Zitat:
Zitat von TomS
Nun, ich kann schlichtweg nicht erkennen, wie ein Bezugsystem ausgezeichnet wird und wie die QM zu messbaren Verletzungen der Lorentz-Kovarianz führen soll. Und wenn letzteres nicht der Fall ist, dann haben wir kein Problem mit der QM, sondern höchstens mit dieser speziellen Interpretation, oder?
|
Ich glaub dir das. Aber
objektiv lässt sich IMHO nur feststellen, dass Thema Non-Locality & Relativity ist ein Streitthema und es gibt keinen echten Konsens!
Tim Maudlin hat dazu ein Buch z.B.: Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics
In einer Rezension heißt es -->
Zitat:
How can Maudlin claim that while there is no superluminal signalling, there is superluminal information exchange?
For Maudlin, signalling is an anthropocentric notion that involves a nomic
connection between a controllable transmitter and an observable of the receiver. Thus, the question of superluminal signalling reduces to: “Can manipulations of the polarizer on one wing of the experiment produce a noticeable effect on the other, given that the Bell inequalities are violated?” (p. 82). The negative answer to this question is wellknown:‘there
is no Bell telephone’. For Maudlin, however, to claim that there is no
superluminal signalling is not to say that no information flows between the two wings of the experiment. The amount of information exchanged between transmitter and receiver is a measure of how much one can infer about the state of the former from the state of the latter. Notice that information can be exchanged even if we cannot control the information being transmitted. Maudlin's clever calculation shows that the quantum statistics can be
reproduced if a pair of photons exchanges, on average, just over 1 bit of information. And as Maudlin himself points out, the systems must be capable of exchanging an infinite amount of information at least some of the time.
[...]
Since the problem of Lorentz invariance seems linked to wave collapse, are ‘nocollapse’ theories unproblematic? Maudlin considers Bohm's theory and Albert and Loewer's Many Minds interpretation and concludes that these theories are also not Lorentz invariant. Most notably, Maudlin shows how problems with Lorentz invariance get smuggled into Bohm's theory. He points out that a preferred notion of simultaneity is inherited by the Bohm theory through the notion of ‘configuration’. This, I think, is a valuable point that is often overlooked: “Configurations are configurations at a time, they
specify where all the particles in a system are at a given moment. So the very notion of a configuration is not a Lorentz invariant concept” (p. 216). So long as we are employing a ‘classical’ configuration space, attempts to construct a Lorentz invariant theory are doomed to failure. Unfortunately, one is left wondering why Special Relativity can represent configurations of physical systems and still have a Lorentz invariant theory while this
seems impossible for the kind of configuration space used by the Bohm theory. Also, are representations of quantum systems in Hilbert space in orthodox quantum mechanics also susceptible to this problem?
|
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cg...ntext=phil_fac
Und die ganzen "exotischen Meinungen" zum Thema kommen noch hinzu.
