arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Dec 2017

Transcription

1 Quntum supervlutionist ccount of the EPR prdox Arkdy Bolotin Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheb (Isrel) December, 17 rxiv: v1 [qunt-ph] 19 Dec 17 Abstrct In the pper, the EPR prdox is explored by the pproch of quntum supervlutionism tht leds to gppy semntics with the propositions giving rise to truth-vlue gps. Within this pproch, the sttement, which sserts tht in the singlet stte the system of two (i.e., A nd B) spin- 1 prticles possesses the priori property spin A is up nd spin B is down long the sme xis or spin A is down nd spin B is up long the sme xis, does not hve the truthvlue t ll. Consequently, fter the verifiction of, sy, the proposition spin A is up long the z-xis, the sttisticl popultion describing the vlution of the logicl connective spin B is down long the z-xis nd spin B is up (down) long the x-xis would hve no elements. Keywords: Quntum mechnics; EPR prdox; Truth vlues; Bivlence; Supervlutionism. 1 Introduction Let s,m denote the vector of the Hilbert spce describing the stte of prticle s spin, where s stndsforthespinquntumnumberndm specifiesthespinproectionquntumnumberlongthe x,y,z xis. Consider system with two (A nd B) spin- 1 prticles (tht is, s(a) = s (B) = 1 ) which is prepred in singlet stte (i.e., stte with totl spin ngulr momentum ) described by the vector,, nmely,, = 1 ( 1,m(A) = + 1 1,m(B) = 1 1,m(A) = 1 1,m(B) = + 1 ). (1) Suppose tht fter being prepred in the singlet, these prticles trvel wy from ech other in region of zero mgnetic field where by mens of Stern-Gerlch mgnet n observer Alice mesures the spin of the prticle A nd by mens of nother Stern-Gerlch mgnet n observer Bob mesures the spin of the prticle B. Assume tht the mesurements re spce-like seprted, such tht neither of theobservers cn ct uponor exercise influenceon theresultof theother. Let denote the proposition sserting tht the spin- 1 prticle exists in the spin stte -up (i.e., the sttement m = + 1 ) wheres signify the lterntive proposition tht this prticle is in Emil : rkdyv@bgu.c.il 1

2 the spin stte -down (i.e., the sttement m = 1 ). Let the double-brcket nottion [ where the symbol stnds for ny proposition (compound or simple) denote vlution in circumstnce v, tht is, mpping from set of propositions to set of truth-vlues V N = v hving the crdinlity N nd the rnge with the upper bound 1 (which represents the truth) nd the lower bound (representing the flsehood), reltive to prticulr circumstnce of evlution indicted by v. Let us consider the propositions Sme nd Diff : [Sme = [ (A) (B) (A) (B), () [Diff = [ (A) (B) (A) (B), (3) where stnds for exclusive or logicl connective. The proposition Sme sserts tht the two prticles hve the sme directions of their spins long the -xis, while the proposition Diff declres tht their spin directions re different long. Becuse the system is prepred in the singlet stte, Alice nd Bob cn ffirm tht prior to the verifiction the proposition Sme hs the vlue of flsehood t the sme time s the proposition Diff hs the vlue of truth, i.e., [Sme = nd [Diff = 1. Supposethtusingtheoutcome ofthemesurement, Aliceproves (disproves) thesttement m (A) + 1 s well s the sttement m(a) = 1. This ct destroys informtion bout the proection of the spin of the prticle A long ny other xis k x,y,z not equl to (tht might previously hve been obtined) nd, for tht reson, one cn write [ (A) =,1 = = [ (A) k,1, (4) where the symbol must be replced by either or. However, if both of the following premises re ssumed, nmely, (1) the truth-vlues of the propositions exist before the ct of verifiction, () these truth-vlues re elements of the two-vlued set V =,1, then the vlution [Diff = 1 will imply [ (A) [ (B) + [ (A) [ (B) = 1, (5) or, explicitly,

3 [ (B) = [ (A), (6) [ (B) = [ (A). (7) Hence, the verifiction of (A) will produce the bivlution [ (B) =,1 without destroying informtion bout the spin proection of the prticle B long ny xis k. Let us consider, for exmple, the product [ z (B) [ x (B). Its sttisticl popultion is the cross product of the sets [ z (B) [ x (B) nd defined such tht ( ) [ z (B) [ x (B) = [ z (B),[ x (B). (8) Following the verifiction of the proposition (A) z, the sid sttisticl popultion will contin two pirs ech for every possible preexisitng truth-vlue of x (B), nmely, [ (B) z [ (B) x = 1 [ (B) x = (1,1),(1,). (9) In consequence, the verifiction (refuttion) of (A) x bring the definiteness to this product. This wy, the sttement m z (B) = 1 hve the truth vlue contrry to the bsic principles of quntum theory. crried out in nother experimentl run will nd m(b) x = + 1 will As it cn be redily seen, to resolve this prdox (known s the EPR prdox [1]) upon the supposition tht the prticle B cnnot be ffected by mesurements crried out on the prticle A, one cn deny either the premise (1) or the premise (). This pper presents logic pproch to the EPR prdox where the premise (1) is denied. Quntum supervlutionism Consider the lttice L(H) formed by the column spces (rnges) of the proection opertors α, β,... on the Hilbert spce H. In the lttice L(H) the ordering reltion corresponds to the subset reltion rn( α ) rn( β ); the opertion meet corresponds to the interception rn( α ) rn( β ); the opertion oin correspondstothesmllestclosedsubspceofhcontiningtheunionrn( α ) rn( β ). Thelttice L(H) is bounded, i.e., it hs the gretest element rn(ˆ1) = H nd the lest element rn(ˆ) = tht stisfy the following subset reltion for every rn() in L(H): rn(ˆ) rn() rn(ˆ1). (1) 3

4 Let α β, α β nd α + β denote proections on the interception rn( α ) rn( β ), the union rn( α ) rn( β ) nd the sum rn( α )+rn( β ), respectively. One cn write then rn( α β ) = rn( α ) rn( β ), (11) rn( α β ) = rn( α ) rn( β ), (1) rn( α + β ) = rn( α )+rn( β ). (13) Clerly, if the column spces rn( α ) nd rn( β ) re orthogonl, their union coincides with their sum, i.e., rn( α ) rn( β ) = rn(ˆ) = rn( α ) rn( β ) = rn( α )+rn( β ). (14) On the other hnd, if the proection opertors α nd β on H re orthogonl, then α β = β α = ˆ. Hence, in this cse one must get α β = α β = ˆ, (15) α β = α + β. (16) Now, consider the truth-vlue ssignments of the proection opertors in the lttice L(H). Let v be the truth-vlue ssignment function nd denote the proection opertor ssocited with the proposition. Assume tht the following vlutionl xiom holds: v( ) = [. (17) Supposethtsystemisinpurestte Ψ α lyinginthecolumnspceoftheproectionopertor α. Since being in rn( α ) mens α Ψ α = 1 Ψ α, one cn ssume tht in the stte Ψ α rn( α ), the truth-vlue ssignment function v ssigns the truth vlue 1 to the opertor α nd, in this wy, the proposition α, specificlly, v( α ) = [α = 1. Contrriwise, if v( α ) = [α = 1, then one cn ssume tht the system is in the stte Ψ α rn( α ). These two ssumptions cn be written down together s the logicl biconditionl, nmely, Ψ α rn( α ) v( α ) = [α = 1. (18) On the other hnd, the vector Ψ α must lie in the null spce of ny proection opertor β orthogonl to α. Since being in ker( β ) mens β Ψ α = Ψ α, one cn ssume then tht 4

5 Ψ α ker( β ) v( β ) = [β =. (19) Suppose by contrst tht the system is in the pure stte Ψ tht does not lie in the column or null spce of the proection opertor, i.e., Ψ / rn( ) nd Ψ / ker( ). Under the vlution ssumptions (18) nd (19), the truth-vlue function v must ssign neither 1 nor to, nmely, v( ) 1 nd v( ). Hence, in this cse the proposition ssocited with cnnot be bivlent, nmely, [ / V. Using supervlutionry semntics (see, for exmple [] or [3]), this filure of bivlence cn be described s truth-vlue gp for the proposition, explicitly, Ψ / rn( ) ker( ) v( ) = [ =. () Within the sid semntics, the opertors ˆ1 nd ˆ cn be equted with the super-truth nd the super-flsity since under the vlutions (18) nd (19) these opertors re true nd flse, respectively, in ny rbitrry stte Φ in the Hilbert spce H, tht is, Φ rn(ˆ1) = H ker(ˆ) = H v(ˆ1) = 1 v(ˆ) =. (1) In this wy, the pproch bsed on the ssumption () results in gppy logic with the propositions giving rise to truth-vlue gps. Accordingly, one cn cll this pproch quntum supervlutionism (for other detils of the pproch see [4]). 3 Logic EPR ccount The entngled prticles A nd B cn be represented by observbles σ (A) mtrices, nmely, σ (A) z σ (B) z = 1 1 1, σ(a) 1 x σ x (B) = , σ(a) 1 1 σ (B) y σ y (B) = creted by the Puli , () 1 where 1 1. Tke the observble σ (A) z σ (B) z : Its eigenvectors Ψ zz (λ 1, ) corresponding to the negtive eigenvlues λ 1, = 1 re 5

6 Ψ zz (λ 1 = 1) = 1 Ψ zz (λ = 1) = 1 rn( z ) = rn( z ) = : R : R, (3), (4) where z nd z denote the orthogonl proection opertors defined s z = (A) z (A) z (B) z (B) z = z = (A) z (A) z (B) z (B) z = 1, (5) 1. (6) On the other hnd, the singlet stte, z is the vector, z = 1 ) ( (A) z z (B) (A) z z (B), (7) where nd so (A) z (B) z = (A) z (B) z = 1, (8) 1, (9), z = = 1 1. (3) 6

7 As follows, the vector, z lies in the column spce of the sum of two proection opertors nd z : z, z = 1 1 rn( z + z ) = rn 1 1 = b :,b R. (31) Onecn conclude from here tht the proection opertor cn be presented s the sum: Diff z ssocited with the proposition Diff z Diff z = z + z. (3) Likewise, one cn get, x = ( 1 ) 1 rn( Diff x ) = c b b :,b,c R +c, (33) where Diff x = x + rn( x ) = x = = , (34) : R, rn( x ) = : R, (35) nd in which, y = ( i ) 1 rn( Diff y ) = b :,b C b, (36) Diff y = y + 1 i i 1 1 i i y = 1 i 1 1 i 4 i 1 1 i + 1 i 1 1 i 4 i 1 1 i = , (37) 1 i i 1 1 i i

8 rn( y ) = i i : C, rn( y ) = i : C i. (38) Consequently, one gets c, = C 1 b :,b C b b :,b,c C b b :,b C, (39) +c, = C 1 /,, : C ± : C i ±i : C, (4) where C C. Under the supervlutionist postultion (), this brings the following vlutions in the singlet stte, :, rn( Diff ) v( +, / rn( ) ker( ) rn( ) ker( ) v( ) = v( ) = ) = [Diff = 1, (41) [ (A) (B) = [ (A) (B) =. (4) As follows, even though the proposition Diff hs the preexisting vlue of truth in the stte,, the sttement m (A) = ± 1 nd m(b) = 1 does not hve the truth-vlue t ll prior to its verifiction. Otherwise stted, in the singlet stte the vlution [Diff = [ (A) (B) (A) (B) does not ccept the principle of truth-functionlity, nmely, [Diff cnnot be presented s function of [ (A) nd [ (B). 8

9 Suppose Alice verifies experimentlly tht the proposition (A) z is true but the proposition z (A) is flse. After Alice s verifiction, the spin stte of the two-prticle system Ψ (AB) turns into seprble Ψ (A) z Ψ z (B) where Ψ (A) z = [ ] 1 rn( (A) z (A) z ) v( (A) z (A) z ) = [ (A) z = 1 ker( (A) z (A) z ) v( (A) z (A) z ) = [ (A) z = (43) nd Ψ (B) z = [ b ] where nd b re unknown rel numbers. This gives Ψ (A) z Ψ (B) z = [ ] 1 [ ] b = b rn( z ), if = rn( z ), if b =. (44) But since system s stte is prepred in the singlet stte lying in the sum rn( z ) + rn( z ), one cn infer tht fter Alice s verifiction the vlue of the proection opertor z becomes true, nmely, v( z ) = 1, which implies b = nd so Ψ (B) z = even without Bob s verifiction. It is strightforwrd tht [ ] [ ] : R v( z (B) z (B) ) = [ z (B) = v( z (B) z (B) ) = [ z (B) = 1 rn( (B) x (B) x ) = rn( (B) x (B) x ) = so, under the supervlutionist postultion, in the stte Ψ z (B) neither x (B) truth vlue, explicitly, Ψ (B) z / rn( x (B) x (B) ) rn( x (B) x (B) ) Consequently, fter theverifiction of (A) z [ x (B) would hve no elements t ll: (45) [ ] : R [ ] ; (46) : R v( x (B) x (B) ) = v( x (B) x (B) ) = nor (B) x [ (B) x = [ (B) x = cn crry the. (47) thesttisticl popultion describingtheproduct [ (B) z [ (B) z [ (B) x = 1 =. (48) This implies tht the sttement m z (B) = 1 nd m(b) x = + 1 would hve no truth vlue, nd so the verifiction (refuttion) of (A) x in the next experimentl run would not bring the definiteness 9

10 to the product [ (B) z [ (B) x. 4 Conclusion remrks As the expression (9) demonstrtes, it is counter-fctul definiteness tht, together with the principle of truth-functionlity, led to the bivlution of the sttement m z (B) = 1 nd m(b) x = ± 1. Then gin, from the point of view of the logicl mtrix which fixes model of logic [5], counterfctul definiteness cn be interpreted s the ssertion tht the experimentlly testble propositions like z (B) nd x (B) possess intrinsic truth vlues tht exist even when these propositions hve not been verified (see to tht end the definition of counter-fctul definiteness in [6, 7, 8]). This suggests tht to permit relist interprettions of quntum mechnics (whose chrcteristicl detils cn be found, e.g., in ppers [9, 1]), models of logic underpinning such interprettions must reect preexisting truth-vlues in generl s the described in this pper quntum supervlutionist EPR ccount does. References [1] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, nd N. Rosen. Cn Quntum-Mechnicl Description of Physicl Relity be Considered Complete? Physicl Review, 47(1):777 78, [] A. Vrzi. Supervlutionism nd Its Logics. Mind, 116: , 7. [3] R. Keefe. Theories of Vgueness. Cmbridge University Press, Cmbridge,. [4] A. Bolotin. Quntum supervlutionism. J. Mth. Phys., 58(1): , 17. doi: 1.163/ [5] G. Siegfried. Mny-Vlued Logic. Jn 17. [6] J. Perl. Cuslity. Cmbridge University Press,. [7] I. Hellnd. Quntum Mechnics from Focusing nd Symmetry. Found. Phys., 38:818 84, 8. [8] M. Zukovski nd C. Brukner. Quntum nonloclity it in t necessrily so... J. Physics A: Mth. Theor., 47(449), 14. [9] N. Mermin. Hidden vribles nd the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys., 65:83 815, [1] J. Kellner. Pitowsky s Kolmogorovin Models nd Super-determinism. Found Phys., 47(1):13 148, 16. 1