bohm versus everett

58
Bohm versus Everett 21st-century directions in de Broglie-Bohm theory and beyond THE TOWLER INSTITUTE The Apuan Alps Centre for Physics Vallico Sotto, Tuscany, Italy Lev Vaidman 30.08.2010

Upload: danyl

Post on 22-Feb-2016

72 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Bohm versus Everett. Lev Vaidman. 30.08.2010. 21st-century directions in de Broglie- Bohm theory and beyond. THE TOWLER INSTITUTE The Apuan Alps Centre for Physics Vallico Sotto, Tuscany, Italy. Hope:. Today’s physics explains all what we see. Big hope:. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Bohm  versus Everett

Bohm versus Everett

21st-century directions in de Broglie-Bohm theory and beyondTHE TOWLER INSTITUTE The Apuan Alps Centre for Physics Vallico Sotto, Tuscany, Italy

Lev Vaidman

30.08.2010

Page 2: Bohm  versus Everett

Hope: Today’s physics explains all what we see.Big hope: Today’s physics explains All.

Bohm and Everett are candidates for a final theory.

The quantum mechanical formalism does not provide physicists with a ‘pictorial’ representation: the ψ-function does not, as Schrödinger had hoped, represent a new kind of reality. Instead, as Born suggested, the square of the absolute value of the ψ-function expresses a probability amplitude for the outcome of a measurement.

Bohr (SEP):

Bohr and today’s majority of physicists gave up the hopeI think, we should not.

Page 3: Bohm  versus Everett

All is iR and

Bohm:

Page 4: Bohm  versus Everett

All is Everett:

Page 5: Bohm  versus Everett

All is Many-Worlds Everett:

Page 6: Bohm  versus Everett

The Quantum World Splitter Choose how many worlds you want to split by pressing one of the red dice faces.

http://qol.tau.ac.il/TWS.html

Page 7: Bohm  versus Everett

left right

http://qol.tau.ac.il/TWS.html

Page 8: Bohm  versus Everett

right

http://qol.tau.ac.il/TWS.html

Page 9: Bohm  versus Everett

A B

World-splitter of Tel Aviv University

Page 10: Bohm  versus Everett

A B

World-splitter of Tel Aviv University

Page 11: Bohm  versus Everett

A B

World-splitter of Tel Aviv University

Page 12: Bohm  versus Everett

All

All is a closed system which can be observed

Page 13: Bohm  versus Everett

All

All is a closed system which might include an observer which can be observed

Page 14: Bohm  versus Everett

What is ψ ?There is no sharp answer. Theoretical physicists are very flexible in adapting their tools, and no axiomization can keep up with them. But it is fair to say that there are two core ideas of quantum field theory. First: The basic dynamical degrees of freedom are operator functions of space and time- quantum fields.Second: The interaction of these fields are local in space and time. F. Wilczek (in Compendium of Quantum Physics, 2009)

( ( ), ( ))a aA r r ( )r

Bohm: At the end of the day, the only variables we observe are positions.

Page 15: Bohm  versus Everett

Space is taken for granted

Page 16: Bohm  versus Everett

( )r

Everett:

Page 17: Bohm  versus Everett

( )r

Bohm:

Page 18: Bohm  versus Everett

All isevolving according to deterministic equations

All is

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

Everett:

Bohm: 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

and

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

evolving according to deterministic equation

Page 19: Bohm  versus Everett

All is particlesevolving according to Newton’s equations

Laplacian determinism

A CENTURY AGO:

1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

Page 20: Bohm  versus Everett

Everett Interpretation

Observation

Laplacian determinism

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

TRIVIAL

Bohmian mechanics

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t TRIVIAL

HARD

Page 21: Bohm  versus Everett

Everett Interpretation

Observation

Laplacian determinism

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

TRIVIAL

HARD

Bohmian mechanics

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t TRIVIAL

Page 22: Bohm  versus Everett

Everett Interpretation

Many parallelObservations

Laplacian determinism

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

TRIVIAL

Bohmian mechanics

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t TRIVIAL

HARD

Page 23: Bohm  versus Everett

An observer has definite experience.

Everett’s Relative State World

What is “a world” in the Everett Interpretation ?

A world is the totality of (macroscopic) objects: stars, cities, people, grains of sand, etc. in a definite classically described state.

The MWI in SEP

OBSERVER RESTi i i

1 2 ...OBJECT OBJECT OBJECTK RESTi i i i i

OBJECT

i is a Localized Wave Packet for a period of time

1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t many

worlds

1 2( , , ...., , )Ni r r r t Observation i world i

1 21 2 ( , , ...., , )( , ,...., , ) NN i i r r r tr r r t

Many parallelObservations

Page 24: Bohm  versus Everett

What is our world in the Bohmian Interpretation ?

Observation 1 2( ), ( ),...., ( )Nr t r t r t

We do not observe (experience) 1 2( , ,...., , )Nr r r t

Page 25: Bohm  versus Everett
Page 26: Bohm  versus Everett

A tale of a single world universe The king forbade spinning on distaff or spindle, or the possession of one, upon pain of death, throughout the kingdom

Page 27: Bohm  versus Everett

A tale of a single world universe The king forbade performing quantum measurements, or the possession of quantum devices, upon pain of death, throughout the kingdom

PhotomultipliersGeiger countersStern Gerlach devicesBeam splittersDown conversion crystalsQuantum dotsQuantum tunnelingPhotodiods……The Quantum World Splitter

Page 28: Bohm  versus Everett

1 2 ...OBJECT OBJECT OBJECTKUNIVERSE WORLD REST

Quantum states of all macroscopic objects are Localized Wave Packets all the time

A tale of a single world universe

1 21 2 1 2( , ,...., , ) ( ) ( )... ( )NWORLD

N Nr r r t r r r Zero approximation: all particles remain in product LWP states

Particles which do not interact strongly with “macroscopic objects” need not be in LWP states.

1 21 2( ) ( )... ( )KWORLD REST

Kr r r

( )nnr

Particles which make atoms, molecules, etc. can (and should be) entangled among themselves. Only states of the center of mass of molecules, cat’s nails etc. have to be in LWP states.

21 1 2 1

1 21 1 2 2( ) ( ) ( ) ( )... ( ) ( )M

M

WORLD CM CM CM RESTCM rel i j CM rel i j CM rel Mi Mjr r r r r r r r r

Page 29: Bohm  versus Everett

Quantum states of all macroscopic objects are Localized Wave Packets all the time

A tale of a single world universe

1 21 2 1 2( , ,...., , ) ( ) ( )... ( )NUNIVERSE

N Nr r r t r r r

21 1 2 1

1 21 1 2 2( ) ( ) ( ) ( )... ( ) ( )M

M

WORLD CM CM CM RESTCM rel i j CM rel i j CM rel Mi Mjr r r r r r r r r

Observation 1 21 2( ) ( )... ( )N

Nr r r TRIVIAL

Almost the same as in

( )r

( )r of a cat!

Bohmian trajectories

Page 30: Bohm  versus Everett

Two worlds universe

This is a multiple worlds universe

Page 31: Bohm  versus Everett

Two worlds universe

A

B

Page 32: Bohm  versus Everett

Bohm and Everett have no randomness

so the concept of probability needs explanation

Probability of what?A

B

0.9

0.1

Bohm – simple ignorance probability

Everett – an illusion of probability due to ignorance of the decedents

Page 33: Bohm  versus Everett

A

B

A

B

Bohmian Mechanics

Ignorance probability: the observer does not know the initial Bohmian position

Page 34: Bohm  versus Everett

Everett:

Probability of what?Ignorant of what?

A

B

A

B

Page 35: Bohm  versus Everett

A

A

B B

Sleeping Pill Experiment

Ignorance probability of the descendants A and B

Vaidman (1998) ISPS

0.9

0.1

Everett:

Page 36: Bohm  versus Everett

AA

B

B

What is the probability that you are in A?

0.9

What is the probability that you are in A?

0.9

0.9

0.1

Only and can give this answerAI BI

Page 37: Bohm  versus Everett

AA

B

B

Since all the descendants yield the same answer we can relate it to me before the experiment. I put my bet for the descendants. They have probability. Thus, my bet is for a probabilistic event.

What is the probability that you are in A?

0.9

What is the probability that you are in A?

0.9

0.9

0.1

Page 38: Bohm  versus Everett

What is the past of a quantum particle?

Page 39: Bohm  versus Everett

The “past” and the “Delayed Choice” Double-Slit Experiment J.A. Wheeler 1978

The present choice of observation influences what we say about the “past” of the photon; it is undefined and undefinable without the observation.

The “past” of the photon is defined after the observation

Wheeler:

No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.

My lesson:

Page 40: Bohm  versus Everett

Wheeler delayed choice experiment

Wheeler: The photon took the upper pathIt could not come the other way

Page 41: Bohm  versus Everett

Wheeler delayed choice experiment

Bohm: The photon took the lower path

Page 42: Bohm  versus Everett

Wheeler delayed choice experiment

Wheeler: The photon took both pathsOtherwise, the interference cannot be explainedBohm: The photon took one of the paths

Page 43: Bohm  versus Everett

The past of a quantum particle can be learned by measuring the trace it left

Page 44: Bohm  versus Everett

Wheeler delayed choice experiment

Bohm: The photon took the lower path

But the trace shows the upper path

Page 45: Bohm  versus Everett

Wheeler delayed choice experiment

Wheeler: The photon took both pathsOtherwise, the interference cannot be explainedBohm: The photon took one of the pathsThe trace shows both paths

Page 46: Bohm  versus Everett

Kwiat’s proposal

Page 47: Bohm  versus Everett

Kwiat’s proposal

Wheeler: The photon took the lower pathIt could not come the other wayBohm: The photon took the lower pathThe trace shows a different picture!

Page 48: Bohm  versus Everett

What is “a world” in the many-worlds picture? 1 2( , , ...., , )Ni r r r t world i

1 2 ...OBJECT OBJECT OBJECTK RESTi i i i i

OBJECT

i is a Localized Wave Packet for a period of time

A B

A world consist of: •"classical" macroscopic objects rapidly measured by the environment,• quantum objects measured only occasionally (at world splitting events),• weakly coupled quantum objects

Observation i

Page 49: Bohm  versus Everett

t

P 1

1t

2t

P 1

The pre- and post-selected particle is described by the two-state vector

w

CC

The outcomes of weak measurements are weak values

?C

t

The two-state vector formalism expalnation

Page 50: Bohm  versus Everett

A A BB

A world consist of: •"classical" macroscopic objects rapidly measured by the environment,• quantum objects measured only occasionally (at world splitting events),• weakly coupled quantum objects

One world | i

Page 51: Bohm  versus Everett

A A BB

A world consist of: •"classical" macroscopic objects rapidly measured by the environment,• quantum objects measured only occasionally (at world splitting events) which are described by the two-state vectors,• weakly coupled quantum objects

One world | i i

i

Page 52: Bohm  versus Everett

The two-state vector formalism explanation

Page 53: Bohm  versus Everett

The two-state vector formalism explanation

Page 54: Bohm  versus Everett
Page 55: Bohm  versus Everett

The two-state vector formalism explanation

Page 56: Bohm  versus Everett

The two-state vector formalism explanation

Page 57: Bohm  versus Everett

The two-state vector formalism explanation

Page 58: Bohm  versus Everett

Summary

The description of the past of a quantum particle should characterize the (weak) trace it leaves

i

Bohm and Everett are good candidates for a final deterministic theory of everything

i i

Bohm provides clear and immediate explanation of our observationsEverett requires a lot of work to explain our observations

My preferred Bohm requires additional postulate that we only observe (experience) the Bohmian postionsIn my preferred Everett All is , but for description of our world we need and also of some key quantum particles