Slashdot Mirror
Reimagining of Schrodinger's Cat Breaks Quantum Mechanics -- and Stumps Physicists (nature.com)
In a multi-'cat' experiment, the textbook interpretation of quantum theory seems to lead to contradictory pictures of reality, physicists claim. New submitter Lanodonal shares a report: In the world's most famous thought experiment, physicist Erwin Schrodinger described how a cat in a box could be in an uncertain predicament. The peculiar rules of quantum theory meant that it could be both dead and alive, until the box was opened and the cat's state measured. Now, two physicists have devised a modern version of the paradox by replacing the cat with a physicist doing experiments -- with shocking implications.
Quantum theory has a long history of thought experiments, and in most cases these are used to point to weaknesses in various interpretations of quantum mechanics. But the latest version, which involves multiple players, is unusual: it shows that if the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, then different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured. This means that quantum theory contradicts itself.
The conceptual experiment has been debated with gusto in physics circles for more than two years -- and has left most researchers stumped, even in a field accustomed to weird concepts. "I think this is a whole new level of weirdness," says Matthew Leifer, a theoretical physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California. The authors, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, posted their first version of the argument online in April 2016. The final paper [PDF] appears in Nature Communications on 18 September.
Quantum theory has a long history of thought experiments, and in most cases these are used to point to weaknesses in various interpretations of quantum mechanics. But the latest version, which involves multiple players, is unusual: it shows that if the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, then different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured. This means that quantum theory contradicts itself.
The conceptual experiment has been debated with gusto in physics circles for more than two years -- and has left most researchers stumped, even in a field accustomed to weird concepts. "I think this is a whole new level of weirdness," says Matthew Leifer, a theoretical physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California. The authors, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, posted their first version of the argument online in April 2016. The final paper [PDF] appears in Nature Communications on 18 September.
Muahaha! Oh this is precious. When cornered, feign "authority"! "Hah, look at me, don't you see my fancy hat?! I am a Doctorus Maximus at an Imperial Academy of Mysteries Arcane! How dare you not follow our Codex of Words most Portent to the letter! You are polluting my presence, pleb! Guards!"
Gods, dude, General Relativity is directly determinant of maximum speed of information transfer, Special Relativity is a consequence of General Relativity, hence, clue, one of them is called "General". Dictionary. Get one.
Special Relativity was developed earlier and then expanded into its final form, which covers more and deeply the workings of the universe. I mean, this is just hilarious, that you would try to literally puff yourself up with righteous gravitas after such a blunder. I am laughing myself silly here.
As to the unholy act of "mixing" quantum and classical physics, that's the fucking point! The blasphemy belongs to virtually any bloke in search of the Grand Unified Theory since, like, the advent of elemental particles! I am starting to suspect that you are a phony. Otherwise you would have known that the unresolved disparity of the macro and sub-atomic physics is the fly in the soup of physics that literally every "move-over Einstein" wannabe has wet dreams about and that the most basic pre-requisite of any solution is that the models do not contradict each other! Duh.
That is also how one disqualifies incomplete and wrong models. Hint: they do contradict. Who would have thunk it?!
Information theory is my stock in trade and silly physicists have been dabbling in my turf for a while now. Mind you - none of them bother with our specific terminology either - and frankly I don't give a fuck because what matters is concepts and not labels.
And transmitting "information" (and in fact what constitutes "information") is apparently not your strong suit. Surprise.
But this grandiose "go back to school" cop-out when unable to defend your obviously losing argument is a timeless Internet classic. My hat off to you.
P.S. Your school assignment: figure out what constitutes "information" in a context of any physical system (hints: state, change). Bonus points: how "information" and its "transmission" does not require an "observer" or a "purpose".
Than we will talk.