Banner
    Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox Resolved By Local Modal Realism
    By Sascha Vongehr | August 7th 2011 10:17 AM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    The Many Worlds Wiener Sausage is a very simple model that shows how some of the apparent non-locality in the infamous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox can arise simply by the world splitting into parallel universes. It can be understood by advanced high school students (and the quantum version is now also available on the preprint archive). But we saw that although it is a many worlds model, it is not a quantum world! Today we will make the model look like the great spaghetti monster. There are two aspects about this that I find amazing:

    1) It can still be understood by high school students but is nevertheless correct quantum mechanics – not some cracked pot’s hidden variables nonsense.

    2) It is one single and natural step that turns the model quantum, and this step has two important features:

    - The step is obviously a local modification at one certain place of a classical and thus fundamentally local model, therefore the quantum model also still obeys Einstein locality! Since quantum physics cannot be both local and real, the “real” must have been modified. And it has.

    - The crucial step obviously turns something that still can be described as a naïve direct realism into something that can no longer be so described, and again, not via philosophical sophistry or advanced math that rests more on authority than on what lay people can understand: After the crucial modification, a little arrow called “DirectlyReal”, short “DR”, is no longer able to point to the one real world it pointed to before.


    Adding a single little arrow “DR” clarifies that the model is fundamentally a local realism. It is well known that such models cannot possibly describe quantum physics. Below it will be modified so that DR cannot point to a certain world anymore, or if it does, points with the wrong probability. At that point, the model will be quantum.(This article is one in a series - for further explanation of this picture please use the links provided.)

    Much like Minkowski diagrams can resolve the relativistic twin paradox without mathematical equations, this novel model can explain to high school pupils the most difficult aspect at the core of quantum mechanics, its hall mark entanglement. The young generation, having been brought up in the information age with virtual realities and all that, are anyway more able to understand that the core is not* non-locality but true modal realism, the fact that your now reading this text supervenes on ‘you’ doing something else in another part of totality. As usual, the next generation will not understand what the big problem was previous generations struggled with.

    So let’s get started already:

    From Sausage to Spaghetti Monster

    The classical Many Worlds Wiener Sausage model is just a sausage cut lengthwise with wires. The many cuts through the sausage approach each other from the two ends of the sausage, slicing the sausage into many wedge shaped strands. Because of Einstein-locality, Alice’s end of the sausage to the left cannot know about Bob’s end to the right, about at what angles the other side’s cuts are. We will now consider that the sausage is not split into parallel stripes called “branches”, but that the universe grows those branches instead.

    At first, the sausage is empty, having no ‘meat’ except maybe for tightly along the x-axis. Imagine a large number Z of new branches, wedge-shaped and labeled by their angle around the x-axis, which grow like fiber bundles of meat shooting out of the measurement events at Alice’s and Bob’s ends of the sausage. (Z may be thought of as due to neglected microscopic degrees of freedom**.)

    Wedge-shaped meat fibers represent the many parallel branches of the many worlds model. They race with light velocity to Alice where a similar growth of worlds happens, this represents so called "dislocation" of decoherence. Both growths will meet somewhere between Alice and Bob, but notice that Bob’s end has a low number of wedges per angle along the b-axis and a much higher number at 45degrees to the b-axis. Alice may have her a-axis rotated so that a high number of her world fibers meet a low number of Bob’s. The worlds do not match up when they meet. Also notice that the dark green “DirectlyReal” (DR) direction points out the one real world that direct realism insists on, which is the light green glowing world.


    The fibers’ number density tells us how many fibers there are per angle. It depends on the angle from the crystal’s z-axis as discussed previously. Those that grow at Alice’s end have their number density, and those that grow at Bob’s end have theirs, but they still cannot know about each other; they do not know the random relative angle between Alice’s and Bob’s measurements. Therefore, the many fibers from Alice cannot join with the ones from Bob at almost any given angle around the x-axis, because their respective number densities will be different at most angles. Most meat fibers will be left hanging and not result in parallel worlds that continuously extend from left to right.


    Turning the Many World Local Realistic Model into Quantum Physics: The Crucial Step

    Non-locality may suggest modifying the model by letting Bob’s world fiber growth on the right depend on Alice’s to the left. Such would bring us back to suspecting superluminal hidden information. Instead, we modify the model as naturally expected from the way we developed it up to this point.

    Alice’s act of observing Bob’s measurement constitutes another measurement. A further observation with different potential outcomes is necessary, and so the fibers should naturally branch again, because that is what we assume the model does: it grows new fibers for all the potential outcomes. This should already happen when Charlotte observes both results in the middle of the sausage, because she is the first one who can know the combined results - what ever must happen must have happened by then (in case it happens only once).

    The previously considered cutting automatically made more and finer meat fibers when the propagating splits overlapped in the middle of the sausage, that was the beauty of it and resulted in the non-locality, but with many cutting surfaces on each side approaching, many of them may accidentally be in the same plane (like the two in the first picture above). Every pair of such coincident cuts make only one and the same cut, not two at an angle, and so they leave only two instead of four more worlds. That would change the resulting numbers in a way that is difficult to track.

    Now the sausage takes care of measurements by growing new meat fibers instead; Charlotte’s observation is a new measurement; and the fibers meet at the point where previously the apparent non-locality came about by the appearance of more strands. This all indicates that new fibers grow when the old ones meet in the middle.

    If all of Alice’s fibers grow according to the number densities of Bob’s fibers when they ‘bump against each other’, and Bob’s do the same vice versa according to the number density of the fiber’s they meet coming from Alice, the new number of fibers produced will be on both sides the same; they match up exactly. The number is proportional to the product of both, Alice’s and Bob’s number densities. This product can easily lead to the correct quantum factors.

    The Unimportant versus the Crucial Points

    The exact number densities are unimportant. It is not important whether the branches first grew according to the number densities and then multiply further according to the product, or whether they first split into only four worlds on each side and later branch into very many*** when meeting. In both and all possibilities in between these extremes, the introduction of the last, local branching accomplishes two crucial aspects at once:

    (I) It turns the model into a quantum physical one, because the numbers of branches (parallel worlds) have ratios that can lead to the empirical probability being the observed quantum probability. ("Can" lead is already enough, as any classical model can of course not for example violate the Bell inequality!)

    (II) It destroys the direct reality of the model. Before the last branching, DirectlyReal (DR) could have pointed all along to a certain future fiber (the green one above), which was perhaps subsequently labeled with a little label having the correct quantum probability P written on it, but DR pointed there with the classical probability as given by the volume of the cuts V, not the quantum probability P. After the last branching, DR does not point to a certain world at all anymore. It does not know where to point.

    Just before the crucial step, DR may still point to a certain one of Alice’s fibers, but afterward, it points towards all the new ones that grew out of that fiber. A committed direct realist allowing for classical indeterminism may now opine that DR could randomly select one of the new ones. Sure, why not, but these new fibers that grow for example out of a (11) volume which DR pointed to previously, are all also (11) fibers! The naïve meta-probability V(11) does not change anymore, even if these new fibers are all among each other distinguishable micro-states. The probability ‘to go from’ a (11)-branch into one of the new (11)-branches is 100%, thus V(11) remains what it was.

    It might be a good idea to read on empirical probability in order to understand why the ratios of numbers of parallel worlds are the correct probabilities. Once more: If a single, classical, directly real Alice at every measurement were to randomly select one from the newly grown fibers, she would end up in the sausage volume V(11) with probability V(11), regardless of how many new branches grow later. However, nothing selects anything in the quantum universe and there is no god that counts fibers either. After doing the experiment many times, past experience tells Alice the probabilities, and those are in the overwhelming number of worlds the quantum probabilities P, not V.

    There are further implications of the EPR-paradox solving model as it should accelerate a paradigm change that is prerequisite to advance fundamental physics, discussed in Einstein could have solved EPR, Why he did not.


    ---------------------------------

    S. Vongehr: "Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that preserves Einstein Locality" arXiv:1108.1674v1 [quant-ph] (2011)

    *Non-local realism may perhaps be shown to be an equally valid dual description, but we should prefer a description that rests on philosophically self-evident tautologies while conserving Einstein locality (micro-causality in particle physics). Moreover, if non-locality should come necessarily in somehow in another way later on (say via gravity, holography), this does not change any conclusions, on the contrary, that would be re arranging the chairs in the foyer of modal realism.


    ** If the total number of fibers is to ensure one fiber at smallest angular resolution, say an angle of 0.01 degree, V(11) at Pi/2 will need to grow 1/sin2(0.01 degree) > 108 fibers. If there is no limit resolution, Z will be infinite and the cosmological measure problem has reared its head. We may not be able to normalize the probabilities. It is not obvious that Z can be accounted for by neglected microscopic degrees of freedom. Such considerations lead to Multiple Minds Interpretations and the view that probabilities are due to what rational agents expect as for example discussed in [D. Wallace: Quantum probability from subjective likelihood: improving on Deutsch’s proof of the probability rule. (2005)]


    *** When growing only four (or even just two) fibers at each end, one will get the same quantum model if the volumes V(11) and V(00) grow new fibers according to the square of the cross product of the a and b axes, which is proportional to sin2(δ), while V(01) and V(10) grow according to the square of the dot product between a and b, which is proportional to cos2(δ).

    Comments

    Nice post, but arrogant point of view. Non locality may not be necessary for EPR, but it sure as hell is for quantum gravity, which is where fundamental physics goes from here. Nice model and all, but only a tiny bit of the full answer.

    vongehr
    I guess you need to explain this to us, Kea, because in case you mean something like AdS/CFT or holographic principle, you will have to work hard to come up with a proof that shows your non-locality [something more profound apparently than the EPR non-locality(?)] cannot arise from modal realism. Good luck with that!
    Sascha, I can hardly be expected to explain the content of many highly mathematical papers here on your blog, but it is generally accepted amongst the vast majority of theorists now that classical causality is an emergent feature from a quantum gravitational theory. There is an enormous body of evidence for this in ordinary scattering theory, as done the modern twistor way. Since this is the basis of all particle physics, it can hardly be ignored, and it is inherently non local. But then, what does locality mean when the spaces themselves are emergent? We can certainly not assume it as an a priori concept.

    vongehr
    I can hardly be expected to explain the content of many highly mathematical papers here on your blog, but it is generally accepted amongst the vast majority of theorists now that classical causality is an emergent feature from a quantum gravitational theory.
    Not sure why you are so low in confidence that you feel the pressure to hint at math skills that may or may not be superior to those of other readers here or why you need to argue from authority - if you want to say that classical physics is emergent from more fundamental physics for example, you can say so without such nonsense and it will be just as correct. The problem is: how can such a trivial statement argue against that the fundamental description of nature is micro causal modal realism? Many highly mathematical papers you say - do you have even a single one that shows gravity in far as it is observed disproving quantum modal realism?
    and it is inherently non local.
    Of course all models that are not inherently modal realistic enough must be inherently non-local, because otherwise it could not possibly be quantum (quantum physics disproves local realism, so one of the two must go). Still, you are practically claiming that entering gravity destroys the modal option (thus nature has no choice but be inherently non-local). Maybe you believe in non-linear gravity corrections to quantum physics that destroy Everett relativity (and thus perhaps modal realism), but I doubt you lean on such in light of the AdS-CFT description that is entirely unitary.
    Couple of things to comment on I would hardly call people that have come up with hidden variable theories as crackpots. Surely you don't consider Einstein, Podolosky and Rosen as crack pots. As for the Many Worlds Wiener Sausage Model. This I think is highly speculative model. Its interesting to think about but until there is some actual evidence of alternate Universes or dimensions beyond what we have already experienced I think that we are most likely traveling down a dead end road.

    vongehr
    When EPR discussed, it was of course not crackpot stuff at that early time - but today we are at the stage where we know enough to call non-contextual hidden variables definitively crackpottery. My model is not speculative - it is a toy model that shows how non-locality is unnecessary as long as the quantum aspects are assured by a direct realism to modal realism transition. It does not claim there are sausage stripes flying through the air. Alternate universes are not speculative or a dead end road, they are a inevitable consequence of the best theory there is, quantum mechanics. They are moreover philosophically self-evident long before quantum mechanics came along. It is just that the interference between branches (= quantum mechanics) allows us to actually also deduce their reality via measurement.
    The idea that non-locality is unnecessary is a new twist considering it is coming out of a person that is a QM advocate. I don't believe that I have seen that approach before from the QM side for describing an explanation for EPR. I wish you good luck with your idea. All I have to say about alternate invisible dimensions and hidden Universes is that if your only argument is that they are philosophically self-evident that proves absolutely nothing. In the past philosophers and physicists have thought that about many of their ideas about the aspects of nature. They thought their ideas were self evident and they were proven completely wrong. What makes you so sure that Quantum Theory is so much better. At any given moment in the future the entire QM theory can collapse on new evidence coming from an experiment. So now I evoke your own science against you and say prove the existence of alternate Universes or dimensions. Show me something in a lab where we can get a glimpse of such a wondrous thing then you will get me on board with the idea.

    vongehr
    I am certainly not the first one in QM to point out that modifying realism is more important than non-locality, though you are correct that claiming locality is certainly done very quietly, if at all, because it sure has this crackpot stigma to it, much like ether in relativity, which has gotten all kinds of names in order to say ether without mentioning ether. The self evident 'other possibilities are just as real as the ones actualized for me' is not my argument for quantum mechanics. Again: the model is a modal realism already when classical. It is quantum mechanics however that makes it necessarily modal realistic. I have two or three examples mentioned in the paper about how we see in the lab that there indeed are those "parallel universes".
    Your uses of the terms "fibre" and "strand" do not match with the connotations that I am familiar with in English, making it very hard to follow your argument. Only "wedges" have made sense with your descriptions. And the labelling in the figures is no help at all -- if it is consistent, I am totally missing your point: you may know what you mean, but the A=0,1 and B=0,1 are not clear, nor is the z-axis referred to in the text visible at all.

    vongehr
    This is a series. Click the links.
    Loved the article Sascha very nicely done. The model is simple enough I actually wonder if it could be made into a computer model to play with ... if I remember from the Randi challenge this is not your area but someone out there may have the skill set.

    vongehr
    The worlds multiply exponentially with the first step already having very many even at low angular resolutions. So you end up with too many worlds for computers to handle after just a few steps, but good statistics needs many steps. And then, what you gona do with all the worlds? Pick one meta-randomly? That would completely miss the point! There is nothing that one can usefully do with computers in this case, because it would be untrackable and highly misleading.
    Your model suffers from the same Born rule problem that all the other MWI versions do.
    There is another MWI model by Barrett(1999) where all the worlds would all come into existence sort of like at the big bang and there would indeed be 1 world where outcome A happens and 5 worlds where outcome B happens if the Born Rule predicts 1/5.
    This is the only Everettian reading that derives Born Rule.

    What do you think of it?

    vongehr
    The MWI model here allows for Bell violation and thus is consistent with the Born rule. Apart from that, the model is about EPR, specifically about non-locality versus modal realism, not about the Born rule.
    Are you guys nuts?
    Is there any way to get you people down to the ground and talk as if you were mortal persons?
    I have no clue what you are talking about... :)