From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Sun Feb 23 2003 - 05:20:08 MST
From: "Reason"
> The transactional interpretation of QM uses retarded waves.
> Worth a look [...]
Anton Zeilinger writes:
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/zeilinger/philosop.html
'In the Transactional Interpretation the state vector
is considered to be a real physical wave emitted as
an "offer wave" based on the preparation procedure
of the experiment. The interaction then comes to a close
through the emission of the "confirmation wave"
by what is usually called the collapse of the wave function.
The quantum particle, e.g. the photon, electron etc.,
is then considered to be identical with the finished transaction.
It is fundamental to that interpretation that where
the closure of the transaction takes place is
an unexplained input to the process.
In the Consistent Histories Interpretation we have
a similar situation because there the observed event
again is a fundamental input in the sense that it
determines the set of possible histories consistent
with the observation made. There is no attempt to try
to explain why a specific event happened besides
on the basis of the consistent histories which
had been constructed in order to be consistent
with the observed event.'
Yes, it seems that MWI is much stronger!
But somebody think that information is the key factor.
Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory
Authors: Caslav Brukner, Anton Zeilinger
Comments: 22 pages, 9 figures; Contribution to the Festschrift for C. F. v.
Weizsaecker on the occasion of his 90th birthday
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084
Niels Bohr wrote: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract
quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics
is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about
Nature." In an analogous way, von Weizsaecker suggested that the notion of
the elementary alternative, the "Ur", should play a pivotal role when
constructing physics. Both approaches suggest that the concept of
information should play an essential role in the foundations of any
scientific description of Nature. We show that if, in our description of
Nature, we use one definite proposition per elementary constituent of
Nature, some of the essential characteristics of quantum physics, such as
the irreducible randomness of individual events, quantum complementary and
quantum entanglement, arise in a natural way. Then quantum physics is an
elementary theory of information.
And another big name (actually the inventor of decoherence)
pointed out that QM sometimes speaks of It, sometimes speaks
of Bit.
The Wave Function: It or Bit?
Authors: H. D. Zeh
Comments: Several comments added, in particular regarding the role of a
"second" quantization and concerning some recently proposed cosmological
models. -- 21 pages, Latex
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0204088
Schroedinger's wave function shows many aspects of a state of incomplete
knowledge or information ("bit"): (1) it is usually defined on a space of
classical configurations, (2) its generic entanglement is, therefore,
analogous to statistical correlations, and (3) it determines probabilities
of measurement outcomes. Nonetheless, quantum superpositions (such as
represented by a wave function) define individual physical states ("it").
This conceptual dilemma may have its origin in the conventional operational
foundation of physical concepts, successful in classical physics, but
inappropriate in quantum theory because of the existence of mutually
exclusive operations (used for the definition of concepts). In contrast, a
hypothetical realism, based on concepts that are justified only by their
universal and consistent applicability, favors the wave function as a
description of (thus nonlocal) physical reality. The (conceptually local)
classical world then appears as an illusion, facilitated by the phenomenon
of decoherence, which is consistently explained by the very entanglement
that must dynamically arise in a universal wave function.
[I prefer this one, since 1972, :-)]
And - like Pontius Pilatus - somebody else at last wrote ....
'The question of whether the waves are something "real" or a function
to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of
taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in
3N-dimensional
space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical
calculations ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability
predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and
objective?' - M. Born, Dover publ., 1964, Natural Philosophy of Cause and
Chance,
p. 107
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 05:24:08 MST