We provide a reinterpretation of the quantum vacuum ambiguities that one encounters when studying particle creation phenomena due to an external and time-dependent agent. We propose a measurement-motivated understanding: Each way of measuring the number of created particles selects a particular vacuum. This point of view gives a clear and physical meaning to the time evolution of the number of particles produced by the agent as the counts in a specific detector and, at the same time, relates commonly used quantization prescriptions to particular measurement setups.
We provide a reinterpretation of the quantum vacuum ambiguities that one encounters when studying particle creation phenomena due to an external and time-dependent agent. We propose a measurement-motivated understanding: Each way of measuring the number of created particles selects a particular vacuum. This point of view gives a clear and physical meaning to the time evolution of the number of particles produced by the agent as the counts in a specific detector and, at the same time, relates commonly used quantization prescriptions to particular measurement setups.
In this work a very simple model of physical experiential creation is developed and then used to provide a single, consistent, and clear solution to the riddles posed by the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum physics. By providing a unitary framework for understanding all of these heretofore inexplicable phenomena, this model demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known. What this model also demonstrates is that the way in which physical reality is created is through a specific type of relation that takes place at a level of reality that is more fundamental than the physical level of reality. Understanding that physical reality has to be created in order to be known first makes it possible to recognize the experiential mechanism that produces wave-particle duality. Recognizing that experiential mechanism then makes it possible to identify and define the fundamental limitation that exists in the creation of physical experience that produces quantum uncertainty. Following that, that same experiential mechanism and limitation is then used to explain both the creation and collapse of the wave function, as well as quantum nonlocality. Ultimately, this model of physical experiential creation, by providing a single solution to all of these heretofore insoluble riddles, allows for the unification of classical and quantum physical experiential reality, by demonstrating that the only difference between determinate classical physical reality and indeterminate quantum physical reality lies in the relational conditions under which each of these physical experiential realities is created. What this model also makes clear is that the probability or randomness that is so much a part of quantum theory is not an actual feature of reality, but is only an artifact of the process by which quantum physical reality is created, thereby vindicating Einstein for his never-relinquished view that reality is not fundamentally probabilistic.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.
Quantum decoherence in neutrino oscillations was theorized almost 50 years ago, however there is still no clear theoretical understanding of this phenomenon, not even agreement on whether or not it could be observed at all. Treating all particles, including the source and detector, consistently in QFT, we are working on a model where the decoherence emerges from the time evolution of the initial state. We started by studying some simplified cases, obtaining nonetheless interesting results: we have shown that environmental interactions play crucial role in the emergence of decoherence, and if the neutrino creation happens in vacuum there is no maximal coherence length. We have also shown that some of the assumptions commonly used in literature (such as the covariance of the wavepackets) are inconsistent, since the time evolution would break the Lorentz invariance; moreover we have seen that, contrary to the usual intuition, the uncertainty on the detector momentum does not always play a relevant role in decoherence, at least as long as the detector particle is non-relativistic, since its contribution is suppressed by a factor proportional to p/M. Finally, we also notice the emergence of a new quantum effect: when the first neutrinos arrive, the oscillations do not starts immediately but only a very short amount of time; however, since the time window when this effect would be observable is extremely small, the precision required to measure such an effect is most likely well beyond the current technical capabilities
The term "measurement" in quantum theory (as well as in other physical theories) is ambiguous: It is used to describe both an experience - e.g., an observation in an experiment - and an interaction with the system under scrutiny. If doing physics is regarded as a creative activity to develop a meaningful description of the world, then one has to carefully discriminate between the two notions: An observer's account of experience - consitutive to meaning - is hardly expressed exhaustively by the formal framework of an interaction within one particular theory. We develop a corresponding perspective onto central terms in quantum mechanics in general, and onto the measurement problem in particular.
In last years, we are witnessing a trend, of trying to describe the laws of nature using informational tools instead of by functional tools. This change towards more abstract description of the nature, is a natural development, as from the time of the Greeks, through the time of Newton, followed by Analytical Mechanics, all the way up to General Relativity and String Theory, there was always a preference to the more abstract and general description of nature. The reason we prefer the more general and abstract descriptions, is that they give us a more objective point of view at the laws of Nature, which allow us more effectively to separate between Phenomena that are the manifestation of the deep laws of Nature, and Phenomena that are just being resulted by our very specific point of view at the universe, and the specific description that we have decided to give it. The more abstract descriptions give us a better frame of reference in our attempted to understand the origins of the laws of Physics. Informational description of the Universe is suspected to be better than the Functional description, as it is a more abstract and general point of view of the Universe, and yet, there is no complete and simple way to translate every Physical Theory to informational language. In this article I have attempted to do just that, by taking two tied Philosophical arguments, and giving them a Formal and Mathematical meaning, by so upgrading them into Physical Principals. The first Principle is the idea that the only objective thing in Nature, that does not depend at the observer point of view, is the different options that realty can exist in. This set of options of reality is meaningless and lacks structure in any way besides their combined number (cardinality), and I name these options of reality “cosmoses”. The second Principle is that there are observers, that are bound to one option of reality, but unable to separate between their cosmos to other cosmoses. This inability to completely know in what cosmos they do exist, creates a local structure. This structure, and the way it changes over time is what creates the structure of the universe that the observers (including you dear reader) measure. By using this simple language, I was able to suggest some new tools and predictions.