Physics Help Forum Does this theorem falsify macrorealism?

 Quantum Physics Quantum Physics Help Forum

 Aug 20th 2017, 10:46 AM #1 Junior Member   Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 1 Does this theorem falsify macrorealism? Good evening! Recently I have found this article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00022 It tells about a no-go theorem which is considered to rule out several forms of macrorealism. The description of the theorem is on the page 9. As authors say, it implies contradiction between macrorealism and predictions of quantum mechanics. I had some troubles in understanding of mathematical sense of this theorem. However, I don't ask for explaining the steps of it formulation. But it would be great if someone told me whether this theorem is sufficient to falsify macrorealism or it just provides some conditions where macroscopic objects cannot be considered as classical objects? My question appeared because I thought that we can rule out macrorealism only empirically, for example, by violating Leggett-Garg inequalities. Also we can put the parallel to Bell's inequalities and their violation ruling out local hidden variables. But the authors of this paper seem to tell that macrorealism is already falsified only by their theoretical assumptions. That is why I was confused. I am sure that I missed something in this theorem, that is why I make wrong conclusions. So, rephrasing my initial question metaphorically:"Does this theorem really prove that, for example, the moon or the table have not macroscopically definable state while one is not observing them?" I should mention that the question is not about decoherence or measurement problem – it is about implications of concrete theorem. Thank you in advance!
 Aug 21st 2017, 11:40 AM #2 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 366 I have not read the paper you link to beyond the Abstract, however I would just like to fire in my own take on this concept. The state of any object may be defined by a probability function, I would guess that a normal probability distribution should not be too far from a sensible description of the shape of the function. I suggest that anything much beyond 5 sigma in such a probability distribution is essentially non-existent. For a microscopic object 5 sigma represents a vast variation relative to the dimensions of the object. For a macroscopic object 5 sigma lies well within the noise of the variability of the size of the object (due to random thermal stresses etc, etc). __________________ ~\o/~

 Tags falsify, macrorealism, physics, quantum, theorem

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post maple_tree Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 11 Dec 10th 2010 12:26 PM r.samanta Energy and Work 3 Nov 30th 2009 12:04 AM r.samanta General Physics 3 Oct 4th 2009 02:21 AM r.samanta Electricity and Magnetism 2 Oct 2nd 2009 12:12 AM muuusen Electricity and Magnetism 1 Apr 1st 2009 12:20 AM