The central mystery of quantum mechanics (according to Feynman)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Richard Feynman's remarks regarding the double slit experiment and its implications for understanding quantum mechanics. Participants explore the nuances of Feynman's statements, the interpretations of quantum phenomena, and the historical context of various experimental setups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether Feynman's remarks pertain to classical experiments with high illumination or to later experiments involving single photons or particles.
  • One participant suggests that Feynman's argument about the double slit experiment being a fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics is inaccurate, as Bohmian mechanics can provide a classical-like explanation, albeit with nonlocality.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the double slit experiment does not demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality, which requires non-commuting observables and entanglement.
  • Some argue that Feynman's focus on non-commuting observables captures part of the mystery, but he may have overlooked the significance of entanglement.
  • One participant proposes that the absence of distinguishability between paths leads to interference, and speculates about the effects of partially overlapping wavefunctions on the interference pattern.
  • A participant expresses interest in the historical context of interference experiments and seeks clarification on whether Bohmian mechanics can explain results from quantum eraser experiments.
  • Another participant shares a perspective that the violation of Bell's inequality does not introduce new mysteries but reinforces existing ones in quantum theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on Feynman's remarks and the implications of the double slit experiment, indicating that multiple competing interpretations and models remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the limitations of classical explanations in the context of quantum mechanics, the role of hidden variable theories, and the specific conditions under which different interpretations apply, without reaching a consensus on these points.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to foundational experiments like the double slit experiment and interpretations of quantum theory.

  • #31
jk22 said:
Is that what you mean that for contextual hidden variable the sum of average could be different than the average of the sum ?

No.

It's simple.

If you have a look at Gleason you will see its watertight if the measure defined on a projection operator depends only on the operator itself and not on other operators it may be part of in a resolution of the identity. The only out is if that's not the case. It's not the case for some hidden variable theories.

I have zero idea where you are getting your other equations from, what they mean, what the terms mean, context or anything.

Please detail exact context and meaning.

They look like some equations I vaguely remember from papers on hidden variables, but you need to detail exactly what the terms mean and their derivation. A concern I have is when you say 'I suppose such and such is a contextual expression' it indicates you do not know what the terms mean. It's very hard for someone to figure out what you are driving at if that is the case.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
784
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K