arXiv:0808.3699 · NeuroQuantology

Difficulties with Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Casey Blood

Published Feb 28, 2009• 7 citations

Abstract

Quantum mechanics gives many versions of reality but we perceive only one. One potential explanation for this, the one considered here, is that the wave function collapses down to just one version. The experimental situation is briefly reviewed, with no evidence found for collapse. The theoretical position is also reviewed and found wanting. Collapse-by-observation schemes are logically untenable. A mathematical theory of collapse must be nonlinear, a significant departure from current quantum theory. In addition, the primary candidate theory, the GRW-Pearle model, requires instantaneous, non-local transmission of information. It also requires transmission of information across versions of reality, which is forbidden in current quantum mechanics. And there is no apparent physical quantity, such as particle number, that can provide the mechanism for collapse in all cases. Further, these aspects, which are in disagreement with current theory, seem to be necessary for any mathematical theory of collapse. The conclusion is that the outlook for mathematical collapse schemes is not encouraging.

DOI: 10.14704/nq.2009.7.2.232

Related papers

Collapse and Relativity

Roderich Tumulka

Ever since we have been in the possession of quantum theories without observers, such as Bohmian mechanics or the Ghirardi‐Rimini‐Weber (GRW) theory of spontaneous wave function collapse, a major challenge in the foundations of quantum mechanics is to devise a relativistic quantum theory without observers. One of the difficulties is to reconcile nonlocality with relativity. I report about recent progress in this direction based on the GRW model: A relativistic version of the model has been devised for the case of N noninteracting (but entangled) particles. A key ingredient was to focus not on the evolution of the wave function but rather on the evolution of the matter in space‐time as determined by the wave function.

arXiv:quant-ph/0602208AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 200686 citations

Constraints on Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Casey Blood

A succinct statement and justification of all the principles necessary to understand and evaluate interpretations of quantum mechanics is given. These principles provide strong constraints on interpretations. They imply the particle-like properties of mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge, and locality are actually properties of the wave function, and this in turn implies there is no evidence for the existence of particles. In addition, there is currently no experimental evidence for collapse, and a theory of collapse encounters significant hurdles. Further, the probability law is found to rule out the many-worlds interpretation, so all three major interpretations encounter serious to fatal problems. An interpretation which conforms to all the principles is given.

arXiv:0912.2985Dec 15, 20093 citations

The Collapse of the Wave Function

Joseph Palazzo

In the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there were four major mistakes done at different levels: (1)A misinterpretation of Bell’s theorem in which the original intent did not include non-locality, but as a test to see whether or not a particle has a certain property that can be measured. (2)A misinterpretation of the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein’s objection to the collapse of the wave function implied a spooky action at a distance, while Bohr insisted on the instantaneous collapse of the wave function which he mistook to be a real wave. (3)A misinterpretation that the wave function represents a real wave when in actuality it represents the possible states of a quantum system before a measurement. (4)When Bell’s theorem was violated by a quantum system, those violations were misinterpreted as evidence of an instantaneous collapse of the wave function and non-locality. We will argue: there is no collapse of the wave function. Bell’s theorem is not about non-locality. There is no spooky action at a distance. And Quantum Mechanics is about measuring quantities at the microscopic scales and in doing so, these quantities are altered. So what we get is partial knowledge. But in spite of that obstacle, we still get a theory of reality with considerable success.

Aug 1, 20160 citations

- Many-Worlds or Collapse of the Wave-Function? -

Tejinder P. Singh

At present, there are two possible, and equally plausible, explanations for the physics of quantum measurement. The first explanation, known as the many-worlds interpretation, does not require any modification of quantum mechanics, and asserts that at the time of measurement the Universe splits into many branches, one branch for every possible alternative. The various branches do not interfere with each other because of decoherence, thus providing a picture broadly consistent with the observed Universe. The second explanation, which requires quantum mechanics to be modified from its presently known form, is that at the time of measurement the wave-function collapses into one of the possible alternatives. The two explanations are mutually exclusive, and up until now, no theoretical reasoning has been put forward to choose one explanation over the other. In this article, we provide an argument which implies that the collapse interpretation is favored over the many-worlds interpretation. Our starting point is the assertion (which we justify) that there ought to exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical spacetime manifold. The need for such a reformulation implies that quantum theory becomes non-linear on the Planck mass/energy scale. Standard linear quantum mechanics is an approximation to this non-linear theory, valid at energy scales much smaller than the Planck scale. Using ideas based on noncommutative | >=

Jan 1, 20070 citations

The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is Fatally Flawed

Casey Blood

The linear mathematics of quantum mechanics gives many versions of reality instead of the single version we perceive, with the perceived version chosen at random according to a probability law. Because of these peculiarities, the theory requires an interpretation to be fully understood. Over 50 years ago, Everett proposed in his many-worlds interpretation that these characteristics could be accounted for if the mathematics itself, with no collapse or hidden variables, was carefully analyzed. We show this is incorrect; the linear mathematics cannot account for the probability law. Thus the many-worlds interpretation is not viable. Some mechanism, such as collapse or hidden variables, must be added to obtain a satisfactory understanding of the physical universe.

arXiv:1010.4767Oct 20, 20101 citation

Derivation of the probability law in the many-worlds, one-MIND interpretation

Casey Blood

The basic mathematical structure, QM-A, of the many worlds interpretation consists solely of the linear mathematics plus the Hilbert space properties of the state vectors. There is no collapse and there are no particles or hidden variables. It is remarkable that QM-A alone can account for all our observations except probability. There is no need for particles, hidden variables or collapse to explain perception of only one classical version of reality, the photoelectric effect, localized effects from a spread-out wave function in scattering and interference experiments, wave-particle duality, and so on. But probability cannot be defined within QM-A. Nevertheless, because of its astonishing success, it seems reasonable to require (1) that the mathematics of an interpretation be limited to the highly successful QM-A and (2) that "matter" be composed of state vectors alone. But the probability law requires, in essence, that one version of the observer be singled out. The most straightforward way to accomplish this under (1) and (2) is to assume there is an aspect of the observer-the Mind-which is outside the laws of quantum mechanics and perceives just one version of reality. Under that assumption, the probability law can then be derived. Thus we have an interpretation, QM-A plus "outside" observer, which explains all our perceptions.

arXiv:1107.3425Jul 18, 20110 citations