Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

Discuss Astrophysics.
Post Reply
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Infinity and Beyond Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 14516
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
3
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#1

Post by notFritzArgelander »

I may come back to this later.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.10445?fbclid ... uRPlCIP_UU
We summarise different aspects of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. We argue that it is a real problem which requires a solution, and identify the properties a theory needs to solve the problem. We show that no current interpretation of quantum mechanics solves the problem, and that, being interpretations rather than extensions of quantum mechanics, they cannot solve it. Finally, we speculate what a solution of the measurement problem might be good for.
The full text looks interesting but conceptually gnarly.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
SkyHiker
Milky Way Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 1618
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
3
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#2

Post by SkyHiker »

What strikes me as odd is that they put a strong focus on axioms while it is not clear that all of these axioms are needed. It has been shown for instance that Born's rule (Axiom 5) follows from other fundamental quantum "axioms" namely if the result of a measurement can be assumed to be unique (https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born ... 0mechanics.). That same paper says that the axiom that measurements are unique, also leads to Axiom 2 namely that observables correspond to eigenvalues of Hermitian operators (see the bottom of the linked article). Axiom 4 seems to imply that measurements unique, so does this not mean that Axioms 2 and 5 can be omitted, according to the linked article?
... Henk. :D Telescopes: GSO 12" Astrograph, "Comet Hunter" MN152, ES ED127CF, ES ED80, WO Redcat51, Z12, AT6RC, Celestron Skymaster 20x80, Mounts and tripod: Losmandy G11S with OnStep, AVX, Tiltall, Cameras: ASI2600MC, ASI2600MM, ASI120 mini, Fuji X-a1, Canon XSi, T6, ELPH 100HS, DIY: OnStep controller, Barndoor trackers for 10" Dob and camera, Afocal adapter, Foldable Dob base, Az/Alt Dob setting circles, Accessories: ZWO 36 mm filter wheel, TV Paracorr 2, Baader MPCC Mk III, ES FF, SSAG, QHY OAG-M, EAF electronic focuser, Plossls, Barlows, Telrad, Laser collimators (Seben LK1, Z12, Howie Glatter), Cheshire, 2 Orion RACIs 8x50, Software: KStars-Ekos, DSS, PHD2, Nebulosity, Photo Gallery, Gimp, CHDK, Computers:Pi4b, 2x Pi2b all running Astroberry, Toshiba Satellite 17"
User avatar
SkyHiker
Milky Way Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 1618
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
3
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#3

Post by SkyHiker »

They also state that the entries of the stress energy tensor are complex-valued. Looking at Weinberg who calls it the energy-momentum tensor, they are definitely real-valued. Did I miss something? The article is an interesting read, but they end up with more questions than answers. Six axioms, two more equations and big jumps with mostly philosophical arguments it seems.
... Henk. :D Telescopes: GSO 12" Astrograph, "Comet Hunter" MN152, ES ED127CF, ES ED80, WO Redcat51, Z12, AT6RC, Celestron Skymaster 20x80, Mounts and tripod: Losmandy G11S with OnStep, AVX, Tiltall, Cameras: ASI2600MC, ASI2600MM, ASI120 mini, Fuji X-a1, Canon XSi, T6, ELPH 100HS, DIY: OnStep controller, Barndoor trackers for 10" Dob and camera, Afocal adapter, Foldable Dob base, Az/Alt Dob setting circles, Accessories: ZWO 36 mm filter wheel, TV Paracorr 2, Baader MPCC Mk III, ES FF, SSAG, QHY OAG-M, EAF electronic focuser, Plossls, Barlows, Telrad, Laser collimators (Seben LK1, Z12, Howie Glatter), Cheshire, 2 Orion RACIs 8x50, Software: KStars-Ekos, DSS, PHD2, Nebulosity, Photo Gallery, Gimp, CHDK, Computers:Pi4b, 2x Pi2b all running Astroberry, Toshiba Satellite 17"
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Infinity and Beyond Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 14516
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
3
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#4

Post by notFritzArgelander »

SkyHiker wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:26 pm What strikes me as odd is that they put a strong focus on axioms while it is not clear that all of these axioms are needed. It has been shown for instance that Born's rule (Axiom 5) follows from other fundamental quantum "axioms" namely if the result of a measurement can be assumed to be unique (https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born ... 0mechanics.). That same paper says that the axiom that measurements are unique, also leads to Axiom 2 namely that observables correspond to eigenvalues of Hermitian operators (see the bottom of the linked article). Axiom 4 seems to imply that measurements unique, so does this not mean that Axioms 2 and 5 can be omitted, according to the linked article?
You've put your finger on some of the gnarliness of this paper. Some of the axioms are redundant to be sure. Six of them? Wightman axiomatized QFT with 4 though the first is a doozy in its complexity and may well be sufficient modulo technical details of interest to mathematicians mostly. ;) So you're right, Dr H's paper does not present a minimal axiomatization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic ... eld_theory
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Infinity and Beyond Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 14516
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
3
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#5

Post by notFritzArgelander »

There are many choices for axiomatizing QM and QFT. The fact that Dr H's choice might be redundant could be a matter of strategy for the paper. :shrug:

Anyway Dirac and von Neumann thought 3 would do and they are nowhere near as complex as Wightman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac–von_Neumann_axioms
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Infinity and Beyond Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 14516
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
3
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Dr H has a paper on quantum measurement

#6

Post by notFritzArgelander »

The "grand conclusion" of this paper is
From the previous section, we see that a satisfactory solution of the measurement problem must achieve the following:
Requirement 1 Agree with all existing data.
Requirement 2 Reproduce quantum mechanics, including the Collapse Postulate (Axiom 4) and Born’s Rule (Axiom 5), in a well-defined limit.
Requirement 3 Give an unambiguous answer to the question what a measurement device is, at least in principle.
Requirement 4 Reproduce classical physics in a well-defined limit.
Requirement 5 Resolve the inconsistency between the nonlocal measurement collapse and local stress-energy conservation.
The paper is useful as a general summary of the state of the quantum measurement as viewed by physicists committed to Realism, i.e. physics is a faithful model of Reality with a capital "R". I think that that is a mistake. Physics merely models phenomena and from that POV there is no measurement problem despite claims in the paper to the contrary. :Think:
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in

Return to “Astrophysics”