Bell inequalities in astronomical scale?
Jarek Duda
Please post in plain ASCII. I had a hard time to make this posting
readable!
HvH
======================================================================
Quantum mechanics ‘works’ in proton + electron scale. Let’s enlarge it –
imagine proton rotating around chloride anion … up to two charged
oppositely macroscopic bodies rotating in vacuum. We can easily
idealize the last picture to make it deterministic (charged, not
colliding points). However, many people believe that Bell’s
inequalities says that the first picture just cannot be deterministic.
So I have a question – how this qualitative difference emerge while
changing scale? In what scale an analog of EPR experiment would start
giving Bell’s inequalities?
I know – the problem is: it’s difficult to get such analog. Let’s try
to construct a thought experiment on such macroscopic rotating charged
bodies, which are so far, that we can measure only some of its
parameters and so we can only work on some probabilistic theory
describing their behavior. For simplicity we can even idealize that
they are just point objects and that they don’t collide, so we can
easily describe deterministically their behavior using some parameters,
which are ‘hidden’ from the observer (far away).
The question is: would such probabilistic theory have quantum-
mechanical ‘squares’, which make it contradicting Bell inequalities? If
not – how would it change while changing scale? Personally I believe
that the answer is yes – for example thermodynamics among trajectories
also gives these ‘squares’ (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724), but I
couldn’t think of any concrete examples.
How to construct an analog to EPR experiment for macroscopic scale
objects? Would it fulfill Bell inequalities?
FrediFizzx
news:99f6c4ae-0c73-4d81...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> ================Moderator's note =====================================
> Please post in plain ASCII. I had a hard time to make this posting
> readable!
> HvH
> ======================================================================
It was still messed up in my reader; had to switch encoding to Unicode
UTF-8 to read it. Let's see if this cleans it up.
> Quantum mechanics �works� in proton + electron scale. Let�s enlarge
> it �
> imagine proton rotating around chloride anion � up to two charged
> oppositely macroscopic bodies rotating in vacuum. We can easily
> idealize the last picture to make it deterministic (charged, not
> colliding points). However, many people believe that Bell�s
> inequalities says that the first picture just cannot be deterministic.
>
> So I have a question � how this qualitative difference emerge while
> changing scale? In what scale an analog of EPR experiment would start
> giving Bell�s inequalities?
>
> I know � the problem is: it�s difficult to get such analog. Let�s try
> to construct a thought experiment on such macroscopic rotating charged
> bodies, which are so far, that we can measure only some of its
> parameters and so we can only work on some probabilistic theory
> describing their behavior. For simplicity we can even idealize that
> they are just point objects and that they don�t collide, so we can
> easily describe deterministically their behavior using some
> parameters,
> which are �hidden� from the observer (far away).
>
> The question is: would such probabilistic theory have quantum-
> mechanical �squares�, which make it contradicting Bell inequalities?
> If
> not � how would it change while changing scale? Personally I believe
> that the answer is yes � for example thermodynamics among trajectories
> also gives these �squares� (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724), but I
> couldn�t think of any concrete examples.
>
> How to construct an analog to EPR experiment for macroscopic scale
> objects? Would it fulfill Bell inequalities?
See Joy Christian's "Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be
Considered Complete?" In it he proposes a macroscopic experiment.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078
Best,
Fred Diether
moderator sci.physics.foundations
Chalky
A3: Please.
Q3: Should I avoid top posting on this newsgroup?
A2: Because, by reversing the order of a conversation, it leaves the
reader without much context, and makes them read a message in an
unnatural order.
Q2: Why is top posting irritating?
A1: It is the practice of putting your reply to a message before the
quoted message, instead of after the (trimmed) message.
Q1: What is top posting?
-- jt]]
Perhaps pertinent to the below quoted posting is something I have been
pondering for a while.
I have never found the original Schrodinger's cat paradox particularly
persuasive, because a cat is an intelligent (and conscious) life form
which is perfectly capable of collapsing the wavefunction for itself,
when deciding whether it is dying or not. Taken to its logical
conclusion, the Schrodinger's cat argument would suggest that the
entire universe only existed in a state of quantum uncertainty until
the first true human evolved (which is a clearly ridiculous
anthropocentric point of view).
However, the situation becomes a bit different if we examine the
situation behind the surface of last scattering.
If my understanding of standard theory is correct, no intelligent
lifeform could possibly survive there for long enough to perform
observations, and no intelligent lifeform beyond that surface could
have any chance of making observations of the physics within.
In this context, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to conclude
that the entire universe could only exist in a state of quantum
uncertainty, behind that surface.
Comments?
[[Mod. note -- At the surface of last scattering, the CMBR temperature
is "only" about 3000 Kelvin, and the density of the universe is still
very small, so with some suitable shielding & active refrigeration &
the usual space-life-support-gear, I would think humans could survive
at the surface of last scattering for a "macroscopic" time (say hours
or longer).
-- jt]]
On Dec 22, 9:33 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ================Moderator's note =====================================
> Please post in plain ASCII. I had a hard time to make this posting
> readable!
> HvH
> ======================================================================
>
> Quantum mechanics ?works? in proton + electron scale. Let?s enlarge it ?
> imagine proton rotating around chloride anion ? up to two charged
> oppositely macroscopic bodies rotating in vacuum. We can easily
> idealize the last picture to make it deterministic (charged, not
> colliding points). However, many people believe that Bell?s
> inequalities says that the first picture just cannot be deterministic.
>
> So I have a question ? how this qualitative difference emerge while
> changing scale? In what scale an analog of EPR experiment would start
> giving Bell?s inequalities?
>
> I know ? the problem is: it?s difficult to get such analog. Let?s try
> to construct a thought experiment on such macroscopic rotating charged
> bodies, which are so far, that we can measure only some of its
> parameters and so we can only work on some probabilistic theory
> describing their behavior. For simplicity we can even idealize that
> they are just point objects and that they don?t collide, so we can
> easily describe deterministically their behavior using some parameters,
> which are ?hidden? from the observer (far away).
>
> The question is: would such probabilistic theory have quantum-
> mechanical ?squares?, which make it contradicting Bell inequalities? If
> not ? how would it change while changing scale? Personally I believe
> that the answer is yes ? for example thermodynamics among trajectories
> also gives these ?squares? (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724), but I
> couldn?t think of any concrete examples.
Ilja
> However, many people believe that Bell?s
> inequalities says that the first picture just cannot be deterministic.
It doesn't matter how many people say this, but for
quantum mechanics a deterministic interpretation is not only
possible, but even well-known: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
theory.
> So I have a question ? how this qualitative difference emerge while
> changing scale? In what scale an analog of EPR experiment would start
> giving Bell?s inequalities?
At the scale where all interference effects become unobservable
because of decoherence.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On 22 Dez., 14:33, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, many people believe that Bell?s
>> inequalities says that the first picture just cannot be deterministic.
>
>It doesn't matter how many people say this, but for
>quantum mechanics a deterministic interpretation is not only
>possible, but even well-known: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
>theory.
Two questions: First, the Bohm interpretation was for non-relativistic
quantum mechanics (the Schrodinger equation). Is there an extended
interpretation that covers all of relativistic quantum field theory?
Second, I thought I read some paper recently that claimed that the
Bohm interpretation is *not* equivalent to the standard Copenhagen
interpretation. It's specifically constructed so that it gives the
same probabilities for position measurements as the Copenhagen
interpretation, but does it give the same predictions for *all*
measurements?
I'm not sure how the Bohm interpretation works for multiple
measurements. Does the first measurement "collapse" the pilot
wave?
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY