3 ms·

I don't think you can reason like this. As far as I understodod, standard quantum mechanics does not make any statement about how the measuring process and the

by golol 3y ago

I don't think you can reason like this. As far as I understodod, standard quantum mechanics does not make any statement about how the measuring process and the collapse of the wavefunvtion happens. So while the waveform evolves deterministically, you can only ever apply this model when you are in the position of performing measurements on some quantum mechanical system. As I understand, Quantum mechanics is not meant to also model you together with the experiment as a wavefunction, because the act of you performing a measurement does not have a definition in the form of the wavefunction interacting with itself somehow. So without extensions to QM, you should not reason with universal deterministic waveforms.

canjobear 3y ago
> the act of you performing a measurement does not have a definition in the form of the wavefunction interacting with itself somehow Performing a measurement just means you become entangled with the thing you’re measuring. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
- pixl97 3y ago
  And the thing you're measuring is already entangled with the messy universe around it...
- golol 3y ago
  I didn't know that quantum decoherence tackles the measurement problem. It seems like quite an intuitive explanation and does preserve a global wavefunction. Perhaps this doesn't quite count this as "standard quantum mechanics though. As I understand there is a very tight-knit theory consisting of a mathematical model (Measurements are self adjoint operators on a Hilbert spaces, unitary evolution given bx the hamiltonian, states are unit vectors or POVMs.) together with a physical interpretation that amazingly fits the observations. This + quantum decoherence seems more in the realm of mathematical theory with a nice interpretation and some experimental evidence.
goatlover 3y ago
The argument is that the experimental device and you are made up of the same quantum stuff that you're measuring, so there's no reason to suppose a collapse of the wavefunction or that the wavefunction doesn't apply to the entire experimental setup. Just saying if MWI is the correct interpretation.

by golol 3y ago

canjobear 3y ago

> the act of you performing a measurement does not have a definition in the form of the wavefunction interacting with itself somehow Performing a measurement just means you become entangled with the thing you’re measuring. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

pixl97 3y ago
And the thing you're measuring is already entangled with the messy universe around it...
golol 3y ago
I didn't know that quantum decoherence tackles the measurement problem. It seems like quite an intuitive explanation and does preserve a global wavefunction. Perhaps this doesn't quite count this as "standard quantum mechanics though. As I understand there is a very tight-knit theory consisting of a mathematical model (Measurements are self adjoint operators on a Hilbert spaces, unitary evolution given bx the hamiltonian, states are unit vectors or POVMs.) together with a physical interpretation that amazingly fits the observations. This + quantum decoherence seems more in the realm of mathematical theory with a nice interpretation and some experimental evidence.

goatlover 3y ago

The argument is that the experimental device and you are made up of the same quantum stuff that you're measuring, so there's no reason to suppose a collapse of the wavefunction or that the wavefunction doesn't apply to the entire experimental setup. Just saying if MWI is the correct interpretation.