4 ms·
I put "collapse" in quotes for a reason. There is an experimentally verifiable distinction between a particle in superposition (w.r.t a particular basis) and on
by monktastic1 5y ago
I put "collapse" in quotes for a reason. There is an experimentally verifiable distinction between a particle in superposition (w.r.t a particular basis) and one that is not. Both theory and experiment give us every reason to believe that prior to your observation, you can exhibit the superposition through an interference experiment (modulo decoherence), while afterward you cannot (even if "God" still can).
Also, this surprises me (assuming you studied QM formally):
> This is the first time I've seen this explanation.
Entanglement is basically the definition of measurement (in this context).
- kgwgk 5y agoI’m not sure of what is your context but that unitary interaction is just the first step (also called pre-measurement) in von Neumann’s model of measurement.
- monktastic1 5y agoIndeed. The context here is: > As a non-physicist who only knows QM from popular science texts, I always thought that wave function collapse does not require any human intervention and that this can be shown. When pop sci treatments explain that any physical system interacting with the apparatus "measures" it, they are just talking about what you call "pre-measurement." This causes a lot of confusion for students.
- kgwgk 5y agoI agree, I think. The observed “collapse” is not completely explained by decoherence (and even less satisfactory by many worlds).