A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. –PLANCK


hi all. am EXCITED! the future has ARRIVED, NOW!

the blog starts with a remarkable, historic quote by PLANCK, discoverer of the photon and originator of quantum mechanics, which is quite essentially KUHNIAN amongst a group of scientists who often are outright ANTI-KUHNIAN.

there has been over 1Century of talk about the “philosophy” of quantum mechanics, and debates about so-called “interpretations”. those dialogues and conversations are at the verge of a major shift, a major rethinking, a paradigm shift.

if you dont have an experiment to test for the “deeper reality” of quantum mechanics and it agrees with everything you can measure, than any idea about what “lies beyond” what it can measure is philosophy and interpretation.

but that day is OVER! experiments have been constructed NOW that probe beyond the quantum reality, beyond the formalism that was constructed 100 years ago. new dynamics is being uncovered that CANNOT be derived from the schroedinger equation and the other axioms of quantum mechanics.

it sounds simple yet this is a very subtle issue to some. practicing physicists, even Phds, may get it mixed up. there is a new theory emerging; it does not exactly indicate that the prior foundations are WRONG. it is only that they are INCOMPLETE exactly as many of the greats argued… its a long, illustrious list: Einstein, de Broglie, Schroedinger, Bohm, Bell.

the experimental evidence is in, and it PROVES QM in its initial form is incomplete. this is a direct REFUTATION of the copenhagen interpretation.

the so-called “copenhagen interpretation” means many things to many people, but lets face it, in short its very simple![1c] it asserts at heart essentially QM IS COMPLETE. how do we know this? the copenhagen interpretation at heart is a RESPONSE TO EINSTEINS (et al!) CRITICISMS. Einsteins key criticism was (or evolved to be) that QM IS INCOMPLETE. therefore, copenhagen interpretation is simply the OPPOSITE. yes, its basically just a kneejerk reaction against einsteins pov!

in other words copenhagen interpretation insists THERE IS NO DEEPER REALITY than that expressed in QM axioms. so any physical phenomena that can be “OBSERVED” (a very loaded word!) but not DERIVED from QM mathematics must prove that QM is incomplete. in other words, a disproof can only come from experiment.

one must be careful to understand a DISPROOF of the completeness of QM DOES NOT show any contradiction with existing QM. it only shows that “here is some other phenomenon of reality that QM cannot explain, cannot derive, cannot model.”

now, it does turn out that the new physics MESHES PERFECTLY with QM. that is not surprising! QM is highly tested, nobody is expecting it to be proven WRONG except maybe decades ago with Bell tests, where some serious physicists thought that experimental tests might put it into question.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

ok now to the nitty gritty. regular visitors to the blog will realize, have not been blogging on non-collatz subjects for quite awhile. this is partly due to BigCorp creating new draconian surveillance systems that make it harder to use the corp laptop. but, there are other factors, such as nobody ever writing me any comments, lol!

MINEV[1d] came up with a beautiful experiment, “to catch and reverse a quantum jump midflight”, published in world class Nature magazine about 1½ yr ago.[2b] the short story for this experiment is that it experimentally “TESTS/ MEASURES” the “collapse of the wavefunction.” it finds wavefunction collapse dynamics physics that is measurable, repeatable, and NOT EXPLAINED by the schroedinger equation. MINEV himself does not really highlight this fact. but thats the key point of the finding. its not just something that can be tuned and/ or exploited for quantum computing systems although thats a main focus of experimentalists. its a paradigm shift in the foundations of QM and physics itself.

more to the story: Minev actually finished the experiment in 2018, about 2½ years ago![2a] then wrote it up as a tour-de-force Phd thesis.[2c] looking over the thesis leads to more interesting factoids, he cites one of his own papers from 2013. so he was probably working on this project in different parts/ forms at least over 5 years, ½ decade.

this topic has been at the top of my to-blog pile for over 2 years now. wanted to blog on it days after it was published (Nature)! chatted online extensively about it. but realized that people were not really understanding its significance. honestly, was feeling some futility about writing about it. this is just one corner of cyberspace, and there are readers, but alas the impact of this blog is not earthshattering, surprise!

the new PBS special finally kicks me into gear.[1a] its not a scientific paper. its a popsci account. DONT LAUGH! just cuz its popsci doesnt mean theres anything wrong with it, LOL! host/ writer Matt O’Dowd is a Phd physicist, he knows what hes talking about.[1b] its an excellent summary of the basics. one of my favorite parts is the reference to Schroedinger talking about “epicycles” in the early 1950s paper. (had a long, almost epic ongoing conversation awhile back about epicycles on the physics chat with, counterintuitively, semiclassical defending their usage, lol!)

ok, ok, there are some popsci accounts of the experiment that maybe are a bit laughable, you can go find one if you want.[3] actually quanta writeups by Ball around the same time are excellent overviews imho![2g][2h] but honestly am getting really tired of professional physicists criticizing popsci (or rather, more accurately, “tarring it with a broad brush”) as if its uniformly wrong + worthless. ah, heres a case that is not nice: [2e]. here on stackexchange, high rep user knzhou working on his Phd at stanford, undergrad work physics + math at MIT, Msc work at cambridge, specializing in particle phenomenology, “particle fever” movie fan, in a currently +119v post, says that the experiment only disproves “DUMB COPENHAGEN”.[2f]

wait, what? WTF?!? hey kevin, are you saying what heisenberg and bohr came up with originally is literally “DUMB”? oh, ofc he is not saying that directly. huh, nevertheless, sounds a little like fighting words there or something! my comments on the post, not yet deleted by heavy handed mod action last checked, are that this “spin” is “disingenuous” at best. there is a lot of intellectual/ historical sleight of hand going on here! ofc none of them are upvoted so far… is anyone listening?

but honestly, without the drama + trashtalk, this supposed analysis/ “ANSWER” is barely )( credible! there is a lot to deconstruct here, and dont feel like rebutting it in detail at the moment, although it highly deserves it. but it does lead on to…

another aspect here that bothers me is that SE just doesnt seem to have many RESEARCHERS. after many years on the site, close to 1decade, and now over ½ that time hanging out in the physics chat room among various high-rep regulars and mod(s)…

ok, there are lots of SE experts who can quote BOOKS with photographic precision all day long. but what about cutting edge EXPERIMENTS/ RESEARCH being performed monthly, weekly, now DAILY around the world? SE so-called “experts” in my opinion are FALLING DOWN on keeping track of the new changes, the NEW SCIENCE. its FUNDAMENTALLY REACTIONARY and knzhous post embodies this. it reminds me of the old quote that is a short statement of human psychology wrt PARADIGM SHIFTS:

  1. some people make things happen.
  2. some people talk about things that happened.
  3. some people WONDER WHAT HAPPENED.

it reminds me of that old expr, “the revolution will not be televised.” in this case, “the revolution will be missed for long by many so-called experts.” or worse, “the revolution will be trashed in cyberspace by experts behaving like trolls.” SE probably is JUST NOT THE RIGHT PLACE for cutting edge science any more— uh, was it ever? there was a huge conflict years ago about creating Physics Overflow. my opinion, it is a great tragedy that this never took off. the off-SE site still has very little momentum after over ~½ decade of operation. it is not attracting the Big Names, there is overall a lack of energy. OUCH.

but on the other hand, why are the physicists not taking to Physics Overflow alternative the way mathematicians took to Mathoverflow? who can say? it seems to be some fundamental cultural difference. or maybe the top physicists are too busy in their LABS and writing ARXIV papers to CARE much about social media! cannot think of any social media site that is popular among top physicists, and maybe cyberspace will stay that way.

ok, speaking of “trashtalking,” am not one who takes Lumo (“the Clown”) very seriously, but if anyone else wants a big LOL! try his reaction/ account, and see if you can find any substantial difference with knzhous hatchet job takedown![6i] there is a nice long thread on physicsforums but its mostly headscratching by everyone, although Neumaier (am a fan) makes appearances.[6j] and cites his FAQ on quantum jumps, earliest ref by Hulet et al goes back to 1988.[6k]

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

Minev cites Carmichael as the inspiration for the experiment.[3] Carmichael is also cited as a source of the new interpretation of QM of “quantum trajectories”. wait, what? this is not one of the leading “interpretations” cited much and does not seem to have been advertised as that much in the past. the book is published 1993 and its based on lectures from 1991! [3b] is a basic survey of quantum trajectory theory by Brun 2001 cited in the physicsforum thread.

so these are some key words for the new paradigm, and it is tricky to define them. one can find different definitions in different papers, its a new language that is evolving right in front of our eyes. actually working on this, its clear to me more accurately its EXPLODING. NOT TO OVERSTATE IT, ITS REVOLUTIONARY.

NEW SCIENCE REQUIRES NEW LANGUAGE/ NEW VOCABULARY. theres going to be some EPIC STRUGGLE HERE as scientists argue and yes, FIGHT SOME about new words and attempt to settle/ STANDARDIZE on common concepts/ terminology. in the early days of a new discovery, with all the dust kicked up so to speak, there is a PROFUSION OF DIFFERENT TERMS FOR THE SAME THINGS. but make no mistake this is UNEQUIVOCALLY NEW SCIENCE:

  • catch, reverse, midflight [2a]
  • quantum trajectories theory [3][12][13][14][17][22]
  • open QM systems [3][12][13]
  • open quantum dynamics [8]
  • quantum jumps, jumptime unravelling, jump counts, jumptime evolution, jumptime-averaged states, jump transition, jumptime dynamics, jumping time [3][12][13][17][18][19][20]
  • no jump periods [8]
  • ideal quantum measurement [7]
  • adaptive measurement[14]
  • canonical phase measurement[14]
  • tomographic snapshots [7]
  • “time” bubble popping/ pricking [8]
  • dark periods, dark state [8][12][17]
  • photons not absorbed[18]
  • active, inactive phases, coexistence, dynamical regimes [8]
  • stabilize vs intermittent dynamics, intermittency [8]
  • quantum fluctuations [8][21]
  • short correlated noise, noise parameters[15]
  • measurement-induced steering [9]
  • auxiliary quantum degrees of freedom/ detector qubits [9]
  • measurement backaction, backaction of detector qubits [11][9][15][21]
  • system-detector coupling, facilitate detection [9][20]
  • adiabatic manipulations [9]
  • continuous time limit[9]
  • continuously monitored, continuous measurement, fast continous measurement, continuous linear position measurement, continuous partial measurement[12][14][15][16][17][21][22]
  • resolving continuous dynamics of a measurement[14]
  • unbiased average over outcomes[9]
  • ensemble averaging[17]
  • entanglement generated during coupled evolution[9]
  • resulting tools provide significantly more control over entanglement generation, some settings optimal generation, maximal enhancement of synchronization, maximal information on oscillator phase extracted[14][21]
  • conditions for enhancement or suppression[16]
  • enhancement of quantum synchronization[21]
  • dynamics with local measurements at nonzero rate[10]
  • measurement induced phase transitions[10]
  • simultaneous measurements[14]
  • entanglement transitions[10]
  • field theory descriptions[10]
  • random tree tensor networks, classical directed polymers on a tree[10]
  • forced measurement phase transition[10]
  • observables sensitive to amt of info propagated between initial/ final time[10]
  • time spent[18]
  • phase signatures[10]
  • measurement dynamics with free-fermion structure[10]
  • quantum rifling[11]
  • QM picture breaking down during strong driven measurement[11]
  • measurment strength[16]
  • fast spinning bloch vector[11]
  • deflection into eigenstates[11]
  • measure either qubit on demand while protecting state[11]
  • selective readout multiplexing of several qubits, readout resonator, resonators[11][20]
  • quantum dynamical map[12]
  • quantum master equation[12][17]
  • unravelling of master equations[17]
  • amplitude damping/ dephasing, damped harmonic oscillator, damped driven harmonic oscillator, harmonic oscillator[12][20][24]
  • quantum coherent oscillation regimes, mechanical oscillators, ven der pol oscillator with harmonic drive, adjusting frequency of harmonic drive[15][21][21]
  • free particle exposed to collisional decoherence[12]
  • pre-measurement vs condition state, conditioned state of oscillator[13][15]
  • quantum smoothing[13]
  • paradox[13]
  • instantaneous collapse, infinitesmal time interval vs finite scale associated with interaction, instantaneous transitions[14][24]
  • interaction between qubits and resonators[22]
  • estimate duration/ time of single atomic transition[19]
  • average time spent in excited state not zero[18]
  • short-time vs long-time behavior, nonexponential short time behavior[16][20]
  • standard/ undergraduate quantum formalism vs novel formalism[14]
  • trivial/ undefined questions in basic measurement model[14]
  • more subtle investigation[14]
  • feedback operations, feedback protocols, feedback controlled quantum amplifier, feedback control, quantum feedback, feedback during measurement process, coherent feedback[14][21][22]
  • derive these results[14], general analytical expressions derived[15], derive simple analytic expressions for all experimentally relevant parameters[23]
  • more accurate modelling[23]
  • quantum sensing, macroscopicity[15]
  • mechanical/ quantum squeezing[15]
  • nonclassical states[15]
  • quantum zeno effect QZE, survival probability and onset[16]
  • drive-and-dissipation protocols [9], strong resonator driving[23]
  • dissipative quantum systems, dissipative rabi model[17][23]
  • dispersive regime/ transformation, dispersive shift[23]
  • state decay[12]
  • phase diffusion of oscillator[21]
  • topological structure/ character[17]
  • transport behavior[17]
  • discrete/ deterministic evolution[17][12]
  • photon absorption vs transmission, direct detection [18]
  • nonlinear phase shift written by signal pulse on probe beam[18]
  • isolate effect of single transmitted photons[18]
  • excitation without loss, coherent forward emission[18]
  • instantaneous Rabi frequency/ pulse envelope picks up phase flip[18]
  • complex history of photons during propagation through absorbing medium[18]
  • power of utilizing post-selection to find past behavior of observed QM systems[18]
  • zero point field of compton frequency on electron[19]
  • zitterbewegung[19]
  • quantum synchronization[21]
  • rotating wave approximation using jaynes-cummings model[23]
  • hybrid perturbation theory based on expansion of time evolution of keldysh countour[23]
  • resonator-induced Purcell decay rate[23]
  • detuning, dephasing[23]
  • continuous motion[24]
  • substructure of periodic endogenous motions of the system[24]

SHEW THAT ALONE of only ~2YRS of CITATIONS TOOK ME HOURS! this is just a rough word analysis on the ABSTRACTS and the CONTENTS would be even more definitive. one needs a word-cloud analyzer to deal with all this!

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

these are new names for an old considered phenomena over decades of QM analysis that was supposedly “discredited”.

  • for EPR1935 they are ELEMENTS OF REALITY
  • it was long called HIDDEN VARIABLES
  • bell later called them BEABLES

the term SUBQUANTUM may have originated with Bohm, need to do an analysis on that.

there have been many names, its a whole vocabulary.

its the scientists embodying the BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT PARABLE, cited here before a few times.[4b]

my old blogs point this out. what if HIDDEN VARIABLES CONTROL NON-DETECTION OF PARTICLES/ “CLICKS”? that is EXACTLY what these new experiments are uncovering. some of the remaining challenge is to interpret the historic Bell framework/ experiments in this new light of PROVEN HIDDEN VARIABLES. my thinking is that there is some subtle statistical/ logical problems with the Bell analysis that still havent been fully uncovered yet.

did you catch that word “EQUIVOCAL”? oh wait, of course its EQUIVOCAL. new science separates scientists/ thinkers into factions, and theres going to be an establishment “old guard” that still has most of the power, and a “new guard” that will eventually overtake it in front of our eyes. its a paradigm shift on the level of sociology and scientific belief systems. and yes, science is actually a BELIEF SYSTEM at heart.[4] to elaborate on this would take a whole other essay, or nearly a book, and @#%& probably almost nobody is even reading this one (feel free to prove me wrong in comments, lol!)

ok, heres another crucial point to make. over 1 century ago during QM revolution v1.0 involved a small coterie of scientists, almost literally a gentlemans club, eg see Solvay conference photo 1927. but a century later, physics is a massive government and private industry funded complex. some of this is related to physicists playing a key role in WWII, and some of it is related to the semiconductor revolution of the 2nd half of 20th century, and some of it is now highly related to the pursuit of quantum computing, which is possibly the next multitrilliondollar world enterprise, spanning many nations and governments.

but how is it going to be different now? a theoretical/ experimental revolution will play out somewhat differently, somewhat similarly. in contrast this time there will be MANY VOICES. think there will not really be individual papers or individuals that unify it all, as much. its possible that ALL THE CRUCIAL MATH HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN OUT, SOME BY OBSCURE BUT DEDICATED EXPERTS, ITS JUST WAITING TO BE UNDERSTOOD/ DISTRIBUTED. the experimentalists will play a very key role initially, theyve already raised the flag high! this time around we have CYBERSPACE + OPEN SCIENCE and that will have a big effect on the reception/ dynamics/ outcome/ EVOLUTION.

there are maybe ~100x or ~1000x the number of physicists living, working RIGHT NOW compared to a century ago, not solely due to population expansion (world population is roughly 3x since then, right?) there will probably not be a single einstein-like figure this time around! but there will be several such figures, maybe. we will see how it plays out, and the scientific citation dust settles. right now, its a massive storm, a WORLDWIDE FREE FOR ALL! isnt it fascinating though, that at this point, NOBODY OF HIGH EMINENCE IS ON RECORD AS CALLING THIS REVOLUTION YET (eg nobel or breakthru prize winners, other Big Names/ BigShots/ Giants of science, etc).

another analogy/ historical comparison: hidden variables theory has suffered one of the LONGEST SCIENTIFIC WINTERS ala the decades-long AI winter starting in the 1970-1980s or so. people like Bell could barely get funding on it and people like Schroedinger + Einstein were considered the black sheep/ eccentrics of the world, and Bohm is still undercredited/ miscredited/ maligned today! the hidden variable winter was maybe up to an epic 3x or 4x the length of the AI winter! but now finally THE SUN HAS COME OUT.

another key observation: QM has been dominated, not surprisingly and quite fittingly by PARTICLE PHYSICISTS for essentially a century, its nearly the same thing. now QMV2.0 enters a new phase, a new era, it itself undergoes a sociological phase transition. now at this point, the APPLIED/ CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICISTS will play a key role, and theres going to be some collaboration and also conflict between these two camps with not perfectly identical, ie different worldviews. the collapse is a (FLUID) DYNAMICAL SYSTEM. it has a THERMODYNAMICS associated with it. it involves ENERGY DISSIPATION. “collapse of the wavefunction” is “simply” a PHASE TRANSITION. IT POPS LIKE FLUID BUBBLES! POP, POP, POP! etc, lol! a lot of this was already sketched out in the nearly decade-long research program called Emergent QM, which now in retrospect is a bit like NIPS for AI!

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

my next amazing idea was to start tracking the Minev citations, here with google scholar.[5] ok, should have posted on this blog on the SAME DAY that discovered this work, am only a few years late on that, knzhous et als reactions gave me 2nd thoughts etc! now doing my penance, looking into the reactions. HOLY COW THEY ARE EXTRAORDINARY. as of writing already 139 CITATIONS. ok, at least people not on SE are GETTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS BREAKTHRU.

this following analysis is a bunch of HIGHLIGHTS WRT MY OWN HUGE AXE TO GRIND (LOL!)

[6] warmup ref… who was the first to CITE MINEV? Pitkanen— ref is not by a pro physicist, has his own web site so who is going to take him seriously? but at least he takes Minev seriously, and he writes about how the experiment will tend to challenge Copenhagen. ah, it takes a non pro physicist to figure this out? but he is working on Geometrodynamics theory, and guess who originated that? EINSTEIN+WHEELER![6a]

“If the recent experimental findings by Minev et al are replicable, one is forced to challenge the basic assumption of the standard quantum measurement theory stating that state function reductions occur completely randomly and instantaneously. Rather, state function reduction (SR) looks like a continuous, deterministic process.”


ok, here is the problem. the whole concept of DETERMINISTIC VS NONDETERMINISTIC aka NONRANDOM VS RANDOM is maybe one of the ultimate red herrings in the history of physics. it is dualistic thinking that has been misleading/ broken from the beginning. it is maybe not an entirely, fully helpful way to view/ frame the problem and has been the source of much confusion. it seems maybe the core concepts at heart are CONTINUOUS VS DISCONTINUOUS. its a dichotomy, and it is found all over physics, and a process can be BOTH, and there are MANY examples. can anyone wrap their brain around this? so QM is like one of the ultimate ZEN QUESTIONS. what is the sound of one hand clapping?

alas, wikipedia doesnt cover “black + white thinking” too well. it has a few entries that are related but dont really cover it. Splitting, psychology [6b]. black & white dualism (good vs evil!) [6c]. wait, about about just THINKING? cant even cite this on wikipedia. have to go to a health site to find something related in which black & white thinking can apply not only to PEOPLE, lol![6d]

but seriously, as alluded before in this blog, my experience is that SCIENTISTS have some of the strongest biases.[6e] SCIENCE does not protect humans from all their biases. look, this stuff is cited in Nature now.[6f][6g] they talk about the reproducibility crisis in psychology. but wait, its not just the soft sciences? NEWSFLASH: COGNITIVE BIAS EXISTS IN ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE. is it possible it could be even STRONGER in the so-called “hard sciences”? how about this title, “a selected history of expectation bias in PHYSICS”?[6h]

⭐ ⭐ ⭐


am not an expert on this, am mostly working from abstracts, but also dont think my classifications will lead to a lot of false positives or negatives, and anyway theres some subjective element here.

most of the experimental confirmations come from QC science and engineering. only years ago this was much more theoretical work, but now its highly applied, and you have experimentalists working mostly as engineers. they dont really care a lot about the copenhagen interpretation, and are just JUMPING, one might say, deeply into this new engineering dynamics, without so much thinking about deeper implications.

information/ knowledge has an inherent nondistributed aspect to it re a cogent, prescient, semifamous quote by Gibson: THE FUTURE IS ALREADY HERE, ITS JUST NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED.

a lot of this now relates to CONTROL THEORY. the experimentalists are basically CONTROLLING THE COLLAPSE. does that sound RANDOM? it is RANDOM MIXED WITH NONRANDOM. make sense? just like everything else in the universe!

ok, a lot of this is highly similar to WEAK MEASUREMENTS which have been around decades. but MINEV pushed it to the limit and is one of the few brilliant physicists who can cross agilely between the applied and theoretical realms. other experimentalists probably long surmised something was broken with the copenhagen interpretation, that it was nearing something of a convenient fiction, but MINEV was the 1st to cross the chasm/ 2 vast worlds/ realms, directly challenge it, both experimentally and theoretically, as far as we know right now.

next [7] is ALREADY apparently a DIRECT REPLICATION OF THE EXPERIMENT by Pokorny et al., they dont seem to state this directly, but can anyone argue with me on this point? keywords: “tomographic snapshots, ideal quantum measurement”

[9] is also apparently a REPLICATION with new twists. it considers ideas like “measurement induced steering,” “detector qubits”, “system-detector coupling”, “steering harnessing backaction of detector qubits”, “entanglement generated during coupled evolution,” “drive and dissipation protocols for quantum state engineering,” “adiabatic manipulation of target states.”

[11] is another confirmatory experiment and refers to backaction and “deflection onto either of its eigenstates”. in other words an INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN STATES where “deflection” is the same as COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION.

[14] has both theoretical and experimental results, again a replication, is much better understanding the phase shift in place, it talks about the old vs new formalism with the prior one “introduced at the undergraduate level” with instantaneous collapse. it talks about questions “trivial or ill defined in context of basic measurement model” and “derives results using a novel formalism”. “feedback operations on the timescale of the measurement process, resulting tools provide significantly more control over entanglement generation, and in some settings can generate it optimally.” “adaptive measurement used to perform the first canonical phase measurement.” and how about, REINTERPRETATION OF THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.

[18] is further experimental confirmation and talks about “photons not absorbed”, single transmitted photons, nonzero average time photons in excited state, excitation without loss, coherent forward emission, instantaneous Rabi frequency/ pulse envelope picks up a phase flip, broadband pulse through medium with frequency-dependent absorption, complex history of photons, utilizing post selection to find past behavior of observed quantum systems.

[22] is a survey/ review of the area looking at continuous feedback ie “feedback operations during the measurement process itself” and discusses several experiments with overview of coherent feedback.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐


[8] is a theoretical analysis of Minev experiment comparing the concept of collapse to POPPING A BUBBLE. WOW! THAT SOUNDS LIKE FLUID DYNAMICS. IS ANYONE LISTENING?

[10] is more broad theoretical study with other terms wrt phase transitions, random tensor networks, qubit coupling, field theory, treelike structure in circuit geometry, classical directed polymer networks on a tree, forced measurement phase transitions, initial vs final time, phase signatures, Landau-Ginsburg-Wilson theories.

[12] considers jumptime unravelling of quantum master equations, refers to jumpcounts, preserving the quantum dynamical map.

[13] considers “collapse before quantum jump transitions” and a concept of “quantum smoothing”.

[15] looks at “continuous linear position measurement,” quantum sensing, and is interested in scaling up QM dynamics to macroscopic region and decreasing requirements of cooling.

[16] considers this all part of the quantum zeno effect. “continuous partial measurement” and different levevls of noise enhancing or suppressing it, short vs long term behavior, measurement strength.

[17] considers unravelling the topology of dissipative quantum systems, quantum trajectories, quantum jumps, continuous measurements, discrete/ deterministic evolution, dark states, jumptime dynamics, observation in transport behavior.

[19] is a theoretical analysis of the phenomena and attempts to estimate the duration of a single atomic transition in terms of universal constants. this is very substantial, because its more than just an empirically derived equation or formulation, it is a possible new “deep law” similar to the schroedinger equation, heisenberg uncertainty principle, or borns measurement rule, expressed in terms of UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS and in line with recent experiments.

[20] considers dynamics of a quantum jump/ prediction of short time qubit readout via a coupled damped driven harmonic oscillator and facilitating the detection of the qubit faster than the resonator lifetime.

[21] is interested in enhancement of quantum synchronization via continuous measurement and feedback control, continuous measurement, measurement backaction inducing fluctuations, feedback policy to suppress measurement-induced fluctuations by adjusting a harmonic drive, maximum enhancement when maximal information on oscillator phase is extracted.

[23] looks at the dissipative rabi model in the dispersive regime, interaction between qubits and resonators, jaynes-cummings model/ dispersive transformation.

[24] looks at a hidden variables model of the harmonic oscillator, and discards the idea of instantaneous transitions along with Heisenbergs “non past postulate” and interprets “measurable only quantities as arising from a substructure of periodic endogenous motions of the system.” it finds that Bell inequalities arise due to “the mathematical representation of outcome quantities as metric variables.”

[25] is an idea that has been occuring to me for years, written in this blog: atoms behave like sampling systems. to use Bohms terminology, the EXPLICATE ORDER is “SAMPLED” from the IMPLICATE ORDER. the EM waves excite atoms but atoms are imperfect samping mechanisms or detectors. it is different from previous papers arising mostly from QC engineering but has more of a unified thinking behind it.

[26] is a mostly theoretical/ analytical paper on quantum zeno effect incorporating refs to/ cutting edge effects observed in latest experiments, found it mentioned in latest 1.7k comments on pbs spacetime youtube video. its profiled along with Minev in recent sciam article.[27]

  • [1a] What Happens During a Quantum Jump? PBS Spacetime/ Matt O’Dowd
  • [1b] Matt O’Dowd
  • [1c] copenhagen interpretation, wikipedia
  • [1d] Zlatko Minev
  • [2a] To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight
  • [2b] To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight
  • [2c] Catching and Reversing a Quantum Jump Mid-Flight
  • [2d] controlling quantum leaps/ new scientist
  • [2e] Does the new finding on reversing a quantum jump rule out any QM interpretations? / Physics SE
  • [2f] Kevin Zhou
  • [2g] Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time
  • [2h] The Quantum Theory That Peels Away the Mystery of Measurement
  • [3] An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics/ Carmichael
  • [3b] A simple model of quantum trajectories
  • [4] secular religion, wikipedia
  • [4b] blind men and the elephant
  • [5] google sholar citation tracking on Minev paper(s)
  • [6] Copenhagen interpretation dead: long live ZEO based quantum measurement theory
  • [6a] Geometrodynamics, wikipedia
  • [6b] Splitting
  • [6c] black & white dualism
  • [6d] How Black and White Thinking Hurts You (and What You Can Do to Change It)
  • [6e] cognitive bias, wikipedia
  • [6f] How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop
  • [6g] Let’s think about cognitive bias
  • [6h] A selected history of expectation bias in physics/ Jeng
  • [6i] Experimenters and especially journalists can’t write good far-reaching interpretations of QM experiments
  • [6j] Quantum Jumps and Schrodinger’s Cat are predictable
  • [6k] Are there quantum jumps?
  • [7] Tracking the Dynamics of an Ideal Quantum Measurement
  • [8] Catching and reversing quantum jumps and thermodynamics of quantum trajectories
  • [9] Measurement-induced steering of quantum systems
  • [10] Measurement and entanglement phase transitions in all-to-all quantum circuits, on quantum trees, and in Landau-Ginsburg theory
  • [11] Quantum Rifling: Protecting a Qubit from Measurement Back Action
  • [12] Jumptime unraveling of Markovian open quantum systems
  • [13] The Collapse Before a Quantum Jump Transition
  • [14] Quantum feedback for measurement and control
  • [15] Mechanical Squeezing via Fast Continuous Measurement
  • [16] Quantum Zeno effect with partial measurement and noisy dynamics
  • [17] Unraveling the topology of dissipative quantum systems
  • [18] Measuring the time atoms spend in the excited state due to a photon they don’t absorb
  • [19] How fast is a quantum jump?
  • [20] Prediction of Short Time Qubit Readout via Measurement of the Next Quantum Jump of a Coupled Damped Driven Harmonic Oscillator
  • [21] Enhancement of quantum synchronization via continuous measurement and feedback control
  • [22] Continuous measurements for control of superconducting quantum circuits
  • [23] Dissipative Rabi model in the dispersive regime
  • [24] Hidden Variables Model of the Harmonic Oscillator
  • [25] Quantum Wavefunction Explained by the Sampling Theory
  • [26] Quantum Zeno effect appears in stages/ Snizhko
  • [27] New Views of Quantum Jumps Challenge Core Tenets of Physics/ sciam


  1. gentzen

    Thanks for your long post. Took me some time to read it. And as always, reading or even just browing a subset of the references would take much longer again.
    So would like more comments and comment discussions below your blog posts. In the past, I was tempted to write a comment when you wrote about private setbacks, but guessed that you would not want to go into more details.
    Congratulations for appearing in the list of blogs in GLL’s Science Advisor blog post.

    If you want, I can write another comment with some points: (1) would be my thoughts on Quantum Trajectory Theory, or more precisely my thoughts on what wikipedia says about it. (2) would be my thought about Nicolas Gisin’s short book Quantum Chance, especially the non-local nature of quantum randomness, and what that means for determinstic interpretations of quantum randomness.

    1. vznvzn Post author

      ❗ 💡 hi TK! thx much for the reply. philosophy of commenting here, mentioned in other places: for me comments are for anything, my policy is very, very openended and this can be seen in prior comment chains. am always encouraging comments, am delighted by commenting, paradoxically even the negative ones. often respond to comments. not responding to a comment doesnt mean there is not an encouragement or endorsement of that particular comment or comments in general. cyberspace is like that, one writes, one sometimes gets direct or indirect feedback. so to me comments are like mini blog sections for people who dont have their own blogs, or who have them and are social 🙂

      re GLL citation delighted + am a bit shocked they linked to me in a blog! RJL/KWR have replied on occasion in comments & have even commented directly on this blog in the distant past.

      Gisin is one of my personal heroes, found him + his work over 2decades ago, maybe will write a bit more on him sometime. am encountering his name repeatedly researching this stuff. Gisin comes close to a realist experimenter, like his writing, he has some brilliant papers/ ideas/ experiments.

      have been finding a lot more on this subject even since writing it, it is very deep, have updated this blog already which took quite a few hrs to write, its a herculean task at times, but there is real meaning to it, esp when people listen + respond! we now have some lively dialog going among highly esteemed colleagues. mod ACM, mod Mithrandir24601, glS, More Anonymous, hope you+others can join in the conversation ASAP

      my answer is, yes, would like to hear more from you, you are always welcome to write here, it doesnt even nec have to directly relate to posts!

      🙂 😎 😀 ⭐

  2. Pingback: vzn quantum theory research program laid out | Turing Machine

  3. gentzen

    Sorry for the delay. Back to “(2) would be my thought about Nicolas Gisin’s short book Quantum Chance, especially the non-local nature of quantum randomness, and what that means for determinstic interpretations of quantum randomness.” Let me first quote myself (without a link, to avoid the trackback): “One reason may be that Nicolas Gisin is a coauthor, and that Marc-Olivier Renou did his PhD in Gisin’s group. …

    So who is Gisin that his presence as a coauthor gives weight to a paper proposing an experimental test for a question related to the foundations of quantum mechanics? In 1997, he (and his group) could show violation of Bell’s inequality outside of highly controlled Laboratory condition (using standard optical fiber over a distance of more than 10 km). In 2003 he achieved something similar for quantum teleportation. But those achievements don’t properly explain his weight. His talk delivered at the first John Stewart Bell prize award ceremony does a better job: He showed how applications of quantum weirdness (like quantum key distribution) could be decoupled from the validity of quantum mechanics (or the abscence of backdoors in the equipment) and be based solely on the presence of the observable effects.

    But even this last part somehow doesn’t capture my impression (of him) while reading Nicolas Gisin’s short book Quantum Chance. He somehow goes beyond the notion of true randomness or “bit strings with proven randomness” and tries to capture the experimentally observable nature of quantum chance itself, independent of any interpretation of quantum mechanics (or even the validity of quantum mechanics). Something like that it is a nonlocal randomness, and because the nonlocal correlations of quantum physics are nonsignalling, it has to be random, because otherwise it would allow faster than light communication.”

    So even if QTT can explain and predict quantum jumps based on locally observable (and nearly unobservable) state, there still remains the mystery that an experiment some distance away could show similarly random but locally explainable and predictable quantum jumps, but that those two would be correlated, if only the right parts had been entangled before.

    There are actually some words hinting at how this might be explained in Neumaier’s papers. By the way, your link [6k] Are there quantum jumps? (by Neumaier) mentions a paper by Gisin:
    N Gisin, PL Knight, IC Percival, RC Thompson, and DC Wilson,
    Quantum State Diffusion Theory and a Quantum Jump Experiment,
    Journal of Modern Optics 40, 1663 (1993)

    1. vznvzn Post author

      why do you want to avoid a trackback? links are encouraged here!
      hadnt seen that paper by Gisin specifically but quoted him at long length in my new post, theres some eyepopping stuff there, hope you check it out ASAP, yes cite one of his state diffusion papers wrt open systems, but need to look into the 1993 paper you cite too, seems highly relevant to current pursuits!

      yes, nonlocality is a very complex topic and gisin is one of the world leaders in studying it, just cited some of his other papers on the new post. have looked at it myself seriously even over 2 decades ago now. have some new ideas in the meantime 🙂 it is disappointing there are still no definitive answers yet, but there are copious/ a ton/ profusion of leads, and thats something to be thankful for as a scientist. Gisin mentions in one of his papers he personally went to one of Bells talks, they were contemporaries, and in a sense Gisin was a student of Bell, maybe Bell could even be seen as his mentor! at least definitely a strong influence. it would be neat if Gisin could autobiographically elaborate/ reminisce on his relationship to Bell somewhere, seems maybe it is deeper than merely professional colleagues.

      1. gentzen

        I want to avoid the trackback (to SA’s blog post), because the topics are not related. (And because I prefer not to be the one who writes the last comment in a thread. I know I am always late to the party, so by not being last I can at least prove that I am not too late.)

        I did read your long new post today. I was aware that Gisin would add weight to a paper on quantum foundations, but I wasn’t aware just how much he had been involved with all that quantum foundations stuff even before his big time (post 1997). I also came across his colorfully dark arXiv anecdote last week (and read it) while trying to better “locate” Renou and his coauthors.

        It would indeed be interesting to learn more about the relationship between Bell and Gisin. Their books both habe an introduction by Alain Aspect.

        You say “it is disappointing there are still no definitive answers yet,” but some small definitive answers are contained in Aspect’s, Bell’s and Gisin’s work. And in the book Quantum Chance, I even had the impression that Gisin managed to formulate those small answers in a language that many physicists might accept them.

  4. gentzen

    And also back to “(1) would be my thoughts on Quantum Trajectory Theory, or more precisely my thoughts on what wikipedia says about it.” Here is what wikipedia says:

    Like other Monte Carlo approaches, QTT provides an advantage over direct master-equation approaches by reducing the number of computations required. For a Hilbert space of dimension N, the traditional master equation approach would require calculation of the evolution of N^2 atomic density matrix elements, whereas QTT only requires N calculations.

    My thoughts on this is that computing the evolution of the individual density matrix would be wrong on multiple levels anyway. One correct approach would be to first make a singular value decomposition of the density matrix (which coincides with the eigenvalue decomposition), and then propagate each (sufficiently important) coherent component individually. There is actually no need to use a singular value decomposition, any approximation as a sum of coherent systems will do, as long as it is accurate enough.

    1. vznvzn Post author

      would like to see a careful history, but QTT apparently started out as a computational/ algorithmic technique maybe for ensembles, but then the individual trajectories started being interpreted as possibly having a kind of reality, aka the “unravelling” concept which is hard to nail down. nowadays apparently QTT can make predictions on “single trajectories”. it seems to be a method that ascribes realism aspects to QM and this is not more widely known so far. had never heard of QTT prior to the minev work myself although had looked at various optics experiments. for me minev experiment is a bit like a “bolt from the blue” like that bohr supposedly described the EPR1935 paper acc to heisenberg.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s