雷奕安的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/leiyian 关于未来的长远可持续发展技术方案,能源,量子力学,人工智能,等

博文

量子纠缠的“诡异论”和平凡测量解释,究竟谁更有道理?

已有 4387 次阅读 2018-4-13 13:05 |个人分类:量子力学|系统分类:观点评述| 量子力学, 相对论, 量子纠缠

中文版本在后面。

Which understanding of quantum entanglement is more plausible?

We proposed a new understanding of quantum entanglement a few months ago. As many people in quantum information industry do not like it, and attack me by calling me "minke" (crank), I list the differences of the current mainstream (“spooky”) understanding and our measurement understanding here. For details of our reasoning, please refer to “understanding the spooky action at a distance” (The page is in Chinese, but the manuscript in English is available).

Difference between “spooky” understanding and our measurement understanding


“spooky”understanding

Measurement  understanding

Theories based upon

Nonrelativistic quantum theory

 

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory,

Special relativity

Theories violated

Special relativity,

Copenhagen interpretation of measurement

None

What is quantum entanglement?

Magic,  “spooky”, non-local action at a distance

Long coherence range of a photon and its response to (the early involvement of) measurement

Interpretation of the experiments

Cannot explain why different kinds of entanglement have different values, and why   they decrease as the entanglement distance grows. The decoherence theory used   to explain this is not a basic one, and is not applicable to low energy photons in vacuum.

Explains the experiments well quantitatively.

The definition of a photon

Not applicable in the framework of nonrelativistic quantum theory. Actually uses stationary fixed energy photon, which does not exist in the real world.

Physical photon, with all kinds of uncertainties suggested by Copenhagen school.

Famous   proponents

J. Bell, A. Zeilinger

A. Einstein, E. Schrödinger   (original concerns)

Scientific   implications

Violation of local realism (special relativity).

Quantum information

Give a closure to the famous EPR controversy. Clear Einstein's name. No contradiction between Copenhagen interpretation and local realism.

 What’s wrong with the “spooky” understanding?

1、   The definition of entanglement. All entities involved are defined as constants. Over-simplified mathematical, instead of physical, expressions.

2、   Quantum electrodynamic calculation indicates that the interaction between low energy photons (LEP) is extremely low, the entanglement between separate LEPs is highly hypothetic.

3、   The energy and life-time of a physical photon is uncertain, which has important implications, but is ignored in “spooky” understanding.

4、   Completely ignored the influence of the measurement to the “entangled pairs” before the assumed moment of measurement. This is the classical concept of measurement, and violated the Copenhagen interpretation of measurement.

5、   Ignored the limitations of the nonrelativistic quantum theory, such as, the concept of photon is illegal, there is no first principle interaction, energy levels are fixed single value, etc. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the necessary amendment to the theory, but is neglected in the interpretation of quantum entanglement.

6、   The proposed causality (measurement in one end causes the immediate collapsing of the entangled particle far away) violated the theory of special relativity, or, arbitrarily asserting causality between space-like events.

7、   Cannot explain why different kinds of entanglement have different values, and why they decrease as the entanglement distance grows. The decoherence theory used to explain this is not a basic one, and is not applicable to low energy photons in vacuum, because LEPs do not interact with each other (near vacuum environment), or we should not see the Sun, if the explanation is plausible.

8、   The primary reason for the failure of the “spooky” understanding is that it relies solely on the nonrelativisitic quantum physics, in which everything is non-local, the speed of the light is infinity, and every transition is instantaneous, which are exactly all the “spooky” features of quantum entanglement come from.



主流理解(诡异论)

我们的平凡测量解释

理论基础

非相对论量子力学方法

违背相对论

违背哥本哈根测量理论

大家都认可的基本理论,包括量子力学哥本哈根学派理论,量子场论,相对论

纠缠实质的理解

诡异,spooky

神奇的超距作用

光子相干范围广和测量介入的结果

实验解释

无法解释纠缠度随距离下降,以及不同纠缠种类纠缠度的差别。用到的退相干理论不是基本理论,理由不充分。

完美解释了实验,包括定量上的差别

对光子的理解

所用理论框架内光子概念不合法。实际采用定态单能光子。定态单能光子只有理论意义,物理上不存在。

物理光子

争论方式

扣帽子,指责对方是民科

理论上不能反驳对方

讲道理,辩论用到的理论基础是大家都认可的基本理论,逐条指出对方观点与基本理论的偏离

著名支持人物

贝尔,策林格

爱因斯坦,薛定谔(原始概念)

理论意义

引起理论混乱。心灵感应,量子佛学,量子保健,鬼怪灵魂之论乘虚而入。

调和了哥本哈根学派和爱因斯坦的分歧。提出量子纠缠没有违背局域实在论。消除了量子力学基本理论中历史遗留下来的一个重要困惑。同时还很好解释了量子力学一类难以理解的实验,延迟选择实验。

“主流理解”与基本理论的偏离如下:

1、基本定义不严谨。纠缠的基本定义是常数表达式,是过于简化的数学表达式,不物理。

2、量子场论已经证明低能光子是没有相互作用的(非常弱),不存在让两个单光子纠缠的理论依据。

3、物理的光子一定存在能量和时间不确定性,主流理解采用的常数表达不包含这些信息。

4、完全忽视了量子力学测量理论中,测量对体系的影响,认为在测量之前,光子是独立的客观实在。这是经典条件下对测量的理解,不符合哥本哈根学派的测量原理。

5、没有意识到非相对论量子力学存在很多局限,比如不能处理光子,没有相互作用,没有能级宽度,没有时间维。非相对论量子力学中的海森堡不确定性原理,本来是对上述问题的修正,但很遗憾没有引起足够重视。

6、提出的因果关系(一处测量导致远处坍缩)违背相对论,或者说,为类空间隔事件强行指定因果关系。

7、不能说明实验中出现的纠缠度随距离下降,和不同种类纠缠纠缠度不同的现象。用到的退相干理论不是基本理论。在真空中,对于低能光子,退相干理论根本不适用,因为量子电动力学已经发现低能光子之间相互作用非常弱,光子与环境作用没有根据。如果光子能够在几千公里近真空距离内退相干,我们应该连太阳都看不到。

8、主流理解错误的根本原因在于完全依赖非相对论量子力学。非相对论量子力学中,所有现象都是非局域的,光速无穷大,所有过程都是瞬时发生,因此“诡异”的超距作用是必然结论。(不考虑哈密顿量含时情况,这是另外一个问题)


此贴原始标题为“量子纠缠的理解,究竟谁是民科”

指责一个在科学领域工作了很多年的人为民科,是对人的最大侮辱。我们提出量子纠缠的新理解以来,很多人不讨论具体问题,直接给我贴上民科标签。尽管如此,己所不欲,勿施于人,我也不该自恃在理(没有违反基本理论,而对方违反多条基本理论)而以“民科”反讥。因为如果以后大家接受的我们的理解,该标签会被反贴在对方(主要是量子信息相关理论支持者)身上。对量子纠缠的理解偏离是历史遗留问题,不是量子信息支持者们的主观故意,他们不应该因此而被贴上标签,受到嘲讽。因此,我收回“民科”的反讽,但也不会道歉,因为对方攻击在先。 


相关:

量子纠缠“主流理解”及几个典型比喻的错误:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-268546-1108675.html

对《量子纠缠究竟怎么回事》的澄清与补充:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-268546-1102664.html

量子纠缠究竟怎么回事:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-268546-1102443.html



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-268546-1108883.html

上一篇:量子纠缠“主流理解”及几个典型比喻的错误
下一篇:雪域天府——再造一个生态圈

1 徐令予

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (4 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2020-7-6 01:42

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部