Quantum superposition is not imaginary

[Nick]

Can anyone verify this?

[RJBeery]

Can anyone verify this?

You may find someone to agree with this sentiment as a matter of opinion, but it would remain an opinion. My opinion on the matter differs, for example.

[przyk]

Can anyone verify this?

I am not sure what kind of reply you expect to a question like this.

Nobody has a psychic sense for what is really going on on scales where quantum physics applies. All anyone can say is that quantum superposition is an integral part of a theory that, to date, is experimentally very well supported. In my opinion, the simplest way one can react to that is to hold that the theory describes things the way they really are, for as long as no contradictory information or a simpler theory is available. If you don't do this, then you'll never have any reason to believe any theory correctly describes reality, even tentatively, because that's all we ever have in physics.

[Nick]

I meant to say "Quantum superposition is not fake", Can someone please change it?

[origin]

Hey Nick, are are you the twin brother of Ostronomos or something?

[Nick]

Sorry about that mistake everyone.

[RJBeery]

I meant to say "Quantum superposition is not fake", Can someone please change it?

I'm not sure I see much of a difference between "imaginary" and "fake". It seems that what you're asking is, do quantum superpositions have a physical representation in reality? Przyk says yes, I say no, and both are opinions based on personal philosophy.

[przyk]

Przyk says yes, I say no, and both are opinions based on personal philosophy.

My philosophy is based on science.

The thing is, science doesn't really require you to believe anything, except that certain mathematical models are really good at predicting the outcomes of experiments.

But if you want to believe you know something about way the world "really is", and I think it's a good bet that's what motivates most of us to take an interest in science in the first place, I'd say believe the simplest available theory that is experimentally supported. There is no guarantee that belief would be the right one - there is always the possibility new experimental observations could kill it - but at least you'd have a belief that was based on scientific and more or less objective criteria rather than your personal whims and prejudices.

What's your philosophy?

[RJBeery]

My philosophy is based on science.

The thing is, science doesn't really require you to believe anything, except that certain mathematical models are really good at predicting the outcomes of experiments.

But if you want to believe you know something about way the world "really is", and I think it's a good bet that's what motivates most of us to take an interest in science in the first place, I'd say believe the simplest available theory that is experimentally supported. There is no guarantee that belief would be the right one - there is always the possibility new experimental observations could kill it - but at least you'd have a belief that was based on scientific and more or less objective criteria rather than your personal whims and prejudices.

What's your philosophy?

So, the QM interpretation of your choosing (MWI, if I'm not mistaken) is the simplest available based on science and more or less objective criteria while the QM interpretation of my choosing is apparently based on my personal whims and prejudices?

[Tach]

Hey Nick, are are you the twin brother of Ostronomos or something?

Yes, same troll.

[Crunchy Cat]

I meant to say "Quantum superposition is not fake", Can someone please change it?

It's not fake in the least. In fact it's been experimentally verified many times over.

[przyk]

So, the QM interpretation of your choosing (MWI, if I'm not mistaken) is the simplest available based on science and more or less objective criteria while the QM interpretation of my choosing is apparently based on my personal whims and prejudices?

We've been over this many times before. You don't have an interpretation of quantum theory. You have a hope that an interpretation of quantum theory with certain features you personally find preferable to quantum states and superposition may be possible.

[AlphaNumeric]

I attended a talk yesterday by a rather eminent theoretical (and now experimental) physicist where he outlined how you can make even classical mechanics complex (in the imaginary number sense, not in the complicated sense, it is already that) and get all kinds of effects which are quantum-like. Allowing complex states is neither forbidden in classical mechanics nor avoidable in quantum mechanics, given the quantisation condition. Without complex phase much of observed quantum phenomena fail to be allowable. And for those interested, the aforementioned 'complex classical behaviour' has been experimentally observed too. Much as the hacks are often desperate to stick to the Reals reality seems to disagree.

[LaurieAG]

I attended a talk yesterday by a rather eminent theoretical (and now experimental) physicist where he outlined how you can make even classical mechanics complex (in the imaginary number sense, not in the complicated sense, it is already that) and get all kinds of effects which are quantum-like. Allowing complex states is neither forbidden in classical mechanics nor avoidable in quantum mechanics, given the quantisation condition. Without complex phase much of observed quantum phenomena fail to be allowable. And for those interested, the aforementioned 'complex classical behaviour' has been experimentally observed too. Much as the hacks are often desperate to stick to the Reals reality seems to disagree.

My avatar image is a screen capture from an optical feedback loop with three angles of rotation/spin that is equivalent to a theoretical Poincare Section in the path of a beam of photons continuously travelling around in a circle. The orb shape is stable and can easily be manipulated into another stable halo state (classic Einstein ring) by introducing a shadow over the center of the orb (on the screen with your finger) and trapping it within the loop. The halo state remains stable if uninterrupted and returns back to the initial stable orb state if the loop is disturbed in any way. If you look closely at the image you will see that the two windows 98 folders at the bottom are actually the seeds for the combined orb structure itself and appear initially in each frame until the frames distort/skew and the perfectly spherical orb appears at the center. While I haven't tried experimenting with smoke I must admit that mirrors abbutting flush onto the view horizon in the feedback loop can provide some very interesting images, quantum, fractal and otherwise.

[RJBeery]

We've been over this many times before. You don't have an interpretation of quantum theory. You have a hope that an interpretation of quantum theory with certain features you personally find preferable to quantum states and superposition may be possible.

Wait, do you think you know my thoughts on the subject well enough to make that claim? Also, do you personally believe that it isn't mathematically viable (regardless of whether or not I've provided the formalism)?

And which human being wouldn't choose an interpretation with features he/she finds most preferable? Isn't that the very point of the selection process?

[przyk]

Wait, do you think you know my thoughts on the subject well enough to make that claim?

I can't read your mind, but I am familiar with what you've posted here. My impressions based on what you've posted are:

1. You haven't defined your interpretation to the point that it can definitively predict anything.
2. In particular (in line with point 1), you haven't shown that your interpretation recovers the mathematical structure of quantum physics, at least as an approximation.
3. You don't have a good understanding of quantum physics, and thus don't even understand what an interpretation of it needs to achieve on a technical level. So even you couldn't tell whether or not you had a viable interpretation.
4. As a symptom of point 2, if a new Bell-type experiment were performed tomorrow and got S_CHSH = 3 (which is impossible according to quantum physics for separable measurements, but still allowed in no-signalling theories), I don't get the impression that would have much impact on your interpretation as applied to Bell-type correlations, because there is nothing to tie your interpretation to the limitations of quantum physics. Quantum physics is falsifiable in this regard in a way that your interpretation is not.

Your faith in your approach seems to stem from it exploiting a limitation or loophole in Bell's theorem. You should bear in mind that Bell's theorem is something of an aberration in physics: most well established theories, past and present, are not "protected" by no-go theorems in this way, and they don't need to be. There is no analogue of Bell's theorem "protecting" general relativity by ruling out the possibilty of an alternative theory of gravity set in flat space-time for example. That doesn't mean any random idea is automatically a viable alternative to general relativity. Bell's theorem does not mean that you automatically have a viable alternative to quantum physics just because you find a way around it. It simply means we expect finding an alternative to quantum physics is going to be more difficult than finding an alternative to (say) general relativity, because we know a whole class of "simple" approaches won't work.

If I am wrong on any of these points, you are welcome to prove it.

As an aside: there are a number of people (Farsight is the most obvious example who springs to mind) who post vague ideas here and expect people to just accept them as good based on some Hollywood-esque impression of great scientific breakthroughs being the product of one brilliant mind's intuition and inspiration, and who either don't see any need to show these ideas actually work (i.e. recover the quantative predictions of mainstream theories), or if they do, treat it as "dirty work" that should be left to (implicitly) lesser minds just following their assumed lead. These people don't understand how science works or progresses. It worries me that you don't seem to recognise such behaviour or understand what's wrong with it.

Physics is, at the end of the day, a quantitative experimental science. That inevitably makes physics a technical subject. Consequently, "good" ideas are ideas that solve technical problems and not just sound superficially pretty or elegant, just like a good idea in automotive engineering is one that makes a car faster or more fuel efficient or more reliable or gives it better traction or leads to some other measurable improvement.

Also, do you personally believe that it isn't mathematically viable (regardless of whether or not I've provided the formalism)?

I have reasons for believing that your approach isn't going to work as well as you seem to expect, based on what you've said (and my own experience as a physicist who has seen many examples of good and bad physical models), many of which I've described in previous threads.

And which human being wouldn't choose an interpretation with features he/she finds most preferable? Isn't that the very point of the selection process?

Maybe for some, but I would argue that a good scientist is someone whose preferences are naturally in line with scientific methodology. That means things like consistency with experimental results and Occam's razor. I am not sympathetic to anyone who tries to shoehorn a theory into something it's not just because they have personal preferences about the way they think reality should be. As a scientist, I find this sort of attitude abhorrent.

Regarding MWI, I've explained this before, but apparently I need to say it again: the point of MWI is not to put someone's personal preference of window dressing on top of quantum physics. I'm personally sympathetic to the MWI interpretation. That is not because I have anything against classical physics or because I have some fetish for Hilbert space vectors. It's because it (arguably) removes a logical inconsistency (the measurement problem, or special treatment of observers) from quantum theory, and does it in a very natural way if you take quantum theory (a theoretical framework with ample experimental support) as the starting point. MWI is literally quantum physics, as you'll find it in most textbooks, with the one offending axiom removed and argued unnecessary.

[Prof.Layman]

It would be strange to see a rocket ship, that is approuching the speed of light, speed and position vary depending on the act of observation. If you take the frame of reference of the rocket ship and an observer at rest and overlap them, coordinates in one system would then be in a real "superposition" of the coordinates of another system.

[prefiz]

My philosophy is based on science.

The thing is, science doesn't really require you to believe anything, except that certain mathematical models are really good at predicting the outcomes of experiments.

But if you want to believe you know something about way the world "really is", and I think it's a good bet that's what motivates most of us to take an interest in science in the first place, I'd say believe the simplest available theory that is experimentally supported. There is no guarantee that belief would be the right one - there is always the possibility new experimental observations could kill it - but at least you'd have a belief that was based on scientific and more or less objective criteria rather than your personal whims and prejudices.

What's your philosophy?

Beliefs gives you passion to pursue scientific evidence to validate them or to disprove them. The hard part is to get over what you think you know in order to know what you think.

[RJBeery]

Regarding MWI, I've explained this before, but apparently I need to say it again: the point of MWI is not to put someone's personal preference of window dressing on top of quantum physics. I'm personally sympathetic to the MWI interpretation. That is not because I have anything against classical physics or because I have some fetish for Hilbert space vectors. It's because it (arguably) removes a logical inconsistency (the measurement problem, or special treatment of observers) from quantum theory, and does it in a very natural way if you take quantum theory (a theoretical framework with ample experimental support) as the starting point. MWI is literally quantum physics, as you'll find it in most textbooks, with the one offending axiom removed and argued unnecessary.

MWI does not remove the measurement problem in my opinion; it simply ignores it. It's a holistic interpretation without accounting for the existence of observers capable of only experiencing quantum values.

[przyk]

MWI does not remove the measurement problem in my opinion; it simply ignores it.

How so? The measurement problem is the special treatment "textbook" quantum physics attributes to measurement and observers. MWI does not attribute any special role to measurement or observers and instead views measurement as an interaction that is describable according to the Schrödinger equation. It thus does not have a measurement problem.

Whether MWI successfully explains measurement may be a matter of debate (there is some debate about whether MWI's recovery of the Born rule is as convincing as it should be), but I think even the staunchest informed critic of MWI would have to agree it gets pretty close. Either way, saying that MWI ignores the measurement problem is a ridiculous assessment.

It's a holistic interpretation without accounting for the existence of observers capable of only experiencing quantum values.

Just what is that supposed to mean? What do you mean by "experiencing quantum values"?

Either way, most of what I said in post #16 still stands. The validity of MWI is dependent on it being able to recover "textbook" quantum physics and if it can't do that it isn't a valid interpretation. The same standard applies to your approach. Whether or not MWI successfully solves the measurement problem does not change the fact that that is its main goal and the main reason for supporting it. So MWI is not an example of adherents trying to mold quantum physics according to their own personal preferences regarding the way they think reality should be.