are of the "turtles all the way down" variety, IMNSHO.

 

[stevendaryl]

Realizing a "mystery" isn't really one is a form of resolution.

I'm claiming, on the contrary, that there really is a mystery, and the standard interpretation doesn't resolve it.

QM Mystery: "How do distant measurements of EPR pairs communicate FTL and even causally backward through time?"
Orthodox Resolution: "There's nothing in the physics that says they do and the only reason one might think they do is because one is trying to fit an additional classical objective state based interpretation on the quantum physics."

That isn't resolving the mystery, it's ignoring it. I don't agree that SR is comparable. It may have seemed equally mysterious when it was proposed, but it was basically no longer considered mysterious 5 years later (except among a tiny group of dissenters). In contrast, it's been nearly 100 years since QM was proposed, and there is no consensus, even among the top physicists, as to what it really means. Ask Roger Penrose, or ask Sean Carroll, or ask Steven Weinberg about what's really going on in QM, and you'll get three different answers. That's really not the case with SR. With SR, the doubts are mostly (not 100%, but mostly) confined to newbies and crackpots.

Saying: "The state isn't actually objective" doesn't resolve the mystery. So it's not objective. What does that mean?

 

[stevendaryl]

SR messes with our intuitions about what is objective and what is not, but it does offer a substitute for those intuitions. Lengths and times are no longer objective, but depend on a frame of reference, but proper length and proper time are observer-independent. Anything expressed in the language of tensors is covariant; the components of the tensors may change when you change coordinates, but the tensors themselves can be understood as geometric objects that exist independent of coordinate systems.

What is the analogy when it comes to QM? The standard quantum "recipe" is very much observer-dependent: If you set up a system like this, and perform this type of measurement, you'll see this result with this probability. That is sort of similar to SR's operational definitions of things such as clock synchronization and distance measurements. But the difference (it seems to me) is that SR can be understood in terms of an objective reality that is independent of observers, and observer-dependent quantities are just particular "projections" of this shared reality. In QM, it's not clear what the shared reality is.

People often say that a physical quantity such as the component of a particle's spin along a particular axis simply doesn't have a value until measured. Okay, but what about after it is measured? Does it have a value then?

If you say it does, then it seems to me that you are assigning one type of physical interaction, a measurement, a role in making things "real" that is different from all other types of physical interaction. If you say it doesn't, then to me, you've got MWI, where nothing has definite values, not even measurements.

 

[jambaugh]

Yes, SR is still a classical theory and there is an objective reality behind it. My point was that the "mystery" in the twin "paradox" case was due to a failure of the thinker to wholly accept the relativity in the theory. QM is likewise a relativization, (word?) it however relativizes the objective state (in CI), that being relative to a choice of compatible observables. It is fundamentally different from classical theories, including SR so you won't find the same kind of loss of objective reality.

As to consensus among physicists CI is also referred to as the Orthodox interpretation. It still is the leading view: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
The "sexier" interpretations (EMW, BPW) get over-represented in discussion forums and Sci-Fi media. I would argue that Von Neumann's ensemble interpretation does not differ far from CI other than that there is a transition from classes of systems to sets of systems in the semantics.

Ask Roger Penrose, or ask Sean Carroll, or ask Steven Weinberg about what's really going on in QM, and you'll get three different answers.

That is exactly the type of "which twin is really older" question that begins with premises contrary to CI. Ask rather "what is actually happening" where "actually" means in the sense of actions and interactions between observer system and environment. You get the same answers when you ask what happens in the lab.

Note that all explanations/definitions/deductions start with unexplained/undefined/non-deduced primaries.

This debate over interpretations is a debate over the choice of primaries. The CI stops at the operational laboratory actions and observations. These are the primaries and all else is explained in terms of them.

Classical physics stops at the objective states and uses these to explain "what's really going on" during the laboratory actions but the states themselves are left unexplained (well we actually go in a circle the way dictionaries do with definitions, and explain states i.t.o. laboratory actions as well... until you get to Everettes worlds, Bhom's pilot waves, and the per-Einstein aether currents). This circularity is fine in classical physics because all acts of observations are commuting Maxwell demons. This is an implicit assumption in assuming objective states as one's primary and all actions are evolution flows on the manifold of possible states.

The SR analog is the pre-relativistic assumption that you can always fibrate space-time into a unique bundle of simultaneous spatial snapshots (fibers) over the base sequence of time. Once time is relativized you must shift to primaries of space-time event points. It's still objective/classical since the primaries, while changed, have not changed type.

In QM under CI the primaries are changing type. The chicken and egg definition cycle of objects-observables, is stopped at observables because one notes there are more of them and they are more generally applicable than objects.

In the logic the set-inclusion lattice of subsets of states transitions to the quantum logic lattice of subspaces in Hilbert space. If you stick to only subspaces which are spans of a given orthogonal basis, you recover a classical logic lattice as a sub-lattice. You can embed classical descriptions in quantum. The thing is though, ALL the other subspaces have operational meaning. There are observables for these "states". There is more happening, more actions available, in a quantum logic lattice than can be expressed as a power set of a maximal set of primary states i.e. than can be expressed as point transitions between objective states. Quantum logic is a language of actions and it is a richer language than classical logic. This is why it is the natural place to start, the justification for actions are primary.