Solving the Paradox of Quantum Mechanics & Special Relativity

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the paradox arising from the collapse of quantum states in the context of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It highlights the issue of how measurements of entangled particles can yield different outcomes depending on the observer's inertial frame, leading to questions about causality and the definition of state collapse. The participants argue that the instantaneous nature of collapse contradicts the principles of causality, particularly when measurements are spacelike separated. They suggest that the concept of collapse may not be well-defined and explore the implications of simultaneous measurements on the results observed. Ultimately, the conversation raises fundamental questions about the relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity, particularly regarding the nature 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 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
374