Is single-particle interference spooky?

[FrediFizzx]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02552

It appears quantum interference effects aren't so quantum after all. This was published in Physical Review A under a different title.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/1 ... .98.012118
"Local model of a qudit: Single particle in optical circuits"

So along with Joy's local realistic model for EPR-Bohm, quantum "spookiness" is gone. POOF! Its (spookiness) wavefunction has permanently collapsed.
.

[Joy Christian]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02552

It appears quantum interference effects aren't so quantum after all. This was published in Physical Review A under a different title.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/1 ... .98.012118
"Local model of a qudit: Single particle in optical circuits"

So along with Joy's local realistic model for EPR-Bohm, quantum "spookiness" is gone. POOF! Its (spookiness) wavefunction has permanently collapsed.
.

Wow! That is quite an interesting paper. Great find. Here is the abstract of the paper:

It has been said about quantum interference, that “in reality, it contains the only mystery”. Together with nonlocality, it is often considered the characteristic feature of quantum theory challenging our classical understanding of the world. In this work, we are concerned with the restricted setting of a single particle propagating in multipath interferometric circuits—that is, the physical realization of a qudit—which is host to many typically quantum mechanical effects including collapse of the wave function and contextuality. In this paper, we show that this framework can be simulated with classical resources without violating the locality principle. We present a local ontological model whose predictions are indistinguishable from the quantum case. In the model, ‘nonlocality' appears merely as an epistemic effect arising from a level of description by agents whose knowledge is incomplete. It is notably different from the multiparticle scenarios where entanglement leads to nonlocal correlations on an ontological level. This result exposes the conceptual difference between single- and multiparticle phenomena, pointing to the latter as a deeper quantum mystery.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty good also. Fits perfectly into the scheme of things we are working on. I ran across it completely by accident. But WoW! is correct way to describe it.

I expect that there is a tendency to mix up real waves with the probability waves of QM. All quantum objects have real wave action in addition to being able to be described using probability waves.

[Yablon]

Here is another reference in the same vein:
Atmanspacher, Harald (2001) Determinism Is Ontic, Determinability is Epistemic.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/939/

Abstract: Philosophical discourse traditionally distinguishes between ontology and epistemology and generally enforces this distinction by keeping the two subject areas separated. However, the relationship between the two areas is of central importance to physics and philosophy of physics. For instance, many measurement-related problems force us to consider both our knowledge of the states and observables of a system (epistemic perspective) and its states and observables independent of such knowledge (ontic perspective). This applies to quantum systems in particular. This contribution presents an example showing the importance of distinguishing between ontic and epistemic levels of description even for classical systems. Corresponding conceptions of ontic and epistemic states and their evolution are introduced and discussed with respect to aspects of stability and information flow. These aspects show why the ontic/epistemic distinction is particularly important for systems exhibiting deterministic chaos. Moreover, this distinction provides some understanding of the relationships between determinism, causation, predictability, randomness, and stochasticity.

[Jarek]

We have organized QM foundations seminar with Paweł Błasiak in Cracow (he is in UK now) - here are links to slides including from this "Is single-particle interference spooky?" article:
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/OPMK.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't longer work for two particles.

[FrediFizzx]

We have organized QM foundations seminar with Paweł Błasiak in Cracow (he is in UK now) - here are links to slides including from this "Is single-particle interference spooky?" article:
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/OPMK.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't longer work for two particles.

Here is a direct link to the slides for Pawel Blasiak,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1rwus3maiddsj ... ystery.pdf

That is OK that his method doesn't work for two particles. Joy Christian has a method that does. So quantum spookiness is dead for sure.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526
"Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives"

[FrediFizzx]

I like this quote in the slides for Jaynes,

“But our present QM formalism is not purely epistemological; it is a peculiar
mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information
about Nature — all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that
nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think that the unscrambling is a
prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory. For, if we cannot
separate the subjective and objective aspects of the formalism, we cannot know
what we are talking about; it is just that simple.”

We are working on the unscrambling.

[gill1109]

I like this quote in the slides for Jaynes,

“But our present QM formalism is not purely epistemological; it is a peculiar
mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information
about Nature — all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that
nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think that the unscrambling is a
prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory. For, if we cannot
separate the subjective and objective aspects of the formalism, we cannot know
what we are talking about; it is just that simple.”

We are working on the unscrambling.

I like it too! I believe that Slava Belavkin succeeded in doing the unscrambling. He called his solution "eventum mechanics". Seems I am the only one who knows it, and, of course, it follows from this, that I am the only one who might appreciate it. I do. I like to call his solution: "martingale-like disciplined passion at a distance".

So far, nobody has even asked me what I might mean by that crazy combination of words. This suggests to me that everyone thinks that I am crazy, or simply has no idea, and doesn't dare to have their ignorance exposed.

No problem. Their loss. Since, in the long run, we are *all* dead. I don't care much what *anyone* thinks about me. I don't even care much what "nature" thinks. Does "nature" "think"? Does "nature" "care"?

R.

[Yablon]

I like to call his solution: "martingale-like disciplined passion at a distance".

So far, nobody has even asked me what I might mean by that crazy combination of words.

OK, I'll, bite. What do you mean?

But I do take seriously the EPR statement that we operate not by "a priori philosophical considerations, but . . . by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements."

So, give us a physical mechanism. Tachyons? Something else? Scientists practice science, and that means precisely-cast mechanisms which explain observations.

Jay

[Jarek]

I like this quote in the slides for Jaynes,

“But our present QM formalism is not purely epistemological; it is a peculiar
mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information
about Nature — all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that
nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think that the unscrambling is a
prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory. For, if we cannot
separate the subjective and objective aspects of the formalism, we cannot know
what we are talking about; it is just that simple.”

We are working on the unscrambling.

As you like Jaynes, he is most known from the maximal entropy principle - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy :

The principle of maximum entropy states that the probability distribution which best represents the current state of knowledge is the one with largest entropy

To connect it with QM unscrambling, let's look at diffusion - for example for defected lattice like semiconductor, standard diffusion predicts nearly uniform stationary probability distribution of electrons - they would flow if applying electric field, making it conductor.
In contrast, in reality semiconductor often does not conduct electricity, what is explained by QM: predicting very strong (Anderson) localization - STM measurements (from http://www.phy.bme.hu/~zarand/Lokalizac ... azdani.pdf ):


Where does this failure of standard diffusion comes from? Jaynes brings the answer.

So turns out standard diffusion (GRW) is based on only approximating (Jaynes) principle of maximal entropy - maximizes entropy locally (for single steps), but not globally - for average over steps ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_rate ).
It is repaired in MERW ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_E ... andom_Walk ) finally maximizing entropy rate - thanks of that leading to the same localized stationary probability distribution as QM ground state ... and having Born rules, allowing not to satisfy Bell-like inequalities ...