BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Stephen Boughn

Stephen Boughn contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
physics.hist-phquant-phastro-ph.COgr-qcphysics.class-phphysics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
6topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Modest View of the Black Hole Information Paradox

Thirty years ago, John Preskill concluded "that the information loss paradox may well presage a revolution in fundamental physics" and mused that "Conceivably, the puzzle of black hole evaporation portends a scientific revolution as sweeping as that that led to the formulation of quantum theory in the early 20th century." Many still agree with this assessment. On the other hand, it seems to me the "paradox" has little to do with the physical world but rather, at best, simply points out the possible inconsistency of two, already disparate, theories (mathematical models) of nature, general relativity and quantum mechanics, with virtually no conceivable observational consequences. The information paradox hinges on the concepts of a pure quantum state, the unitarity of quantum mechanics, and Hawking's semi-classical calculation of black hole evaporation. I used the qualifier "at best" above because, for me, the concept of a quantum state is far more restrictive than required by the paradox while unitarity is not a property of nature but rather of a mathematical model and is already violated by the process of making a measurement. Furthermore, the semi-classical calculation of Hawking is surely of limited applicability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Birds, Frogs, and the Measurement Problem

Physicists and philosophers alike have pondered the measurement problem in quantum mechanics since the beginning of the theory nearly a century ago. Marcel Reginatto and I (2013) have made the case as have many others, Niels Bohr among them, that the problem is artificial and needs no resolution. The purpose of my present essay is not to elaborate on this conclusion but rather to shed light on the reasons why the problem arose in the first place and why it persists today, a more sociological than physical reflection. I am indebted to Freeman Dyson for his support of my forays into the foundations of quantum mechanics and, as a tribute to him, make use of his "birds and frogs" metaphor as explained below. I am not suggesting that he would have agreed with my ruminations nor approved of my use of his metaphor. On the other hand, from his writings and my conversations with him, it is clear that Dyson was as dismissive of the measurement problem as Bohr.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

A Pedestrian Approach to the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics

The quantum theory of measurement has been a matter of debate for over eighty years. Most of the discussion has focused on theoretical issues with the consequence that operational prescriptions, which are integral to experimental physics, have been largely ignored. This has undoubtedly exacerbated attempts to find a solution to the "measurement problem". In this paper, we fully embrace the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics that obviates the need to entertain reduction of the state vector, one of the primary dilemmas of the measurement problem. The other major aspect of the measurement problem, the necessity of describing measurements in terms of classical concepts, remains. However, we argue that the ultimate interface with experiments is described by operational prescriptions and not in terms of the concepts of classical theory. The pedestrian approach presented here suggests that the measurement problem is, in some sense, ill-posed and might never be resolved. This state of affairs is, in part, the result of searching for a theoretical answer to what is fundamentally an experimental question. This point of view is tenable so long as one is willing to view physical theories as providing models of nature rather than complete descriptions of reality. Among other things, these considerations lead us to suggest that the Copenhagen interpretation's insistence on the classicality of the measurement apparatus should be replaced by the requirement that a measurement, which is specified operationally, should simply be of sufficient precision.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc^2

In 1904, the year before Einstein's seminal papers on special relativity, Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl examined the properties of blackbody radiation in a moving cavity. He calculated the work necessary to keep the cavity moving at a constant velocity as it fills with radiation and concluded that the radiation energy has associated with it an apparent mass such that E = 3/8 mc^2. Also in 1904, Hasenohrl achieved the same result by computing the force necessary to accelerate a cavity already filled with radiation. In early 1905, he corrected the latter result to E = 3/4 mc^2. In this paper, Hasenohrl's papers are examined from a modern, relativistic point of view in an attempt to understand where he went wrong. The primary mistake in his first paper was, ironically, that he didn't account for the loss of mass of the blackbody end caps as they radiate energy into the cavity. However, even taking this into account one concludes that blackbody radiation has a mass equivalent of m = 4/3 E/c^2 or m = 5/3 E/c^2 depending on whether one equates the momentum or kinetic energy of radiation to the momentum or kinetic energy of an equivalent mass. In his second and third papers that deal with an accelerated cavity, Hasenohrl concluded that the mass associated with blackbody radiation is m = 4/3 E/c^2, a result which, within the restricted context of Hasenohrl's gedanken experiment, is actually consistent with special relativity. Both of these problems are non-trivial and the surprising results, indeed, turn out to be relevant to the "4/3 problem" in classical models of the electron. An important lesson of these analyses is that E = mc^2, while extremely useful, is not a "law of physics" in the sense that it ought not be applied indiscriminately to any extended system and, in particular, to the subsystems from which they are comprised.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Hasenohrl and the Equivalence of Mass and Energy

In 1904 Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl (1874-1915) examined blackbody radiation in a reflecting cavity. By calculating the work necessary to keep the cavity moving at a constant velocity against the radiation pressure he concluded that to a moving observer the energy of the radiation would appear to increase by an amount E=(3/8)mc^2, which in early 1905 he corrected to E=(3/4)mc^2. Because relativistic corrections come in at order v^2/c^2 and Hasenohrl's gedankenexperiment evidently required calculations only to order v/c, it is initially puzzling why he did not achieve the answer universally accepted today. Moreover, that $m$ should be equal to (4/3)E/c^2 has led commentators to believe that this problem is identical to the famous "4/3 problem" of the self-energy of the electron and they have invariably attributed Hasenohrl's mistake to neglect of the cavity stresses. We examine Hasenohrl's papers from a modern, relativistic point of view in an attempt to understand where exactly he went wrong. The problem turns out to be a rich and challenging one with strong resonances to matters that remain controversial. We give an acceptable relativistic solution to the conundrum and show that virtually everything ever written about Hasenohrl's thought experiment, including a 1923 paper by Enrico Fermi, is misleading if not incorrect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

"Quantum Interference with Slits" Revisited

Marcella [arXiv:quant-ph/0703126] has presented a straightforward technique employing the Dirac formalism to calculate single- and double-slit interference patterns. He claims that no reference is made to classical optics or scattering theory and that his method therefore provides a purely quantum mechanical description of these experiments. He also presents his calculation as if no approximations are employed. We show that he implicitly makes the same approximations found in classical treatments of interference and that no new physics has been introduced. At the same time, some of the quantum mechanical arguments Marcella gives are, at best, misleading.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access