Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe Relevance of the Preparation Concept in the Interpretation of Quantum Formalism
98
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism. Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences and mutual interconnections between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism. Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and some theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one. Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation.
rate research
Read More
Since the scalar product is the only internal structure of a Hilbert space, all vectors of norm 1 are equivalent, in the sense that they form a perfect sphere in the Hilbert space, on which every vector looks the same. The state vector of the universe contains no information that distinguishes it from other state vectors of the same Hilbert space. If the state vector is considered as the only fundamental entity, the world is completely structureless. The illusion of interacting subsystems is due to a bad choice of factorization (i.e. decomposition into subsystems) of the Hilbert space. There is always a more appropriate factorization available in which subsystems dont interact and nothing happens at all. This factorization absorbs the time evolution of the state vector in a trivial way. The Many Worlds Interpretation is therefore rather a No World Interpretation. A state vector gets the property of representing a structure only with respect to an external observer who measures the state according to a specific factorization and basis.
We discuss the role that intuitive theories of physics play in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We compare and contrast naive physics with quantum mechanics and argue that quantum mechanics is not just hard to understand but that it is difficult to believe, often appearing magical in nature. Quantum mechanics is often discussed in the context of quantum weirdness and quantum entanglement is known as spooky action at a distance. This spookiness is more than just because quantum mechanics doesnt match everyday experience; it ruffles the feathers of our naive physics cognitive module. In Everetts many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we preserve a form of deterministic thinking that can alleviate some of the perceived weirdness inherent in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, at the cost of having the universe split into parallel worlds at every quantum measurement. By examining the role cognitive modules play in interpreting quantum mechanics, we conclude that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics involves a cognitive bias not seen in the Copenhagen interpretation.
We argue that Anton Zeilingers foundational conceptual principle for quantum mechanics according to which an elementary system carries one bit of information is an idealistic principle, which should be replaced by a realistic principle of contextuality. Specific properties of quantum systems are a consequence of impossibility to speak about them without reference to the tools of their observation/identification and, consequently, context in which these tools are applied.
The twentieth century saw two fundamental revolutions in physics -- relativity and quantum. Daily use of these theories can numb the sense of wonder at their immense empirical success. Does their instrumental effectiveness stand on the rock of secure concepts or the sand of unresolved fundamentals? Does measuring a quantum system probe, or even create, reality, or merely change belief? Must relativity and quantum theory just co-exist or might we find a new theory which unifies the two? To bring such questions into sharper focus, we convened a conference on Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality. Some issues remain as controversial as ever, but some are being nudged by theorys secret weapon of experiment.
In this letter, we point to three widely accepted challenges that the quantum theory, quantum information, and quantum foundations communities are currently facing: indeterminism, the semantics of conditional probabilities, and the spooky action at a distance. We argue that these issues are fundamentally rooted in conflations commonly made between causal dependencies, counterfactual dependencies, and statistical dependencies. We argue that a simple, albeit somewhat uncomfortable shift of viewpoint leads to a way out of the impossibility to extend the theory beyond indeterminism, and towards the possibility that sound extensions of quantum theory, possibly even deterministic yet not super-deterministic, will emerge in the future. The paradigm shift, which we present here, involves a non-trivial relaxation of the commonly accepted mathematical definition of free choice, leading to non-Nashian free choice, more care with the choice of probabilistic notations, and more rigorous use of vocabulary related to causality, counterfactuals, and correlations, which are three concepts of a fundamentally different nature.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
