Travis Norsen [Show Biography]

]]>Anthony Sudbery [Show Biography]

This note is a critical examination of the argument of Frauchiger and Renner, in which they claim to show that three reasonable assumptions about the use of quantum mechanics jointly lead to a contradiction. It is shown that further assumptions are needed to establish the contradiction, and that each of these assumptions is invalid in some version of quantum mechanics.

]]>Aurélien Drezet [Show Biography]

This is an analysis of the recently published article “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself” by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner [1]. Here I decipher the paradox and analyze it from the point of view of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory (i.e., Bohmian mechanics). I also analyze the problem from the perspective obtained by the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., the Bohrian interpretation) and show that both views are self consistent and do not lead to any contradiction with a `single-world’ description of quantum theory.

]]>Mohammed Sanduk [Show Biography]

The imaginary *i* in the formulation of the quantum mechanics is accepted within the axioms of the quantum mechanics theory, and, thus, there is no need for an explanation of its origin. Since 2012, in a non-quantum mechanics project, there has been an attempt to complexify a real function and build an analogy for relativistic quantum mechanics. In that theoretical attempt, a partial observation technique is proposed as one of the reasons behind the appearance of the imaginary *i*. The present article throws light on that attempt of complexification and tries to explain the logic of physics behind the complex phase factor. This physical process of partial observation acts as a process of physicalization of a virtual model. According to the positive results of analogy, the appeared imaginary *i* in quantum mechanics formulation *may b*e related to a partial observation case as well.

Daniel Shanahan [Show Biography]

Effects associated in quantum mechanics with a divisible probability wave are

explained as physically real consequences of the equal but opposite reaction

of the apparatus as a particle is measured. Taking as illustration a

Mach-Zehnder interferometer operating by refraction, it is shown that this

reaction must comprise a fluctuation in the reradiation field of complementary

effect to the changes occurring in the photon as it is projected into one or

other path. The evolution of this fluctuation through the experiment will

explain the alternative states of the particle discerned in self interference,

while the maintenance of equilibrium in the face of such fluctuations becomes

the source of the Born probabilities. In this scheme, the probability wave

is a mathematical artifact, epistemic rather than ontic, and akin in this

respect to the simplifying constructions of geometrical optics.

Edward J. Gillis [Show Biography]

The assumption that wave function collapse is a real occurrence has very interesting consequences – both experimental and theoretical. Besides predicting observable deviations from linear evolution, it implies that these deviations must originate in nondeterministic effects at the elementary level in order to prevent superluminal signaling, as demonstrated by Gisin. This lack of determinism implies that information cannot be instantiated in a reproducible form in isolated microsystems (as illustrated by the No-cloning theorem). By stipulating that information is a reproducible and referential property of physical systems, one can formulate the no-signaling principle in strictly physical terms as a prohibition of the acquisition of information about spacelike-separated occurrences. This formulation provides a new perspective on the relationship between relativity and spacetime structure, and it imposes tight constraints on the way in which collapse effects are induced. These constraints indicate that wave function collapse results from (presumably small) nondeterministic deviations from linear evolution associated with nonlocally entangling interactions. This hypothesis can be formalized in a stochastic collapse equation and used to assess the feasibility of testing for collapse effects.

Full Text Download (336k)

Claus Kiefer [Show Biography]

]]>Valia Allori[Show Biography]

]]>Sebastian Fortin [Show Biography] and Olimpia Lombardi [Show Biography]

If decoherence is an irreversible process, its physical meaning might be clarified by comparing quantum and classical irreversibility. In this work we carry out this comparison, from which a unified view of the emergence of irreversibility arises, applicable both to the classical and to the quantum case. According to this unified view, in the two cases the irreversible macro-level arises from the reversible micro-level as a coarse description that can be understood in terms of the concept of projection. This position supplies an understanding of the phenomenon of decoherence different from that implicit in most presentations: the reduced state is not the quantum state of the open system, but a coarse state of the closed composite system; as a consequence, decoherence should be understood not as a phenomenon resulting from the interaction between an open system and its environment, but rather as a coarse evolution that emerges from disregarding certain degrees of freedom of the whole closed system.

]]>A. I. Arbab [Show Biography]

By expressing the Schrödinger wavefunction in the form ψ=Re^iS, where R and S are real functions, we have shown that the expectation value of S is conserved. The amplitude of the wave (R) is found to satisfy the Schrödinger equation while the phase (S) is related to the energy conservation. Besides the quantum potential that depends on R, we have obtained a phase potential that depends on the phase S derivative. The phase force is a dissipative force. The quantum potential may be attributed to the interaction between the two subfields S and R comprising the quantum particle. This results in splitting (creation/annihilation) of these subfields, each having a mass mc² with an internal frequency of 2mc²/h, satisfying the original wave equation and endowing the particle its quantum nature. The mass of one subfield reflects the interaction with the other subfield. If in Bohmian ansatz R satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation, then S must satisfies the wave equation. Conversely, if R satisfies the wave equation, then S yields the Einstein relativistic energy momentum equation.

]]>Mohammed Sanduk [Show Biography]

In the last article, an approach was developed to form an analogy of the wave function and derive analogies for both the mathematical forms of the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations. The analogies obtained were the transformations from the classical real model forms to the forms in complex space. The analogous of the Klein-Gordon equation was derived from the analogous Dirac equation as in the case of quantum mechanics. In the present work, the forms of Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations were derived as a direct transformation from the classical model. It was found that the Dirac equation form may be related to a complex velocity equation. The Dirac’s Hamiltonian and coefficients correspond to each other in these analogies. The Klein-Gordon equation form may be related to the complex acceleration equation. The complex acceleration equation can explain the generation of the flat spacetime. Although this approach is classical, it may show a possibility of unifying relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity in a single model and throw light on the undetectable æther.

]]>