Quantum Mechanics of Measurement · HackerPapers discussions

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:38:38 GMT

Another author saying essentially the same thing: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06451 I actually believe that this idea has been rediscovered in it essence at least half a dozen times, going back as early as (at least) the late 90s: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 I think it's arguable that even Everett himself held this view, and there is some evidence that Schrödinger held it as well but didn't have the courage to admit it (because he didn't have the benefit of the Aspect experiment to support it).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:45:41 GMT

> Do you have an alternative description to work around this "problem"? I like this approach: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 > the measurement on C/A is strictly before the rotation on B so there is not even the shadow of a problem Yes, obviously. That is not what I'm talking about. Consider this variation on the theme: Alice and Bob share N>>1 entangled A-B pairs. Alice prepares N additional C particles, all in a known pure state P, and runs them all through the teleportation protocol. But instead of sending Bob rotation instructions, she sends him only the serial numbers of the…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:21:27 GMT

Ironically, I am just in the process of preparing a talk on the history of the atomic theory. Even as late as 1905 when Einstein published his work on brownian motion it was still highly controversial whether atoms were "really real" or just a mathematical contrivance. Some people are able to maintain skepticism even in the face of overwhelming evidence. > Neither the fact that measurements have one outcome, nor Born's rules for probability were derived from this decoherence idea yet. That is because it is not the case that measurements have one outcome. Measurements appear to have one…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:33:28 GMT

You are talking about the math, and I'm talking about what happens physically. As an analogy, this is like talking about whether F=G * m1 * m2 / r^2 is an accurate mathematical model of gravity in the weak limit (it is) vs talking about whether earth is actually pulling you down towards its surface (it isn't). But since you are obviously well versed in the math, I suggest you read the Cerf and Adami paper that my presentation is based on: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 Also, Zurek's work on decoherence. Those will probably answer your questions better than I can. I'm just a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:16:26 GMT

The math is in reference [1], and also here: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:35:40 GMT

> You still need to put in Born's rule by hand somewhere I'm not sure what you mean by "putting Born's rule in by hand". We're talking about interpretations here. Born's rule is just an empirical fact. Do you mean that I need to explain why the probabilities are the square of the amplitude? That's kind of like asking me to explain why the speed of light has the value that it has. It doesn't have an explanation. It's just part of the Way Things Are. But I can make the following heuristic arguments: 1. Outcomes are probabilistic because this is the only way that classical behavior can emerge…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — HN submission

Fri, 26 Aug 2016 01:07:52 GMT

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement (1996)

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:52:54 GMT

Here's the credible citation: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 (It's ironic, BTW, that you should complain that my citation is "not even a journal paper" when yours isn't either.) And BTW2, Aaronson's blog post doesn't contradict my position. The Bell inequality violations are indeed real. They just aren't caused by "spooky action at a distance." They are caused by the classical correlations that arise when you trace over the quantum wave function of the universe in order to isolate a subsystem. And BTW3, I actually did submit that paper to Physics Today back in the day. It was rejected…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:22:30 GMT

> inflating small fragments HN comments don't lend themselves well to long-form writing. But in this case it wasn't really necessary to go past that one small fragment to see that Motl had not in fact paid attention to the details because he's attacking a straw man. > Your interpretation No, not mine. Nicolas Cerf and Chris Adami's 9http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf). And W.H. Zurek's (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072). And David Mermin's (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013). And Hugh Everett's (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#3, though I do put a slightly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:45:29 GMT

My paper is based on this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605002v2.pdf I don't know if that exact paper was ever published, but an earlier version was formally published here: C. H. Adami and N. J. Cerf, “Information Theory of Quantum Entanglement and Measurement,” Physica D 120 (1998) 62-81. But this paper turns out to be a rehash of an older result (Zurek, 1991) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 which in turn is more or less a rehash of an even older result (1955) by von Neuman: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7649v1.pdf (See the references for the original source.) And there is some…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Sun, 22 Feb 2015 22:36:24 GMT

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 This doesn't discuss the arrow-of-time directly, but it's a pretty straightforward corollary.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:32:43 GMT

That's an excellent piece, but he leaves out an important detail: not only can complex numbers generate negative probabilities, they can also generate negative entropies. This observation can be used to answer the riddle of how unitary transformations can produce quantum randomness. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 Or for a more accessible account: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf particularly section 5.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Quantum Mechanics of Measurement — mentioned by lisper

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:17:24 GMT

Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? "the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems" is just a rewording of "the quantum state function is an exponentially complicated object." But when you combine that statement with the main point of the paper, namely, that this exponentially complicated object is physically real, it is not unreasonable to infer that this physically real exponentially complicated object comprises multiple copies of classical reality. In fact, there are logically only three possibilities: 1. The quantum wave…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.