The Schrödinger equation poses a difficulty when one wants to provide it with interpretations: given some initial condition, the system described by the quantum state evolves into a state that contains a superposition of states.
Classical mechanics is deterministic. It is completely possible to predict the evolution in time of the system when we have determined the solution to the equation of motion. In addition, in principle, a classical system can be viewed without disturbing its state. The temporal evolution of the quantum systems is given by the Schrödinger equation. The quantum state (state vector) of the quantum system also evolves deterministically according to the deterministic and linear Schrödinger equation. Just like in classical physics, given the initial state of the system and the Hamiltonian, it is in principle possible to calculate the state at arbitrary time. But the Schrödinger equation poses a difficulty when one wants to provide it with interpretations: given some initial condition, the system described by the quantum state evolves into a state that contains a superposition of states. Mathematically, the principle of superposition in quantum mechanics is based on the linearity of the Hilbert space. Given two quantum states, according to quantum mechanics any linear combination of them corresponds to a possible quantum state. It was necessary to explain how in the measurement one result is obtained from many possible results.
The first interpretation that explained this was the Copenhagen Accord formulated in 1928 by Niels Bohr. Bohr argued that the classical apparatus was necessary to perform the measurements so that the quantum mechanical phenomena would be accessible to the (macroscopic) observer in terms of the classical world from his experience. The measuring device is governed by classical physical laws and is not described in quantum mechanical terms. The measuring instrument shows one definite value because it belongs to the classical macroscopic world (where there is no superposition). Quantum theory is not universal. A distinction must be made between the quantum world and the classical world, and there is a boundary that separates the two. It cannot be moved without destroying the interaction between the measuring device and the quantum system and the observed phenomenon. In principle, it is possible to measure our senses, the eyes and the nervous system and treat them as a quantum object, provided we find a suitable classical device that will perform the task. Hence one should not try to accept classical physics as arising from a quantum structure. Quantum theory is a complete theory and classical physics is physics that preceded quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation is not the standard (orthodox) interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In 1932 John von Neumann wrote his book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. In the book he gave an interpretation of the quantum measurement. In contrast to the Copenhagen Consensus, von Neumann claimed that when a quantum system interacts with a measuring device, this interaction itself is subject to the laws of quantum mechanics and is described by them. Describe a measuring device as a mechanical quantum system. We interact with the measuring device and interpret the measurement results in terms of the eigenvalues of the quantum system. Each measurement causes a discontinuous jump in the uniform temporal evolution of the state of the quantum system; The act of observing a quantum system inevitably disturbs the system and causes the selection of one of the eigenvalues. This is caused by collapsing the wave function into one of the states determined by the eigenvalues of the measurement operator. The concept of the collapse of von Neumann's wave function is necessary to explain how a quantum system that was before the act of measurement in a state of superposition is now converted into a quantum system that exists in one and only state after the measurement process has taken place. The collapse of the wave function represents a change in our knowledge about the system, a refinement of our knowledge about the state of the quantum particle; And more than that, before the measurement the particle is in an indeterminate state - we do not have accurate knowledge about the particle until we measure it, and the measurement itself (that is, the measuring device itself) determines what state the particle takes.
For microscopic systems superposition states have been confirmed experimentally. But we never see such situations in our world. According to von Neumann's interpretation, macroscopic superpositions are not explicitly forbidden, but we never observe them because any such observation requires an interaction that is like a measurement and then immediately collapse occurs. Our difficulty with quantum mechanics is the contradiction between the principle of superposition, which is the main doctrine of quantum mechanics, and our everyday classical reality where the principle seems to be violated.
In the 1970-80s, a new theory was developed, decoherence. Ask: Is the macroscopic world classical? Why not be quantum as well? We should not ignore the fact that quantum mechanics is also valid for the macroscopic world and therefore we must understand within the framework of quantum mechanics why the macroscopic world appears as classical. The purpose of decoherence theory is to explain the appearance of classical phenomena as arising from the quantum world; This explanation is made by taking into account the role that the environment has in the quantum system. That is why open quantum systems that take into account the inevitable effect of the environment are being studied.
The decoherence arises from the application of the quantum formalism to describe the interaction of the physical system with its environment. It is not an interpretation intended to solve the measurement problem. To solve the measurement problem, an explanation according to the decoherence theory is added to the various interpretations.
Almost every physical system has to interact in some way with its environment, for example with the surrounding photons that create the sensory experience for the viewer. In the quantum world we see quantum entanglement everywhere. According to decoherence theory, such a coupling is created between the system and its environment, a non-local state in the quantum interweaving of system-environment. According to the quantum entanglement it is no longer possible to associate a separate quantum state with the quantum system because it is correlated with its environment.
We will initially examine a pure coherent quantum system (a system in superposition of states - the wave function of one state and the wave function of the other state vibrate almost in a synchronized manner) and a measuring device. In the first stage, the system interacts with the measuring device and there is an interweaving between them. But an explanation is needed for the fact that one definite result is obtained at the end of the experiment (the measurement problem). When the quantum system is represented by a superposition of states that the measuring device is supposed to measure, we get a complex final state: a system-measuring device in the superposition of the states of the quantum system and the measuring device. It is not possible to associate a defined and single value with the measuring device. On the contrary, there will be a multiplicity of possible outcomes. But measuring devices soon become intertwined with a huge number of degrees of freedom in the environment, photons whose state we do not know precisely, and the observer cannot measure all these degrees of freedom. In addition, the environment is intertwined with the measured quantum system. Any actual quantum system is always interacting with the environment. A non-local interweaving is obtained between the quantum system-the measuring device-and the environment: this integrated system is described by a superposition of a complex state. In the state of the coherent superposition (the pure quantum system) there is a lot of information. When it comes to a microscopic quantum system, the interweaving with the environment reduces the possible information that the observer has about the quantum system so that the measurement result is classical. That is, the quantum system in superposition, which is intertwined with the environment, fades away from the illusion over time to a classical measurement result. But this decoherent procedure does not explain why one and only one definite result is obtained at the end of the experiment. The superposition represents quantum states that "exist" at the same time, so this explanation does not allow us to isolate a single state of a measuring device that would indicate a practical measurement result of the experiment. It seems that we need the observer and the collapse of the wave function to explain this.
In 1935 Erwin Schrödinger proposed a macroscopic superposition cat paradox. In fact, following Einstein's APR experiment, Einstein and Schrödinger corresponded in 1935. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics as a complete theory and Schrödinger proposed one of the most famous thought experiments ever developed – Schrödinger's Cat Paradox – to convince the stubborn Einstein that the quantum world was indeed mysterious and strange.
Schrödinger's cat paradox: "Someone can even plan quite ridiculous cases. A cat is imprisoned in a steel cage, together with the following diabolical component (which must be protected for fear of direct interference from the cat): In a Geiger counter there is a small piece of radioactive material, so small that perhaps with the passage of one hour, one of the atoms will fade, but also, with the same probability, perhaps even One [does not fade]. If this happens, the meter tube breaks and via a transmission releases a hammer that shatters a small vial of hydrocyanic acid. If we leave this system all alone for an hour, we can say that the cat is still alive if in the meantime no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay will poison him. The wave function of the entire system will express this by including the live and dead cat (excuse the expression) mixed or smeared entirely in equal parts.
The paradox appears when trying to describe the state of the macroscopic system before measuring it and when not observing it. Let's say we express two quantum states of the atom:
1) the atom decays and emits an electron 2) the atom remains in a state of no decay;
And two quantum states of the cat: 1) the cat is dead 2) the cat is alive.
The two states of the total system that combine the states of the radioactive atom with the states of the cat are: state of an atom that has decayed twice the state of a dead cat and state of an atom that has not decayed twice the state of a living cat. According to the quantum superposition principle, the unobserved state of the cat box before it is opened and measured is the Schrödinger cat state, or for short the cat state. This is the unobserved state of the system - the state of the system before the box was opened after an hour. Schrödinger's cat situations have no reality. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, this is not a real cat in a mood or suspended between life and death, therefore the cat is neither alive nor dead; The radioactive decay is a no-no and has not happened. That is, nothing is real until it is viewed. Therefore, the superposition that Schrödinger talks about ("the living and the dead cat... is mixed or smeared entirely in equal parts") actually says nothing about the state of the cat itself, but about the state of knowledge of the observer, who does not know what the state of the cat is before performing the measurement. When the system is watched and the cat is found dead, then we will also find that the radioactive atom has decayed. Alternatively, if we find that the cat is alive, we will also find that the radioactive atom remains intact and has not decayed.
According to the decoherent interpretation, every real quantum system like a cat in a box is in contact with its external environment (photons, atoms, etc.). This interweaving between the quantum system of the cat in superposition and the environment in which it is located leads the cat in superposition to a very rapid decay to a state of life or death. Since the cat is a macroscopic system that consists of billions of atoms that come into contact with billions of particles in the environment, decoherence occurs almost immediately and therefore the cat cannot be in a state of superposition - both alive and dead - even for one moment. Physicist-philosopher David Marmin says that Einstein went for a walk in Princeton with his friend Abraham Pace and they discussed the concept of objective reality. Suddenly Einstein stopped and asked Pace: Do you really believe that the moon only exists when you look at it? According to decoherence, you don't need an observer to look at the cat, the superposition disappears by itself...
Schrödinger's cat paradox and the collapse of the wave function led to a debate on the topic of collapse. Is the idea of collapse necessary to explain why before the measurement procedure the quantum system is in a strange Schrödinger's cat state of superposition, while after a certain measurement procedure is chosen, the system exists in only one and only one state?
In 1957 Hugh Ebert, encouraged by John Archibald Wheeler, developed the theory of relative states. Ebert suggested:
"To assume that the quantum description is universally valid by canceling [...the collapse of the wave function]. Assume the general validity of pure wave mechanics for all quantum systems including observers and measuring devices, without statistical determinations. The measurement processes are completely described by the state function of the complex system that includes the observer and his object system, in which the wave equation dominates at all times."
While the Copenhagen interpretation establishes a clear boundary between the quantum and the classical region, when it allows the transition to the classical region of only one measurement result by the interaction between the classical measuring device and the quantum system, Ebert's interpretation completely omits this boundary. Ebert states that all members in the superposition of the total state actually correspond to physical states at the end of the measurement. In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics there is a superposition of two states and then a collapse into one state. Ebert canceled the collapse and therefore each time when there is a measurement additional relative positions, or members in superposition.
Ebert explains: "All processes are tested equally (there is no 'measurement process' that plays a preferred role)...". And so he offers "a consistent description of the universe in which several observers are in action". Ebert explains the need for multiple viewers: "Let us examine the viewer as a subsystem of the complex system: viewer + object system. The inescapable conclusion is that, once the interaction has taken place, a single observer situation will generally no longer exist. Although the system will be in a superposition of complex states, where each member represents a defined observer state and a defined relational system-object state. Additionally, as we shall see, each of these relative object system states will approximately represent the observation eigenvalues that correspond to the value received by the observer and described by the same term in the superposition.
Therefore, each term in the resulting superposition describes an observer who feels a definite and generally different result, and who believes that the object-system state has been transformed into the corresponding self-state. In this sense it seems that the usual determinations of [...the collapse of the wave function] are subjectively valid for any observer described by a term in the superposition".
If we eliminate the collapse of the wave function and leave the single observer, we come to the conclusion that we have an observer who is able to perform an infinite number of experiments and observe the result of all of them. This is impossible, because no one is able to perform an infinite number of experiments. In addition, the theory of special relativity places a limit on the practical ability of that single observer because some experiments will have to be performed outside the light cone of the observer, which means that he will not be able to perform them at all. Therefore we come to the conclusion that a plurality of observers in separate worlds are needed, where in each world an observer follows a causal sequence of events.
At first Ebert's interpretation was not considered until in 1970 Bryce de Wit and together with Neil Graham in 1973 brought the idea to the public's attention. De Witt explained Ebert's theory by interpreting the multiple worlds according to which each member of the superposition represents a real physical state that is realized in a branch of another reality. And every such physical state is relative to a branch of macroscopic worlds that diverge.
John Wheeler said that the particle "really will be in two different places at the same time", i.e. in two different worlds at the same time... Therefore the total state represents multiple worlds, each of which is macroscopically defined. But when exactly does the split occur? The split happens all the time and everywhere. If the measurement creates a coupling between the measuring device and the quantum system, every time such coupling occurs a split occurs; And if it is assumed that the split is for an actual world, the meaning of this is very problematic. Such an interpretation establishes an infinite set of separate branches which correspond to separate events of our experience.
Hence there are no probabilities in the multiple worlds interpretation, since every outcome actually occurs in some world. This seems to contradict the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which allows only one outcome to be realized, since each possible outcome is populated by a branch of the universe's wave function that is multiplying.
In terms of difficulties, the standard interpretation and the multiple worlds interpretation encounter the same difficulty: why do I, the viewer, see only one possibility among the infinite possibilities? When, where, how (and who?) decide which option will be given to which viewer among the infinite number of bifurcation viewers in the multiple worlds? In the interpretation of the multiple worlds, it is not possible to define which states of the universe are suitable for the various branches. In the original version of the multiple worlds interpretation, the observer in his world is just like the observer in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics - a realization of one measurement result.
We will examine Ebert's version of Schrödinger's cat paradox which demonstrates this. According to the interpretation of the multiple worlds, the two possibilities of a live cat and a dead cat lead to two different branching sets: in one branching set the cat is dead and in the other branching set the cat is alive. Let's say that in our world the viewer opened the box and found that the cat was dead. According to the interpretation of the multiple worlds in the other world the cat lives. Therefore if the cat dies in this world, it is resurrected in another parallel world. However, from the point of view of the viewer in our world the cat is dead. Therefore it can be argued that Ebert did not innovate anything: there is no difference between the collapse of the wave function and the interpretation of the multiple worlds; The question therefore arises: can the viewer witness the splitting of the worlds?
And the answer is: the viewer is not aware of the split and its multiple copies, because the split occurs towards multiple futures, so that there are multitudes of copies of it in universes disconnected from each other. These and other problems arise because Ebert's multiple worlds are considered something that is possible and has physical reality. A situation of such fragmentation, every time there is a decision and measurement, will cause a population explosion of universes, that is, the number of universes will increase every moment and every second exponentially. Every moment a new universe is born with a copy of some observer.
Over the years, a newer version of the multiple worlds was born according to which the multiple worlds should not be seen as a bifurcation - like a kind of tree from which branches come out every time there is an act of measurement - or a kind of fractal model. It is an infinite number of parallel worlds. Thus, according to the parallel worlds interpretation, instead of the world splitting into separate branches as a result of the quantum transition, the various states of the superposition are divided among an infinite number of parallel worlds. Later an interpretation was proposed according to which each physical state corresponds to one thought among many thoughts of the same observer (the interpretation of the multiple thoughts).
In its various versions, Ebert's theory of relative states appears as multiple worlds, multiple thoughts, diverging worlds, parallel worlds, one physical world that splits into different aspects, etc.
Proponents of decoherence have naturally tended to adopt the many-worlds interpretation because it seems natural to associate the various decoherent components of the wave function with different diverging Ebert branches; Conversely, decoherence seems to have also solved problems in the theory of multiple worlds: multiple thoughts lead the viewer to a state of schizophrenia. When there is an interaction between the quantum system and the observer and his measuring device (he performs a measurement in the quantum system), the quantum system and the observer's measuring device are intertwined. The viewer's state of mind enters a state of coherent superposition of two measurement states (which can interfere with each other). Each state of consciousness measures a different state of the quantum system. Why then can the viewer never be aware of the schizophrenic state of superposition of his thought? Why for him is he actually aware of measuring one result? The explanation is that there is a rapid suppression of the interference between the different states of consciousness of the observer by the process of decoherence between the states of consciousness of the observer. This prevents the different memory states from getting confused and thus each separate memory state represents a separate identity of the viewer.
There is actually no difference between the wave function collapse and the multiple worlds interpretation because the worlds are disconnected from each other. Maybe wormholes can help viewers communicate with each other? A year ago, Leonard Suskind of Stanford University in Palo Alto and Ralph Boisseau of Berkeley proposed the following idea: There are cosmologists who think that our universe was created along with a huge, possibly infinite, number of other universes. Therefore our universe is just one tiny universe in a series of multiverses. Suskind and Boissau proposed that the multiverse and the quantum mechanics interpretation of the multiple worlds are formally the same. That is, the multiple worlds of quantum mechanics and the multiple worlds of the multiverse are exactly the same. Both in the interpretation of the multiple worlds and in the multiverse theory, the world is viewed as a collection of parallel universes.
For the previous episodes in the series:
- Quantum philosophy A - time travel
- Quantum philosophy B - does the future cause the past
- The philosophy of quantum C - simultaneous communication
49 תגובות
"Given the initial situation..." meaning that everything is known, so let's calculate ahead for any time.
This is true, of course, provided there is no randomness.
Mmmmmm is this? Translation, urgent translation.
Is the universe a local? So how can particles affect each other from any distance in zero time if the universe is local?
It is not easy for me to answer this question.
And for you?
Israel Shapira, if you define the universe as "the area where everything that exists in our dimension is found", then the universe must be local.
If you believe that there is space in our dimension outside the universe, then given an environmental stimulus, the universe could move and until it stopped, it would not be local.
"Given the initial state of the system and the Hamiltonian, it is in principle possible to calculate the state at an arbitrary time." ?
Who said this nonsense?
At an arbitrary time the situation changes, for example, if it is known that I left the house at X hour and walked 5 steps, if it is known what my average step size is for the first 5 steps at this hour, it is possible to calculate where I was after 5 steps.
But that doesn't mean where I'll be after 10 steps, maybe the size of the step changed, maybe there was an obstacle that caused the steps to decrease or an obstacle that caused the steps to increase, maybe I switched to running, maybe after 5 steps I got into the car, drove 100 km and there I continued the 5 steps The others, it is possible that I walked in place or changed direction while walking, not to mention that my location at one arbitrary time can but does not have to be different from my location at another time, so that for the answer to my location at an arbitrary time to be correct it must contain all the possible options, And it will provide one correct answer for each of the "arbitrary" times that were calculated (which means that for every time that is calculated there will be one result that will hit a stamp and billions of additional answers that will be incorrect).
In order to know what is happening inside the box, we will also attach an explosive to the cat in an amount that is enough to shock, and then we will know without checking if the cat is dead or alive. Is this against the theory of pranks?
Thank you Israel. I still haven't properly organized myself in my new home. It's also not clear to me how to ask the knowledge system in the new format for email updates on each response
And yes, Edi Mars and Billoni today 🙂 Hope you are feeling well
Jubilee, you followed Idio of March and chose to ask us Passover questions, eh?
Look at the link:
http://groups.physics.northwestern.edu/lab/sound.pdf
p. 3, the image of the sound pulses.
Look at just one of them (they can come singly).
Look at him from afar as he moves.
Doesn't look like a particle? And this even though he is a wave?
Note that it is massless, carries momentum, moves at a constant speed (the speed of sound), has a certain wavelength, and because it is compressed by the environment, resists acceleration more than the environment.
In short - a galaxy. A compressed wave that takes on the properties of a particle.
And the same is the case with Fotonino.
His duality is small for us.
And so are his other brothers and sisters, the elementary particles. They are all basically compressed waves. According to string theory.
Meir (and everyone else), a small problem following "a particle is always a particle"
We recognize the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation. Do you have an explanation for this?
I hold the belief that understanding the mechanism of the phenomenon will bring in its wings an understanding of other unclear phenomena
You think? Sahbek is interested in pure physics.
It's ok, for now I found what I was looking for (I hope).
I still do not get it. Are you interested in a quote for developing such an application for your smartphone?
For some reason it seems to me that the initials of Fukikomi are the same...
Good to have someone watching us.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-35/#comment-351874
The best - of all three. If it doesn't work out - then one or two. If possible even then, apart from the presentation on a monitor, accurate digital recording in a DVR, or any other system that can give an indication of when a certain signal arrived.
Thanks.
I did not understand the question. Let's assume that the entire shelter militia registers time for itself from three satellites. Do you want the three times to be displayed on a screen?
OK. If you accept that information passes instantly from one end of the EPR experiment to the other, contrary to what is said in the article, I can see the logic in your words. Looking forward to the near publication of your article. Successfully.
Do you perhaps know how to display the exact time recorded on a GPS device? In my understanding, the device calculates the position by weighting the time received from the satellites. The question is how to display the same time before the weighting, on an example display.
Israel,
"Logic and mathematics say that when the two polarizers are at 30 degrees, opposite directions so that the angle between them is 60 degrees, the percentage of mismatch cannot exceed 50."
This logic is the root of the error (as I already said in my previous talkbooks, Bell's theorem is not relevant to our case because the aforementioned "logic", which predicts the "triangles" for hidden variables, is not relevant). Quantum reality is different from classical reality, therefore classical logic fails in the above prediction. This still does not mean that the quantum world cannot be explained in a logical way that is acceptable to the human mind, and without resorting to "repetitions in time" and assuming limbo states.
"Can you give another explanation"
Yes totally. As part of an organized article, I will explain the exact mechanism that causes the fact that, even though the polarization is predetermined, doubling the angle between the poles from 30 degrees to 60 increases the discrepancies by more than two times (and in general I will explain why the graph of the adjustments for each angle is cosine and not triangular) .
Meir, let's synchronize concepts:
If the polarization of the photon is a "hidden variable" (Einstein), then it was determined even before the photon reached the polarizer.
If the photon is in superposition (Bohr), then only when the photon hit the pole is its polarization determined.
In an aspect experiment, when the angle of polarizer A is 30 degrees and polarizer B is 0 degrees, the percentage is the match between the photons that pass through the polarizer is 25. The same percentage when polarizer B is 30 degrees and A is 0.
Logic and mathematics say that when the two polarizers are at 30 degrees, opposite directions so that the angle between them is 60 degrees, the percentage of mismatch cannot exceed 50. In practice it is 75, as Bohr claims.
Therefore, it is not just that "something moves with infinite speed from one end of the experiment to the other". This "something" is nothing less than the state of polarizers.
Can you give another explanation in the limited area of an aspect experiment? How does your claim that "the polarization is a hidden variable" reconcile with the results of the experiment, namely that the percentage of mismatches when the angle is doubled is 3 times?
Israel,
Did you understand from me that reality is local?! If transferring information between entangled particles at infinite speed means non-locality, I'm there. After all, I said that something moves with infinite speed from one end of the experiment to the other.
"Could you explain how this fits with the data shown in the article?"
If you direct me to data that requires an explanation after what I have already explained (including in previous tickbooks), then I will try.
Meir.
Nick Herbert writes:
No local reality can explain these facts. Therefore reality must be non-local. Furthermore this conclusion is not a supposition or speculation but a mathematical proof. John Bell found a way to ask a question about reality itself–not merely about
theory or fact. And he obtained a clear and surprising answer: reality is non-local.
He doesn't just write - he proves it through a simple experiment that can be performed using equipment that can be purchased at the Carmel market.
The improved aspect experiment was conducted according to the format that Nick suggested.
According to Nick's claim, there is no possible physical mechanism that can theoretically contradict the conclusion derived from the Aspect experiment, that reality is not local. In my opinion, the mechanism you proposed presents an alternative of hidden variables beyond the scope of the experiment - but not within the scope of the experiment.
According to your words in the last response "polarization is a hidden variable". Do you mean that even in the original aspect experiment, where the polarizers are 13m apart, photon polarization is a hidden variable? Can you explain how this works out with the data presented in the article?
Good night.
Oops, I meant to write "the conventional interpretation is incorrect".
Israel,
""The standard interpretation accepted in orthodox quantum mechanics means that no information is transferred between one end of an APR experiment and the other."
The interpretation is not acceptable. Information is passed between one end of an APR experiment and the other, but this information does not convey to the entangled photon the spin state of its friend, but only the fact that it has been manipulated. The spin state is a hidden variable.
Bell's theorem is mathematically correct, but it is not a correct test for making the comparison between the hidden variables approach and the disputants' approach. In my opinion, both approaches are incorrect. There is transfer of information at infinite speed (as above), and there are also hidden variables.
"We would stop getting the sine pattern typical of non-locality, and start getting the zigzag pattern typical of hidden variables."
Not true. The mistake (of Bell and in fact of all those who use his theorem for the purpose of the "proof") is in sticking the zigzag pattern to the hidden variables. Beyond that, I am not interested in detailing outside the scope of an organized article that will be published in due course.
"They stopped being in superposition and their polarization became fixed, ("collapse" aalek) this despite the fact that no measurement of the photons was performed."
No. The polarization is a hidden variable. But beyond a certain distance the manipulation of one photon will not affect the behavior of its friend, and therefore the interference pattern will be preserved.
You don't "relieve us from the nightmare" - you do.
still big
Meir.
"In my opinion, there are also hidden variables, and there is transfer at infinite speed, and there is also an incorrect Bell theorem."
1. If "there is transfer at infinite speed" (I assume you meant the transfer of information, in our case information about the polarization of the photon), then this is exactly the question I asked at the beginning: "What about the claim in the previous article: "The standard interpretation accepted in orthodox quantum mechanics means that no information It is not transferred between one end of the APR experiment and the other." Is she correct?”
2. Bell's inequality theorem is indeed a purely mathematical theorem. All he says is: what is in group A and not in group B, + what is in group B and not in group C, is greater or equal to what is in group A and not in group C. You can see this easily if you draw the groups on paper and mark and count the overlapping parts.
In quantum, Bell's theorem violation is used to prove non-locality, but it is also true in any other field.
3. Let's see how your claim fares with an aspect experiment.
According to what I understand of your claim, each photon in the experiment was in a superposition of polarization states as long as the distance between them was not large, but beyond a certain distance (not more than a few kilometers) they stopped being in superposition and their polarization became fixed, ("collapse" Aalek) this although not Every measurement of the photons was made.
It turns out that if we had the technical possibility to conduct the Aspect experiment with increasing distances between the polarizers, then above a fixed and not particularly large distance, when we would plot the percentages of discrepancies in polarizations, we would stop getting the sine pattern typical of non-locality, and start getting the zigzag pattern characteristic of latent variables.
No?
This is an interesting and consistent claim, and I can see its advantage over the existing description of interlacing: also according to which there is superposition and transfer of data at infinite speed. But it frees us from the nightmare of the collapse of the wave function in the entire universe in zero time.
I also see how it fits into your claim "a particle is always a particle, and it always only passes through one of the slits." Along with it, a wave that the particle itself creates passes through the two slits." Here too, according to your description, the collapse of the wave function of a single electron does not take place in the entire universe, but only in a certain and limited area around the particle.
Beautiful and interesting. I need some time to think about it. Nick Herbert claims that there is no way out of the conclusion that the universe is not local, no matter what we do.
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
But you may very well have found the loophole in his argument.
By the way, if anyone is interested, in the article above that describes his "Spot" experiment, can you see where the experiment is not completely closed and there is still a possibility of a way out of the claim that the universe is not local? The missing Yuval Chaikin discovered this loophole in the experiment described, and it took a lot of painstaking effort to convince him that it had been closed in later experiments.
Or maybe it wasn't closed?
I think that's enough for now. The head was full. I have all of 2013 to think about the gravity-assist anomaly.
Happy new year to everyone. (Anyone here at all? Hello?).
Israel,
"So if there are no hidden variables, how did the state of polarization go from Mars to Earth in less than two minutes?"
In my opinion, there are also hidden variables, and there is transfer at infinite speed, and Bell's Theorem is incorrect (yes, I know you want to jump in and claim that Bell's Theorem is pure mathematics, but it is not. In my opinion, one of its basic assumptions is wrong and its mathematics is irrelevant anyway. But I don't I will go beyond that in the framework of tikbooks).
"But 150 meters is also a respectable distance, isn't it? I'm also quite convinced that experiments were done with polarizers at distances of several kilometers, I'll find it for you if you insist."
In my opinion, it is not possible to repeat an Aspect experiment and similar ones ("the quantum eraser") for a distance of several kilometers. I don't know how to calculate the maximum distance for my method, but my gut feeling is that it won't work.
"We can relatively easily count approximately how many electrons passed from body to body, and by weighing before and after we know what the gravitational mass of an electron is, right?"
It is a problem to consider a charged body because the electrostatic interactions with the environment spoil the result.
"Doesn't it turn out according to his prediction?"
Let's assume that I'm right that the inertial motion slightly distorts the gravitational field of a moving body, and that this is the cause of the gravity-assist anomaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly
Is it because Einstein did not know and did not predict this anomaly that he is exempt from including it as an additional and necessary factor in the calculations of Mercury's precession? After all, what does this anomaly mean if not that the gravitational field of the Earth (and if so, also of the Sun, of Mercury, of all the other planets, and of every body in motion) behaves in a slightly different way than expected according to the theory of relativity?
I claim that since a new factor has been found that affects movement in gravitational fields, Einstein's calculations, which were so-called stamps, are no longer stamps, because he did not take this factor into account. "Ignorance of the law does not exempt from the penalty of recalculating all 65 pages taking into account the new law", and I am not implying by this that Anderson's formula is correct, but I am implying that it is necessary to continue researching until the correct formula is found, and when it is found, it will become clear that Einstein was wrong.
"Do you know any other experiment or phenomenon that contradicts Einstein?" The Pioneer Anomaly is a phenomenon that contradicts the predictions of the theory of relativity. There are more but not for here.
"The Wheeler experiment is simply the good old two-slit experiment, where you measure which slit the particle passed through but long after the transition. The measurement forces the particle to decide that it passed through the cracks as a particle and not as a wave, but in hindsight. For example: if we measured a light-year distance from the cracks, then how did he know if he passed through them as a particle or as a wave? After all, he passed them the year before, didn't he? So if it went through as a wave, we should get a wrestling pattern. But here we are a year later, and we can influence the past through measurement"
A particle is always a particle, and it always only passes through one of the slits. Along with it, a wave that the particle itself creates passes through the two slits. The wave interferes with itself, and the particle is in resonance with the interference pattern because it is the one that created it and it matches its frequency. Because of this, the chance that the particle will hit the screen in certain places is higher than the chance that it will hit in other places (a broader explanation in one of the following articles that will deal with this topic). This is as long as the resonance is preserved, i.e. as long as the peaks of the wave that the particle "transmits" are created at peak points of the interference pattern. As soon as any manipulation is applied to the particle (or to its intertwined friend) it loses synchronization with the interference pattern and continues on its way as if it did not exist.
Flowing water with you, as always. Happy and successful year.
Absolutely not, but you can start a new year
Water, our brother, you are not hurt by the pressures, are you? If so, let me know and I'll stop right away. You just chose a hot name and the temptation is too strong.
Israel, a slight blow for splitting the particles back in time, therefore there is also a correlation backwards in time. Is that all for now? ? ?
Meir.
Obviously, the message can also be delivered using flashlights. It is also clear that if there are hidden variables, then we can know what the situation is at the other end of the EPR experiment.
That's why I gave the example of the photons entwined inside a container in a Bose Einstein condensed state. Let's try for a moment to work only if this example, and see if we agree that the photon polarization information was instantly transferred from Mars to Earth.
1. Is there any doubt that before the measurement, at 17:59:00 they were still in a state of superposition of polarizations, both according to Earth time and on Mars?
3. Is there any doubt that at 18:01:00 the two photons are measured in the same polarization? (In electrons the spin is reversed, in photons the polarization is the same).
Is there any doubt that light takes 10 minutes to travel the distance between Mars and Earth?
Question: So if there are no hidden variables, how did the state of polarization go from Mars to Earth in less than two minutes?
You can of course argue that the state of polarization was determined even before the containers moved beyond a certain distance. In the aspect experiment the distance of the polarizers from the photon source was 6.5 meters. In the Danube experiment - 150 and 650 meters. But it can always be argued that the polarization is fixed beyond a certain distance, the so-called "hidden variables Lite", as you say "the photon makes its way to the 144 kilometer distance that separates La Palma and Tenerife after the entanglement has already worked between them within the confines of the laboratory". (I must point out that this is a great claim, which would be great to bash overzealous groups of interweaving).
But 150 meters is also a respectable distance, isn't it? I'm also quite convinced that experiments were done with polarizers at distances of several kilometers, I'll find it for you if you insist.
So if this is your claim about the communication from Mars, that the polarization of the photons was already determined at a short distance even before the containers moved away, say so.
As written: Beware of the hands of Mars!
(The shuffle game between Jojo and Bijo, in a battle that never ends (because of the beatings) for the championship of the shanty town XNUMX).
"In order to weigh, you need a weightable amount of material."
Talah, but is it too complicated to simply ionize a certain amount of a substance positively while another substance is negative? We can relatively easily count approximately how many electrons have passed from body to body, and by weighing before and after know what the gravitational mass of an electron is, right?
"She also alludes to the fact that Einstein's fractional calculations are not valid." Why? It doesn't turn out well according to his prediction? Do you know any other experiment or phenomenon that contradicts Einstein?
"Regarding Riddle 87, if I manage to read the article and understand what hurts, I might have something to say"
The Wheeler experiment is simply the good old two-slit experiment, where you measure which slit the particle went through but long after the transition. The measurement forces the particle to decide that it passed through the cracks as a particle and not as a wave, but in hindsight. For example: if we measured a light-year distance from the cracks, then how did he know if he passed through them as a particle or as a wave? After all, he passed them the year before, didn't he? So if it went through as a wave, we should get a wrestling pattern. But here we are a year later, and we can influence the past through measurement (water, exhale, inhale, hold for a few seconds and release).
Meir has two comments:
A. If the time rate of a certain force changes, the force also changes in time.
B. One of the problems with going back in time is that you can predict any story you make up if you know the future and arrange the assumption according to what will happen
Israel,
"A green light sent from a flashlight in the spaceship was green all the time."
Yes, but before the beam arrived, the Martians do not know whether the green beam or the red beam of the two-beam flashlight was sent to them.
"If Bohr checks the photon at 18:01, he knows the state of the photon on Mars, the one that collapsed a minute before, and Neumann has to wait."
Yes, but even in the experiment I proposed, if Bohr checks the color of the ray that came from the spacecraft, he knows the color of the ray that reached Mars, and Neumann has to wait.
"No signal can be transmitted before the crash."
Yes, even before the green beam reached Mars, it is not possible to transmit a signal because we still don't know whether the green or the red will arrive.
Thanks for the link. And this is the full article:
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Entanglement-based%20quantum%20communication%20over%20144km.pdf
As far as I understand, in this experiment the collapse at Alice (in La Palma) is immediate, and she determines on the spot the direction of polarization in the photon sent to Bob (who lives in Tenerife). The areas of the laboratory in La Palma:
One photon was measured locally on La Palma; the other one was sent through a 15 cm transceiver lens over the 144 km free-space optical link to the 1 m mirror telescope of the Optical Ground Station (OGS) on the island of Tenerife.
What interests you and me is an experiment in which the distance between the entwined photons will be 144 kilometers at the moment of collapse, and what happens to one photon will instantly determine the state of its friend after they are already separated by 144 kilometers.
"If you could explain how the mass of the universe M fits into the formula GM=RC^2 if there is no connection between the masses in the universe, it would greatly strengthen your thesis."
will not strengthen for the following reasons:
I don't believe this connection is true. Maybe he was right by chance at some particular moment. As we have already discussed, G must change over time in order to maintain the correctness of the relationship in a dynamic (expanding) universe.
According to my methods GC and R do not change with time, but the mass of the universe does change with time due to the expansion of the universe.
According to my method, gravitation is limited in range (corresponds also to the method of those who claim that it spreads at speed C and that the galaxies move away from each other at a speed characteristic of their distance).
"Weighing a system that includes electrons, you can verify their gravitational mass, can't you?"
Apparently it's not that simple. In order to weigh, you need a weighable amount of material. How do you know the number of atoms being weighed without weighing them? Do you count amounts of atoms in orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number?
"But that pretty much fits with the assumption of the wave nature of the electron, doesn't it?"
All other particles whose velocity is not C also have a wave character and yet have a rest mass.
"If you can also come up with a match like Einstein's exact match in predicting the declination deviation of the planet Mercury according to relativity - you've won bingo." Einstein's calculation spans about 65 pages. I have not heard of anyone who has gone through this calculation for verification and to the best of my estimation there is no one who is "both able and willing" to go through it. And why is it important to go over it (beyond the historical matter)? Because this is what should have been done once the anomalous phenomena associated with Gravity Assist were discovered. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. For one thing, if your calculations of what's going on in the solar system are so accurate, how come they don't predict this anomaly. In a second aspect, if this anomaly hints at a new and unfamiliar physics that when understood will have to correct the motion formulas, it also hints that Einstein's precession calculations are not valid.
Science began with the fact that scientific truth is measured in repeatable experiments, and it evolved into the fact that the experiments and calculations and the researchers' time are so expensive that no one is prepared/able/wants to repeat complicated experiments and/or calculations and verify them.
"If there are La Sage particles - then how come we don't detect them in a region of strong gravity?"
But there are no La Sage particles, certainly not with me. After all, all I did was to show that the truth is that there is no gravitational force even according to Newton's method if you just switch between the chicken and the egg.
Regarding Riddle 87, if I manage to read the article and understand what hurts I might have something to say, and there is no doubt that it will not support the approach of going back in time.
Meir.
"The passing information is the very thing that the wave function collapsed".
Not just crashed. Collapsed into a single unique position out of two possible - UP or DOWN.
"How does the news about the collapse of the wave function help to make a decision about buying or not buying shares".
Collapsed to green - bought.
For red - buy, but short.
"In other words, how is it different from a red lantern and a green lantern".
A green light sent from a flashlight in the spaceship was green all the time. An entangled photon was in green/red superposition until the measurement.
Before we get into scholarly explanations, here is a simplification of the example that will help sharpen the point:
It was said that we managed to bring two entangled photons into a condensed state - Einstein (not a far-fetched idea at all). We have two containers: container A with photon A on Mars, container B with photon B in Israel.
We also have two synchronized clocks on Mars and Earth.
The instruction is: on 31.12.2012, time 1800:00 to check the photon on Mars. UP mode - buy the cat factory. DOWN mode - release all the cats and close the basta.
Whoever has the information first in Israel, will bring a blow to the stock market.
So who will it be? Bohr Enterprises who have Michal B with Photon B, or Neumann von with the iPhone?
That's the point. If Bohr checks the photon at 18:01, he knows the state of the photon on Mars, the one that collapsed a minute before, and Neumann has to wait.
Also note that although the information is transferred instantly, it is not possible to send information. It is only possible to test the state of the entangled particle, but it is impossible to know before the test to which state it will collapse, therefore it is not possible to transmit any signal before the collapse.
"It has never been proven that the direction of the spin is preserved beyond a range of several tens of meters."
"It has already been done for distances of several kilometers." – Can you direct me to the source?”
See: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n7/abs/nphys629.html
"As for Mach, we have already discussed enough". If you could explain how the mass of the universe M fits into the formula GM=RC^2 if there is no relationship between the masses in the universe, it would greatly strengthen your thesis.
The Milliken experiment - oops, we were wrong. PAZM. But I believe that any weighing of a system that includes electrons, can verify their gravitational mass, right? And isn't this the same inertial mass that is measured in accelerators?
"No effect of the Earth's gravity field on the speed of the electron was discovered." Indeed interesting, and I agree that they should have continued to investigate. But it pretty much fits with the assumption of the wave nature of the electron, doesn't it?
"The fact that a match was found is shocking in my opinion." agree. If you can also come up with a match like Einstein's exact match in predicting the declination deviation of the planet Mercury according to relativity - you won bingo.
"I didn't understand what you wrote about 1000g.."
Acceleration in free fall close to the ground - g. do not feel any power.
Near Jupiter - 2.6g. do not feel any power.
Near the sun - 28g. do not feel any power.
Logic says that even in a uniform gravitational field of a thousand or a million g we will not feel a force. (True, when falling into a black hole we stretch like a noodle, but the field there is not uniform).
This is the main problem in my opinion with Le Sage, and with all the theories that talk about gravity. If there are La Sage particles - then how come we don't detect them in an area of strong gravitation? (Or maybe it is? Admittedly, I didn't try).
And how beautifully it was solved by Einstein: there is no force, you are simply in a boat in the river, it is he who flows, you just sail.
On the other hand, the same problem exists with Newton, so there is probably a solution for it and I just don't know it.
Maim - or Meir - or whoever is interested: a logic puzzle (that's right, I guessed only 87 times).
How can you explain all the mess Gali brought up in the previous article (the Wheeler experiment) and this without resorting to the worst of all - going back in time.
(Meir, small on you after Tenai..).
To Meir - what is the meaning and what is the collapse of the wave function -
This means that the particle goes back in time and there is a kind of parallel world
And the parallel world does not have to advance back at the same rate as ours, or hold or catch it at our rate.
This means that we can discover things about our future before they happen here and have happened to some extent in a parallel world even if it is only the particle's.
Israel,
If I understand correctly, then you call "information transfer" the fact that the collapse of the wave function on the Ed side of the experiment causes a collapse on the other side, or in other words that the passing information is the very thing that the wave function collapsed.
My question was, how does knowing about the collapse of the wave function help in making a decision about buying or not buying shares (in other words, how is it different from a red light and a green light? As soon as I see a red light from the spacecraft, I know that Mars received green light, and alternatively, if I saw a green light I Do you know that red light was received on Mars?)
You write: "Don't forget, Bell's proof is mathematical, not empirical. It has nothing to do with distance. "The law of conservation of spin" is equivalent to the law of conservation of angular momentum"
And I say: it has never been proven that the direction of the spin is maintained beyond a range of a few tens of meters. I am not aware of an experiment where someone sent a horizontally polarized photon from the Earth and received it on the Moon when it was polarized horizontally more than 50% of the time. I claim that it is impossible to deduce from the conservation laws of the macro the conservation laws in quantum reality. "Distance" and "direction" are concepts of a human observer. In the quantum world there is no forward-backward or down-up. An elementary particle knows nothing beyond the piece of space adjacent to it, and since this piece is quantum, its momentary manipulation of it is in a random direction (and again, the direction is in the eyes of the macroscopic observer, and has no meaning as far as the particle is concerned, at least not a meaning that "obliges" it to make the jump as well his next quantum in the same "direction" in favor of compliance with the law of conservation). The randomness takes on a "directional" character only because of the statistics of large numbers (after all, according to the photon energy is the sum of the energies of the masses of elementary photons that make it up), but even the statistics of large numbers do not guarantee preservation of a range of large distances.
"It has already been done for distances of several kilometers." – Can you direct me to the source?
We have already discussed enough about Mach. When I look at the complete picture (which is not yet in front of you because not all the articles have been published) it is clear to me that the Meir principle is supported by more solid evidence than the Mach principle (I hope that if you continue to follow you will argue this later).
In the Milliken experiment, the electric field strength of an electron is measured against the mass of an oil drop containing it (the mass of the redundant electron is completely negligible compared to the mass of the oil drop). In particle accelerators, gravitational mass of electrons is not measured. I know of only one experiment in the 60s in which they tried to measure the gravitational mass of an electron and failed (that is, no effect of the Earth's gravitational field on the electron's speed was discovered). Instead of drawing the obvious conclusion, they concluded that the experiment was not good. And I say: what happened? What are you scared of yourselves? Has anyone assured you that G for atoms is the same as G for electrons? Wasn't it precisely for this test that you conducted the experiment?
Regarding the manipulation of matter on space and how it creates a field that falls according to the root of the distance, I did not explain at all, so it is good that you did not understand. Of course, everything is backed up by formulas, and of course I came up with the idea that the gravitational field actually falls according to the square root of the distance from the discovery of the manipulation (and not that I went to invent a manipulation that would be suitable for creating a field that falls according to the square root). On the contrary, in the article I showed an algebraic test of the four options, which surprisingly only one of them matches the mechanism (it could certainly happen that none of the four options would match. Why should there actually be a match at all? The fact that a match was found is shocking in my opinion).
I didn't understand what you wrote about 1000g..
Israel, a. Take the theory of relativity in its limitations.
B . I don't know what this has to do with the topic, but if you accelerate with G force, then you actually don't feel it without resistance.
Meir.
We haven't talked in a while - but that doesn't mean I haven't read your articles. The opposite is correct. But it is not such a simple and easy material (at least not for me). We will return to them at the end.
"And what if the early instruction of the colts on Mars changed? And what if someone decided to act against the instructions?"
I don't understand how it is related. Gali claims: "The standard interpretation accepted in orthodox quantum mechanics means that no information is transferred between one end of an APR experiment and the other." I give an example where information is transmitted and how, at a speed that exceeds that of light. It is of course possible to change the conditions of the problem, but since one example is enough to contradict the claim you made, I see my example as sufficient.
"In the example you gave, it is possible to exchange entangled photons with a red lantern and a blue lantern, and the advance directive is that if a red light is received on Mars, a purchase must be made, and Bohr Enterprise decides to rely on the blue light that came from the spacecraft, without waiting for a transmission from Mars."
True, but here you are transmitting unequivocal information, blue or red, and not information that is in a superposition of blue/red as in the case of photons before the test. In your example, Bohr Enterprise decides on the purchase based on the color sent to them from the spacecraft, and this regardless of the test on Mars. With entangled photons until the moment of testing it is impossible to know whether the color is blue or red, in fact it is both together, and the point is that as soon as one of the photons is tested - and it does not matter if it was on Mars first or in DHA - it collapses into a single color, and its entangled brother immediately collapses into the same color.
"Personally, I am of the opinion that information does pass at an infinite speed, which does not contradict the theory of relativity."
I think there is a fine distinction between "information that travels faster than light" and "information can be sent faster than light". Option A is what happens in interlacing, and in fact in every collapse of a wave function, and it does not contradict relativity.
Option B is the problematic one, which is why the earth shook a year ago when it seemed that some brazen neutrino dared to exceed the speed of light. It can be logically proven that if any speed (not necessarily that of light) is the same in any reference system, the principle of causality is violated and time can be repeated (water, this is the time and place to exhale).
Therefore, if when it became clear on Mars that the photon is blue and they had sent a transmission with the marking "blue" to the earth from a speed of light, Einstein would have raised an eyebrow. But in the way I described, no specific information was sent by the red light, it simply passed spontaneously from photon to photon instantly.
"This information cannot be used for ranges beyond the scope of the laboratory."
Don't forget, Bell's proof is mathematical, not empirical. It has nothing to do with distance. The "law of conservation of spin" is equivalent to the law of conservation of angular momentum. I liken it to two identical disks separating and moving away from each other while rotating. It is clear that the angular velocity of disk A is opposite to that of disk B, regardless of the distance. But which variables are hidden. In entangled electrons the spins are reversed as well, but are determined only with the measurement of one, and pass to the other in a ghostly way that evokes horror to Einstein's heartache.
"Talking about quantum entanglement between photons that managed to move beyond a few tens of meters is like talking about parallel universes."
This has already been done for distances of several kilometers. Parallel universes are discussed in detail in this article, and are one of the logical explanations for the quantum mystery. If Suskind is into it (see above), the matter is probably serious.
And now for your articles.
At the time in the long article in Cosmo, I tried to see if there was any logical flaw in your arguments against Mach's principle and I found none. But it's hard for me to give him up. You write "when you know, you know". But we both understand that this is a subjective feeling. To establish it, you need to come up with formulas, or better, a convincing experiment.
I still don't understand how Mach's principle can be given up. Is there no rotational movement relative to the distant stars? How can it be said that the cause of inertia is the body's gravitation, and the distant stars are just "LED lights" for marking. Shima Hari mathematically derived inertia from gravitation. What about the formula GM=RC^2. If all the masses are related to each other as Mach claims, and the inertia arises only from the gravitation of the body regardless of the other masses, then how can all the mass in the universe and the universal gravitation constant be combined in one formula? How is it that in a dimensional analysis of the formula, we get Newton's second law?
I also did not find anything wrong with the article about the inverse square root of gravitation, but it is very possible that I did not understand everything. I did not understand the mechanism by which matter affects space. At Le Sage, everything is clear - but not necessarily true. And as with Le Sage and Newton, I didn't understand how it was possible to talk about gravitational force in the article. If when we are in free fall, 1000g, a force acts on us - why don't we determine it? (Or maybe it is?).
I actually understood (I hope) why you claim that G should be different for elementary particles, but don't we measure, for example, the effect of G on electrons in the Milliken experiment with the oil drops? And isn't that gravitational mass the same as the inertial mass in particle accelerator experiments?
But the truth is, as I mentioned, it is not such an easy matter. I am so busy in my free time with my learning and experiments that I have stopped even playing chess. But there is no doubt that the articles are beautiful and convincing, what is missing is a new and beautiful formula, or better an experiment.
I see that someone put a link to a post in English that I uploaded to my blog yesterday :). The post in English is intended for readers in the world who do not know how to read Hebrew like you... I have readers in the world who read my academic articles (see ArXiv).
I would like to emphasize that the articles here deal with the measurement problem in quantum theory and therefore it is a question of the philosophy of quantum mechanics. In proper physics, they deal less with the problem of measurement and more with solving equations and problems. Although in physics there are physicists who do deal with the measurement problem in quantum mechanics and interpretations of quantum mechanics and then they deal with the border between physics and the philosophy of physics.
For example Prof. Yakir Aharonov, Prof. Lev Vidman and Prof. Yakir Aharonov's group:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~quantum/Aharonov/Aharonov.html
http://www.tau.ac.il/~quantum/people.html
Aharonov's group includes: Sando Popescu from England, Daniel Rorlich from Ben-Gurion University and Abshalom Elitzur from the Weizmann Institute.
The group deals with weak measurements, which is an idea that Aharonov came up with. Aaronov actually has two central ideas to his name in quantum theory: the Aaronov-Bohm effect and the weak measurements.
To Meir:
"And what if the early instruction of the colts on Mars changed? And what if someone decided to act against the instructions?"
The information that is transmitted back in time is statistical, and depends on how powerfully you transmit information.
Israel,
"Bohr Enterprises decide to rely on the information received by the entangled photon cells, and do not wait for the slow transmission from Mars radio."
And what if the early instruction of the colts on Mars changed? And what if someone decided to act against the instructions?
(In the example you gave, it is possible to exchange entangled photons with a red lantern and a blue lantern, and the advance directive is that if a red light is received on Mars, a purchase must be made, and Bohr Enterprise decides to rely on the blue light that came from the spacecraft, without waiting for a transmission from Mars).
Personally, I am of the opinion that information does travel at an infinite speed, that there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity (which in itself does not excite me), and that this information cannot be used for ranges beyond the scope of the laboratory. Talking about quantum entanglement between photons that managed to move beyond a few tens of meters is like talking about parallel universes. Why talk about quantum entanglement between photons that are a billion years old or eight minutes old? Just because you can?
By the way, do you already have an opinion about the law of the inverse of the square root of gravitation, or have you not had time to read the article yet?
Roni, there are many concepts on the subject that repeat themselves
Roni.
That's why there are the three previous articles in the series - and a hundred more before that.
Good night.
I'm sorry. I could not understand the article. The words and concepts are too difficult for me. It is possible that the previous ones who responded to the article, understand the field and therefore manage to read and absorb to the end. I think it is too difficult for the general public.
Suggestion for the writer: imagine that you are passing the topic on in front of some home club, and not in front of physicists. We (the readers of the website) are more similar to a home club.
I did not understand how this relates to the speed of information transfer.
A specific example: a spacecraft halfway between Earth and Mars sends entangled photons to both planets. The receivers on Mars have an advance directive that if the polarization is what we define as up, the local factories of Heisenberg's courses, Schrödinger - Cats Ltd., must be bought immediately. If the status is down do not buy.
Since the company's shares are traded in DHA, it is of utmost importance for the first investor in DHA to receive the correct information about the decision. Bohr Enterprises decide to rely on the information received by the entangled photon eyes, and do not wait for the slow transmission from Mars Radio.
Is there any doubt that they made a nice hit in the stock market, or are they actually in the superposition of a millionaire/delfon, as their jealous competitors claim?
You speak as a realist - that is, the realist refers to the properties that we measure in the system of particles as existing and well defined separately from all the observations we make of photons.
But the standard interpretation does not (!) consider the properties that we measure in the two-particle system as existing and well defined separately from the distributions we perform in photons.
"It is not possible to look at the two ends of the APR experiment as two separate things."
OK. Pluto and Venus are not separate things, so measuring the polarization of a photon on Pluto is the same as measuring it on Venus.
So what are all the hundreds of millions of kilometers that separate them? And why does the light take so long to travel this distance if they are not separate things?
Is there any doubt that if two photons are entangled, we will measure the same polarization in both regardless of distance, and this experiment can be repeated with any number of entangled photon pairs we want? What is this, a coincidence?
It is true that the same question can also be posed regarding the collapse of the wave function of a single electron, before which it is in the entire universe and after which it is located at one and only one point. But still: how can it be said that information does not pass? It is a fact that we know what polarization is, Bell proved that there are no hidden variables here, and there is no doubt that a great distance exists between the two objects. So no information passes between the two ends?
This does not mean that it is possible to send information through interweaving - no, it is not possible - but information undoubtedly passes, over any distance, and in zero time.
No?
Indeed, according to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, no information is transferred between one end of the APR experiment and the other because it is not possible to look at the two ends of the APR experiment as two separate things.
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, the polarizations of the two photons in the APR experiment are not defined at all before the measurement is performed. At the beginning the two photons are in superposition states of vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. And when the measurement of one photon is performed, only then both photons together (!) collapse into a well-defined polarization. Before the polarizations are measured, the polarizations are not at all precisely defined for the pair of photons and we do not know what they are. And not only that, but according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is not valid at all to talk about a "defined polarization" of each of the photons that is found in entanglement with the other. We can only talk about the correlation between the two photons, but we are not allowed to talk about the separate polarization of each photon, because each photon is in a state of interweaving and also in a state of superposition with the other photon. It's not like we have in the macroscopic world a cluster of photons or a cluster of spheres. So you can pull out one ball from the cluster and disconnect it from the other balls. A cluster of particles is not (!!) quantum particles in quantum superposition and entanglement.
Something about the classical and deterministic world, because later on I watched a little.
Even a classical system, if it is returned from an "external and non-closed" operation, can receive another time of return in a coordinated and slightly different time, therefore it is not deterministic.
Because there is something that is related, there is no closed system in nature at all, and there is a problem with the second law of thermodynamics because of this.
Gali, I am very proud of you. This is the most beautiful, coherent, eloquent and successful article I have ever read on the site.
Of all the parallel worlds you describe, I miss the world of the 19th century the most. Where, where are the times when a wave was a wave, a particle was a particle, here was here, there was there, the past always came before the future and reality was one and only.
Remember the days when the electrons circled merrily around the nucleus like ducklings around a mother duck? that radio broadcasts were carried over the airwaves? Between us, what was wrong with a deterministic world? What is all this mess of modern physics for? If as written in the article "Multiple thoughts lead an observer to a state of schizophrenia" then is it any wonder that so many mathematicians and scientists are freaking out?
Leaving everything now and going to study some Talmud and Gemara Sedora.
But first, if possible, I would be interested in an answer to a question I have asked several times:
What about the claim in the previous article: "The standard interpretation accepted in orthodox quantum mechanics means that no information is transferred between one end of an APR experiment and the other." Is she correct?
Explain if possible.