Anomalies in quantum mechanics

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

On the Property Structure of Realist Collapse of Quantum Mechanics and the So-Called "Counting Anomaly"

Roman Frigg

The aim of this paper is two-fold. Recently, Lewis has presented an argument, now known as the `counting anomaly', that the spontaneous localization approach to quantum mechanics, suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, implies that arithmetic does not apply to ordinary macroscopic objects. I will take this argument as the starting point for a discussion of the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in general. At the end of this I present a proof of the fact that the composition principle, which holds true in Standard Quantum Mechanics, fails in all realist collapse interpretations. On the basis of this result I reconsider the counting anomaly and show that what lies at the heart of the anomaly is the failure to appreciate the peculiarities of the property structure of collapse interpretations. Once this flaw is uncovered, the anomaly vanishes.The aim of this paper is two-fold. Recently, Lewis has presented an argument, now known as the `counting anomaly', that the spontaneous localization approach to quantum mechanics, suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, implies that arithmetic does not apply to ordinary macroscopic objects. I will take this argument as the starting point for a discussion of the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in general. At the end of this I present a proof of the fact that the composition principle, which holds true in Standard Quantum Mechanics, fails in all realist collapse interpretations. On the basis of this result I reconsider the counting anomaly and show that what lies at the heart of the anomaly is the failure to appreciate the peculiarities of the property structure of collapse interpretations. Once this flaw is uncovered, the anomaly vanishes.

Jan 1, 20020 citations

On the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics and the so-called "counting anomaly"

Roman Frigg

The aim of this article is twofold. Recently, Lewis has presented an argument, now known as the "counting anomaly", that the spontaneous localization approach to quantum mechanics, suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, implies that arithmetic does not apply to ordinary macroscopic objects. I will take this argument as the starting point for a discussion of the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in general. At the end of this I present a proof of the fact that the composition principle, which holds true in standard quantum mechanics, fails in all realist collapse interpretations. On the basis of this result I reconsider the counting anomaly and show that what lies at the heart of the anomaly is the failure to appreciate the peculiarities of the property structure of such interpretations. Once this flaw is uncovered, the anomaly vanishes.The aim of this article is twofold. Recently, Lewis has presented an argument, now known as the "counting anomaly", that the spontaneous localization approach to quantum mechanics, suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, implies that arithmetic does not apply to ordinary macroscopic objects. I will take this argument as the starting point for a discussion of the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in general. At the end of this I present a proof of the fact that the composition principle, which holds true in standard quantum mechanics, fails in all realist collapse interpretations. On the basis of this result I reconsider the counting anomaly and show that what lies at the heart of the anomaly is the failure to appreciate the peculiarities of the property structure of such interpretations. Once this flaw is uncovered, the anomaly vanishes.

International Studies in the Philosophy of ScienceMar 1, 200326 citations

Problems in Quantum Mechanics

Emilio d’Emilio, Luigi E. Picasso

UNITEXT for physicsJan 1, 201714 citations

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?