It has been debated whether quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible and whether there is a preferred Lorentz frame if they are incompatible. Bell’s theorem is an important cornerstone, but it does not give us a definite answer due to the existence of supplementary assumptions or theoretical loopholes; there are unitary quantum theories which evade Bell’s theorem.
In recent years, there has been stimulating discussion about superobservers, which might help settle the important issue of whether unitary quantum theories are compatible with special relativity. This online workshop aims to highlight the existing debates and address the controversies.
Workshop Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 to Sunday, September 1, 2019
Advisory Board: Lajos Diósi, Arthur Fine, Gordon N. Fleming, Olival Freire Jr., Sheldon Goldstein, Robert B. Griffiths, Hans Halvorson, Richard A. Healey, Basil J. Hiley, Don Howard, Peter J. Lewis, Roger Penrose, and Maximilian Schlosshauer.
Based on the successful previous workshops, this online workshop will be more self-organized. Every participant, after logging in, may create a topic in the workshop forum on his own, which gives a concise introduction to his ideas to be discussed. Then other participants can leave comments and participate in the discussions by text chat in the forum.
All IJQF members are welcome.
Group Admins
About Wigner Friend’s and Hardy’s paradox in a Bohmian approach
- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This [1] 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.
[1] A. Drezet,About Wigner Friend’s and Hardy’s paradox in a Bohmian approach: a comment of “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”, IJQF Volume 5, Issue 2, pages 80-97 (2019).
[2]D. Frauchiger and R. Renner,Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use ofitself, Nature Communications 9, 3711 (2018).I forgot the link to the paper: https://www.ijqf.org/archives/5401
I use this occasion to add a link to a related paper I recently submitted
(arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08134) with the title
‘Lorentz-invariant, retrocausal, and deterministic hidden variables’.
This work focuses on Gisin’s and Hardys’ claim purporting the impossibility of Lorentz-invariant deterministic hidden-variable model for explaining quantum nonlocality. Those theorems claim that the only known solution to escape the conclusions is either to accept a preferred reference frame or to abandon the hidden-variable program altogether. Here we present a different alternative based on a foliation dependent framework adapted to deterministic hidden variables. We analyse the impact of such an approach on Bohmian mechanics and show that retrocausation (that is future influencing the past) necessarily comes out without time-loop paradox.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
