
Ruth Kastner wrote a new post, Violation of the Born Rule: Implications for Macroscopic Fields. 6 years, 1 month ago
ABSTRACT. It is shown that violation of the Born Rule leads to a breakdown of the correspondence between the quantum electromagnetic field and its classical counterpart. Specifically, the relationship of the quantum coherent state to the classical electromagnetic field turns out to imply that if the Born Rule were violated, this could result in apparent deviations from the energy conservation law applying to the field and its sources (Poynting’s Theorem). The result, which is fully general and independent of interpretations of quantum theory, suggests that the Born Rule is just as fundamental a law of Nature as are the field conservation laws.

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Hi Jiri,
Thanks for your comments. I think you misunderstood the main idea of my paper. It does not aim to argue the impossibility of the psiepistemic view based on the KochenSpecker theorem. It only argues that the psiepistemic view does not provide a straightforward resolution or a dissolution of the measurement problem, as I clearly…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Hi Ken,
Thanks again for your very detailed reply! I learned a lot about the retrocausal quantum models from them. I feel that such models seem more complex than Bohm’s theory. Maybe the reason is that there are no wave functions in them?
Best,
Shan 
Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Hi Matt,
Thanks again for your further comments, most of which I agree. There is only one minor point I disagree. I still think the ontological models framework is more specific than Bell’s framework due to its second assumption. Even in the proof of the CHSH version of Bell’s theorem, although the ontic state λ is a random variable, it still…[Read more]

Shan Gao replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your interesting comments, some of which I basically agree.
But I think you misunderstood my paper. The paper does not aim to show the (realist) psiepistemic view cannot solve the measurement problem. Rather, it only shows that the psiepistemic view does not provide a straightforward resolution or a dissolution of the…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks Arthur for your very detailed and helpful comments. I have learned much from these comments. I will improve my paper according to them. Best, Shan

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks Mark and Ken for your further comments. I have not thought too much on retrocausal models. I would like to know whether quantum randomness is also inherent in these models, and how these models account for the randomness of measurement results. Best, Shan

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks Mark and Ken for your very helpful comments. I will need more time to think about them. For now I think Ken’s explanation seems to require the deny of the existence of free fill and essential randomness and have to resort to superdeterminism. Best, Shan

Quantum Speculations started the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
It is widely thought that the psiepistemic view provides a straightforward resolution or even a dissolution of the measurement problem. In this paper we argue that this is not true. In order to explain the collapse of the wave function merely as a process of updating information about the underlying physical state, this view requires that all…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic How to solve the structured tails problem of dynamical collapse theories? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks for your comments, Kelvin. It seems that you did not really understand my solution, which is different from the solution discussed in your paper. In my solution, there are no “zombie tails”. The observer being in the superposition has only one mind with the unique mental content. The key point is that according to my assumption about viv…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Can Bohm's theory really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks for your further clarification, Peter. I still think that your assumption that the relative positions of the particles determine the measurement outcome requires a wholly new hiddenvariables theory which is different from Bohm’s theory.
Consider your example. If after being measured by the SternGerlach magnet, the two separated wave…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Can Bohm's theory really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks, Aurélien. I will have a look at your reply. Best, Shan

Quantum Speculations replied to the topic Can Bohm's theory really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 4 months ago
Thanks for your insightful comments, Peter. I should have made my argument more accurate. I agree that if assuming the measurement outcome supervenes on a pattern among a number of Bohmian particles, then Bohm’s theory can solve the measurement problem. But I think the assumption seems inconsistent with SQM. Let me restate my argument more…[Read more]

Quantum Speculations started the topic What does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 6 years, 5 months ago
It has been realized that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is essentially the determinateexperience problem in the final analysis. The problem is to explain how the linear dynamics can be compatible with the existence of our definite experience. This means that in order to finally solve the measurement problem it is necessary to…[Read more]


Ruth Kastner replied to the topic Possibilist Transactional Interpretation in the forum Retrocausal theories 6 years, 10 months ago
Thanks Mark,
I don’t know either. Hey out there, please tell us what you don’t like about PTI.
But please let your critique be based on an openminded reading of the published literature, unlike some critiques out there 🙂 
Quantum Speculations replied to the topic A New Ontological Interpretation of the Wave Function in the forum Meaning of the wave function 6 years, 10 months ago
Hi Peter, thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. Your questions are closely related to the understanding of RDM (random discontinuous motion) of particles. RDM gives an ontological interpretation of the wave function, but the instantaneous picture cannot explain interference and measurement. To explain the former, we still need the law of…[Read more]

Ruth Kastner replied to the topic What are the most pressing problems? and how to solve them? in the forum Panel Discussion 6 years, 10 months ago
It is not necessary for quantum mechanics to be local to provide consistency with relativity.
If QM is taken as describing a prespacetime domain from which spacetime emerges, there is no conflict.
I provide such an account in PTI (e.g. http://www.cambridge.org/9780521764155) 
Ruth Kastner replied to the topic Retrocausal Bohm Model in the forum Retrocausal theories 6 years, 10 months ago
Thanks Rod,
I certainly would not dismiss a model simply because it implied a block universe. I have had extensive discussions with the Relational Block World folks (Mark and Michael), and while that’s not my favored approach, it’s not because it’s a block world.
My concern about the model you’re proposing is that while it describes dynamical…[Read more]

Ruth Kastner replied to the topic Retrocausal Bohm Model in the forum Retrocausal theories 6 years, 10 months ago
Hi Rod,
Have you thought any more about the block universe question? It seems to me that with the initial and final BC, all spacetime events are ‘set’ and therefore we must have a block world here. I’d be curious to know whether you agree.
Thanks,
Ruth  Load More
This paper has been sent out for peer review.
I think this paper is not correct. Of course, if one tries to violate the Born rule using only the equations of orthodox quantum theory, then one will get spurious results like an apparent violation of energy conservation. However, it is quite obvious from Rod Sutherland’s retrocausal “weak measurement” completely relativistic Lagrangian formulation of Bohm’s pilot wave/beable theory with the additional postquantum actionreaction terms between the pilot waves and the beables that the stressenergy current densities are conserved i.e. Tuv^;v = 0 where Tuv = Tuv(pilot wave) + Tuv(be able) + Tuv(pilot wave be able). Kastner’s paper only has, in effect the Tuv(pilot wave) term. There is no consistent way to violate the Born rule without the additional terms. That’s all Kastner has really shown in my opinion. Sutherland has posted his theory elsewhere on this forum.
The submitted paper shows that violation of the Born Rule leads to a breakdown of the correspondence between quantum and classical forms of the electromagnetic field. The paper does not argue that energy conservation is violated at the microlevel, so the arguments put forth here don’t refute anything in the paper. It is straightforward that deviation of the photon detection rates from that given by the Born Rule as applied to coherent states results in deviations from Maxwell’s equations. One can see that simply by looking at how, for violations of the Born Rule, the amplitude envelope of the field would stray from the form required for classical correspondence (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_states#/media/File:Coherent_state_wavepacket.jpg) . Evidently the commenter thinks that it would be possible to violate the Born Rule and still preserve the quantum/classical correspondence in a different theory. He is welcome to demonstrate how that would work (even though the referenced figure clearly shows that deviations from Born Rule detection rates spoils the amplitude envelope). In any case, that would not refute the submitted paper, because it is not the subject of the paper.
A referee report has been received.
Ruth misunderstands my claim. The Sutherland actionreaction postquantum violation of the Born rule vanishes in the limit where the Glauber coherent state solutions apply to the real world. Therefore, her argument is logically inconsistent.
Referees agreed with arguments in this paper and it has been accepted. Indeed there is no inconsistency; if there is no Born Rule violation in the limit Dr. Sarfatti discusses, then there is also no ‘real world’ applicability of such Born Rule violations as he has previously argued. The paper simply shows that real world Born Rule violations lead to real world deviations from Maxwell’s equations. This is an elementary result that is not controversial.