Solving the Paradox of Quantum Mechanics & Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the paradoxes arising from the intersection of quantum mechanics and special relativity, particularly focusing on the collapse of quantum states during measurements of entangled particles. Participants explore the implications of non-locality in quantum mechanics and its compatibility with the relativistic framework, raising questions about causality and the definition of measurement outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the collapse of the quantum state is not well-defined, leading to contradictions in causality when considering different inertial reference frames.
  • Others propose that if two entangled particles are measured simultaneously in spacelike intervals, the order of measurements producing the collapse can vary depending on the observer's frame of reference, raising questions about the nature of causality.
  • One participant suggests that the paradox could be resolved by asserting that there is no real separation between events, implying a different interpretation of entanglement and measurement.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that the results of measurements do not change regardless of the order in which they are perceived, suggesting a need to reconsider the context of observations in quantum mechanics.
  • Concerns are raised about the instantaneous nature of collapse and its implications for the cause-and-effect relationship, particularly in scenarios involving spacelike separations.
  • Some participants acknowledge the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics but express skepticism about the interpretation that measurements cause instantaneous collapses, seeking alternative explanations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the collapse of the quantum state is not well-defined and that this leads to significant philosophical and technical challenges. However, multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of this uncertainty and the nature of causality in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining simultaneous events across different inertial frames and the challenges of reconciling quantum mechanics with relativistic principles. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the interpretation of measurement and its effects on entangled states.

  • #31


yoda jedi said:
maybe this year or the next...

testing objective collapse models:

ongoing experiment.
Keith Schwab, Anton Zeilinger, and Markus Aspelmeyer.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/103






-----------------
planed:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.4081v1.pdf
O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac.

"Preparing quantum superpositions of even larger objects is considered to be extremely challenging due to the decoherence caused by interaction with the environment [2]. However, succeeding in this task would allow completely new tests of quantum mechanics: this includes experiments in a hitherto unachieved parameter regime where collapse theories predict quantum mechanics to fail [3, 4],or even more general tests of quantum theory against full classes of macrorealistic theories"


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1236v1.pdf
Stefan Nimmrichter, Klaus Hornberger, Philipp Haslinger, and Markus Arndt.

"they have the clear advantage that they can be tested in principle. This way they bring back to physics what is otherwise an issue of logical consistency and epistemology. Another motivation to consider the possibility that quantum physics is only an approximation to a deeper underlying theory"


.

As I read these, the test is of objective collapse theories of which the GRW type is the main one. Is that about right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


Sincerely my knowledge about experimental techniques and mesophysics is limited, then I didn't follow completely the papers and also I am not familiar with GRW theory and other variations of collapse theories. For this reason i can't argument in favor or against the proposed experiments. Now the results of the experiments can be interesting and can eliminate a vast possibilities of interpretations if it have positive results. Now collapse theories are hard to deal in the sense that they can always find a collapse that can form a loophole in the whole experiment. Like I don't understand the experiments in the sense that I have not study these effects and models before, then I don't know if the experiment is free from this loopholes. Probably you have a better picture than me about this point.
 
  • #33


Just to hear some comments. The propagators of a free particle in quantum mechanics and in QFT predicts that there is a probability that a particle can travels faster than light. What it mean from the non locality point of view?
 
  • #34


DrChinese said:
As I read these, the test is of objective collapse theories

right, grw, csl, trace dynamics.



.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K