## Measurement = collapse + irreversibility

I got a lot of feedback from last 2 posts and I need to continue the discussion. Even Lubos with his closed mind unable to comprehend anything different than the textbooks from 50 years ago and his combative style said something worth discussing.

But first let me thank Cristi for the picture below which will help clarify what I am trying to state. Let me quickly explain it: the interferometer arms are like the two sides of Einstein's box and once the particle was launched -for the duration of the flight- you can close the input and output of the interferometer, open the exit just in time and still have the interference. So this seems to contradict my prediction. But does it?

This time I do need to dig a bit deeper into the mathematical formalism. First, the role of the observer is paramount:

**no observer**=**no measurement.**Second, the observer is described by quantum mechanics as well: there is the wavefunction of the quantum system, and there is the wavefunction of the observer. Now here is the new part: while we can combine the quantum system and the observer by tensor product and do the usual discussion of how unitary evolution does not predict an unique outcome,**we need to combine the quantum system and the observer using the Cartesian product**. This is something new, not present in standard quantum mechanics textbooks. However this follows naturally from the category theory derivation of quantum mechanics from first principles. There are equivalent Cartesian products corresponding to potential measurement outcomes:
\((|collapsed ~1 \rangle, | observer~ see~1\rangle ) \equiv ( |collapsed~2\rangle, | observer~see~2\rangle)\)

This equivalence exists in a precise mathematical sense and respects the three properties of the equivalence relationship: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.

__Break the Cartesian pair equivalence by any mechanism possible and you get the collapse of the wavefunction.__**Closing the interferometer, or cutting Einstein's box in half kills the equivalence and the wavefunction collapses.**However while the particle is still in flight the process is reversible!!! Open the interferometer's exits in time and you restore the equivalence, undo the collapse still get the interference (Han Solo kills the stormtrooper 100% of the time).

However there is a way to make the collapse permanent: just wait enough time with the ends closed such that the energy-time uncertainty relation allows you to reduce the energy uncertainty to the point that you can detect the particle inside by weighing the half-boxes or the arms of the interferometer. Suppose the ends of the interferometer is made out of perfect mirrors.

__If you wait long enough (even though you are not physically weighing anything) and then reopen the exits will result in loss of interference: this is my prediction.__

But what happens if you only wait a little bit of time and you are in between full interference and no interference? You get a weak measurement.

Now let me discuss Lubos objection and then come back to the nonlocality point Bricmont was making.

First Lubos was stating: "If you place some objects (a wall) at places where a particle is certain not to be located, the effect on the particle's future behavior is obviously non-existent". The objection is vacuous. Obviously I don't disagree with the statement, but his entire line of argument is incorrect because

Bricmont's point on Einstein's boxes was this: "either there is action at a distance in nature (opening B1 changes the situation at B2), or the particle was in B2 all along and quantum mechanics is incomplete "

Let's discuss the two options:

First Lubos was stating: "If you place some objects (a wall) at places where a particle is certain not to be located, the effect on the particle's future behavior is obviously non-existent". The objection is vacuous. Obviously I don't disagree with the statement, but his entire line of argument is incorrect because

**collapse is not a dynamic process. If collapse would have had a dynamic origin then we would have had a unitary explanation for it we would have had to talk about the "propagation" of collapse.**What the Cartesian pair mathematical framework does is first getting the rid of the consciousness factor, and second clarifying the precise mathematical framework of how the observer should be treated within the formalism.**Contextuality is paramount in quantum mechanics****and cutting the box changes the context of the experiment.****Now onto Bricmont argument. Andrei stated in his comments: " I still do not see the relevance of all this in regards to the locality dilemma.". It has deep relevance as I will explain. And by the way, the rest of Andrei's comments were simply not worth answering-nothing personal: I don't have the luxury of enough free time to answer each and every comment.**

Bricmont's point on Einstein's boxes was this: "either there is action at a distance in nature (opening B1 changes the situation at B2), or the particle was in B2 all along and quantum mechanics is incomplete "

Let's discuss the two options:

- opening B1 changes the situation at B2
- or the particle was in B2 all along and quantum mechanics is incomplete

Option one is clearly not the case.

**Wait long enough and the interference will no longer happen. At that point the particle IS in either B1 or B2 and shipping one box far away changes nothing.**But how about option 2? Is quantum mechanics incomplete? Bohmian supporters think so because they augment the wavefunction with a hidden variable: the particle's initial position.**Do we actually need this initial condition to make predictions? Not at all.**Last thing to consider: was the particle in say B2 all along? If yes, there is no interference because the which way information. What about weak measurements? This is a case of even more examples of "surrealistic trajectories": combine two interferometers and you can obtain disjoint paths!!!**The only thing which makes sense is that the particle does not have a well defined trajectory.**

My question to Bohmian interpretation supporters is as follows: In the above picture close the arms long enough. What happens to the quantum potential? Does it dissipate? If yes how? If no, do you

*always*get interference after opening the stormtrooper end regardless of the wait time?
Finally back to measurement. There is no (strong) measurement without collapse. Collapse happens when a particular equivalence relationship no longer holds. Mathematically it can be proven that the wavefunction is projected on a subspace of the original Hilbert space. Moreover uniqueness can be proven as well: that this is the only mathematically valid mechanism in which projection can occur. Interaction between the quantum system and the measurement device can break the equivalence, but changing the experimental context can achieve the same thing as well.

**A measurement does not happen however until irreversibility occurs: there could be amplification effects, or as above enough time passes such that the energy uncertainty is low enough and the "which way" information becomes available regardless if we seek this information or not.**
"...unable to comprehend anything different than the textbooks from 50 years ago..."

ReplyDeleteAll the universal postulates/rules of quantum mechanics were fully known 90 years ago, not just 50 years ago, you idiot. If you knew e.g. what Dirac wrote in his 1930 textbook on QM, you would understand QM. You don't.

Otherwise your text is chaotic crap. Measurement and the collapse of the wave function are the very same thing - so they're equal without any additional term. So your equation with addition is ludicrous. Also, both the measurement and the collapse - because they're the same thing - are irreversible. But one doesn't "add" any irreversibility anywhere. There is no reversible collapse of the wave function and there is no reversible measurement. One can't "subtract" the irreversibility from them.

If you didn't have a hole in between the ears, you would also know that it's the measurement that makes it impossible to restore the interference pattern, and as I said, the measurement is irreversible. Obviously, just an insertion of a wall that splits an otherwise empty box to two parts is reversible - because the wall can be moved back and forth - so it can't kill the interference pattern by itself.

Lubos, here are a few Q & A:

Delete-do I care you are an asshole? Nope, that's your business. As I said before I will not ban you or anyone else from posting anything here.

-do I care about your rusty QM understanding? Nope again.

-do I care what you think about my approach? Only marginally to the degree you share common potential referee misunderstandings.

-do I care when you write a post at your blog criticizing me? Yes I do, but not the way you would expect it. Please feel free do do it as many times and as often as possible. There is no such thing as bad publicity!!!

Some people have applied "delayed choice" argument to interference from quasar light emitted billions of years ago or to the fact that QM processes went in stars billions of years before conscious observers came up. Does your argument "waiting long enough" apply in that situation?

ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.

DeleteI would ask the same question by replacing the words "conscious observers" with "any kind of observers living or non living"!

Delete