Jump to content
Neoholographic

The wave function is real but non physical according to quantum cryptography

Recommended Posts

This is a pretty big deal. This is because most of the confusion around the "weirdness" of Quantum Mechanics comes down to the interpretation of the wave function. Now we have evidence. This isn't speculation about the wave function but the results of experiments. First, let me lay out the evidence.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Quote

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.7127

Here's a test that also showed this.

Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect

Significance

Quote

Recent theoretical studies have shown that quantum mechanics allows counterfactual communication, even without actual transmission of physical particles, which raised a heated debate on its interpretation. Although several papers have been published on the theoretical aspects of the subject, a faithful experimental demonstration is missing. Here, by using the quantum Zeno effect and a single-photon source, direct communication without carrier particle transmission is implemented successfully. We experimentally demonstrate the feasibility of direct counterfactual communication with the current technique. The results of our work can help deepen the understanding of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, our experimental scheme is applicable to other quantum technologies, such as imaging and state preparation.

Abstract

Quote

Intuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/04/19/1614560114 

This clearly changes everything especially when you look at Quantum Field Theory which says particles don't exist. What we call particles are just excitation's of underlying quantum fields.

So those who like Copenhagen would have to accept  the wave function is real and not just a mathematical tool and Many Worlds proponents would have to accept the wave function isn't physical. The only reason why you have things like wave/particle duality is because Scientist saw the double slit experiment and said the wave function is either physically real or it's not. There wasn't any in between which is clearly shown by the experiments above. 

The wave function could be real and represent where you're most likely to excite the quantum field and find a particle if you carry out a measurement. The double slit experiment supports this. If you fire single photons at the two slits, an interference pattern emerges. The photons still hit the back of the screen as photons they just form an interference pattern. There's no reason to assume that the particles are somehow acting like a wave. The particles are always particles and hit the screen as particles. The waves are all that exist. 

It's like when you see an ocean that's relatively calm and there's a few small waves on top of the ocean. If at certain points, the small waves turn to huge waves, you say there must be a school of fish or sharks underneath that point in the water that disturbed and excited the ocean. You can look at quantum fields this way. Vacuum energy or some other energy yet discovered, disturbs the quantum field at points. This excitation creates particles that disturb other quantum fields which creates different particles. The wave function is a real but non physical reality that describes what states these particles can be in when created by excitation's of underlying quantum fields.

This is huge but requires a paradigm shift that sadly will never happen or take many years to happen. This is because most Scientist are materialist and a non physical yet real wave function that knows all information about the states particles can be in sounds too spiritual. Science doesn't care about your feelings though just facts and Tesla predicted this. 

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
 Nikola Tesla

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

The only reason why you have things like wave/particle duality is because Scientist saw the double slit experiment 

Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense.

I think a little more elaboration on the issue would be more enlightening to the debate.

Like I said, we only see particles acting like particles. If you fire a bunch of photons one photon at a time at the double slits, you know what you will get at the screen? A bunch of photons. They just form an interference pattern so you assume that these photons that always act like photons are somehow physically acting like waves though we never see it. Why can't the opposite assumption be valid based on the evidence listed above that the wave function is real/non physical and the particles never act like waves because they're excitation's of underlying quantum fields according to QFT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

 The particles are always particles and hit the screen as particles. The waves are all that exist. 

Aren't these two sentences self contradictory?

Also real"  and "exist"

 

I think you are using too many non scientific words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Aren't these two sentences self contradictory?

Also real"  and "exist"

 

I think you are using too many non scientific words.

Nope, very scientific. Just read the papers above. It's all laid out for you.

I'm saying that particles don't have an existence separate from underlying quantum fields no more than droplets of water that for from huge waves have a separate existence from the ocean.

Here's a key line from the Abstract.

Quote

An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real".

So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

Just read the papers above. It's all laid out for you.

It's not laid out on this forum (as required in the rules)

That is why I asked the question.

How can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible?

6 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.

I'm not quibbling I asked a serious quesion which you seem to want to avoid answering.

Do you fear that your 'argument' ( you have used this term  correctly) will not stand up to the rigour of scientific scrutiny?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, studiot said:

It's not laid out on this forum (as required in the rules)

That is why I asked the question.

How can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible?

I'm not quibbling I asked a serious quesion which you seem to want to avoid answering.

Do you fear that your 'argument' ( you have used this term  correctly) will not stand up to the rigour of scientific scrutiny?

 Look, I know you want to quibble with semantics because you can't refute the substance. So you talk about rules of the forum because you obviously want the thread moved to speculation. Sadly, for you, you're question is answered in the substance of the post and I'll repeat it again.

Quote

How can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible?

Easily, it's what Quantum Field Theory says. QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields. QFT doesn't say there aren't any particles. Here's another paper by Physicist Art Hobson.

There are no particles, there are only fields

Quote

Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

Again, I understand why you want to quibble with semantics instead of debating substance. It's because you don't like the argument but you can't refute it. The existence of particles as real is something that has been debated for years because of QFT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

Easily, it's what Quantum Field Theory says. QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields

In which case you will be able to produce (here) a derivation purely from known wave properties of the observable properties of particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, studiot said:

In which case you will be able to produce (here) a derivation purely from known wave properties of the observable properties of particles.

Sad, you can't debate or refute the issue so you keep bringing up non issues. If you want to start a separate thread about QFT then start it. There's mountains of evidence to debate like this.

No Evidence for Particles Casey Blood Professor Emeritus of Physics Rutgers University

Quote

There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf

This is nothing new. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue because you can't refute the substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neoholographic said:

Sad, you can't debate or refute the issue so you keep bringing up non issues. If you want to start a separate thread about QFT then start it. There's mountains of evidence to debate like this.

 

1 hour ago, Neoholographic said:

instead of debating substance.

You asked for substance.

I asked you a purely scientific question with exactly zero value judgement content.

So how can this be a 'non issue' ?

 

I further note your quote from Professor Blood (which seems to put my view rather well) runs contrary to your stated (scientific) position here in this thread.
He, at least, used correct terminology.

1 hour ago, Neoholographic said:

No Evidence for Particles Casey Blood Professor Emeritus of Physics Rutgers University

Quote

There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that particles no longer exist in the real world, but the term 'particle' continues to be used in physical models to describe certain systems that have mass and volume, etc., then maybe we can simply scrap the old-fashioned use of the word particle, and instead begin to use the word for physical objects that have particle-like properties? 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You asked for substance.

I asked you a purely scientific question with exactly zero value judgement content.

So how can this be a 'non issue' ?

 

I further note your quote from Professor Blood (which seems to put my view rather well) runs contrary to your stated (scientific) position here in this thread.
He, at least, used correct terminology.

 

No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance.

22 minutes ago, taeto said:

Now that particles no longer exist in the real world, but the term 'particle' continues to be used in physical models to describe certain systems that have mass and volume, etc., then maybe we can simply scrap the old-fashioned use of the word particle, and instead begin to use the word for physical objects that have particle-like properties? 🙂

Very good point that goes to the substance of the debate.

Calling them particles causes confusion because when people think of particles you think of particles of sand or particles of salt. If course these particles can't be in a superposition of states. So there's not a one to one correspondence between particles in the classical sense and subatomic particles. 

So it's better described as a wave with particle like properties. 

You then have a real but non physical wave function and some of the weirdness is removed because there's no need for a bunch of physical universes that makes no sense as Stephen Hawking said before he died.

Quote

“The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean,” said Hawking in an interview last autumn. “The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested. ”

 

Taming the multiverse: Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang

 
Edited by Neoholographic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Neoholographic said:

No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance.

Once again you avoid answering my question.

As to the school playground remark "no it doesn't"

I assume that refers to your quote from Professor Blood.

1 hour ago, Neoholographic said:

So it's better described as a wave with particle like properties. 

He says there is no evidence for particles, but does not rule them out.

Unlike you and your other reference.

But equally he very carefully distinguishes between waves and wave functions.

Wave functions are not waves.

2 hours ago, Neoholographic said:

Quote from Professor Blood

Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties

 

But enough of quotes from others.

You should post a point of your own to this, using scientific terminology correctly and preferably backing it up with some mathematics.

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple answer is that the pointlike particle properties can be defined by the Compton or Debroglie wavelength within the QFT regime the particle is described via states. One can literally study entire QFT textbooks without once reading the word particle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Once again you avoid answering my question.

As to the school playground remark "no it doesn't"

I assume that refers to your quote from Professor Blood.

He says there is no evidence for particles, but does not rule them out.

Unlike you and your other reference.

But equally he very carefully distinguishes between waves and wave functions.

Wave functions are not waves.

 

But enough of quotes from others.

You should post a point of your own to this, using scientific terminology correctly and preferably backing it up with some mathematics.

 

First, Professor Blood does rule out particles. Here's a direct quote from the Abstract.

Quote

It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles.

That's ruling them out. He has to couch it with cautious terms though because nothing in Science is truly proven outside of a mathematical theorem. With Relativity you still have to say if there isn't any evidence that comes along that changes things.

Of course wave functions are not waves. That's why I titled the thread.

The wave function is real but non physical according to quantum cryptography

Again, you're just wasting time because you can't debate the issue. You have spent post after post talking about the semantics of QFT which have nothing to do with the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

, you're just wasting time because you can't debate the issue

What is the issue, exactly? That there are different models with predictive power within their area of applicability, isn't much of a problem as I see it.

 

5 hours ago, Neoholographic said:

This is huge but requires a paradigm shift that sadly will never happen or take many years to happen.

What paradigm shift? What is it that will change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Neoholographic said:

That's ruling them out.

No evidence does NOT equal "ruling them out". You need evidence that refutes them, not a lack of such. 

Your reasoning is incorrect, and it's NOT a semantics quibble. It's basic methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A simple answer is that the pointlike particle properties can be defined by the Compton or Debroglie wavelength within the QFT regime the particle is described via states. One can literally study entire QFT textbooks without once reading the word particle.

Good points!

This is where you get all of the confusion. When you treat subatomic particles like classical particles you get paradox on top of paradox. This is because you're asking things like how can a particle be in two places at the same time. 

So now you're giving the attributes of a real but non physical wave function to particles and you get ridiculous notions like many worlds. I accept the multiverse of inflation which is about the expansion of space and limited configurations matter can be in. 

MWI is about applying attributes of something real but non physical to the physical and it makes no sense.

The goal here is to reduce the role of the observer. Sean Carroll says the observer is no different from a rock. So when I wake up and turn to ESPN, I didn't make a conscious choice to do that, I'm just in some decohered branch of the wave function but then you also need universes with versions of me watching the other 2,000 plus cable channels. It makes no sense.

Edited by Neoholographic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, taeto said:

Now that particles no longer exist in the real world, but the term 'particle' continues to be used in physical models to describe certain systems that have mass and volume, etc., then maybe we can simply scrap the old-fashioned use of the word particle, and instead begin to use the word for physical objects that have particle-like properties? 🙂

4 hours ago, Neoholographic said:

Very good point that goes to the substance of the debate.

Calling them particles causes confusion because when people think of particles you think of particles of sand or particles of salt. If course these particles can't be in a superposition of states. So there's not a one to one correspondence between particles in the classical sense and subatomic particles.

 

This idea that e.g. some entities e.g. electrons can be/are in a superposition of states while others e.g. grains of salt can't be has been popular from time to time; sufficiently for experiment to rule it out. (I recall this but can't yet find a reference.)

The basic problem is you would need some sort of physics to kick in as small QFT regime waves or whatever accrete and somehow become classical particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence is interesting e.g.

Quote

Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides an explanation for apparent wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment.

 

Edited by Carrock
Added a ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Neoholographic said:

QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields. QFT doesn't say there aren't any particles

That's some of the non-standard terminology Studiot is referring to.
That is not what QFT says. It says quantum particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields, and ,must meet or exceed a threshold of action to be real, but. can be physical ( ie have measurable effects ) even when they don't.

Is that what you mean by physical and real ?

And I doubt any 'real' physicist has mistaken quantum particle for classical particle since the 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.