3 ms·

But you're influencing the particle between each step, right? Is my understanding correct that you put the particle in a superposition, observe it a little bit

by mort96 4y ago

But you're influencing the particle between each step, right? Is my understanding correct that you put the particle in a superposition, observe it a little bit further along, then put it in another superposition, observe it further along again, etc until it has moved a meter? I don't see why you would expect there to be some probability to see the particle as having moved a whole meter after the first observation. Obviously you putting it in a superposition in between steps is an important factor. And each time you've first put it in a superposition and then observed it, you've created two branches of what we would classically call the universe. The only thing which really changes between an interpretation with collapse and an interpretation without collapse, is that in one without collapse (i.e MWI), the universal wave function splits into two "branches" which can't interact after the split. Sadly, I don't know much about the math though, so it's completely possible that I've missed some detail in your question and given a reply which doesn't address what you're getting at. If that's the case, I've probably reached my limit and you'd have to ask someone who has studied this way, way more than me.

Jensson 4y ago
> the universal wave function splits into two "branches" which can't interact after the split. And how is that different from "wave function collapse"? How is that purer? To me that just looks like a wave function collapse with another name, and a whole slew of universes as extra garbage.
- mort96 4y ago
  The difference is that it's something which already necessarily happens in quantum systems. Say you have two isolated particles A and B, and A is in a superposition between eigenstates 0 and 1. If those two particles interact, we say that they have formed a quantum system in a superposition between "A is in state 0 and B interacted with A in state 0" and "A is in state 1 and B interacted with state 1", right? MWI "simply" lets the same happen with observers. You have a particle in a superposition between states 0 and 1. You observe (i.e interact with) the particle, which puts the "you + particle" system in a superposition between "the particle was in state 0 and you observed the particle in state 0" and "the particle was in state 1 and you observed the particle in state 1". There is no wave function collapse mechanism, what we describe as "wave function collapse" is nothing more than the particles in the macro world becoming entangled with the particle we're testing.

by mort96 4y ago

Jensson 4y ago

> the universal wave function splits into two "branches" which can't interact after the split. And how is that different from "wave function collapse"? How is that purer? To me that just looks like a wave function collapse with another name, and a whole slew of universes as extra garbage.

mort96 4y ago
The difference is that it's something which already necessarily happens in quantum systems. Say you have two isolated particles A and B, and A is in a superposition between eigenstates 0 and 1. If those two particles interact, we say that they have formed a quantum system in a superposition between "A is in state 0 and B interacted with A in state 0" and "A is in state 1 and B interacted with state 1", right? MWI "simply" lets the same happen with observers. You have a particle in a superposition between states 0 and 1. You observe (i.e interact with) the particle, which puts the "you + particle" system in a superposition between "the particle was in state 0 and you observed the particle in state 0" and "the particle was in state 1 and you observed the particle in state 1". There is no wave function collapse mechanism, what we describe as "wave function collapse" is nothing more than the particles in the macro world becoming entangled with the particle we're testing.