It has been debated whether quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible and whether there is a preferred Lorentz frame if they are incompatible. Bell’s theorem is an important cornerstone, but it does not give us a definite answer due to the existence of supplementary assumptions or theoretical loopholes; there are unitary quantum theories which evade Bell’s theorem.
In recent years, there has been stimulating discussion about superobservers, which might help settle the important issue of whether unitary quantum theories are compatible with special relativity. This online workshop aims to highlight the existing debates and address the controversies.
Workshop Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 to Sunday, September 1, 2019
Advisory Board: Lajos Diósi, Arthur Fine, Gordon N. Fleming, Olival Freire Jr., Sheldon Goldstein, Robert B. Griffiths, Hans Halvorson, Richard A. Healey, Basil J. Hiley, Don Howard, Peter J. Lewis, Roger Penrose, and Maximilian Schlosshauer.
Based on the successful previous workshops, this online workshop will be more self-organized. Every participant, after logging in, may create a topic in the workshop forum on his own, which gives a concise introduction to his ideas to be discussed. Then other participants can leave comments and participate in the discussions by text chat in the forum.
All IJQF members are welcome.
Group Admins
Unitary-Only Quantum Theory Cannot Consistently Describe the Use of Itself
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There has been much discussion about the F-R paradox, but to my knowledge, it has not yet been considered that the paradox is a consequence of the traditional assumption that quantum theory ‘really’ has only unitary dynamics; i.e., that there is no ‘objective reduction’ or physical non-unitarity in QM. Here it is argued that it is the unitary-only (UO) assumption that leads to the FR inconsistency, and that UO is in fact optional. Thus perhaps we should consider the possibility that QM does have a physically real, non-unitary ‘measurement transition’. (If there is concern about Lorentz invariance in connection with such non-unitarity, it should be noted that the relativistic transactional interpretation (RTI) has Lorentz-invariant collapse, since it occurs with respect to an invariant spacetime interval, not with respect to any single ‘preferred’ time index. This is draft paper subject to improvement through input from discussants: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16290/ Thank you!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
