Quantum chemists have recorded a huge number of data points which standard quantum mechanics cannot interpret. Many-Worlds quantum mechanics can. Many-Worlds quantum mechanics differs from standard quantum mechanics because in Many-Worlds, the wave function is a relative density of universes in the multiverse amplitude rather than a probability amplitude. In Many-Worlds, the Born frequencies are approached rather than given a priori. Thus in Many-Worlds, the rate of approach to the final frequencies can be calculated and compared with observation. This is a new type of reaction rate. I show how to use Many-Worlds to analyze the breakup of ${\rm Br}_2$ . Such analysis will experimentally test Many-Worlds fermionic and time-dependent quantum mechanics. Conversely, experimental quantum chemistry has become too sophisticated to be analyzed by standard quantum mechanics. Only Many-Worlds can do the jobQuantum chemists have recorded a huge number of data points which standard quantum mechanics cannot interpret. Many-Worlds quantum mechanics can. Many-Worlds quantum mechanics differs from standard quantum mechanics because in Many-Worlds, the wave function is a relative density of universes in the multiverse amplitude rather than a probability amplitude. In Many-Worlds, the Born frequencies are approached rather than given a priori. Thus in Many-Worlds, the rate of approach to the final frequencies can be calculated and compared with observation. This is a new type of reaction rate. I show how to use Many-Worlds to analyze the breakup of ${\rm Br}_2$. Such analysis will experimentally test Many-Worlds fermionic and time-dependent quantum mechanics. Conversely, experimental quantum chemistry has become too sophisticated to be analyzed by standard quantum mechanics. Only Many-Worlds can do the job

Jul 18, 20211 citation

Error-analysis for the Sorkin and Peres tests performed on a quantum computer

Simanraj Sadana, Lorenzo Maccone, Urbasi Sinha

We use quantum computers to test the foundations of quantum mechanics through quantum algorithms that implement some of the experimental tests as the basis of the theory's postulates. These algorithms can be used as a test of the physical theory under the premise of a perfect hardware or as a test of the hardware under the premise that quantum theory is correct. In this paper, we show how the algorithms can be used to test the efficacy of a quantum computer in obeying the postulates of quantum mechanics. We study the effect of different types of errors on the results of experimental tests of the postulates. A salient feature of this error analysis is that it is deeply rooted in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics as it highlights how systematic errors affect the quantumness of the quantum computer.We use quantum computers to test the foundations of quantum mechanics through quantum algorithms that implement some of the experimental tests as the basis of the theory's postulates. These algorithms can be used as a test of the physical theory under the premise of a perfect hardware or as a test of the hardware under the premise that quantum theory is correct. In this paper, we show how the algorithms can be used to test the efficacy of a quantum computer in obeying the postulates of quantum mechanics. We study the effect of different types of errors on the results of experimental tests of the postulates. A salient feature of this error analysis is that it is deeply rooted in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics as it highlights how systematic errors affect the quantumness of the quantum computer.

arXiv:2207.13585Jul 27, 20220 citations

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOME EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

Jens Bang

Danish Yearbook of PhilosophyAug 2, 19920 citations

Anomalies in experimental data for the EPR-Bohm experiment: Are both classical and quantum mechanics wrong?

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, $P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).$ However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation $E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)$ is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, $E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).$ Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, $P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).$ However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation $E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)$ is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, $E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).$ Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?

arXiv:quant-ph/0607172Jul 25, 20066 citations

{\rm Br}_2

. Such analysis will experimentally test Many-Worlds fermionic and time-dependent quantum mechanics. Conversely, experimental quantum chemistry has become too sophisticated to be analyzed by standard quantum mechanics. Only Many-Worlds can do the job

P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)

and

P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).

However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation

E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)

is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely,

E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).

Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?