Timeline for Does Quantum Entanglement have a preferred reference frame?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 16:37 | comment | added | Sciencemaster | system? In addition, my concern with the relativity point is that, while relativity says that nothing can accelerate to C with mass, or beyond C without mass, nothing specifically seems to show that abstract information can't instantaneously change if it's not really "moving" in a classical sense, as relativistic momentum/energy (the reason why entities cannot accelerate to/beyond C) does not seem to apply to such information. Is there another specific aspect of relativity that outlaws nonlalocal information transfer in this case? | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 16:34 | comment | added | Sciencemaster | I see your first point now about the wave function being a mathematical description that just predicts outcomes directly. However, my issue with this is that the wave function has direct effects that are present in classical wave mechanics that don't seem to have any other classical analogue outside of wave mechanics, such as interference of waves/wavefunctions, and electron orbitals being created from the only wavelengths around an atom that reinforce rather than destructively interfere with each other. How would these occur if the wave fucntion is just a representation of our knowledge of a | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 5:20 | comment | added | Andrei | . "what specifically contradicts wave function collapse in relativity?" The collapse is instantaneous, so a measurement at A, under the assumption that the wavefunction is real, will have instantaneous consequences at B no matter how far B is from A. That should not be possible in relativity, where all physical effects, not only mass transfer, should be limited at C. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 5:15 | comment | added | Andrei | You may also consider properties like pressure or temperature. They describe well the behavior of a gas, yet they are not fundamental entities, just mathematical abstractions. So, it is possible that the wavefunction is an abstract concept that for some yet to be discovered reason, gives a correct statistical description of the behavior of quantum particles. Given the strong evidence we have for locality, I think (2) is the most reasonable position | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 5:09 | comment | added | Andrei | The wavefunction+Born's rule correctly predicts all experiments, including interference, no doubt about it. However, there is no logical argument (or at least I don't know any) that can lead you to conclude that the wavefunction must be a real physical entity. Think about the center of mass. It's a useful concept, gives correct prediction for mechanical problems, yet if you were to look at that location you will find nothing. For a sphere, the center of mass is just vacuum. The wavefunction might be similar in this respect. | |
| Dec 9, 2019 at 14:05 | comment | added | Sciencemaster | Andrei, First off, hasn't the wave function and superposition been shown repeatedly in experiments (such as interference in particles with mass)? This being the case, scenario 1 would have to be the case, as uncertainty is a physical superposition of states rather than a lack of knowledge of a system. Is this correct? Second, what specifically contradicts wave funtion collapse in relativity? The particle isn't technically accelerating beyond C, as all that is happening is that some states are being instantaneously "destroyed" as the result of a quantum interation. Am I making a mistake here? | |
| Dec 9, 2019 at 8:45 | history | answered | Andrei | CC BY-SA 4.0 |