- #1
- 1,453
- 500
Last edited:
This Insight is a condensed version of No Preferred Reference Frame at the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics. Reference numbers here correspond to that paper. This Insight is an expanded version of Quantum information theorists produce new ‘understanding’ of quantum mechanics.
Feynman famously said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” [1]. Despite the fact that quantum mechanics “has survived all tests” and “we all know how to use it and apply it to problems,” Gell-Mann agreed with Feynman saying, “we have learned to live with the fact that nobody can understand it” [2]. As a result, there are many programs designed to interpret quantum mechanics (QM), i.e., reveal what QM is telling us about Nature. Per Koberinski & Mueller, we do not have “a constructive account of ontological structure” necessary to constitute a true...
That's wrong. Essentially you have it already found by Lorentz before SR. Namely, he argued that if matter is held together by EM forces, time dilation and length contraction would follow. (I have lost the explicit quote, sorry). The idea gives a valid argument - once the equations are wave equations with the same c, then they follow the corresponding Lorentz symmetry. And time dilation and length contraction follow from Lorentz symmetry.RUTA said:Whether or not one believes principle accounts are explanatory is irrelevant here. No one disputes what the postulates of SR are telling us about Nature, even though there is still today no constructive account of time dilation and length contraction, i.e., there is no “interpretation” of SR.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...ciple-at-the-foundation-of-quantum-mechanics/
Sunil said:That's wrong. Essentially you have it already found by Lorentz before SR. Namely, he argued that if matter is held together by EM forces, time dilation and length contraction would follow. (I have lost the explicit quote, sorry). The idea gives a valid argument - once the equations are wave equations with the same c, then they follow the corresponding Lorentz symmetry. And time dilation and length contraction follow from Lorentz symmetry.
The modern variant of this Schmelzer's generalized Lorentz ether:
Schmelzer, I. (2012). A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit. Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22(1), 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.
It derives the Einstein Equivalence Principle from action equals reaction symmetry. The EEP is also sufficient to prove time dilation and length contraction for rulers constructed out of matter.
Your "there is still today no constructive account of time dilation and length contraction" remains wrong even if the existing constructive accounts are ignored by the mainstream and Peter Donis does not like to see that particular reference.RUTA said:Aether theory is not taught nor mentioned in the physics textbooks. Even if it were true, it does not change the postulates of SR nor the result shown in this Insight.
Sunil said:Your "there is still today no constructive account of time dilation and length contraction" remains wrong even if the existing constructive accounts are ignored by the mainstream and Peter Donis does not like to see that particular reference.
I don't understand why mentioning Schmelzer's theory as a clear counterexample of a published paper is wrong simply because that theory has been "sufficiently discussed" in Peter Donis' opinion (in threads I was unable to identify - what I have found using the search engine here was not even a serious start of a discussion).
It is not my aim to question the existing principle theories. Without doubt, they remain useful tools. For example, if one wants to develop new theories, and prove they have the appropriate limit, all one has to do is to check if those principles hold in that limit.
and continued on page 10For example, suppose you want to construct the Lx
and continued on page 11 the first 10 lines.measurement operator with eigenvalues +1, 0, −1 in the Lz eigenbasis
I'm glad you found the article useful. It was written so that a physicist in any specialty could follow the argument. The bit about Lx, Ly, and Lz is just an example to show how higher-level Hilbert spaces can be built from the 2-level Hilbert space (qubit) and SU(2). Those specific choices were made to create a set of mutually complementary measurements, but any and all measurement operators with eigenvalues +1, 0, -1 can be made that way using the qubit and SU(2). Bell notes something similar in his famous 1964 paper when he says the 2-level entangled state he discusses could be a subspace of some higher-level system and all of his analysis still follows. The point the QIT people are making is simply that the qubit structure is the basis of denumerable-dimensional Hilbert space in that sense. My example is really a pedagogical tangent :-)Karll said:Thank you for this very readable article even for beginners like myself!
I especially enjoyed the article because this description made it very clear to me what physics is caused by special relativity and what physics by quantum mechanics! Before this article this distinction wasn't clear at all to me.
Sorry for this very basic question, I couldn't find an explanation in the cited article [4] of the following
In the paper on arxiv I didn't understand on page 9 last line
and continued on page 10
and continued on page 11 the first 10 lines.
Even though calculating concretely the example in the paper, I fear I don't understand what leads to the chosen rotations (on page 11). Thanks!
This seems genuinely new, I don't remember a similar statement in previous articles. So it seems to be new, but is it also true? Well, at least it seems misleading to me.In SR, we are concerned with the fact that everyone measures the same speed light , regardless of their motion relative to the source (light postulate). Here the inertial reference frames are characterized by motion at constant velocity relative to the source and different reference frames are related by Lorentz boosts.
In the other articles, NPRF was applied only to Bell state entanglement. In this Insight, I used the information-theoretic principle of Information Invariance & Continuity from axiomatic reconstructions of QM to show how NPRF resides at the foundation of QM.gentzen said:The insight felt a bit like deja vu to me. I have the impression having read similar articles from RUTA ever since first reading "Answering Mermin’s Challenge with ...". So I wondered what it new. Then I found this:
This seems genuinely new, I don't remember a similar statement in previous articles. So it seems to be new, but is it also true? Well, at least it seems misleading to me.
But more seriously: What is new in this insight, compared to previous insights and similar articles by RUTA?
Let me also remark with respect to the overall approach that it is a nice start, but there is still potential for further progress of sorts that has already happened for SR. For example, Mermin in "It's About Time: Understanding Einstein's Relativity" has a chapter (9 Trains of Rockets) where it is shown that relativity of simultaneity is enough to fully explain both time dilation and length contraction. (What I am thinking about here is "QM is Nature’s way of having to avoid dealing with an infinite number of bits" as lemur put it succinctly, or in my own older words "... nature probably doesn't contain an infinite amount of information in a finite volume. So nature has to use QM (or something similar) to blur details ...")
The harmonic oscillator the building block of all quantum physics (outside of...)? Most of these quantum phenomena are non-linear (except in laborataries).A. Neumaier said:The information theoretic approach to quantum mechanics is very incomplete. From its axioms one cannot even derive a single thing about the harmonic oscillator, the building block of all quantum physics outside of quantum information theory. Thus it is unsuitable as a foundation of quantum mechanics.
The concept of "no preferred reference frame" in quantum mechanics refers to the idea that all inertial reference frames are equally valid for describing physical phenomena. This means that there is no absolute or preferred reference frame in which the laws of quantum mechanics must be described.
The concept of "no preferred reference frame" is closely related to the theory of relativity, specifically the principle of relativity which states that the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial reference frames. In quantum mechanics, this means that the laws of quantum mechanics should be the same regardless of the reference frame used to describe them.
The implications of "no preferred reference frame" for our understanding of quantum mechanics are significant. It means that we must be careful to consider the effects of different reference frames when making measurements or predictions in quantum systems. It also challenges our traditional notions of causality and determinism, as the laws of quantum mechanics do not depend on a single, absolute reference frame.
Yes, there is experimental evidence that supports the concept of "no preferred reference frame" in quantum mechanics. One example is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, where two particles can be connected in such a way that their properties are correlated regardless of the distance between them or the reference frame in which they are observed.
Different interpretations of quantum mechanics handle the concept of "no preferred reference frame" in different ways. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation does not address the issue, while the many-worlds interpretation suggests that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement occur in different universes, regardless of the reference frame. Other interpretations, such as the pilot-wave theory, propose that there may be a preferred reference frame, but it is not currently observable or detectable.