Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Cox: on 1/13/20 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a...

John Cox: on 1/13/20 at 14:01pm UTC, wrote Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/13/20 at 10:53am UTC, wrote Thanks for taking the time John. By 'relying on what they are sent' I mean...

John Cox: on 1/13/20 at 1:30am UTC, wrote Oops, Georgi, that's the disconnect of the 3rd person. There is no sharing...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/13/20 at 1:19am UTC, wrote Schrodinger's cat is mentioned in the podcast.This is a different kind of...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/12/20 at 23:26pm UTC, wrote Hi George, I have listened to the podcast. Now it is clear to me that the...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/12/20 at 23:15pm UTC, wrote By beable I mean an element of Object reality, something existing,...

John Cox: on 1/12/20 at 19:56pm UTC, wrote Georgina, I've gone over your scenario several times and (quite apart from...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Jason Wolfe: "This is unification of QM and GR in a nut shell. Gravitons exist. They..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "The graviton is the mathematical solution to the Schrodinger's equation. ..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "It would be nice to imagine that the Germans are working on gravity..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "Jim, If its physical, it can be perceived by the body, by physical things..." in Structure Invention by...

jim hughes: "Does the Standard Model have to be described as "physical"? I'd say it..." in Structure Invention by...

Jason Wolfe: "I think an event happens at a point, and the causal consequences travel..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.


FQXi BLOGS
July 11, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Watching the Watchmen: Demystifying the Frauchiger-Renner Experiment — musings from Lidia del Rio and more at the 6th FQXi Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger George Musser wrote on Dec. 24, 2019 @ 19:04 GMT
Credit: Lidia del Rio
Even by their usual excitable standards, the physicists and philosophers who study the foundations of quantum mechanics have been abuzz about a thought experiment first proposed in 2016 by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner at ETH Zurich, and later published in Nature Communications (Frauchiger, D., Renner, R. Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat Commun 9, 3711 (2018)). A blog post about it by Scott Aaronson of the University of Texas drew nearly 300 comments, and sparks flew at the two most recent FQXi meetings. So it was high time for me to buckle down and make sense of the experiment.

Free Podcast

An amped up version of the Schrodinger Cat Paradox spells trouble for all quantum interpretations -- according to its architect Renato Renner. He tells Zeeya and Brendan how the controversial thought experiment works, and why he thinks it is bad news for fans of Many Worlds and quantum parallel universes, QBism, Collapse models and (less so) for Bohmian interpretations of quantum mechanics. But not everyone agrees.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

You can listen to a detailed rundown of the thought experiment for beginners, in which Renner talks through each step, on the podcast. He also describes the controversy his paper caused, and how fans of various interpretations of quantum mechanics—including Many World's, QBism, Bohmian mechanics and Collapse models—argue that the paradox actually supports their preferred model, while ruling out its rivals. But Renner, as you'll hear, disagrees, explaining that in his opinion, no current interpretation can provide a satisfactory way out of the paradox.

I've come up with my own way of describing it—vetted by Renner—and put it into the form of a quantum circuit that I've run on IBM's cloud quantum computer. Renner says it is the first experimental implementation of his experiment. (A closely related experiment proposed by Časlav Brukner of Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna has already been performed (Science Advances  20 Sep 2019: Vol. 5, no. 9, eaaw9832).) The interpretive dispute will no doubt rumble on. But what makes quantum physics fun is the journey, not the destination.

The experiment engineers a contradiction between third- and first-person views: the objective perspective that physics traditionally provides and the experience of an embedded observer. "In physics we try to build a theory of the world as seen from the outside, as God would see it," Renner's colleague LĂ­dia del Rio said at this year's FQXi meeting in Tuscany. "But of course, to do this, we have only, as a basis, our own observations. We are always talking about the point of view of some observers, and the best we can do is talk to each other, compare observations, and try to build a consistent picture." In the Frauchiger-Renner experiment, observers find themselves weirdly unable to do this. "The agents will make some inferences about each other's results, which in the end will be contradictory," del Rio said.



These days, especially, it seems naĂŻve to expect that we could reach consensus through dialogue. But et tu, physics?

Becoming One With Nature

As usually presented, the experiment involves a convoluted series of measurements and logical deductions. But stripped to its essence, all you are doing is measuring a pair of entangled particles in two different ways. Normally, the first measurement of a particle would disturb it, spoiling the second. But Frauchiger and Renner propose a trick to measure and remeasure the particle in its pristine state: combine a direct and an indirect measurement. One observer measures the particle, and another measures the first observer. The first measurement transfers the state of the particle to the combined system of particle and observer, making it available for a second look. Frauchiger and Renner argue that, in specific cases, the indirect measurement is just as good as a direct one.

So, this experiment has the feature that observers are themselves observed. In most presentations of the experiment, the observers are human beings, but they could be just particles. All they have to do is make a prediction on the basis of quantum theory, and, for Frauchiger and Renner's scenario, that is a simple logical operation. Swapping particles for people makes the whole business of observing-the-observer seem less mysterious and implausible. That said, it also lessens the philosophical puzzle, because only if the observers are people can they be said to have a first-person viewpoint.

This procedure requires four observers in all, two for each of the entangled particles. Let's call those making the direct measurement the "friends" and those making the indirect measurement the "Wigners," in homage to the physicist Eugene Wigner, who was one of the first to note that observing the observer is a useful test case for interpretations of quantum theory. If the particles are photons, the observers measure their polarization using a special light filter. The friends orient their filters horizontally, and the particle either passes through (0) or reflects off (1). The Wigners orient theirs diagonally, and again the particle either passes through (+) or reflects off (–). So, that's four results to compare:

1. What a friend saw for the first particle vs. what a friend saw for the second

2. What a Wigner saw for the first particle vs. what a friend saw for the second

3. What a friend saw for the first particle vs. what a Wigner saw for the second

4. What a Wigner saw for the first particle vs. what a Wigner saw for the second

The team creates and measures multiple pairs of particles to see the statistical trends. The particles are entangled in a way devised by Lucien Hardy of the Perimeter Institute in 1993. This state can be written in four equivalent ways corresponding to the above cross-comparisons:

1. |00> + |01> + |10>

2. |+0> + |+1> + |–1>

3. |0+> + |1+> + |1–>

4. |++> + |+–> + |–+> – |– –>

To write these is just an exercise in geometry, using the fact that diagonal is part horizontal and part vertical. I am neglecting the exact probabilities for these sundry outcomes; Hardy considered a range of values. What's important is that, in the first three formulas, only three of the four possible outcomes arise, whereas in the fourth all can occur. Hardy showed that such a pattern is hard to explain and seems to require some spooky coordination among the particles.

Frauchiger and Renner have a different aim. They don't seek to explain how the particles could exhibit this pattern, only what happens if they do. Because the first three formulas contain a restricted set of outcomes, a friend can sometimes be certain what a Wigner will see, and vice versa. Based on that, we can draw some conclusions for what they will see and surmise.

When the first friend measures 0, she can conclude the second Wigner will measure + (per #3).

When the second friend measures 1, she knows the first friend must have measured 0 (per #1) and concluded that the second Wigner will measure +. The second friend adopts this prediction as her own, on the assumption that if you know that someone knows something, you know that thing, too—a principle that philosophers call "closure."

When the first Wigner measures –, he knows the second friend must have measured 1 (per #2). He now adopts the friend's prediction.

But sometimes when the first Wigner measures –, the second Wigner will measure –, too (per #4). That violates the prediction. Paradox!

Winding Back the Clock

When critics such as Aaronson say Frauchiger and Renner got it wrong, they are not disputing that the experiment gives the results it does. It's the interpretation that riles them.

Many have latched onto the strange feature that the observers are themselves observed. Observation is not a passive operation, but a thoroughgoing alteration. In the course of doing their indirect measurement, the Wigners undo the friends' direct measurement and wipe their memory. The friends see something, then un-see it. To them, it is as though nothing has happened; when the experiment wraps up and everyone else goes out for after-work drinks, the friends are still sitting there asking, "When will the experiment start?" In some descriptions of the experiment, it's even worse: they enter a Schrödinger-cat-like state of complete ambiguity. This makes The Matrix or brain-in-vat scenarios look tame by comparison. It's one thing to imagine that our world is a virtual projection, another that someone could reach directly into our brains and decide what we think.

At the meeting in Tuscany, Aaronson and Raphael Bousso at U.C. Berkeley argued that if you can't trust in your own integrity as a reasoning agent, you shouldn't be surprised to encounter contradictions such as the one in Frauchiger-Renner. By screwing with the friends' temporal continuity, the experiment smashes the chain of logical statements. If someone has made an observation and then un-made it, you can't base any conclusions on that observation.

Renner and del Rio reply that the experiment is staged to avoid this problem. The friends do get wiped, but by that point, they have no further role to play in the experiment. Whatever they saw and concluded has already been incorporated into the analysis, and nobody refers to it again. Now, you might wonder, if their memory is wiped, then how can any record of their observation endure? This is the most critical part of the experiment. Most of the time, it is true that no record endures. But when the conditions I laid out above are satisfied—namely, when observers are able to make definitive predictions for one another—information lives on. That happens for one in six trials (given the specific Hardy state used by Frauchiger and Renner), and a contradiction arises in half those cases. Thus the experiment walks a line: in undoing an observation, it sometimes preserves a trace of it.

Making the Circuit

This can be illustrated by a quantum circuit—that is, an algorithm that can be implemented on a quantum computer. If you're new to quantum circuits, this section will probably make zero sense. The main takeaway is that the circuit shows how the observers don't need to be humans. Also, the circuit lays bare the sequence of events and the conditions under which information can endure, allaying some of the skeptics' misgivings.

I've implemented the circuit using Quirk, an online quantum simulator created by Craig Gidney in Google's quantum-computing group. (Gidney has his own circuit version of the Frauchiger-Renner experiment.) You can run and modify the circuit for yourself.

I'm attaching a PDF version of this circuit to this post. If you scroll down to the bottom of the post, you can click "Quirk_circuit.pdf" to open a larger version, so you can more easily see the details.

Here, the observers are abbreviated F1 and F2 (the friends) and W1 and W2 (the Wigners). The first two wires (horizontal lines) are qubits representing the entangled particles. The next two are flags indicating whether a given observer is able to make a firm prediction. The following two are the actual predictions. Although we have four observers, we need only two sets of wires, since we track only two observers at a time. The bottom wire is a workspace where observers compare their results and confirm they are entitled to make the inferences they do—an aspect of the Frauchiger-Renner experiment that tends to get overlooked.

Quirk has a nice set of probes—colored green or cyan—that show the qubit values and their correlations at any stage nondestructively. The two boxes with four little yellow circles are custom operations to create or manipulate the Hardy state. The rest of the symbols are standard quantum circuit symbols.

The steps in the procedure are:

1. Hardy state preparation

2. F1 measures particle 1. If 0, F1 is able to make a firm prediction—namely, that W2 will measure + (0). Otherwise F1 assigns equal probabilities to + (0) and – (1).This gives formulation #3 of the Hardy state.

3. F2 measures particle 2. If 1, F2 is able to make a firm prediction—namely, that F1 measured 0. Otherwise F1 assigns equal probabilities to 0 and 1. This gives formulation #1 of the Hardy state.

4. If F2 does make a firm prediction for F1, she can further conclude that F1 has made a firm prediction for W2—namely, that W2 will measure + (0)—and hence can provisionally adopt that prediction as her own. Because of the sign conventions adopted in this circuit, F2’s prediction for F1 (in the 0/1 basis) is automatically a prediction for W2 (in the +/– basis).

5. F1 and F2 confer and check for two errors. First, whether, when F2 is able to make a firm prediction for F1 and W2, F1 either (i) could not make a firm prediction for W2, or (ii) made a different prediction. This tests the assumption of transitivity of knowledge. Note that F2 can adopt a prediction only if it is firm; if she tried to adopt probabilistic predictions, the next step would fail. A firm prediction can be made without using two-qubit gates. This selective reasoning is the main asymmetry in the experiment.

6. F1’s role is over, so her measurement can be undone, clearing the way for W1 to make his. F1’s prediction qubits can be put to other uses.

7. W1 measures particle in the +/– basis. If – (1), W1 is able to make a firm prediction—namely, that F2 measured 1. Otherwise W1 assigns weighted probabilities to 0 and 1. This gives formulation #2 of the Hardy state.

8. If W1 does make a firm prediction for F2, she can further conclude that F2 has made a firm prediction for F1 and thus for W2 and hence can provisionally adopt that prediction as her own. Because of the sign conventions in this circuit, we have to invert W1’s prediction for F2 in order to interpret it as a prediction for W2.

9. W1 and F2 confer and check whether, when W1 is able to make a firm prediction for F2 and W2, F2 either (i) F2 could not make a firm prediction for W2, or (ii) made a different prediction. As in step #5, W1 can adopt only a firm prediction or else the next step would fail.

10. F2’s role is over, so her measurement can be undone, clearing the way for W2 to make his.

11. W2 measures particle 2 in the +/– basis and obtains statistics for formulation #4 of the Hardy state, including -- (11) one run in 12.

12. W1 and W2 confer and check whether W1 erred, i.e. whether he predicted + (0) with certainty yet W2 obtained 1 (–). And he did err for one run in 12, half his predictions.

Just for fun, and just because I could, I ran this circuit on the IBM Q Experience online quantum computer. IBM's interface is sleek and easy to use, but I had to strip down the circuit to accommodate the hardware's limitations, not all of which are documented. I'm grateful to Paul Nation at IBM's Quantum Computing group for his help. The output is now a single error bit signaling a paradox: the second Wigner didn't observe – (1) as the other observers had predicted.



First I ran the circuit on IBM's own simulator and got such an error in 86 of 1024 trials, closely matching the theoretical prediction of one in 12. Then I ran it on an actual quantum computer located in Ourense, Spain. It was just as easy as running the simulator and took less than a minute. I got 461 errors in 1024 trials. This higher value suggest that the device is rather noisy. The other processors that IBM makes available gave similar results. I also checked some of the intermediate values and, not surprisingly, the early steps roughly match theory, while later ones deviate significantly.

To Each His Own

So, if the strange wiping of memory doesn't account for the paradox, what does? It comes down to the unpalatable choice between quantum physics and the objectivity of knowledge.

Quantum physics says the second friend does not—and could not—measure the second Wigner directly. If you can't measure something even in principle, most physicists would question whether that thing exists, in which case there isn't any such thing as a direct comparison of these two observers, and the observers commit a fallacy by pooling their knowledge to draw the comparison nonetheless. Yet pooling knowledge is what scientists do. They couldn't function otherwise.

If you accept quantum mechanics as hard fact, but then weaken the category of "hard fact," haven't you swallowed your own tail? Physicists created the theory and proved it experimentally by stringing together inferences. Every measurement they make is indirect—a long chain of "if this, then that" stretching from the state of a particle to a signal a human can perceive. Those who would give up objectivity to save quantum mechanics may lose both. (That said, maybe quantum mechanics has a theory of knowledge tucked inside it in the form of quantum Darwinism, see "The Evolution of Reality.")

Carlo Rovelli and others have argued for years that quantum mechanics is perspectival: there is no third-person view at all. They still accept some kind of postulate of consistency: observers' viewpoints may differ, but must mesh whenever they come into contact, so that no out-and-out contradiction arises. Yet they remove the most natural explanation for that consistency: a world independent of us. Frauchiger and Renner's experiment might nudge more people to adopt a perspectival view, but heightens the puzzle of how we ever come to any agreement.

attachments: Quirk_circuit.pdf

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 24, 2019 @ 19:30 GMT
"Observation is not a passive operation."

Of course its not. The observer isn't doing anything. It is the particle that strikes the observer, only then does the observer respond. The observer is a second party, not the first.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Shaikh Raisuddin replied on Dec. 25, 2019 @ 11:39 GMT
I agree with you.

Deep question is "How matter knows matter?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 25, 2019 @ 21:14 GMT
Hello Shaikh,

I see that too, that's really funny! Ho...ho...ho!

We discover by classical means that things get so small that we can't directly measure them, or sort them out classically to do so anyway. And if we accept the discrete interpretation of the photo-electric effect rather than Compton, and Planck's *pre-loaded* hypothesis, then there is no 'early warning' field effect to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 26, 2019 @ 16:33 GMT
correction

(about 3/5 down ist paragraph)

"to run into a third party that would have to be one different than what the FIRST party could bump into."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 27, 2019 @ 01:43 GMT
Shaikh Raisuddin,

Your deep question, "How Matter Knows Matter" is provocative and likely one reason why this topic will struggle to gain acceptance. A century of conventional bias is being challenged on and in its own terms.

I dug out an essay from the FQXI 2012 archives that may be of interest to you, along with its full page of footnote citations which include selected works by contributors to the physics that spawned the current QM preferred interpretations.

https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Re
iter_challenge2.pdf

enjoy, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 28, 2019 @ 17:05 GMT
There's seems to be a good bit of online reading about Frauchiger-Renner.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 28, 2019 @ 18:00 GMT
This FQXI Topic is engaging enough that I've violated my privacy protocols and reinstated an account! It also dovetails nicely with the Essay Contest this year.

The advanced level of Method on which the arguments of Frauchiger & Renner are predicated, should not discourage interest and there are less technical explanations available. One that I've seen is in terms more familiar in Quantumagazine (note: only one 'm') with this link:

https://quantumagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-cl
arifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203

The discussions online open up a wide vista of revisitation on the whole Quantum Mechanical paradigm, and we must not "throw the babe out with the bathwater". But questioning our way of question was the origin of The Age of Reason, and is the hallmark of human sentience.

I do hope capable and knowledgeable practitioners in QM will soon avail themselves of the growing literature, and lead the discussion here on the FQXi Forum. Happy New Year to All, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger George Musser replied on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 04:03 GMT
To clarify, the link to that article should be:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-
clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/

The article is written by my friend and colleague Anil Ananthaswamy and I enjoyed it, as I do all his writing. That said, I think the presentation is confusing in certain ways and that my reformulation, though it may seem more complicated at first, is actually more straightforward and clears up some misconceptions.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 17:04 GMT
George,

I browsed Mateus Araujo's blog 'More Quantum' and his arguments were in the actual maths, all beyond my understanding, what do you think? Overall it appears that critiques of F-R methods do follow a rigor of form, but to the uninitiated that also bolsters F-R contention that form following form is not a disproof of form follows function. Are you satisfied that QM is complete? best-jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 02:03 GMT
"Frauchiger and Renner argue that, in specific cases, the indirect measurement is just as good as a direct one."

That is not saying much; in Bell tests, on the order to 10% of all the measurements yield a value that is the exact opposite of the correct value.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Blogger George Musser replied on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 04:06 GMT
The relevant comparison is that a second measurement, made in an orthogonal basis to the first, is usually completely uninformative.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 15:18 GMT
Hello George,

If you could please clarify something; rhetorically, "a measurement" is made, but it often seems that rather than a physical observation that is being spoken of it is a qualified probabilistic calculation of what is physically unobservable. The end result may be a macro world agreement with prediction but the discussion does get confused when prediction of what a quantum state might be is treated as a measurement. So in the relevance of comparison; how is that second measurement in an orthogonal basis actually accomplished. (A lot of us didn't grow up flipping bottlecaps and don't have that comfort zone with statistical probabilities.) So why does the second measurement result being completely uninformative change anything about the 10% error Robert identifies?

Forget Bell for a moment and we still have the physical puzzlement of an Aspect experiment, the 'trick bulb and sunglasses thing". thanks, jrc

p.s. yes, my idiot box partitioned that link, thanx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger George Musser replied on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 17:07 GMT
Hi John,

I'm not sure I follow your question. Do you think you could rephrase it? The measurements I talk about are physical operations, not merely rhetorical.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 29, 2019 @ 21:18 GMT
Okay, "what's important..."

is the 2nd list is the OUTCOMES of the formulations of Hardy,

and each group in the each of the numbered sets is a comparison of what a Friend and associated Wigner could find given the first observation in pair of observations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 3, 2020 @ 01:40 GMT
Well George,

not many takers on your topic. Too bad, the premise behind the F&R experiments goes to the heart of all the extraneous comments. Is our capacity to accurately enough theorize on indirect measurement testable, or a meaningless tautology? Welcome in a New Year. This would have been Isaac Asimov's 100th birthday, I'm happy for that. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2020 @ 04:12 GMT
I dd not really understand the experiment. The orthogonal measurement should, as usual is uninformative, be uninformative. I take that to mean uncorrelated. What does it mean for a Wigner to take a fiends measurement as his own? Is it then not orthogonal and not really a Wigner measurement but Wigner by proxy. So why are the indirect Wigner measurements of observers one and two chosen to be orthogonal?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 3, 2020 @ 05:28 GMT
Now those are good questions, Georgi. Maybe George will check in and be able to explain how the actual experiment works. Isn't conjugation a proof of orthogonality to test if coordinates of a set of points has been correctly calculated? Wouldn't that set be a vector of a chosen Spin characteristic like angular momentum? So why is an orthogonal measurement meaningless?

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 3, 2020 @ 12:03 GMT
Did you notice that my reply to George, explaining the real significance of those "uninformative" orthogonal measurements, has been removed; apparently it remains too disturbing for many people to contemplate, once they understand it, since it implies that fifty years of their work, on Bell-type tests, will be reduced to a complete waste of effort, as the result of being founded upon a false premise (that identical, entangled particles, are in fact, perfectly identical).

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 16:45 GMT
George,

Let me use pass and block for 0 & 1, and + & -

(#3) |0+ > +| 1+ > +| 1->

would that read?:

if F1 is certain of a pass, then W2 would pass. Otherwise (>) if W2 might be a pass, then (|) F1 might be blocked while W2 might pass. Or (>) if W2 might be a pass then (|) f1 might be blocked and W2 might also be blocked. Otherwise (>) there would are no other defined combination probabilities.

can I go out and play now

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger George Musser wrote on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 17:27 GMT
There a few issues here.

First, EPR had several goals in their 1935 paper, and E's were not the same as P's and R's. As Einstein made clear in subsequent correspondence, he had no interest in trying to take down the Uncertainty Principle; his concern was to explain the remote correlations.

Second, I don't see that EPR makes an assumption of identity (unless this is implicit in the elements-of-reality assumption). Rather, there is an assumption that the system has a global wavefunction that implies correlations.

Third, we do have a notion of particle identity that is measurable: particle statistics. That is not relevant here, though.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 18:26 GMT
First, you are correct; "taking down" the HUP was not an issue. But taking down Heisenberg's explanation for why the HUP even exists, was an issue. Those are two very different things.

Second, you are again correct; EPR did not. But Bohm and Bell did, in their EPR-B revision of the experiment. That is the problem. If the entangled pair consists of an apple and an orange, and instead of measuring their extrinsic properties (like position and momentum, in the original EPR), you instead decide (as Bohm and Bell subsequently did) to substitute a measurement of an intrinsic property (like skin-texture or polarization), then there is going to be a problem, when you have assumed that the measurement of the skin-texture of the orange can be substituted for a measurement of the skin-texture of the apple, in the same manner in which measurements of the positions and momentums can be substituted.

Third. It is directly relevant: objects can be statistically identical (as in exhibiting the same mean and standard deviation) without being exactly the same (identical). Since you have raised this issue, you might wish to reflect upon my comment regarding the significance of this. Modern Code-Division-Multiple-Access communications systems are founded upon exploiting this very distinction: codes that are statistical identical will always behave in fundamentally different ways, when received by an entity that knows a prioi, how to exploit this distinction.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 19:41 GMT
George, the a priori assumption that a total system wave function exists that collapses when one “entangled” particle is sensed producing a statistical outcome that then and only then immediately impacts the statistical sensed outcome of the now distant pair partner has seemed to me to make the argument that Bell type experiments have no possible classical explanation seem a bit circular. Was not this “spooky action at a distance” at the heart of the EPR issues they brought up?

Bell’s work was a statistical mathematics exercise, it did not address experimental measurements. What if a conserved characteristic was 0 before pair production and became +1 in one pair member and -1 in the other at the time of production, summing to zero as conservation would require. What if the Bell -cosine effect is a manifestation of the metrology of the sensing statistically recovered over a large number of pairs sensed in much the same way as Rob’s CDMA example statistically recovers the desired communications? E.g. the cosine transfer function of a polarizing filter, the coherence being the conservation of the sensed effect.

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why this can be ruled out. Do you have one?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 20:02 GMT
Rick,

I think that it all goes into the bag of the originating Photo-Electric Effect formulation being just that... an effect of incident light not a first order observation of it. The closest thing we have experimentally of actual detection of the physical existence of EMR is the Transition Zone at a macro-scopic antenna. All else is inference on the source. The discovery of spectral lines was also an observation of an effect, not a first order detection.

So EPR is an argument of interpretations by default. I wouldn't rule yours out. jrc

P.S. 1/5/20 The transition zone is also called the Near Field and Far Field and gets complicated fast. But it should be required reading for any discussion of Maxwell as an experimental proof that the 90* phase difference and 'c' proportional difference in orthogonal intensity of Magnetic and Electrical fields in a point (rest) charge, progress to orthogonal, in phase equal strength at light velocity of "a photon'(which is why an antenna doesn't vaporize and fry everything around it). And in application to the Quantum Mechanical measurement system is the only direct evidence of physical emission. In the early days of radio telegraphy contemporary with the Bohr Atom, it was unknown, but is now compelling evidence that the Quantum jump is time dependent.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 23:54 GMT
Rob,

Re the webpage link in “you might wish to reflect upon my comment regarding the significance of this” [1]:

As I have tried to explain to you before, Shannon’s “Information” Theory is in fact Shannon’s “Symbolic Representations” Theory.

Sorry, but your mixed-up ideas about information, messages [2], binary digits and codes inevitably leads you to mixed-up conclusions about the world. There are no messages being relayed in the micro-world.

I.e. you, like a lot of other people, don’t understand the difference between 1) information and 2) the symbolic representations of information that are created by human beings in order to communicate (e.g.) their ideas.

………………………

1. Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2020 @ 18:26 GMT, referring to http://dailynous.com/2019/03/21/philosophers-physics-experim
ent-suggests-theres-no-thing-objective-reality/#comment-1791
78

2. “The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle … correspond[s] to the shortest message of all, namely a message of exactly one bit” (Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 2, 2019 @ 15:46 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3351 )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2020 @ 02:16 GMT
"There are no messages being relayed in the micro-world."

That's what Robert McEachern keeps drumming. He says that technological 'sign'als are being relayed, and that metaphors of human communication messaging are technologically encoded in signal generation and transmission. And that information encoded as messages are comprised of multiple bits and the criteria of which for encoding, that constitutes a single bit is that it must be distinct enough in technological parameters that it can be completely and faithfully reconstructed by the same technology at reception as was used in transmission. That the micro-realm can be approximated with the criteria of technological parameters.

Contrast that with Lorraine Ford's insistence on a new age nomenclature that conveys an idea that free choice and societal responsibility are a higher order of construct from the particle level acting against constraints of force effects associated with particles in the conventionally accepted operational definitions which are approximated in formalization of Physical Laws.

Distinctly different paradigms, each complex in structure and metaphor, but not at all mutually exclusive.

I've known a few hunters, all humanely conscientious and no wounders, and I've known a number of others. There is no better eating than to sit at table of a hunter. Fresh, immediately dressed, free of chemicals and contagion of sheltered and fed stock. Well prepared and cooked its Edwardian Baronial Estate healthy quality. Takes a lot of knowledge, respect, patience and work. Animals leave sign. Oak trees of common species cycle through abundance of seeding, typically individual specimens will produce a super abundance of acorns about every 4 to more usually 6 years. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 6, 2020 @ 21:31 GMT
I come from a hunting & fishing family. It was great camping out in the bush and by rivers, far away from civilisation. But I only liked target shooting, not shooting rabbits, even though they are a pest species.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 7, 2020 @ 00:14 GMT
"Carlo Rovelli and others have argued for years that quantum mechanics is perspectival: there is no third-person view at all. They still accept some kind of postulate of consistency: observers' viewpoints may differ, but must mesh whenever they come into contact, so that no out-and-out contradiction arises. Yet they remove the most natural explanation for that consistency: a world independent of us." George Musser. I think it worthwhile to question , what is the world independent of us? I used to think the sum of all possible views of it would suffice but it doesn't because it still relies upon the imposition of subjective viewpoints. Better is a completely non peprsspectival condition. The state of an measurable is always tied to how it is measured or viewed. i.e. seen this way ...or if this is done...|NO single perspective ->no single state.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 6, 2020 @ 12:49 GMT
Probably,

there has never been any physical experiment conducted which has succeeded in producing the projection of a single discrete particle. Double Slit, many electrons and even more numbers of photons, most hitting the plate. EPR?, Delft?, Fourier. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 6, 2020 @ 15:17 GMT
As a matter of political science, the only thing that matters in this debate is who gets a functioning Quantum Key Distribution system up and running. Currently from what is publicly acknowledged and alleged the ChiCom (meaning communist cum dot com) has achieved synchronized orbital LOS stability to a functional degree, but can only operate in the night-time shadow due to increased atmospheric interference in daylight. In 2012, the U.S. through DARPA initiated a seed program to promote private sector R&D but nobody's talking it up in the blogosphere of investment capital. The RNC and DNC don't even mention it, though its perhaps the hottest topic available to focus attention on education policy. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 7, 2020 @ 19:46 GMT
All,

Among the standard measurement criteria of the symmetric spin coordinate system, devised for the practical purpose of reducing complexity down to a manageable host of parameters for statistical analysis by Quantum Mechanics, is (also) the symmetry of axial rotation around the poles of the precession of orbital of magnetic moment. So perhaps due to this the conventional assumption of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 7, 2020 @ 23:46 GMT
Entanglement would have to be the negative polar vector. If it were the conventional assumption of inversion, entangled electrons would be impossible! You would physically encode Electron-Positron Annihilation:

(-8pi)alpha

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 10, 2020 @ 22:30 GMT
Applying alternative explanatory framework to the experiment. The beable particles that will be used are elements of Object reality, non perspectivval, complete. Pairs are produced with a correlation that will result in opposite outcomes for the same orientation of measurement. The Friends agree on the measurement to be made and choose the orientation of measurement. Now the measurable is being...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2020 @ 23:38 GMT
The event of a beable particle interacting with the beable measurement apparatus is unitary. The outcomes were not actualized prior to production of singular result. The alternative has ceased to have potential to become, as the other condition is actualized. (No need for Many Worlds). Awareness of the outcome is via Observation product (Image reality) production. Different observers with different viewpoints generate their own products from input from the same object reality event (Fits with relativity). Orthogonal observer viewpoints is categorically different from orthogonal measurement. The measurement part of the experiment is allowing the particle interaction with apparatus imposing a particular context (just dealing with this aspect of being) and perspective (seen in this way), leading to a detection. Different from observation (see above).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 11, 2020 @ 04:15 GMT
Georgi,

Frauchiger and Renner are correct, so was Wigner intuitively. There is something missing in the Spin co-ordinate system representation of Maxwell's Theory of Electro-Magnetism. It's right there in front of everybody. But it makes Superposition hollow, and if you look at the Born Rule from the perspective of Faraday's right hand rule; axis A is +1, B is -1, and C is either the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2020 @ 09:41 GMT
I'll think about it John. What do you mean by the superposition being hollow? Geometry of possibility? John, you wrote "Frauchiger and Renner are correct, so was Wigner intuitively. " I have not said they are wrong according to their premises and theory.Nor have I set out to explain what they have done.I have used the experiment as a testing ground for the RICP explanatory framework . It is not QM and not classical physics. I'm taking a different approach to the Theoretical/ Metaphysical background in which the experiment happens. Partitioning Object (independent) reality and Image ((observer generated)reality.It shows that the explanatory framework can be applied too Relativity issues and to QM experiments

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 11, 2020 @ 20:50 GMT
Hi George, I don't understand how in practice W1 makes an orthogonal measurement of particle 1. I thought from the outset of the blog, the idea is that W1 can make an indirect observation of F1 performing the experiment-so not disturbing the particle again. I thought the whole encryption business re. QM was the idea that when one observer 'looks' at an entangled particle the supposed superposition of states and entanglement ceases. That's not going to work if the first observers memory and disturbance of the particle can be erased, allowing a second first measurement. I don't understand why the W1 measurement is 3rd person if there is interaction with the particle itself by W!'s experiment. That's another 2nd person activity. If the particle is 1st 'person' perspective , F1 2nd person perspective.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 12, 2020 @ 00:28 GMT
I mean by, if the particle is first 'person' perspective, just that the interaction with the apparatus leading to an outcome happens to it. I don't mean it has sensory perception or opinion. The 2nd person perspective is that of the person conducting the experiment and forming an awareness of the outcome. As I see it a 3rd person perspective is that of a spectator watching the experiment being performed but not interacting with the apparatus or other person. If doing his /her/its own measurement that is another 2nd person perspective. And there can't be two first measurements. Things change upon first measurement outcome, whether described as loss of coherence, wave function collapse, or another way. Correlations that would have been are lost upon second measurement. (Must be sequential not measured in both orientations simultaneously. Is that not so?.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 12, 2020 @ 23:26 GMT
Hi George, I have listened to the podcast. Now it is clear to me that the Wigners are not making their own independent measurements but relying on what they are sent.

Now I don't understand why the two labs, with independent random number generators, can be considered entangled merely because they can share information

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 01:30 GMT
Oops, Georgi, that's the disconnect of the 3rd person. There is no sharing of information between any observer during the experiment. In the panel discussion, 'classical record' was among things at issue. F&R equip their individual observers, then pair them, only with the classical record of the axiomatic rules of operations of probabilities (the math) in QM, and send the 1st persons into isolated labs while the 3rd persons deduce from axioms what the probable outcomes might be. The classical record includes the catalogue of results from Harvey's distillation (I'm an old guy, I really prefer the Harvey that was paired with Elwood P. Dowd). That classical record is shared on the NW corner of 'F' St. and 'R' Av. as an extra on the SE corner flips a coin each time the light changes. That timing signal becomes part of the classical record before the Wigner Twins and their Friends make their seperate ways to begin the Gedanken. The flip of the coin, not its outcome in relation to the direction of light change, is the only observable the 4 observers actually obtain. I know. I know, we are missing some crucial information ourselves. It's in the Harvey protocols and we as onlookers (not observers) must accept the classical record is sufficient. When a 'measurement is made' its in the classical record, and as the timing intervals progress the seperate observers simply deduce from knowledge without any actual observation or measurement taking place. Nothing disturbs the Beables by thinking of the classical record.

(edit) yes. its a head game.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 12, 2020 @ 15:56 GMT
Thanks, George,

for the tweet link to the panel discussion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 13, 2020 @ 16:03 GMT
George,

We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a dynamic track record not only of prediction in application to specific tasks, but also in discovery. Its worth noting that where we have seen discovery in QM it has been by theoretical regimes which are quasi-Relativistic, ie: inverse square law subject to Lorentz Invariance.

The question posed by Frauchiger and Renner, does contend inconsistency. But all the underpinning of QM parameters are classical laws of observed operations. And Classical Realism is riddled with inconsistencies, assumptions and gaps of causal ontology. The ad hoc notion of superposition draws immediately on the contrary classicism of luminosity decaying over distance in a spherical wave, while observation of the photoelectric effect constrains emission of EMR to an LOS trajectory. Ergo: a Quantum might be envisioned as decohering from an arc section of the spherical wave at any observational location along that trajectory.

QM can argue that it is a complete theory only in the same sense that SR can be said to be mathematically complete. Which is not to say that either is physically complete. Perhaps if the principle interpretations of QM were consitent, it would cease to be a dynamic methodology and retrograde into the same stassis of 19th century Newtonian physics in which all to be discovered had been, and only specific applications needed accounted for. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.