Duality & Non-locality Unified

[QuantumT]

We have particle/wave duality. And we have non-locality caused by entanglement. The two best known examples of quantum weirdness.

But what if they were not two phenomenons, but two expressions of the same phenomenon?

The only thing they have in common is measurement. My theory is that measurement itself is causing both phenomenons.

Measurement is locking particle behavior. That would mean that very long distance entanglement is impossible, because you can't maintain realtime measurement of a particle far far away.

This also solves non-locality's violation of the maximum communication speed (light speed) in General Relativity. (Einstein would be pleased.)

 

 

Note: I believe I have a very valid alternative to existing theories, but if this belongs in the "Speculation" section, mods may move it and delete this line. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Edited December 14, 2018 by QuantumT

[Eise]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

We have particle/wave duality. And we have non-locality caused by entanglement. The two best known examples of quantum weirdness.

But what if they were not two phenomenaons, but two expressions of the same phenomenon?

Yes, what then?

In my opinion they are intimately related. Let's take an example. Imagine a very weak photon source, emitting about one photon every minute. All around it, but at a distance of one light second (=300,000 km) we have photon detectors. Now according to Maxwell (no photons, just waves) every minute a circular wave front expands into space. According to QM however, we only have a 'probability wave', and the photon is detected at only one detector. At the moment of detection, I know immediately that none of the others will detect a photon. So the event 'measuring a photon' and 'not measuring a photon' are entangled. If behind every detector would stand a human observer, one could send a message to all the others when measuring a photon and tell them that at timepoint 5:09h she knew that nobody else had measured a photon, based on the fact that she already had measured it.

So the entanglement follows directly from the wave character of the probability distribution. The power of real entanglement experiments (also known as EPR, or Bell experiments) is that we have positive measurements on both sides, not just a lack of a measurement. But they are expressions of the same phenomenon. So, what then?

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Measurement is locking particle behavior. That would mean that very long distance entanglement is impossible, because you can't maintain realtime measurement of a particle far far away.

No. We do not need realtime measurements. If two detectors at a great distance of each other are in the same inertial frame they just can make their measurements, notice the exact time of measurement, and then later compare their measurements. 

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

This also solves non-locality's violation of the maximum communication speed (light speed) in General Relativity.

There is no faster-than-light communication. See here. The mathematical theory of QM is unambiguous: entanglement must exist. Do not forget, it was theoretically derived before it also was measured. So there is no problem to solve. The only problem is that we, humans, cannot picture this based on our daily concepts.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, QuantumT said:

 Measurement is locking particle behavior. That would mean that very long distance entanglement is impossible, because you can't maintain realtime measurement of a particle far far away.

What is "long-distance" and why is this a barrier? You can do your measurements and compare notes after the fact, as Eise has observed. You have a  gap between Alice's and Bob's measurements, t. Even if you're d >> ct apart, you can still look at the correlations and show entanglement. t can be small (the measurements can be essentially simultaneous), but there's no physics that says it has to be.

[studiot]

10 hours ago, QuantumT said:

The only thing they have in common is measurement. My theory is that measurement itself is causing both phenomenons.

 

Surely one of the original matters which ushered in QM contradicts this, since this is not a measurement issue.

I am referring to the 'photoelectric effect'.

[QuantumT]

Thank you for your replies.

Your quantum interpretations seem to be very biased. Maybe I made a mistake coming here.

I'll think about it for a while, and then we'll see.

Kind regards
QT

[Strange]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

Your quantum interpretations seem to be very biased.

Biased towards accuracy, maybe?

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Biased towards accuracy, maybe?

That's not how I see it, but who cares? 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

That's not how I see it, but who cares? 

I care. I would be interested to know what you mean by biased. 

[QuantumT]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I care. I would be interested to know what you mean by biased. 

The first three replies I've had in this thread all carry the signature of old school physicalism combined with math. They setout with math, and then finds analogies to fit them to physicalism.

I am a supporter of the Bohr/Heisenberg version of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That the measurement itself is a deciding factor in QM (Which was confirmed by the delayed quantum eraser experiment). That does not work well with physicalism.

So, it seems this is not a place for me, since (I presume) the majority of you guys here do not support the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation.

Edited December 15, 2018 by QuantumT

[QuantumT]

* It is called "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Sorry.

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

I am a supporter of the Bohr/Heisenberg version of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That the measurement itself is a deciding factor in QM (Which was confirmed by the delayed quantum eraser experiment). That does not work well with physicalism.

So, it seems this is not a place for me, since (I presume) the majority of you guys here do not support the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation.

My understanding of 'interpretation' in this context is a description which gives the same results as other interpretations.

So it's impossible to distinguish between e.g. a version of the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation by prediction or experiment. If you can distinguish it's not an interpretation; it's a theory.

 

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Your quantum interpretations seem to be very biased.

I would interpret that as saying other people do not share your preference for a particular interpretation.

BTW as interpretations are in practice imprecise rather than rigorous, I've never found a rigorous, generally accepted version of the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

On 14/12/2018 at 12:07 AM, QuantumT said:

My theory is that measurement itself is causing both phenomenons.

Measurement is an interpretation based concept; It's questionable that measurement has any causal influence.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Quote

Despite an extensive literature which refers to, discusses, and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, nowhere does there seem to be any concise statement which defines the full Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

The first three replies I've had in this thread all carry the signature of old school physicalism combined with math. They setout with math, and then finds analogies to fit them to physicalism.

I had not heard of physicalism before, so thanks for that. It is probably a better description of my view than materialism, which would seem to exclude art, music, dreams and emotions which all exist but are not material. My view has also been described as "naive realist" before now: what we see is what there is. However, I also know that these are entirely indefensible beliefs, unsupported (and unsupportable) by any evidence. It is just as valid to believe in solipsism; it is just as consistent with what we experience.

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I am a supporter of the Bohr/Heisenberg version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

But that is just another analogy to to describe the maths. 

All interpretations of quantum theory are indistinguishable scientifically. They are purely aesthetic choices. I don't like any of them, particularly.

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I am a supporter of the Bohr/Heisenberg version of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That the measurement itself is a deciding factor in QM (Which was confirmed by the delayed quantum eraser experiment). That does not work well with physicalism.

I don't understand why you think that is inconsistent with physicalism. But then again, I think there are (at least) two schools of thought about the Copenhagen Interpretation: one is that the wave function is a rather abstract concept, a mathematical description, that collapses to a single value and the other that it is a real physical thing. But in both of these, the wave function is either physical or "supervenes on the physical". So it seems a form of, or at least compatible with, physicalism, to me. Most interpretations are based on some underlying physical reality, so they all seem to fit the description of physicalism.

(For anyone else who is not familiar with it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

So, it seems this is not a place for me, since (I presume) the majority of you guys here do not support the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation.

I have no idea whether people do or not. It makes no difference to the science so I don't think it gets discussed often. But even if people favour different interpretations, I don't see why you would not wish to discuss these things. You don't want to be in an echo chamber of only people who like the Copenhagen Interpretation, do you?

 

Incidentally, if you want to discuss interpretations of QM then maybe we should request a moderator to move this to the Philosophy forum?

 

[QuantumT]

I'm hanging on.

[Strange]

On 14/12/2018 at 12:07 AM, QuantumT said:

We have particle/wave duality. And we have non-locality caused by entanglement. The two best known examples of quantum weirdness.

But what if they were not two phenomenons, but two expressions of the same phenomenon?

The only thing they have in common is measurement. My theory is that measurement itself is causing both phenomenons.

I'm not convinced about the measurement thing. The two things are predicted by theory so they "exist" (if they exist at all) even without measurement. But, of course, we can never observe them unless we make measurements. But the same is true of whether a coin landed hands or tails; we can predict the possible outcomes, but we won't know until we look.

So I don't think they are caused by the measurement, but our measurements expose them. If we make a measurement of wavelength, for example, then we will see a wave phenomenon. If we make a measurement of location, then we will see a point particle. 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Thank you for your replies.

Your quantum interpretations seem to be very biased. Maybe I made a mistake coming here.

I'll think about it for a while, and then we'll see.

Kind regards
QT

I haven’t seen any quantum interpretations in anyone’s explanations.

[Eise]

15 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Your quantum interpretations seem to be very biased.

Biased in what way? What would a none-biased approach be?

14 hours ago, QuantumT said:

The first three replies I've had in this thread all carry the signature of old school physicalism combined with math.

I am not aware of any 'old school physicalism combined with math' in my reaction. Can you explain?

14 hours ago, QuantumT said:

That the measurement itself is a deciding factor in QM (...). That does not work well with physicalism.

Why not? Measurement devices, even if they are brains, are physical systems.

14 hours ago, QuantumT said:

So, it seems this is not a place for me, since (I presume) the majority of you guys here do not support the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation.

What did I write, that does not fit the the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation?

Let's recap my argument:

1. Yes, you are right. Particle/wave dualism and non-locality are 'expressions of the same phenomenon'. But I would say this is common sense for quantum physicists (if not, then please let some quantum physicist on this forum correct me).
2. Of course they have both to do with measurements: did you read and understand my example? But again, this is not a revolutionary insight.
3. Very long distance entanglement is possible, because you do not have to maintain realtime measurement of a particle far away. It suffices to compare precise notes, if you want years after the measurements were being made.
4. There is no violation of the maximum communication speed. The measurement on one side does not cause a change on the other. There is only correlation, which is not bounded by time or distance.
5. The correlation was theoretically predicted (EPR and Bell's theorem) before it was experimentally confirmed. So why is there a problem to solve?

Now, where did I say something that is against the Copenhagen interpetation?

15 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Maybe I made a mistake coming here.

Only if you do not want to discuss your ideas. 

On 12/14/2018 at 1:07 AM, QuantumT said:

I believe I have a very valid alternative to existing theories,

Let's hear it. But given your misunderstandings of QT, I do not think we really need an alternative. The only problem I see with QM is that it is not-understandable using classical concepts. And as we all in daily life are classical physicists (where particles and waves are definitely different phenomena) we will have troubles to picture what occurs on the quantum level. But the math of QM is unambiguous. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Eise

[QuantumT]

What do you guys think about digital physics?

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

What do you guys think about digital physics?

I think that either cosmology and/or the  IT industry are trying to take over all other disciplines.

And that they have made a pretty poor fist of those they have already penetrated.

And there, Mr Bond, you have my opinion in  a nutshell.

 

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

What do you guys think about digital physics?

Couldn't resist cherrypicking from your reference.

Quote

Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe.

By any reasonable definition, the universe includes that universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Hard to imagine that even in principle.

[QuantumT]

46 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Couldn't resist cherrypicking from your reference.

By any reasonable definition, the universe includes that universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Hard to imagine that even in principle.

I think it's meant to be understood as a program running on a computer beyond our universe. As in: It's running our universe. Our universe is in it.

[Carrock]

34 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I think it's meant to be understood as a program running on a computer beyond our universe. As in: It's running our universe. Our universe is in it.

I agree that's probably the intention.

I find that concept very like 'intelligent design,' with the same problems.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Carrock said:

I find that concept very like 'intelligent design,' with the same problems.

For me it answers everything, but without a divine deity or faith of any kind.

All the riddles and mysteries solved with one simple answer: 42 

[QuantumT]

I think digital science deserves a thread of it's own - in the Speculation section obviously.

I am new here, so I hope it's not a thing that's been done to annoyance in the past.

[Eise]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I think digital science deserves a thread of it's own - in the Speculation section obviously.

Now you made your own thread about digital physics, can you come back to the topic here? I asked you a lot of questions, and you just ignored them and changed the subject. I might have another question, but I'll ask that in your 'digital science' thread.

[QuantumT]

On 17/12/2018 at 7:17 AM, Eise said:

Now you made your own thread about digital physics, can you come back to the topic here? I asked you a lot of questions, and you just ignored them and changed the subject. I might have another question, but I'll ask that in your 'digital science' thread.

Again, thanks for your replies.

I have searched for the correlation between the two for a long time, but till now only had my own thoughts about it. It seems, to some extent that you share it.

Are there any peer reviewed publications about this?

Please do ask your question, but bare in mind that I have limited time, and that English is not my native language = Will take a while.